HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 Amend Zoning Ord Sign Regulations 14o0 3o
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 14, 1986
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Sign Regulations.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Resolution Approving the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
B - Draft Ordinance Amending Sign Regulations
for the City of Dublin
C - Sign Ordinance Graphic Appendix
D - Suggested Modifications to Draft Ordinance
Adusting Dimensional Criteria for Wall
Signs and Projecting Signs
Background Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 85-053
recommending that the City Council adopt
Reorganized and Modified Sign Regulations.
2. Sign Regulation Committee September 6, 1983,
Report to the Planning Commission -
Recommendations on Revisions to the Sign
Ordinance.
3. Current City Sign Regulations.
4. Chamber of Commerce letter dated
November 18, 1985, advising of the Board of
Directors' unanimous endorsement of the
Draft Sign Ordinance.
5. Staff Report and Minutes from the City
Council meeting of December 13, 1982
(meeting where City Council deferred review
of Sign Regulations to the Planning
Commission).
6. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of December 20, 1982
(meeting where the Planning Commission
established the Sign Regulation Committee).
7. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of September 4, 1984
(meeting where report from the Sign
Regulation Review Committee was submitted) .
8. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting
of September 19, 1984 (meeting where Sign
Committee presented its Findings and
Recommendations).
9. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of October 1, 1984
(meeting where Staff commenced discussion of
the current Sign Regulations.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. o COPIES TO: Planning Department
Item 6.5 Page 2 of Agenda Statement Missing
22. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of August 19, 1985
(public hearing - discussion on Section VII
- Permit Procedure, Section VIII - Non-
conforming and Illegal Signs, Section IX -
Enforcement and on Section X - Amendment and
Repeal, Severability).
23. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of September 3, 1985
, (public hearing - wrap up of "working copy"
of Draft Sign Ordinance)..
24. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of October 21, 1985 (no
action taken while awaiting preparation by
Staff of Graphic Appendix, review of draft
by City Attorney and action on draft by
Board of Directors of Chamber of Commerce).
25. Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of November 18, 1985
(presentation of final "working copy", and
adoption of Resolution No. 85-053 recommen-
ding the City Council adopt reorganized and
modified Sign Regulations).
26. Case Studies of existing Wall Mounted Signs.
RECOMMENDATION• 1 - public Open u
p p b c h Baring and hear Staff
presentations.
2 - Take testimony from the public.
3 - Question Staff and the public.
4 - Close public hearing and deliberate.
5a - Direct Staff to make revisions and
continue the public hearing; or
5b - Adopt Resolution regarding Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment for Sign
Regulations, waive reading and introduce
Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: A Citywide sign survey undertaken upon the
adoption of this Ordinance would require
additional Staff resources.
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGN REGULATION REVIEW ACTIONS:
The listing of Background Attachments earlier in this Report has been
formatted to provide a brief chronological summary of the actions related to
the review of the City's Sign Regulations. The review was initiated by the
City Council's action on December 13, 1982, when the ,Council considered
adopting an Ordinance to regulate the use of "A-Frame" Signs and decided to
defer the item as part of a comprehensive review by the Planning Commission.
The process has proceeded through five general steps, culminating with this
initial public hearing before the City Council. These steps are summarized as
follows below.
Step 1 - Study of the Issues and Formulation of Recommendations by the Sign
Regulation Committee. The Dublin Sign Regulation Committee, appointed by the
Planning Commission at its December 20, 1982, meeting (see Background
Attachment #5) and made up of three local business persons and two private
citizens from the community, met from the period of January 4, 1983, to July
6, 1983. The recommendations from the Committee were summarized in the
document entitled "Recommendations on Revisions to the Sign Ordinance," dated
-3-
September 6, 1983. (See Background Attachment #2. ) The report was formally
submitted to the Planning Commission at its meetings of September 4th and
19th, 1984. (See Background Attachments #7 and #8).
Step 2 - Review of Current Regulations. During the course of the three
Planning Commission public hearings from October 1, 1984, to November 4, 1984,
City Staff, through use of slide presentations and case studies, explained the
format and guidelines of the City's current sign regulations. (See Background
Attachments #9 through #11..)
Step 3 - Consideration of Issue Areas and Preparation of Reorganized and
Modified Sign Regulations. The series of four Planning Commission. public
hearings from December 3, 1984 through February 4, 1985, were utilized to
consider a total of 12 issue areas identified by Staff and to consider
implications of recent State Legislation pertaining to Outdoor Advertising,.
(See Background Attachments #12 - #15.) Based on testimony received and
consensus direction provided by the Commission the respective areas, Staff set
out to prepare a reorganized and modified version of the Sign Regulations.
Step 4 - Public Hearings to Consider the Reorganized and Modified Sign
Regulations. The draft copy of the reorganized and modified Sign Regulations
was presented at the Plannng Commission meeting of May 6, 1985. A series of
public hearings followed as the Commission, Staff and representatives from
various business interest groups reviewed the Draft Sign Ordinance on a
section-by-section basis. Key discussion centered on the use of Real Estate
"Open-House" Signs, the number, size, height and location of Freestanding
Signs, the use of temporary promotional signage and a variety of Riscellaneous
items. (See Background Attachments #16 through #22.) The Planning Commission
took its final action on the Draft Sign Ordinance at its meeting of November
18, 1985, at which time it adopted Planning Commission Resolution #85-053
recommending that the City Council adopt reorganized and modified Sign
Regulations. (See Background Attachment #25..)
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FORMAT CHANGES OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT SIGN ORDINANCE:
The May 6, 1985, Staff Report for the Planning Commission (see Background
Attachment #16) outlined the major format changes and substantive changes then
proposed in the Draft Sign Regulations. That portion of the May 6, 1985,
Staff Report is repeated below, modified and expanded to reflect the
adjustments resultant from the long public hearing process before the Planning
Commission.
The major format changes outlined in the Draft Sign Ordinance can be
summarized as follows:
1. Consolidation of all pertinent regulations into a single Article of
the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2. Establishment of a Purpose, Objectives and Policies Section.
3. Consolidation and refinement of pertinent definitions.
4. Consolidation, refinement and elaboration of regulations by
respective Zoning Districts pertaining to types of allowable signs
and review process.
5. Refinement and elaboration of regulations dealing with Prohibited
Signs and Permitted Signs.
6. Establishment of design criteria to facilitate review of sign
proposals.
7. Formalization of a Sign Permit process and establishment of the
specific submittal requirements for that process.
8. Clarification of the Variance procedure as it pertains to signs.
9. Elaboration and refinement of regulations dealing with the issuance
of Conditional Use Permits and Administrative Conditional Use
Permits for signs.
-4-
10. Clarification of regulations dealing with the amortization of non-
conforming signs and the process for summary removal of signs, tying
both into the provisions established by recent State Legislation
dealing with Advertising Displays.
Individual substantive changes of note or interest outlined in the Draft Sign
Ordinance can be summarized as follows:
1. Establishes an alternate means of calculating individual and
aggregate allowable sign areas utilizing a specified percentage of
the surface area of the building elevation rather than tying sign
area to the length of the street frontage. (See Section 8-87.33a).)
2. Prohibits use of Roof and/or Wall Signs from extending above
roofline of building to which they are attached. (See Section 8-
87.33b) of Exhibit B.)
3. Formally limits to one the number of available Freestanding Signs
per property. (See Section 8-87,34c) of Exhibit B.)
4. Establishes guidelines proportionatley intertwining the setback,
total structure height, sign width and sign height of Freestanding
Signs. (See Section 8-87.34c)(3) of Exhibit B.)
5. Restricts use of Freestanding Sign over a height of 20 feet for
multi-use properties less than four acres in size or single-use
properties less than one and one-half acres in size, and establishes
a Conditional Use Permit process for development of Freestanding
Signs over 20 feet in height (up to 35 feet maximum) for properties
of a specified qualifying acreage. (See Section 8-87.34c)(6) of
Exhibit B.)
6. Prohibits use of Freestanding Signs closer than 50 feet from the
right-of-way of an Interstate Freeway. (See Section 8-87.34c)(7) of
Exhibit B.)
7. Creates an exemption status for Real Estate "Open-House" Signs and
establishes dimensional, locational and procedural guidelines to
regulate their use. (See Section 8-87.50s) of Exhibit B.)
8. Creates a new category of monument-type Freestanding Sign for the
Village Parkway Corridor for use as a Directory Sign. (See Section
8-87.35 of Exhibit B.)
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA FOR WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGNS:
•
Through the public hearing process conducted by the .Planning Commission, an
alternate method of calculating the aggregate allowable area for Wall Signs
and Projecting Signs was established.. The current regulations link the
aggregate allowable sign area for Wall Signs and Projecting Signs to the
length of the subject property's street frontage. The alternate approach
recommended by the Planning Commission would provide for an amount of signage
which is generally consistent with the comparatively liberal standards found
in the current regulations. The recommended approach ties the area of signs
to the length and height of the building elevation available for signage,
excluding sloping roof areas. (See Section 8-87.33a) of Exhibit B.)
At the prompting of the Assistant City Attorney, Staff has drafted a proposed
modification to the standards recommended by the Planning Commission pertain-
ing to the calculation of aggregate allowable sign area for Wall Signs and
Projecting Signs. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that the amount of
discretionary review authority given to City Staff for the review of the size
of such signs should be minimized to avoid possible future legal challenges.
The Assistant City Attorney suggested development of a two-tiered approach to
regulate the aggregate allowable sign area for Wall Signs and Projecting
Signs. The first tier would provide effectively automatic height, width and
area standards for Wall Signs and Projecting Signs. The proposed modified
standards developed by Staff are contained in Exhibit D.. These standards
would provide for adequate, functional signage for the majority of the City's
commercial tenant spaces. The standards proposed attempt to reflect
standardized sign dimensions typically encountered for sign widths and
heights, and that are reflective of the tenant bay widths typically
-5- -
encountered in the City (i.e. , tenant spaces at 12' , 15' or 20' widths). The
second tier of regulations proposed for the calculation of aggregate
allowable sign areas would involve a process allowing applicants to request
signs of a larger aggregate area or which deviate from the established
maximums for sign height or sign width. It is proposed that the Site
Development Review (SDR) process be utilized to allow consideration of signs
that deviate from the first tier of dimensional criteria for Wall Signs and
Projecting Signs. The SDR process would provide Staff the discretionary
authority to apply alternate dimensional standards for such signs that would
be reflective of the particular location, size, architecture, etc. of the
property, building or tenant space in question.
ENFORCEMENT OF NEW REGULATIONS:
With the adoption of the new sign regulations, it is recommended that Staff
be directed to undertake a Citywide survey of the existing signage of all
commercial properties and businesses to document signage, currently in place
and to facilitate a systematic and equitable determination of which signs are
illegal or non-conforming. Without a comprehensive survey and follow-up
notification to affected property owners, the time frames for removing or
changing non-conforming signs would not commence and the extensive efforts of
the review of the sign regulations would be largely nullified.
RECOMMENDATION:
On November 18, 1985, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt reorganized and modified Sign Regulations.
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission
recommendations modified to reflect the proposed alternate means of
calculating aggregate allowable sign area for Wall Signs and Projecting
Signs, and take the following actions:
1. Adopt the Resolution approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
2. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance.
If the City Council finds that additional review or revisions are needed,
Staff would recommend that the City Council direct Staff to make any needed
revisions and continue the item to a future City Council meeting.
-6-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 84-077 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING
REORGANIZED AND MODIFIED_ SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission expressed
concern in the Fall of 1982, regarding the City of Dublin's Sign Regulations;
and -
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1982, the City Council determined a
comprehensive review of the City's Sign Regulations should be performed and
referred the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1982, the Planning Commission established
a Sign Regulation Committee and charged the Committee "to rewrite the Sign
Regulations to be understandable and to recommend to the Planning Commission
regulations which will balance the aesthetics of the community at large with
the needs of the business community"; and
WHEREAS, the Sign Regulation Committee met approximately twelve
times from December, 1982, to September, 1983, to review and discuss the Sign
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 1983, the Chairman of the Sign Committee
presented the Sign Regulation Committee's recommendations to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on that same date the Planning Commission suggested some
additional revisions to the Sign Regulations and directed Staff to formally
initiate the Zoning Ordinance Amendment process; and
WHEREAS, over the two=month period from September 4, 1984, to
November 5, 1984, Staff presented for consideration and discussion by the
Commission at five consecutive Planning Commission meetings various slide
presentations, discussion issue areas, and case studies pertaining to the
City's Sign Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered a list of sign issues
and potential solutions at a public hearing on December 3, 1984; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was provided in all aspects as
required by law and included notification to, and solicitation of comments
from, the approximately 600 businesses in the City of Dublin as listed on the
Chamber of Commerce Member Roster and Non-Member Roster as compiled by the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, at two subsequent Planning Commission meetings (December
17, 1984, and January 7, 1985) additional discussion on a total of twelve
identified sign issue areas and potential solutions were discussed with input
from Staff and with an opportunity for public input; and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 1985,
the Planning Commission closed the discussion segment of the Sign Regulation
review and directed Staff to return with a Draft Ordinance; and
I WHEREAS, a final informational Planning Commission meeting was
held on February 4, 1985, to discuss State legislation regarding the
amortization of non-conforming signs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department subsequently prepared a Draft
Sign Ordinance; and ffla
porne'nol.vrVAIA"Ov �' ,=
_1_
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Draft Sign
Ordinance at a series of public hearings from May 6, 1985 to November 18, 1985,
and recommended adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said
proposal on April 14, ' 1986; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearings (Planning Commission and City
Council) was provided in all aspects as required by law; including notification
to the approximately 600 businesses in the City of Dublin listed on the Chamber
of Commerce Member Roster and Non-Member Roster as compiled by the Dublin
Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, said Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment 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 said Draft
Ordinance be given a favorable recommendation; 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 the Draft Ordinance will meet the following purposes:
1) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment consolidates the City's Sign
Regulations into a concise understandable format; and
2) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will provide clearer direction to the
Business Community as to the nature of allowable signage in the City; and
3) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment incorporates amendments to -the
existing Ordinance which put into place standards more in keeping with the
nature, siting, and general characteristics of the Business Community of
Dublin; and
4) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment implements the purposes, policies, and
programs of the General Plan; and
5) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will promote reasonable uniformity
among signs and thereby encourage development and use of signs which are
compatible with adjacent land uses and which protect business sites from loss
of prominence resulting from use of excessive signs on surrounding sites; and
6) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will provide for the establishment of
signs which attract and direct persons to various activities and enterprises
and which will promote more effective visual communication for the nature of
goods and services available, in order to provide for the maximum public
convenience; and
7) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will lead to the enhancement of the
economic value of the community through proper signage and encourage signs
which are well designed and pleasing in appearance and will provide incentive
and latitude for variety, good design, relationship and spacing; and
8) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will serve as an instrument of law
that will be largely self-administrating, help reduce costly inspections and
enforcement proceedings, and allow for standardized permit procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
acknowledge and authorize additional nonsubtantive text or format changes to
the Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment that may be prompted by subsequent review
and comment of the ordinance by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Sign Regulations.
-2-
J
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
SIGN REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING ARTICLE .7. OF CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF .
THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH SERVES TO REORGANIZE 'AND MODIFY
THE''CITY OF 'DUBLIN SIGN REGULATIONS
'The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1 Amendments:
Section 8-87.0 through Section 8-87.92 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 8-87.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS. The provisions of this Chapter shall be
subject to the following general regulations, special provisions and
exceptions.
Sec. 8-87.1 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND STA=dENT OF OWBCTIVES. The purpose
of this Chapter is to provide standards to safeguard the health, safety and
welfare of the community by regulating and controlling the design, quality
of materials, construction, location, and maintenance of all signs and
their supporting members. The objectives of this Chapter are to:
a) Implement the purposes, policies and programs of the General Plan;
b) Provide a reasonable system of regulations for signs as a part of the
City's comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; '
c) Promote reasonable uniformity among signs and thereby . encourage
development and use of signs which are compatible with adjacent land
uses and which protect business sites from loss of prominence resulting
from use of excessive signs on surrounding sites;
d) Attract and direct persons to various activities and enterprises and to
promote more effective visual communication for the nature of goods and
services available, in order to provide for the maximum public
convenience; K
e) Enhance the economic value of the community through proper signage and
encourage signs which are well designed and pleasing in appearance and
to provide. incentive and latitude for variety, good design relationship
and spacing;
f) Provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety by prohibiting or
restricting distracting signs.
Sec. 8-87.2 DECLARATION OF POLICY_ It is recognized that the attractiveness
of the community is an important factor of the general welfare of the ERMIMM
citizens of the City and that reasonable control of signs is in the public
interest. Further recognized is the right and need of each business, firm, MWIMMS
or corporation to identify its respective place of business or service and smolum
that a need exists to protect public and private investments in buildings WMAM
and open space. Further, the City intends to exercise its sound judgment
and discretion to assure that all approved signs provide effective and
attractive identification for persons trying to locate a particular place =
of business, service or use.
Sec. 8-87.10 DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise
requires, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be
construed as follows:
a) A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign, and Sandwich Board Sign. The terms A-Frame
Sign, Portable Sign and Sandwich Board Sign shall mean portable signs
capable of standing without support or attachment.
b) Banner Sign. The term Banner Sign shall mean a temporary sign
composed of light weight, flexible, non-rigid material either enclosed
or not enclosed in a rigid frame.
c) Business Sign. The term Business Sign shall mean any structure,
housing, sign, device, figure, painting, display, message placard, or
other contrivance, or any part thereof, which has been designed to
advertise, or to provide data or information in the nature of
advertising, for any of the following purposes:
1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name or business of the
owner or occupant of the premises upon which the Business Sign is
located.
2) To advertise the business conducted, services available or
rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale upon
the property where the Business Sign has been lawfully erected.
d) Community Identification Sign. The term Community Identification Sign
shall mean a Business Sign incorporating information referring
exclusively to service clubs and/or community slogans. (Community
Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.66 b) . )
e) C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. The term C-2-B-40 Directory Sign shall mean a
Business Sign located in a C-2-B-40 District which identifies the street
address range of the businesses within the complex and serves to
identify a business complex with no more than ten tenants. (C-2-B-40
Directory Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.35. )
f) Directional Tract Sign. Directional Tract Sign means a Temporary Sign
containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple
family residential project and directions for reaching same. A
Directional Tract Sign is a Principal Use for the purpose of Section 8-
93.0. (Directional Tract Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.66 a) . )
g) Directory Sign. The term Directory Sign shall mean a Business Sign
located for the purpose of displaying the names of occupants engaged in
professions or businesses on the premises.
h) Freestanding Sign. The term Freestanding Sign shall mean a Business
Sign supported by one or more uprights, braces, columns, poles, or other
similar structural components placed on or into the ground, and not
attached to a building, and having no exposed or connecting wires.
(Freestanding Signs are regulated by Sections 8-87.34, 8-87.35, and 8-
87.38. )
-2-
i) Identification Sign. The term Identification Sign shall mean a sign or
device, including bulletin -boards for churches or auditoriums which
serves exclusively to designate the name, or the name and use, of a
public building, or to inform the public as to the use of a lawful
parking area, recreation area, or other open use permitted in the
District. (Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.67 a) .)
j) Illuminated Sign. An Illuminated Sign shall mean a Business Sign which
uses a source of light in order to make the message readable, and shall
include internally and externally lighted signs.
k) Low Profile Sign. The term Low Profile Sign shall mean a Business Sign
that serves to identify a business complex including the range of the
businesses within the complex, and may also serve as a directory sign
identifying a minimum of four and a maximum of ten tenants located in
said complex. (Low Profile Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.35. )
1) Non-conforming Sign. The term Non-conforming Sign shall mean a sign
lawful before the provisions of this Chapter, or of any relevant
amendment hereto made effective, but which thereupon violates same.
m) Office Building Master Identification Sign. The term Office Building
Master Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign that serves to
identify an office building or any institutional use, and whose copy
shall include only the name of the office building or institutional use
and the street address range of the complex.
n) 'Off-Site Advertising Sign. The term Off-Site Advertising Sign shall
mean any lettered or pictorial matter or device' which advertises or
informs about a business organization or event, goods, products,
services or uses, not available on the property upon which the sign is
located and does not include Directional Tract Sign or Community
Identification Sign.
o) Open House Sign. The term Open House Sign shall mean a Portable Sign
used in connection with the sale of real property. (Open House Signs are
regulated by Section 8-87.50 t) . )
p) Primary Building Frontage. The term Primary Building Frontage shall mean
the width of the projection of a business building onto a single
straight line chosen by the establishment, with concurrence from the
Planning Director, to be the Primary Building Frontage and shall be
normally parallel to a lot line or. street. A Primary Building Frontage
line must lie in a roadway or public open space area such as a private
street, an open plaza or square or an auto parking area. A business may
have only one Primary Building Frontage. Any sign area accrued and
authorized by a Primary Building Frontage may not be attached to any
other building frontage.
q) Projecting Sign. The term Projecting Sign shall mean a Business Sign
attached to a wall in such a manner that the face of the sign is not
parallel to the wall to which it is attached. (Projecting signs are
regulated by Section 8-87.33. )
-3-
r) Roof Line. The term Roof Line shall mean the top edge of the roof or
top of the parapet, whichever forms the top line of the building
silhouette.
s) Secondary Building Frontage. The term-Secondary Building Frontage shall
mean the width of the projection of a business building onto a single
straight line which is either perpendicular to or parallel to the
Primary.Building Frontage line. A Secondary Building Frontage line must
lie in a roadway or public open space area such as a private street, an
open plaza or square or an auto parking area. A business may have a
maximum of two Secondary Building Frontages. Any sign area accrued and
authorized by- one Secondary Building Frontage may not be attached to any
other building frontage.
t) Service Station Sign Display Structure. The term Service Station Sign
Display Structure shall mean an on-site identification Business Sign
that serves to identify the name and general type of service station it
adjoins.
u) Service Station Price Sign. The term Service Station Price Sign shall
mean a sign indicating gasoline prices and available services. .(Service
Station Price Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.50 k) . )
v) Shopping Center Master Identification Sign. The term Shopping Center
Master Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign for shopping
center identification for use by shopping centers with a minimum of
twenty separate tenants.
w) Temporary Sign. The term Temporary Sign shall mean any sign, banner,
pennant, valance, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas,
light fabric, cardboard, plywood, wallboard, or other light materials,
with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of
time only.
x) Time/Temperature Sign. The term Time/Temperature Sign shall mean a
Business Sign intended primarily to promote items of general interest to
the Community such as time, temperature and/or date. (Time/Temperature
Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.66. )
y) Wall Sign. The term Wall Sign shall mean a Business Sign attached or
erected against the building or structure, with the exposed face of the
sign in a plane parallel to the plane of such building or structure.
-4-
Sec. 8-87.20 GENERAL LIMITATIONS BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Sec. 8-87.21 A - AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT - SIGNS PERMITTED. when located in an
A District, and subordinate to a lawful use, Business Signs not exceeding
an aggregate area of twenty square feet are permitted.
Sec. 8-87.22 R-1, R-2 AND R-S DISTRICTS - SIGNS PERMITTED.
The following types of signs are permitted in an R-1, R-2 or R-S District
with a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.66
Directional Tract Signs
Community Identification Signs
Identification Signs
Sec. 8-87.23 PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - SIGNS PERMITTED. Type,
size, location and character of signs established in a PD District shall be
as stipulated by the Zoning Ordinance establishing the PD District.
Modifications to the adopted sign program may be considered by the Planning
Director upon application of a Site Development Review pursuant to Section
8-95.0.
Sec. 8-87.24 H-1, C-1, C-2 AND M-1 DISTRICTS - SIGNS PERMITTED.
The following types of signs are permitted in the H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1
Districts:
Freestanding Signs
Projecting Signs
Wall Signs
The following types of signs are permitted in the H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1
Districts with a Site Development Review as set forth in Section 8-95.0
Low Profile Signs
Service Station Display Structures (where used in lieu of a Low
Profile Sign)
The following types of signs are permitted in the H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1
Districts with a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.66
Directional Tract Signs
Community Identification Signs
Temporary Promotional Signs - Sixty Day Time Frame
Freestanding Signs (in excess of 20' height)
The following types of signs are permitted in the H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1
Districts with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit as set forth in
Section 8-87.67
Identification Signs
Grand-opening Temporary Promotional Signs
Temporary Promotional Signs- Thirty Day Time Frame
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-1 and C-2 Districts
with a Site Development Review as set forth in Section 8-95.0
-5-
Office Building Master Identification Sign
Service Station Display Structures (where used in lieu of a Low
Profile Sign)
Sec. 8-87.25 C-0 DISTRICT - SIGNS PERMITTED.
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-0 District:
Projecting Signs
Wall Signs
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-0 District with a Site
Development Review as set forth in Section 8-95.0
Office Building Master Identification Sign
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-0 District with a
Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.66
Directional Tract Sign
Community Identification Sign
Temporary Promotional Signs - 60 Day Time Frame
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-0 District with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.67
Identification Signs
Grand-Opening Temporary Promotional Signs
Temporary Promotional Signs - 30 Day Time Frame
Sec. 8-87.26 C-N DISTRICT - SIGNS PERMITTED.
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-N District:
Projecting Signs
Wall Signs
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-N District with a Site.
Development Review as set forth in Section 8-95.0
Service Station Display Structures
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-N District with a
Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.66
Directional Tract Signs
Community Identification Signs
Temporary Promotional Signs
The following types of signs are permitted in the C-N District with an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 8-87.67
-6-
Identification Signs
Grand-opening Temporary Promotional Signs
Temporary Promotional Signs - 30 Day Time Frame
Sec. 8-87.30 REGULATIONS GOVERNING SIZE AMID STANDARDS
Sec. 8-87.31 CONSTRUCTION MAT PEAT S - GRERAL REQUIREMENTS. All permanent
signs shall be constructed of wood, metal, plastic, glass, or like material
as approved by the Planning Director.
Sec. 8-87.32 AREA OF SIGNS. The area of signs shall be computed as the
entire area within a single, continuous rectilinear perimeter of not more
than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of the sign;
provided that in the case of a sign with more than one exterior surface
containing sign copy, the sign area shall be computed as the sum of all
exterior faces. Any structure, or part of a structure, which departs from
standard architectural procedures in an attempt to attract attention to the
premises by reason of color scheme, building shape or unusual architectural
features shall be considered sign area and subject to all pertinent
regulations.
Sec. 8-87.33 WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGNS.
a) Where used in absence of Freestanding Signs, the aggregate allowable
area for Wall Signs and Projecting Signs shall not exceed ten percent of
the surface area of building frontage available for signage for the
Primary Building Frontage (to be calculated on a tenant-space by
tenant-space basis) and shall not exceed five percent of the surface
area of building frontage available for signage for the Secondary
Building Frontage(s) . Where used in conjunction with Freestanding
signs, the aggregate allowable area for Wall Signs and Projecting Signs
shall be reduced by the amount of sign area used in the Freestanding
Sign. Where more than one tenant space receives benefit from the
identification provided by the Freestanding Sign (i.e., the tenant is
specifically identified on the Sign or the Sign identifies the name of
the center) , the reduction in aggregate allowable sign area due to the
use of a Freestanding Sign shall be proportionately assessed on a pro-
rata basis determined by relative Primary Building Frontage lengths.
b) No part of any Wall Sign or Projecting Sign shall extend above the
Roof-Line of the building elevation on which the sign is displayed.
c) Attached Wall Signs shall be parallel with the building face and shall
project not more than twelve inches therefrom except Wall Signs
projecting from twelve to thirty inches from the wall to which they are
attached are permitted with Site Development Review pursuant to Section
8-95.0.
d) Only one Projecting Sign shall be permitted for each business.
e) Projecting Signs shall not extend from the front wall to which they are
attached a distance greater than seven percent (7%) of the Business
Building Frontage or eight feet, whichever is less.
-7=
f) Projecting Signs shall be located within the middle one-third (1/3) of
the front wall of the business building- to which they are attached.
g) Projecting Signs shall have a clearance of eight feet above the ground
and fourteen feet above a driveway, alley, or other vehicular accessway.
No such sign shall project into a public right-of-way.
h) Supporting members for Wall Signs and Projecting Signs shall appear to
be an integral architectural part of the building, and any required
bracing shall be minimized.
Sec. 8-87.34 FREESTANDING SIGNS.
a) Freestanding Signs shall have a minimum clearance of fourteen feet
where established with an overhang extending over a driveway, alley, or
other vehicular access. No such sign shall project into a public
right-of-way.
b) The total single-faced sign area of any one Freestanding Sign shall not
exceed one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. The total double-faced
sign area of any one Freestanding Sign shall not exceed three hundred
(300) square feet.
c) Only one Freestanding Sign shall be permitted for each parcel subject to
the conditions that: (1) said Freestanding Sign shall be located in a
planter of appropriate dimension; (2) said Freestanding Sign shall be
located within the middle one-third 1/3) of the street frontage when
said Freestanding Sign is within twenty feet of said street frontage;
(3) said Freestanding Sign shall be a maximum of ten feet in height and .
have a maximum double-faced area of thirty square feet (maximum area of
fifteen square feet for single-faced signs) , provided that for each one
foot said Freestanding Sign is set back from the nearest street
frontage, the maximum height may be increased by one-half foot and the
area may be increased by five square feet; to provide a maximum single-
faced area being three-tenths the Freestanding Sign's total height
multiplied by one-half the sign's total height (Sign Area = 0.3 ht. x
0.5 ht. ) up to the maximum area stipulated in 8-87.34b) ; (4) Said
Freestanding Sign shall have a maximum allowable area for double-faced
signs of twice the amount allowed for single-faced signs, with the sign
surface area split equally between the two sides of the sign, up to the
maximum area stipulated in 8-87.34b) ; (5) said Freestanding Sign shall
be proportionately dimensioned with the sign face width not to exceed
one-half the sign's total height and the sign face height not to exceed
three-tenths the sign's total height, with the two dimensions being
interchangable if desired unless the Zoning Administrator finds through
the sign permit application process that a minor adjustment in those
proportions better meets the purposes and intent of the ordinance; (6)
said Freestanding Sign shall not exceed a total height in excess of
twenty feet, except for Freestanding Signs located on parcels, or
collections of parcels under common ownership and use, four acres or
greater in size, or single-use parcels one-and-one-half acres or
greater in size which may utilize signs up to a maximum height of
thirty-five feet, when approved through the Conditional Use Permit
process pursuant to Sections 8-87.66d) and 8-94.0; (7) said Freestanding
Signs shall in no case be located closer than fifty feet from the
right-of-way of an Interstate Freeway; (8) A sign for a service station
-8-
may be combined with a Service Station Price Sign as permitted by
Section 8-87.50k) , and the -area of the combined sign may exceed these
height-area-setback regulations by a maximum of thirty-two square feet;
(9) said Freestanding Signs shall not be placed within the required
setback, side or rearyard areas.
Sec. 8-87.35 ALTERNATE TYPES OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. The following chart
summarizes the dimensional, tenant and copy restrictions for alternate
types of freestanding Business Signs: All five of these alternate types of
Freestanding Signs shall be subject to Site Development Review, pursuant to
Section 8-95.0, to assure the signs conform to the established or proposed
design theme of the subject property's signing program.
Maximum Maximum Parcel Tenant Number Copy
Height Area Frontage Restrictions Restrictions
(Min./Max.)
Low Profile Sign 6' 24 sq.ft 100' min. No standard As established
by Site
Development
Review
Office Building 8' 50 sq.ft 100' min. No standard Name of Complex
Master Identifi- or institutional
cation Sign use
Service Station 8' 32 sq.ft no min. No standard Name/and
Display Structure General Type
Shopping Center 25' 100 sq.ft no min. 20 tenants Name of Center
Master Identifi- minimum
cation Sign
C-2-B-40 8' 28-32 sq.ft 100' min. 5 tenants Name of 3-10
Directory Sign no min. minimum tenants, and/or
name of complex
(optional) and
address range
Office Building Master Identification Signs and C-2-B-40 Low Profile
Directory Signs shall be located within a planter of appropriate dimension
and shall have their means of support concealed. All alternate
freestanding Business Signs should indicate building address(es) of the
building and/or complex they. serve. Shopping Center Master Identification
Signs shall be located at one or more of the main entrances in the shopping
center and shall be located in a planter of appropriate dimension. Use of
a Shopping Center Master Identification Sign shall be in lieu of any other
Freestanding Sign. Service Station Sign Display Structures may be
increased in area to 64 square feet, when combined with the Service Station
Price Sign. The area of all alternate freestanding Business Signs shall be
included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted on the property with
the exception of the area of a Service Station Sign Display Structure which
when used in conjunction with a Service Station Price Sign may have the
area of the Price Sign deducted from the - area calculated for allowable
aggregated sign area (up to a maximum area of thirty-two square feet) .
-9-
Sec. 8-87.36 ILLUMINATION. Illumination may be allowed on all signs upon the
approval of the Planning Director, unless otherwise set forth in this
Chapter. Floodlighting used for the illumination of any sign shall be
permitted only when such lighting is installed on private property and is
hooded or shielded so that the light source is not visible from public
streets, alleys, highways or adjoining properties.
Sec. 8-87.37 OBSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR MOT'ORIST'S VISION. No sign may
be located in a manner which may obstruct or interfere with the view of a
traffic signal. No sign may be located within one hundred feet of an
intersection of a public street if the sign obstructs the vision of a
motorist within the distance of one hundred feet of the intersection.
Sec. 8-87.38 FREESTANDING SIGN - LANDSCAPING. A person who . erects or
maintains a Freestanding Sign shall landscape it in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the reviewing body. The design of the
landscaping program should be of sufficient width, length and height to
protect the base of the sign from damage due to vehicular traffic and
should reflect a material palette and design concept consistent with the
structures it is intended to serve. The landscaping program should be of
sufficient size to be effective without affecting the visibility of the
sign.
Sec. 8-87.39 SIGNS ACCESSORY TO A BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED YARD.
Signs accessory to a building located wholly or partially within a required
yard may be located on such a building in accordance with the regulations
of this Chapter regardless of the building's encroachment provided no
signage extends into the public right-of-way.
Sec. 8-87.40 PROHIBITED SIGNS. The following Signs are prohibited:
a) Any sign having blinking, flashing or fluttering lights, or any other
illuminating device which has a changing light intensity, brightness
or color;
b) Any sign which rotates, moves, or contains moving parts or depicts
animation in any manner;
c) Pennants, banners, balloons, flags and other similar types of
devices which consist of any material made in any shape, which fastened
together or placed in a manner as to move by wind pressure, except as
approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or
temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.66c) , Section
8-87.67b) and Section 8-94.0;
d) Portable on-site signs including Sandwich Board type and A-Frame signs;
e) Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer located on a right-of- way or
private property, unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used
in its normal business capacity and not for the sole purpose of
attracting people to a place of business;
f) Paper, cloth, or other temporary-type signs, except as approved in
conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary
promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.66c), Section 8-87.67b) and
c) and Section 8-94.0;
-10-
g) Signs, either permanent or temporary, painted on any building wall,
fascia, parapet, awning or fence;
h) Signs using colors that contain fluorescent properties;
i) Searchlights, cold-air balloons and similar advertising devices, except
as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or
temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.66c), Section
8-87.67b) and c) Section 8-94.0;
j) Any sign designed for emitting sound, odor or visible matter;
k) Any sign containing any obscene matter;
1) Any illuminated sign designed or located so as to be confused with or to
resemble any warning traffic control device;
m) Any signs illuminated in such a manner that the direct, or reflected
light, from the primary light source(s) creates a traffic hazard to
operators of motor vehicles;
n) Statuary when used for advertising purposes;
o) Any sign mounted on a sloping roof with visible support brackets or any
sign which extends above the roof ridgeline or parapet.
Sec. 8-87.50 PERMITTED SIGNS. The following signs are permitted in any
District and may be located in required yards, other sign or yard
regulations notwithstanding, and need not be included in any computation of
permitted aggregate sign area:
a) Official public signs or notices or any temporary notice posted by a
public agency or official, or by a person giving legal notice;
b) House numbers, name plate or identification of house members (provided
sign is non-illuminated and does not exceed two square feet maximum
area) , mail box identification, street names, "no-trespass" signs, and
other warning signs;
c) Memorial tablets or signs identifying a benefactor, a location of
historical interest, or a statue or monument;
d) Pedestrian signs, such as shingle signs, which are oriented towards
pedestrian traffic and serve to identify and indicate pertinent facts
concerning a business or professional service lawfully conducted on the
same premise; subject to the following provisions;
1) must be suspended from a canopy over a sidewalk which is
directly in front of the door of the business thereby
identified;
2) must be perpendicular to the business building wall;
3) must not be more than ten square feet in area if double-
faced, five square feet in area if single-faced;
-11-
4) must provide a minimum of eight foot clearance when located
above a sidewalk; and
5) are limited to one per business per building elevation;
e) Signs displayed for the direction, warning or safety of the public,
including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with eight square feet
maximum per sign, except pavement markings which are not so restricted
as to maximum area;
f) Temporary political signs, where such sign is placed on private property
for the sole purpose of advocating the election of a declared candidate
for public office, or relating to an election proposition on the
ballot of sixteen square feet maximum area per individual sign and
eighty square feet of maximum aggregate area per lot;
g) Non-illuminated temporary sale or lease signs which are to be intended
for use solely as a notice of an offering for sale, lease, or rental of
a parcel, structure, or establishment on which the sign is located;
provided that such signs shall not exceed a maximum area of twenty four
square feet; and provided further that two signs per parcel be allowed
and only one such sign may be placed for each one hundred feet of street
frontage;
h) Subdivision sale, rent or lease signs to advertise the original sale,
rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision
development with a maximum area of thirty-two square feet plus one
additional sign of like dimension for each thirty-five lots or buildings
for sale, rent or lease. Signs shall not exceed a maximum height of
twelve feet, shall not be illuminated and shall observe the yard limits
of the District the sign is located within;
i) A bulletin board used to display announcements pertaining to an on-site
church, school, community center, park, hospital, and/or public or
institutional building, twenty four square feet maximum area, and
subject to the yard and height limits of the District the sign is
located within;
j) A tenant directory or other exclusively informational listing of tenant
names not to exceed a maximum area of twelve square feet, attached to
the wall at the entrance of a building;
k) Service station price signs indicating gasoline prices and available
services when accessory to an existing service station and where not
more than two service station price signs with a maximum aggregate size
of thirty-two square feet and with a six foot maximum height, are
utilized. These signs may be attached to and made part of Service
Station Sign Display Structure pursuant to Section 8-87.34c)8) ;
1) Signs located inside a building or structure, provided any such sign is
neither attached to windows with its sign copy visible from the outside
nor otherwise so located inside so as to be conspicuously visible and
readable, without intentional and deliberate effort, from outside the
building or structure, provided however that any sign, or signs, which
-12-
in the aggregate have an area not exceeding 250 of the window area from
which they are viewed are-also permitted and need not be included with
the computation of permitted aggregate sign area;
m) The flag, pennant, or insignia of any charitable, education,
philanthropic, civic, professional or religious organization;
n) Signs required to be maintained by law or governmental order, rule or
regulation;
o) Murals or other artistic paintings on walls, provided no logos, emblems
or other similar devices, sign copy or illustrations of activities
associated with uses on the premises or in the vicinity are included in
the mural or painting;
p) Holiday decorations commonly associated with any national, local or
religious holiday;
q) Signs which are within a private recreational use and which cannot be
seen from a public street or adjacent properties;
r) Signs, with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum area of
twenty-four square feet, denoting the architect, engineer, contractor,
or lending agency when placed on work under construction;
s) Open-house signs used in connection with the sale of real property
subject to the following special provisions;
1) A maximum of four open-house signs are permitted for each
property being advertisied for sale. Such signage shall be
located outside the public right-of-way (which includes, but
is not limited to, the sidewalk) located adjacent to
property lines. Proper authorization by the affected
private property owner, shall be secured prior to placement
of signs. Such signage shall be located in such a manner
that it does not disrupt the normal flow of vehicle or
pedestrian traffic and does not block views of such traffic.
Signing is prohibited in the center divider strip and/or
traffic islands of public streets. Such signing is not to
be adhered or attached to any public sign post, traffic
signal or utility pole;
2) Only one of the signs utilized for each respective open-
house properties shall be located along a major City
arterial. The size of the sign shall not exceed four square
feet per side, and the height shall not exceed four feet
above grade;
3) Open-house signs shall be permitted only during the weekend
period from 10:00 a.m. Friday through sunset on Sunday
evening, and Tuesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Such
signing is not to be adhered or attached to any public sign
post, traffic signal or utility pole;
-13-
4) The City shall be authorized to assess all necessary costs
for the time spent by City personnel, or its authorized
agents, to remove illegally located open-house signs. In
cases of repeated or flagrant violations of requirements
dealing with open-house signs, rights to locate new open-
house signs in the City shall be forfeited.
Sec. 8-87.60 PERMIT PROCEDURE
Sec. 8-87.61 COMPLIANCE - SIGN PERMIT .-APPLICATION REQUIRED. With the
exception of Permitted Signs as specified in Section 8-87.50 of this
Chapter, no person shall place or erect a sign in the City of Dublin
without first having obtained approval of a Sign Permit Application from
the Director of Planning, except that it shall not be necessary to obtain
a Sign Permit for routine maintenance or minor repairs or for repainting or
changing of painted or printed copy on an existing sign on which periodic
change is customary. This Chapter does not repeal or supersede a provision
of law requiring a building permit for the erection of a sign. Any sign
requiring building permits shall not be used until such time as a final
inspection is made.
Sec. 8-87.62 APPLICATION - CONTENTS. Application for a Sign Permit shall be
made in writing upon forms furnished by the Planning Department and shall
be accompanied with the following information:
a) Site plan, fully dimensioned showing the location, setbacks and
dimensions of all existing structures, existing signs, and proposed
signs on the entire parcel;
b) Fully dimensioned building elevation(s) showing sizes and locations of
all existing and proposed wall signs (minimum scale 1/8" = 1'-0") ;
c) Fully dimensioned section drawing(s) indicating horizontal clearance
between proposed freestanding sign(s) and the curb line and projection
of any proposed wall sign(s) and projecting sign(s) from adjoining
building face(s) ;
d) Detailed drawings of all proposed signs indicating the type of
letter, color scheme, cabinet colors and material specifications
(minimum scale 1/4" = 110") ;
e) A sign inventory including type, description, size, height and
location of all existing and proposed signs;
f) The client or property owner's name, address and telephone number;
g) The sign erector's name, address and telephone number;
h) Structural and electrical plans as required by the Building Code;
i) Total cost of sign construction and erection;
j) A non-refundable fee for each Sign Permit, based on the current City
of Dublin Planning Department Fee Schedule.
-14-
Sec. 8-87.63 APPLICATION - APPROVAL.
a) The Planning Director shall approve a Sign Permit Application if he
finds that:
1) the sign and/or proposed location are not prohibited under Section
8-87.40;
2) the sign is permitted under a specified section of this Chapter or
under a Variance granted pursuant to Section 8-87.65 or a
Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to Section 8-87.66 or an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to Section
8-87.67;
3) the sign is compatible in character and quality of design with the
exterior architecture of the premises and other structures in the
immediate area;
4) the sign will not materially reduce the visibility of existing
conforming signs in the area; and
5) the sign, as proposed or modified, conforms to the Design Criteria
Specified in Section 8-87.64.
b) Applications for Sign Permits shall be subject to the same regulations,
review, procedures, and appeal process as set forth in Sections 8-95.0
through 8-95.8 for Site Devlopment Review.
Sec. 8-87.64 DESIGN CRITERIA.
a) The Planning Director shall consider the following factors in the review
of each proposed sign:
1) Visibility and legibility (letter height and legibility,
contrast-background relationship, and placement and location) ;
2) Impact of other immediate signs in terms of visibility and
legibility;
3) Traffic conditions, including but not limited to, traffic safety
and circulation, visibility, road width, curb cuts, or driveway
indentations, medians, proximity of major intersections, signals
or stops, average traveling speed any other natural or physical
obstruction;
4) Night-time use considerations including intensity of illumination
(of sign being reviewed, of other immediate signs and of other
light sources such as street lights or canopy lights) , competition
and interference of light sources and intrusion of light into
residential areas.
b) Each proposed sign shall be reviewed for conformity to the following
criteria:
-15-
1) The sign shall relate to the architectural design of the building.
An attractive scale between the sign, the building and the
immediate surroundings shall be maintained;
2) To the extent feasible, a sign shall be graphic with design
emphasis on simplicity, style, trademark, business identification
and symbol. Wording shall be an integral part of the overall
design;
3) All light sources shall be adequately diffused or shielded;
4) The sign's supporting structure shall be as small in density and
as simple as is structurally safe;
5) Multiple signing on a single-faced building shall be reviewed for
coordination of all signs architecturally and aesthetically;
6) Plastic-faced signs with white internally illuminated backgrounds
are not permitted except pursuant to Site Development Review;
7) Neon, bare fluorescent tubes, or incandescent bulbs are not
permitted except pursuant to Site Development Review;
Sec. 8-87.65 VARIANCE PROCEDURE.
a) When practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship, or a result which is
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter occurs from the
strict application of this Chapter, the Planning Director may grant a
Variance from the strict application of the standards pertaining to
size, height, and/or location of signs regulated by this Chapter in the
manner prescribed by this section. No Variance may be granted from the
number of Freestanding Signs allowed.
b) The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance only if he finds that all
of the following conditions exist:
1) the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the vicinity;
2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to -the
property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so
that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property
of rights enjoyed by other properties;
3) the Variance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to
be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and
4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly
development of property and the preservation of property values in
the vicinity.
c) The grant of a Variance shall specify the factual basis for each
required finding.
-16-
d) If the Zoning Administrator does not find that all of the conditions and
standards set forth in Subsection b) of this Section exist, then he
shall deny the application.
e) The procedure for application, notice and hearing, for grant or denial,
appeal and for administration of a Variance shall be as set forth in
Sections 8-93.0 through 8-93.4
Sec. 8-87.66 SIGNS REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. The following type of
signs may be located in required yards, if a Conditional Use Permit is
granted in accordance with Section 8-94.0:
a) Directional Tract Sign, in any District, thirty-two square feet
maximum area, twelve (12) feet maximum height, shall not be
illuminated, and shall not be located within six hundred sixty
(660) feet of an Interstate Freeway. The size of the sign used
need not be included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted
on the property.
b) Community Identification Sign, one hundred twenty square feet
maximum area, twenty (20) feet maximum height, shall be located
within one thousand (1,000) feet of the City's corporation
boundary. Sign illumination shall not be intermittent and sign
copy shall be limited to:
1) the name of the community;
2) information relating to the service clubs active in the
area;
3) community slogans or mottos; or
4) directional information.
c) Temporary Promotional Signs - Sixty Day Time Frame (banners,
pennants, flags, balloons, searchlights and similiar advertising
devices) , when used for special promotional events, for periods
that cumulatively do not exceed a maximum of sixty days annually
(any twelve month period) and, on an individual promotional event
basis, do not exceed fourteen consecutive days of display.
d) Freestanding Signs in excess of twenty foot height, located on
parcels, or collections of parcels under common ownership and use,
four acres or greater in size, or single-use parcels one and one
half acres or greater in size, with the maximum allowable height
being between twenty and thirty-five feet and with the proposed
size (area and height) determined through the dimensional criteria
of Section 8-87.34 and the Conditional Use Permit review process.
e) Time/Temperature Signs, when used to promote items of general
interest to the Community such as time, temperature and/or date.
Sec. 8-87.67 SIGNS REQUIRING ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. The
following types of signs may be located in required yards if an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit is granted in accordance with
Sections 8-60.60.1 to 8-60.60.2.
-17-
a) One Identification Sign in any District, when used to designate
the name, or the name and use, of a public building, to inform the
public as to the use of a lawful parking area, recreation area, or
other use permitted in the District. Identification. Signs shall
not exceed a maximum area of 24 square feet, unless a greater area
is approved through the Administration Conditional Use process.
The height of Identification Signs shall be as set forth in
Section 8-60.55;
b) Grand-opening Temporary Promotional Signs (banners, pennants,
flags, balloons, searchlights and similar advertising devices) in
any District other than the Agricultural or Residential Districts
when used for bona-fide grand opening functions within sixty days
of a business's initial occupancy and for a period not in excess
of thirty days.
c) Temporary Promotional Signs - Thirty Day Time Frame (banners,
pennants, flags, balloons, searchlights and similar advertising
devices) when used for special promotional events for periods that
cumulatively do not exceed a maximum of thirty days annually (any
twelve month period) and, on an individual promotional event
basis, do not exceed fourteen consecutive days of display.
Sec. 8-87.70 MN-CONFORMING AND ILLEGAL SIGNS
Sec. 8-87.71 NONCONFORMING SIGNS.
a) All- Signs, Name Plates, and their supporting members that did not comply
with all provisions of this Chapter as of May 10, 1969, shall be brought
into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter within the time
limits set forth in this Section:
Change required to bring sign into compliance Conformance Date:
May 10, 1969, plus
Alteration of lighting or movement one year;
Size or height reduction three years;
Removal of an Advertising Sign where not permitted one year;
Change required to bring sign into compliance Conformance Date:
May 10, 1969, plus
Relocation on same Building Site two years;
Removal- of a freestanding Business Sign three years;
Removal of sign painted on wall five years;
provided, however, that any sign nonconforming in more than one respect
shall be brought into compliance with the time limit of the greatest
duration.
b) All signs, Name Plates and their supporting members that were
rendered nonconforming by Ordinance No. 74-1, effective February 8,
1974, and Ordinance No. 75-80, effective August 9, 1976, shall be
brought into compliance with the provision of this Chapter on or
prior to February 8, 1977.
-18-
d _
c) All signs and their supporting members that were rendered
nonconforming by enactment of this ordinance shall be brought into
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter on or prior to three
years from the effective date of this ordinance. All signs and their
supporting members that are rendered nonconforming by amendments to
this Chapter enacted subsequent to the effective date hereof shall be
brought into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter within
three years of the effective date of any such amendments.
Sec. 8-87.72 SIGNS ACCESSORY TO NONCONFORMING BUSINESS. Signs and supporting
members which are necessary to a business or industry existing as a
Nonconforming Use in any A or R District are permitted subject to the sign
regulations contained in Section C-N.
Sec. 8-87.73 NON-COMPLIANCE - REMOVAL OR MODIFICATION PROCEDURE. The owner
of a non-conforming sign which is in place at a permanent location which
does not comply with this Chapter shall remove or modify the sign to meet
this Chapter in accordance with the following procedures:
a) The City shall give the owner at least three months' notification by
certified mail of the nature of the non-compliance. Following such
notification; the owner of the sign shall remove the sign or shall
modify it so that it complies with this Chapter.
b) Prior to the time a sign becomes non-conforming, the owner may apply for
an extension of time within which the sign must be removed or modified.
c) The application shall be made to the City on a form prescribed by it and
shall include the name and address of the sign owner, the land owner,
the type of sign, the date erected, the cost of construction, revenue
derived, a detailed statement of reasons for the request for an
extension, and the length of time for which the extension is being
requested.
d) The Planning Director shall consider arguments for and against the grant
of an extension and shall consider among other things:
1) the economic hardship upon the sign owner and land owner, taking
into consideration the investment cost, the revenue derived, the
estimated life of the sign; and
2) the interest and status of the sign owner or user on the property,
and any immediate changes in the use of the property.
e) If the Planning Director finds that, upon the basis of the evidence
presented, circumstances warrant it, he may grant an extension of time
within which the sign must be removed, not exceeding a total of three
years from the date the sign became non-conforming.
Sec. 8-87.74 ILLEGAL SIGNS SUBJECT TO SUMMARY REmDVAL. Signs and their
supporting members which meet any of the following criteria shall be
considered illegal signs and shall be subject to summary removal:
a) Any signs and their supporting members erected without first complying
with all ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of their
construction, erection or use.
-19-
b) Any signs and their supporting members which were lawfully erected, but
whose use has ceased, or the structure upon which the signs are attached
have been abandoned by their owner, for a period of not less than 90 .
days.
c) Any signs and their supporting members which have been more than 50
percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than facial copy
replacement, and the sign displays are not repaired within 30 days of
the date of their destruction.
d) Any signs and their supporting members whose owners, outside of a change
of copy, request permission to remodel and remodels those sign displays,
or expands or enlarges the buildings or land uses upon which the signs
displays are located, and the sign displays are . affected by the
construction, enlargement or remodeling, or the cost of construction,
enlargement, or remodeling of the sign displays exceeds 50 percent of
the cost of reconstruction of the building.
e) Any signs and their supporting members whose owner seeks relocation
thereof and relocates the sign displays.
f) Any signs and their supporting members for which there has been an
agreement between the sign display owners and the City for their removal
as of any given date and said signs have not been removed by said date.
g) Any signs and their supporting members which are temporary.
h) Any signs and their supporting .members which are or may become a danger
to the public or are unsafe.
i) Any signs and their supporting members which constitute a traffic hazard
not created by relocation of streets or highways or by acts by the city.
Sec. 8-87.80 ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 8-87.81 COMPLIANCE - DECISION OF REVIEWING BODY. No Building Permit may
be issued for a sign until the decision of the reviewing body approving the
application is final. Each sign shall be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the terms and conditions of approval.
Sec. 8-87.82 MAINTEIVA= - REQUIRED. Each sign shall be maintained in a
secure and safe condition. If the City is of the opinion that a sign is
not secure, safe, or in a good state of repair, it shall give written
notice of this fact to the person , responsible for the maintenance of the
sign. If the defect in the sign is not corrected within the time permitted
by the city, the city may revoke the permit to maintain the sign and may
remove the sign in the manner provided in Section 8-87.85.
Sec. 8-87.83 TTLECAL SIGNS - SUMMARY REMOVAL. Illegal Signs, may be removed
in the following manner:
a) The Planning Director shall give written notice to the owner of the
premises as shown in the last equalized assessment roll, or as known to
him, and to each person other than the owner who appears to be in
possession or control of the premises. The notice shall be by certified
-20-
mail addressed to the premises where the violation. exists and to the
property owner at the address shown* on the last equalized assessment
roll. The notice shall contain the following:
1) a general description of the sign which is allegedly in
violation;
2) a copy of the Section of this Chapter which is being
violated;
3) a notice of time and place at which time the owner or the
person responsible may appear and present evidence as to the
absence of a violation.
b) The Planning Director shall hold a hearing at the time and place set
forth in the notice. At the hearing either the owner or the occupant of
the premises, or both, may appear and be heard.
c) If at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Director finds that a
violation of the Sign Ordinance is continuing to exist, then the Zoning
Administrator may order the sign to be summarily removed within a
specified number of days. The Zoning Administrator shall give notice
that if the sign is not removed by the end of the period specified the
City will remove it in accordance with Section 8-87.86.
d) Each person who erects a sign which is subject to removal under this
section is jointly and severally liable for the cost of removal.
e) The City may dispose of the sign sixty days after removal by giving the
owner notice that the owner may redeem the sign by paying the cost of
removal, or if he fails to do so, the City will dispose of the sign as .
it sees fit without further liability to the owner for this action.
Sec. 8-87.85 MEANS OF REMOVAL OF =LEGAL AND/OR NONCONFORMING SIGNS. Unless
some other method of removal is approved by the Building Official in
writing, the removal of illegal and/or nonconforming of signs shall be
accomplished in the following manner:
1) Signs painted on buildings, walls, or fences shall be abated by
the removal of the paint constituting the sign or by painting over
it in such a way that the sign shall not thereafter be visible.
2) - Other signs shall be abated by the removal of the sign, including
its supporting members.
Sec. 8-87.86 VIOLATION-NUISANCE-ABATEMENT. A sign erected or maintained in
violation of this Chapter is a public nuisance, and the City Attorney
shall, upon order of the City Council, commence an action for the abatement
thereof in the manner provided by law. The City may take proceedings for
the abatement of the nuisance and make the cost of abatement a lien and a
special assessment against the property in accordance with Government Code
Section 38773, 38773.5. In addition, the cost of abatement shall be a
personal obligation of the property owner.
-21- .
i
h
Sec. 8-87.87 VIOLATION - PENALTY. A person who violates this Chapter is
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than
one thousand dollars or imprisoned in jail for not more than six months, or
by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day a violation exists is a
separate offense and shall be punished as such.
Sec. 8-87.90 AMENDMENT AND REPEAL, SEVERABILITY
Sec. 8-87.91 AMENDMENT AND REPEAL.
a) The following provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance
Code regarding signs are repealed; 8-20.101 Directional Tract Sign, 8-
22.9 Sign, Advertising, 8-22.9.1 Sign, Apartment Rental, 8-22.10 Sign,
Business, 8-22.10.1 Sign, Community Identification, 8-22.10.2 Sign,
Directional Tract, 8-22.10.3 Sign, Freestanding, 8-22.11 Sign,
Identification, 8-22.11.1 Sign, Pedestrian, 8-22.11.2 Sign, Political,
8-22.11.3 Sign, Projecting, 8-22.12 Sign, Sale or Lease, 8-22.12.1 Sign,
.Subdivision Sale, Rent or Lease, 8-22.12.2 Sign, Service Station Price,
8-22.12.3 Sign, Shopping Center Master Identification, 8-22.12.4 Sign,
.Wall, 8-22.12.5, Sign Wind, 8-22.12.6 Sign, Area, 8-25.4(e) Accessory
Uses: A Districts - Accessory Business Signs, 8-25.7 Signs: A Districts,
8-30.10(a) Other Regulations: R-4 Districts - Identification Sign, 8-
45.8 Signs: H-1 Districts, 8-46.7 Signs: C-0 Districts, 8-46.7.1 Office
Building Master Identification Sign: C-O Districts, 8-47.5 Signs: C-N
Districts, 8-47.5.1 Service Station Sign Display Structure: C-N
Districts, 8-48.2(r) Conditional Uses: C-1 Districts-Advertising Signs,
-8-48.8.1 Business Signs: C-1 Districts, 8-48.8.2 Low Profile Signs: C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.3 Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) : C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.4 Office Building Master Identification Signs: C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.5 Service Station Sign Display Structure: C-1
Districts, 8-49.2(j) Conditional Uses: C-2 Districts - Advertising Sign,
8-49.6.1 Business Signs: C-2 Districts, 8-49.6.2 Low Profile Sign: C-2
Districts, 8-49.6.3 Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) : C-2
Districts, 8-49.6.4 Office Building Master Identification Sign: C-2
Districts, 8-49.6.5 Service Station Display Structure: C-2 Districts,
8-50.8 Signs: M-P Districts, 8-51.3(i) Conditional Uses: M-1 Districts,
8-51.9 Business Signs, Low Profile Sign, Service Station and Sign
Display Structure: M-1 Districts, 8-52.2(b) Conditional Uses: M-2
Districts-Advertising Sign, 8-52.9 Business Signs, Low Profile Sign,
Service Station and Sign Display Structure: M-2 Districts, 8-60.61
Signs, 8-60.65 Signs Permitted, 8-60.65.1 Signs, Conditional Uses, 8-
60.65.2 Abatement of Signs Relating to Inoperative Functions, 8-60.66
Signs Prohibited, -8-60.67 Advertising Signs Adjacent to Scenic Routes,
8-62.10 Nonconforming Signs, 8-62.11 Nonconforming Signs, 8-62.12 Signs
Accessory to Nonconforming Business or Industry, 8-62.13 Signs Accessory
to a Building Located Within ,a Required Yard.
Sec. 8-87.92 SEVERABILITY. If any Section, Subsection, Sentence, Clause, or
Phrase of this Chapter is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
decision does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
Chapter. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Chapter,
each Section, Subsection, Clause or Phrase thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more other Sections, Subsections, Clauses or Phrases
may be declared .invalid or unconstitutional.
-22-
. a
Section 2 Repeal:
The following provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance
Code regarding signs are repealed; 8-20.101 Directional Tract Sign, 8-
22.9 Sign, Advertising, 8-22.9.1 Sign, Apartment Rental, 8-22.10 Sign,
Business, 8-22.10.1 Sign, Community Identification, 8-22.10.2 Sign,
Directional Tract, 8-22.10.3 Sign, . Freestanding, 8-22.11 Sign,
Identification, 8-22.11.1 Sign, Pedestrian, 8-22.11.2 Sign, Political,
8-22.11.3 Sign, Projecting, 8-22.12 Sign, Sale or Lease, 8-22.12.1 Sign,
..Subdivision Sale, Rent or Lease, 8-22.12.2 Sign, Service Station Price,
8-22.12.3 Sign, Shopping Center Master Identification, 8-22.12.4 Sign,
Wall, 8-22.12.5, Sign Wind, 8-22.12.6 Sign, Area, 8-25.4(e) Accessory
Uses: A Districts - Accessory Business Signs, 8-25.7 Signs: A Districts,
8-30.10(a) Other Regulations: R-4 Districts - Identification Sign, 8-
45.8 Signs: H-1 Districts, 8-46.7 Signs: C-0 Districts, 8-46.7.1 Office
Building Master Identification Sign: C-0 Districts, ' 8-47.5 Signs: C-N
Districts, 8-47.5.1 Service Station Sign Display Structure: C-N
Districts, 8-48.2(r) Conditional Uses: C-1 Districts-Advertising Signs,
8-48.8.1 Business Signs: C-1 Districts, 8-48.8.2 Low Profile Signs: C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.3 Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) : C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.4 Office Building Master Identification Signs: C-1
Districts, 8-48.8.5 Service Station Sign Display Structure: C-1
Districts, 8-49.2(j) Conditional Uses: C-2 Districts - Advertising Sign,
8-49.6.1 Business Signs: C-2 Districts, 8-49.6.2 Low Profile Sign: C-2
Districts, 8-49.6.3 Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) : C-2
Districts, 8-49.6.4 Office Building Master Identification Sign: C-2
:Districts, 8-49.6.5 Service Station Display Structure: C-2 Districts,
8-50.8 Signs: M-P Districts, 8-51.3(i) Conditional Uses: M-1 Districts,
8-51.9 Business Signs, Low Profile Sign, Service Station and Sign
Display Structure: M-1 Districts, 8-52.2(b) Conditional Uses: M-2
Districts-Advertising Sign, 8-52.9 Business Signs, Low Profile Sign,
Service Station and Sign Display Structure: M-2 Districts, 8-60.61
Signs, 8-60.65 Signs Permitted, 8-60.65.1 Signs, Conditional Uses, 8-
60.65.2 Abatement of Signs Relating to Inoperative Functions, 8-60.66
Signs Prohibited, 8-60.67 Advertising Signs Adjacent to Scenic Routes,
8-62.10 Nonconforming Signs, 8-62.11 Nonconforming Signs, 8-62.12 Signs
Accessory to Nonconforming Business or Industry, 8-62.13 Signs Accessory
to a Building Located Within a Required Yard.
Section 3 Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance:
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and
after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall
cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of the
Sate of California.
-23-
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on this
14th day of April, 1986, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-24-
CITY OF DUBLIN SIGN ORDINANCE
GRAPHIC APPENDIX
NOTE: . The graphics show illustrative examples only._ , They do not revise or
supersede the text of the Sign- Ordinance. They do not approve nor in
any way endorse any proprietary business or product.
1 . A-FRAME SIGN, PORTABLE SIGN, OR SANDWICH BOARD SIGN
2. BANNER SIGN -_ --
3. C-2-B-40 DIRECTORY SIGN
4. DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGN
5. DIRECTORY SIGN
6. FREE-STANDING SIGN
7. LOW-PROFILE SIGN
8. OPEN HOUSE SIGN
9. PROJECTING SIGN
10. SERVICE STATION SIGN DISPLAY STRUCTURE
.11 . SHOPPING CENTER MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN
12. WALL SIGN
Option 1 - Signs mounted on flat wall surface (tilt-up concrete
panel or equivalent
Option 2 - Signs mounted on wall below roof drip line
Option 3 - Signs mounted on architectural facia or facia insert
Option 4 - Signs mounted on roof beam support
Option 5 - Signs mounted on building wall or parapet .above
roof/walkway cover
Option 6 - Sign mounted on sloping roof (flush-mounted or supported
by bracing or angle bar)
13. WINDOW SIGN
14. CALCULATION OF SIGN AREA
15. PROPORTIONALITY--FREE-STANDING SIGN
16. AGGREGATE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR SIGNS
1 /86
mom
PHICr
... .......
-
.`.rr�_
4. DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGN
NOW HERITAGE
G 0 M x a N S
t
LEFT AT MAC,.N1AU9X
1. A—FRAME SIGN, PORTABLE SIGN, .
OR SANDWICH BOARD SIGN
�1G SAIF -T0® �
5_ DIRECTORY SIGN
DUOLIN PLA=A
A SEPARATE hfnNR 0 HA i2 KfSq-j4,;.+
8 ALBL2R"t5o W. E R jO STAVON6S
QLU90 SQcKaS F MECYYAJS
2. BANNER SIGN
Village Parkway Industrial
2800 — 2950 6. FREE STAN = SIGN
A Energy Coatings TOTAL MD SME
B Custom Circuits p
C Pacific Pipe Co n UM
. D Dunn Engineering
E Marks Transmission 24
3_ C-72—B-40 DIRECTORY SIGN
. r
s
Unleaded Super Diesel
CENTFR
DoNLOR WAY ❑
7. LC W—PROFILE SIGN
10. SERVICE STATION SIGN DISPLAY STRUCTURE
ARRAS
F TY
OPEN
H0
E VILLAUE-�
8. OPEN HOUSE SIGN
11. SHOPPING CENTER MA=
9. PROJECTING SIGN
IDENTIFICATION SIGN
. ALL SIGN
— q l a '�' i d➢C� �� .
�-
I�
�tion 1 - Signs mounted on flat wall Option 4 - Signs mounted on roof beard
surface (tilt-up. concrete support
panel or equivalent
a �
� T.
-,tion 2 - Signs mounted on wall Option 5 - Signs mounted on building
below roof drip line wall 'or parapet above
roof/walkway cover
mad
Lion 3 - Signs mounted on architectural Option 6 - Sign mounted on sloping roof
facia or facia insert (flush-mounted or supported
by bracing or angle bar)
13. WINDOW SIGN
25% MAXIMUM
14. CALLC'UTATION OF SIGN AREA
MAXIMUM 8 SIDES
f
�iBOBs�
D
�CITYi
nil
15. PROPORTIONALITY-FREE-STANDING SIGN
RELATIONSHIP OF SIGN AREAS TO SIGN HEIGHT -
SO jO9
A SIGN BOARD WITH A SIDE-TO-SIDE
RATIO of 3:5 - SOMETIMES REFERRED—,7
TO AS THE "GOLDEN RECTANGLE" \
O FORMS THE RECOMMENDED BASIS FOR
/ V\
SIGN AREA IN RELATION TO SIGN �
HEIGHT.
TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITX IN SIGN
O DESIGN AND ALTERNATE SIDE-TO-SIDE
RATIO OF 5:3 WOULD ALSO BE
CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE.
Calculation ul AggregoLe Allowable Sign Area. Where used in absence of
freestanding signs, the aggregate allowable area for Wall Signs and
Projecting Signs shall not exceed ten percent of the surface area of
15. AGGREGATE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR SIGNS building frontage available for signage for the Primary Building Frontage
d (calculated on a store-front by store-front basis) and shall not exceed
five percent of the surface area of building frontage available for is
signage for the Secondary Building Frontage(s). Where used in
conjunction with Freestanding signs, the aggregate allowable area for
Wall Signs and Projecting Signs shall be reduced by the amount of sign
area used in the Freestanding Sign. Where more than one business
activity is involved, the reduction in aggregate allowable sign area due
to the use of a freestanding sign shall be proportionately assessed on a
pro-rata basis determined by relative Primary Building Frontage lengths.
• � dot G2" Primary Building Frontage. The term Primary Building Frontage shall mean
th e width of the projection of a business building, or establishment
within a building, onto a single straight line chosen by the
establishment, with concurrence from the Planning Director, to be the
Primary Building Frontage and.shall be normally parallel to a lot line
c0 5 or street. A Primary Building Frontage line must lie in a roadway or
Business fll \ public open space area such as.a private street, an open plaza or square
or an
20' auto parking area. A business may have only one Primary Building
�O. Pro Frontage. Any sign area accrued and authorized by a Primary Building
perty Line Frontage may not be attached to any ether building frontage.
' Business N2 ' \ Secondary Building Frontage. The term Secondary Building Frontage shall
mean the width of the projection of a business building, or
establishment within a building, onto a single straight line which 'is
Business //5 either perpendicular to or parallel to the Primary Building Frontage
o 20 line. A Secondary Building Frontage line must lie in a roadway or
public open space area such as a private street, an open plaza or square
15' Business //4 or an auto parking area. A business may have a maximum of two Secondary
/ y5'O. Building Frontages. Any sign area accrued and authorized by one
Secondary Building Frontage may not be attached to any other building
A ` �' Business N3 \ frontage.
Maximum Allowable Slgnage Per Business
Business dl* North Elev. - No signage allowed on this elevation.
East Elev. - 60 sf. (5% x 60' x 20')
n p South Elev. - No signage allowed.
10 O' West Elev. - 120 sf. (10% x 60' x 20')
Se oi' Business 12* North - Not applicable.
Qt
East Elev. - 22.5 sf. (SR x 30' x 15')
{ee� South Elev. - No signage allowed on this elevation.
\� �tl C, West Elev. - 45 af. (10% x 30' x 15')
ly
*Note: No Freestanding Sign present, so all allowable signage tea)
occur as wall or projecting signs.
i
Freestanding Sign
i Business 13** North Elev. - 35 sf. (5x x 35' x 201)
East Elev. - Not applicable.
South Elev. - 70 sf. (10% x 35' x 20')
West Elev. - 50 sf. (5% x 50' x 20')
Business 14** North Elev. _ 35 sf. (5x x 35' x 20')
East Elev. - Not applicable.
South Elev. - 70 sf. (10% x 35' x 20')
West Elev. - Not applicable.
1.
Business 15** North Elev. - 35 sf. (5Z x 35' x 20')
East Elev. - No signage allowed on this elevation.
South Elev. - 70 sf. (10% x 35' x 20')
West Elev. - Not applicable.
€ r*Note: Use of Freestanding Sign requires that allowable signage be
reduced for each business by the amount of sign area used in
the Freestanding Sign. The amount of reduction is
i proportionately assessed to each business on a prorata basis
i calculated upon the respective share of Primary Building
Frontage length.
EXHIBIT "C"
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA
FOR WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGNS
Sec. 8-87 .33 WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGNS.
a) Where used in the absence of Freestanding Signs, the
maximum dimensions of Wall Signs shall be as follows :
1 ) Primary Building Frontage
Maximum Sign Height - l ' -9" for individual letters and
2 ' -0" where a sign can is utilized
Maximum Sign Width - 600 of the business frontage, up to
a maximum width of 24 '
Maximum Sign Area - 72 percent of the surface area of
the building frontage available for
signage (excludes sloping roof area)
up to a maximum area of 42 square
feet, except when a Sign program
covering the property has been
adopted through a Site Development
Review process, whereby the
standards of that adopted program
shall apply.
2 ) Secondary Building Frontage ( s )
Maximum Sign Height - l ' -9" for individual letters and
2 ' -0" where a sign can is utilized
Maximum Sign Width - 10 ' maximum
Maximum Sign Area - 5 percent of the surface area of the
building frontage available for
signage (excludes sloping roof area)
up to a maximum area of 17 . 5 square
feet, except when a Sign program
covering the property has been
adopted through a Site Development
Review process, whereby the
standards of that adopted program
shall apply.
Through the Site Developmnt Review process the maximum sign
area for the Primary Building Frontage and the Secondary
Building Frontage ( s ) may be increased to maximums of 10% and
72% , respectively, of the surface area of the building
frontage available for signage (excludes sloping roof area) .
The maximum sign height and maximum sign width may also be
increased beyond the standards indicated above through the
Site Development Review process . Where projecting signs are
utilized, the maximum allowable area of wall signs shall be
reduced by the amount of sign area used for the projecting
sign( s ) . Where used in conjunction with Freestanding Signs ,
the aggregate allowable area for Wall Signs and Projecting
Signs shall be reduced by the amount of sign area used for the
Freestanding Sign. Where more than one tenant space receives
benefit from the identification provided by the Freestanding
Sign (i .e . , the tenant is specifically identified on the Sign
or the Sign identifies the name of the center) , the reduction
in aggregate allowable sign area due to the use of
Freestanding Sign shall be proportionately assesed to each
tenant space on a prorata basis determined by relative Primary
Building Frontage lengths .
J N
Sf
RESOLUTION NO. 85=053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY -_.OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT REORGANIZED
AND MODIFIED SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission
expressed concern in the Fall of 1982 , regarding the City of
Dublin' s Sign Regulations ; and
WHEREAS, on December 13 , 1982, the City Council
determined a comprehensive review of the City' s Sign Regulations
should be performed and referred the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration; and
WHEREAS, on December 20 , 1982 , the Planning Commission
established a Sign Regulation Committee and charged the Committee
"to rewrite the Sign Regulations to be understandable and to
recommend to the Planning Commission regulations which will
balance the aesthetics of the community at large with the needs of
the business community" ; and
WHEREAS, the Sign Regulation Committee met
approximately twelve times from December, 1982 , to September,
1983 , to review and discuss the Sign Regulations; andt
WHEREAS, on September 19 , 1983 , the Chairman of the
Sign Committee presented the Sign Regulation Committee ' s
recommendations to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on that same date the Planning Commission
suggested some additional revisions to the Sign Regulations and
directed Staff to formally initiate the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
process ; and
WHEREAS, over the two-month period from September 4 ,
1984 , to November 5, 1984 , Staff presented for consideration and
discussion by the Commission at five consecutive Planning
Commission meetings various slide presentations, discussion issue
areas , and case studies pertaining .to the City ' s Sign Regulations ;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered a list of
sign issues and potential solutions at a public hearing on
December 3 , 1984 ; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was provided in all
aspects as required by law and included notification to, and
solicitation of comments from, the approximately 600 businesses in
the City of Dublin as listed on the Chamber of Commerce Member
Roster and Non-Member Roster as compiled by the Dublin Chamber of
Commerce ; and
cow o
2101V
DP -2 0 z�
C® f�W ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, at two subsequent Planning Commission meetings
(December 17, 1984 , and January 7 , 1985) additional discussion on
a total of twelve identified sign issue areas and potential
solutions were discussed with input from Staff and with an
opportunity for public input; and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting of January
7, 1985, the Planning Commission closed the discussion segment of
the Sign Regulation review and directed Staff to return with a
Draft Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a final informational Planning Commission
meeting was held on February 4 , 1985, to discuss State legislation
regarding the amortization of non-conforming signs ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department subsequently prepared
a Draft Sign Ordinance ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Draft
Sign Ordinance at a series of public hearings from May 6, 1985 to .
November 18, 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearings was provided in all
aspects as required by law; including notification for the initial
hearing to the approximately 600 businesses in the City of Dublin
listed on the Chamber of Commerce Member Roster and Non-Member
Roster as compiled by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, said Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment 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
said Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment be given a favorable
recommendation; 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 Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment consolidates the City ' s
Sign Regulations into a concise understandable format; and
2 ) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will provide clearer
direction to the Business Community as to the nature of allowable
signage in the City; and
3 ) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment incorporates amendments to
the existing Ordinance which put into place standards more in
keeping with the nature, siting, and general characteristics of
the Business Community of Dublin; and
4 ) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment implements the purposes,
policies, and programs of the General Plan; and
DP 83-20
5) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will promote reasonable
uniformity among signs and thereby encourage development and use
of signs which are compatible with adjacent land uses and which
protect business sites from loss of prominence resulting from use
of excessive signs on surrounding sites ; and
6) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will provide for the
establishment of signs which attract and direct persons to various
activities and enterprises and which will promote more effective
visual communication for the nature of goods and services
available, in order to .provide for the maximum public convenience;
and
7 ) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will lead to the
enhancement of the economic value of the community through proper
signage and encourage signs which are well designed and pleasing
in appearance and will provide incentive and latitude for variety,
good design, relationship and spacing; and
8) The Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment will serve as an
instrument of law that will be largely self-administrating, help
reduce costly inspections and enforcement proceedings, and allow
for standardized permit procedures .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby acknowledge and authorize additional nonsubtantive text or
format changes to the Draft Sign Ordinance Amendment that may be
prompted by subsequent review and comment of the ordinance by the
City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment relating to Sign Regulations .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November;
1985 .
AYES : Cm. Barnes, Mack, Petty and Raley
NOES : None
ABSENT: Cm. Alexander /X
Lanni ommission Chairma
ATT ST:
Planning Director
DP 83-20
is
t -
,
a .
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
i'
V
RECOMMENDATIONS ON REVISIONS
TO THE
SIGN ORDINANCE
BY THE
SIGN REGULATION COMMITTEE
j
E ,
Rodger Coupe Jr. Co-chairman
Bruce Ring Co-chairman. -
Donald Vesey Member
Albert Lucas Member
Marie Enge Alternate
Larry Tong Planning Director
John Alexander Planning Commissioner
September 6, 1983
am
19 Rpm=
HML y.
2..
t irr
s.
, . ESL Kk t
• ,., .... �'^ ."j, a ",,7^i�.`!".i' n-'r } u+.c•L zn+.-r, 1. ra, _ � rry,s^7 n: ..
DUBLIN SIGN REGULATION COMMITTEE
DATE: September 6, 1983 '
TO: . MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DUBLIN SIGN REGULATION COMMITTEE
This report is presented to the Planning Commission for the primary . purpose of
presenting suggested revisions to the existing sign ordinance.
Included in this report is a brief history and statement of purpose for the Sign
Committee and copies of correspondence, agendas and minutes of the Committee meetings.
These items are presented in order to form a permanent record of the workings of the
Committee and to present background information as to how recommendations and decisions
were arrived at.
It is the Committee's hope that the information presented herein and the work
performed by the Committee over the past seven months meets the expectations of the
Planning Commission and can be used as a foundation for the writing and adoption of a
sign ordinance which will-in fact, "balance the esthetics of the community at large with
the needs of the business community."
Special thanks from the Committee goes to Lorraine Barker of Creegan & D'Angelo
for the typing of the agendas, minutes and reports.
Respectfully,
THE DUBLIN SIGN REGULATION COMMITTEE
Rodger C pe Jr. Bruce King
Co-chairman Co-chairman V
Donald Vesey Albert Lucas
2
s
5
.....o.........,. n.- ._('.r r x ,... "�':5. ''n '"ter, t?.'• t ;Y'C�.v_*,*F ,:`t;.,'i5nc+It .5 { •c a n ' -
b.
x.
t
f'
In response to the concerns of the City Staff, elected officials and the community
°. at large, the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, at its December 20, 1982 meeting,
t_
established an advisory committee to study and make recommendations concerning the
s:
existing Dublin Sign Ordinance and the regulation of signs in general within the City of
Dublin.
'r
The Committee, as appointed, was comprised of three business persons and two
t
private citizens from the community. Planning Commissioner, John Alexander, acted as
an advisory member of the Committee, and Larry Tong, Planning Director for the City,
acted as staff advisor to the Committee.
The Committee, as appointed, was as follows:
Albert Lucas, Businessperson, Peg's Quality Look
t.
Bruce King, Businessperson, aActive Sign Service
Rodger Coupe, Businessperson, Creegan & D'Angelo, Consulting Engineers
Donald Vesey, private citizen
Beth Grant-DeRoos, private citizen
In establishing the Committee, the Planning Commission's charge as to the purpose
of the Committee was:
"To rewrite the sign regulations to be understandable, and to recommend, to the
Planning Commission, sign regulations which will balance the esthetics of the community
at large with the needs of the business community,"
The Committee adopted the name Dublin Sign Regulation Committee at its first
meeting on January 4, 1983. Also at that meeting a chairman and co-chairman were
elected and the approach that the Committee would take was decided upon.
In summary, the procedures that were adopted were as follows.
1. No attempt would be made by the Committee to produce a verbatum sign ordinance.
Rather, the Committee would produce recommendations as to the content and format
of the suggested ordinance.
'K f
F
�t
.. M-. 'X 'x::?, ,�` :.). .., Cr�4�7.`�.c %.:r 1., .. xj;,•3 i'+ .. ..,?�T.a .._ i... ..._ .. ,
1.,
•� T m
2, A tentative completion date of May 2, 1983 was established.
3. Committee meetings would be held every other Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.
4. Method of Approach:
A. Study existing Dublin Sign Ordinance
t . B. Analyze the ordinance in relation to existing signs
I
C. Study sign ordinances from other neighboring communities
D. Establish and discuss recommendations
E. Prepare final report
Following the procedures established above, the Committee met between January 4,
F 1983 and July 6, 1983. The results of the Committee's work is contained in the
F. Recommendations section of this report.
s
V'.
•�F
}
r
"a
va
1
w r :�
a„
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations contained herein have been a result of several months of effort
' on the part of the Dublin Sign Regulation Committee.
In general, it was agreed that the present sign ordinance, when compared with
ordinances of other communities, appears to be liberal in the amount of signage allowed,
but not objectionable when viewed from the perspective of community aesthetics.
r�
The main problem with the current ordinance appears to be one of format, organization
and wording. Thus, the most important recommendation which the Committee can make
•� .
is that the ordinance be rewritten in a more understandable manner and that graphics be
a�
4; included to further clarify points which are difficult to make by words alone.l In the
q
,kr pursuing pages of this report we are presenting what we feel to be a good format for a
a
sign ordinance, along with thoughts on certain sections of the ordinance and specific
y
concerns.
The existing ordinance rewritten in the manner indicated herein, we feel will result
in a easily understandable technical sign ordinance. Of much concern to the Committee
-
was the manner in which the more subjective regulation of aesthetics of sign design should
be.addressed. Throughout the course of our work, the subject of establishing a design
,,. review committee to review sign aesthetics came up several times. We could not, however,
4; estiblish a unified stand on the subject. It was therefore felt that as part of our
recommendations we suggest that the Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff
CQnSider the pros and cons of a design review committee and form their own conclusions.
T
ca+,•
r�• Sign Ordinance of the City of Concord and Sign
`'._C?tdinanee Provisions, Sign Users Council of California
=;
w�;r
z
+^^f 1!Y
�! 1T '1i•'.T
III
}I I) ��'
i
Probably the most controversial topic which was discussed by the Committee was =
that of the "A frame" or "sandwich board" signs. The Committee unanimously decided to
recommend prohibiting such signs within the City of Dublin. This recommendation was
made, however, only after careful analysis of the problem and possible alternative solutions.
After investigating the "sandwich board" sign .problem, the Committee .felt that the
area which would be the most affected by prohibition of these signs would be the Village
Parkway corridor. Upon further analysis, it was discovered that all but a few parcels in
the City could qualify for low profile signs under the existing ordinance. The Committee
felt that parcels which could not meet the requirements for low profile signage, (notably
the 100' lot frontage requirement) be encouraged to apply for a variance and that the
X•qY�
City be liberal in granting these variances in accordance with good design practices, for
parcels in existence on a specific date chosen by the Planning Commission.
z
Probably the most pronounced technical change which the Committee is recommending
to the ordinance is the combining of zoning districts into groups which the Committee
feels have similar usages. The purpose of combining these districts is to provide uniform
signing regulations for uniform types of land usage.
More specific technical recommendations follow this summary.
,g
4
h
i,
{
r�
� r
1,
iF
j• aa��
,�
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE FORMAT
1.0 Table of Contents
2,0 Purpose, Introduction and Statement of Objectives
3.0 Permitted or Exempt Signs
4.0 Permits (Applications & Fees)
5.0 Definitions
6.0 Prohibited Signs
7.0 Regulations by Zoning District
8.0 Design, Construction, Maintenance and Landscape
9.0 Variances and Appeals
10.0 Sion Removal (For Non-Current, Unsafe, etc.)
11.0 Amortization Schedule for Non-Conforming Signs
r
i'
YA TABLE OF CONTENTS
The table of contents should be complete and well organized. It should allow the
reader to rapidly identify and find the topic which is of concern. An example of a
typical entry would be as follows:
Example -
7.0 ' Regulations by Zoning District
7.1 Summary of Section
7.2 (A) Agricultural Zoning District
•7.21 Signs Allowed
7.22 Size & Dimensions
2.0 PURPOSE, INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following purposes should be included within this section:
1. To implement the purposes, policies and programs of the General Plan.
2. To promote reasonable uniformity among signs by controLing their size, number,
height, location and maintenance.
3. To promote more effective visual communications for the nature of the goods
and services available.
4. To enhance the economic value of the community-through proper signage, to
encourage good sign design, and to reduce the clutter among signs. -
5. To provide an instrument of law that will be 'self-administer
in o costly
inspections and enforcement proceedings, and all ow for standardized permit
procedures.
6. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community through regulation
and control of signage.
Included also should be a statement as to the authority by which this ordinance is
enacted and enforced.
/PERMITTED OR EXEMPT SIGNS
It is recommended that the following signs be exempt from regulation under the
ordinance.
1. Mailbox I.D., house numbers, street names, "no trespass" and other warning signs.
2. Official public signs or notices
3. Courtesy signs that identify a benefactor, location of historic interest designated
historic by a Historical Landmarks Committee, statue or monument, subject to
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
4. The flag, pennant, or insignia of any nation or association of nations, or of
any state, city, or' other political unit, or of any charitable, educational,
philanthropic, civic, professional or religious organization, subject to approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
4.0 PER�Sd.ITS (APPLICATIONS & FEES)
It is recommended that this section be kept general 'in order to allow for changes in
the application process. '
5.0 DEFINITIONS
In preparing this section of the ordinance it is felt that three thoughts should be
kept in mind: -
:: . 1. ' Arrange definitions in alphabetical order
T.
_ .
2. Write definitions in dear common terms so that they can be easily understood.
-3. Provide graphic examples of signs to further clarify the definitions. ^
One definition which the Committee felt important enough for specific mention in
this report was "roofline". The following is the recommended definition:
Roofline: The top edge of the roof or top -of the parapet, whichever forms the too
line of the building silhouette.
/PROHIBITED NS ed that the following signs be prohibited under the sign ordinance:
1. Flashing, intermittent or moving signs
2. Moving message board signs
3. Wind signs - exempt are flags of nations, states or cities, subject to approval
of the Zoning Administrator
4. Sandwich board signs, "A" Frame signs and portable ground signs
5. Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer on a right-of-way or property, unless
the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used in its normal business capacity
and not for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business.
7.0 REGULATIONS BY ZONING DISTRICT
In terms of general recommendations, it is recommended that the wording of this
section be clarified and that examples should be included where their presence will clarify
the intent of the ordinance.
It is recommended that certain zoning districts be combined for the purpose of sign
regulation to insure uniform signing regulations for uniform uses. The following zoning
district grouping is recommended:
1. A - Agricultural
2. R-1,R-2 & R-S - Residential
3. PD - Planned DeveloQment
4. H-1,C-1,C-2 & M-1 Retail_Business, Commercial,-Light Industrial _
5. C-0 - Administrative Office
6. C-N -"Neighborhood Business
It is recommended that the sign areas and sizes currently allowed be maintained. It
is recommended, however, that the height of freestanding signs be a maximum of 15 feet,
but not to exceed the roofline, whichever is lower.
/DESIGN, RUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND -LANDSCAPE ould refer to the Building Code for design and construction
requirements. It is also recommended that a statement covering maintenance, safety and
aesthetics be included under this section and that the landscape requirements be
strengthened and defined more clearly. _
9.0. VARIANCES AND APPEALS
It is recommended that the procedure for obtaining "a variance be referred to the
Zoning Administrator, but that the procedures for 'appeal of decisions be outlined in this
section of the ordinance.
. 10.0 SIGN REMOVAL (For Non-current, unsafe uses, abandoned uses, etc.)
It is recommended that the section addressing sign removal, which is in the current
ordinance, be maintained in a new ordinance.
11.0 AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE FOR NON-CONFORMING SIGNS
It is recommended that the ordinance contain an amortization schedule for replacement
of signs which become non-conforming as a result of ordinance changes. Detoils of this
schedule should be worked out by the City. A distinction should be made in the definitions
sections of the ordinance between illegal and non-conforming signs.
CITY OF DUBLIN SIGN REGULATIONS
8-20.101 DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGN. Direction 'Tract Sign means a temporary
sign not exceeding 24 square feet in area and 15' in height and containing
only the name and location of a subdivision and directions for reaching
same. For the purposes of Section 8-93.0, Directional Tract Sign as
defined herein is a Principal Use.
8-22.9 SIGN, ADVERTISING. The term Advertising Sign shall mean any
lettered or pictorial matter or device which advertises or informs about a
business organization or event, goods, products, services or uses, not
available on the property upon which the sign is located and does not
include Directional Tract Sign or Community Identification Sign.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.9.1 SI&N APARTMENT RENTAL. The term Apartment Rental Sign shall mean
a temporary sign located on a site to advertise for initial occupancy of
new apartment complexes.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.10 SIGN, BUSINESS. The term Business Sign shall mean any lettered,
figured or pictorial matter or device which serves to identify and indicate
pertinent facts concerning a business, professional service, manufacturing
or industrial exterprise lawfully conducted on the same premises. The term
excludes the advertisement of products not handled or services not
available on the premises.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.10.1 SIGN, COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION. The term Community Identification
Sign shall mean a sign serving to identify or otherwise describe a city or
an unincorporated community. Community Identification Signs are regulated
by Section 8-60.65.1.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1; based on sec. 1, Ord. 68-29)
8-22.10-2 SIGN, DIRECTIONAL TRACT. The term Directional Tract Sign shall mean
a temporary sign containing only the name and location of a subdivision and
directions for reaching the same. For the purposes of Section 8-93.0
Directional Tract Sign as defined herein is a Principal Use.
(Based on sec. 1, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.10-3 SIGN, FREESTANDING. The term Freestanding Sign shall mean a sign
supported from the ground by a structure installed primarily for the
purpose of supporting the sign. A sign attached to or painted on a fence
shall be considered a freestanding sign.
(Based on Sec. 1, Ord. 74-1) r
8-22.11 SIGN, IDENTrIFICATION. The term Identification Sign shall mean a sign
or device on the premises which serves exclusively to designate the name or
the name and use of a public or semi-public building, or of a Community
-1- 4/85
r
L) ATT C
Facility, Medical or; Residential Care Facility, Multiple Dwelling or
Dwelling Group, or Mobilehome Park, or to inform the public as to the use
of a lawful parking area, recreation area, or other open use permitted in
the District. The term, may include bulletin boards for churches or
auditoriums.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.11.1 SIGN, PEDESTRIAN. The term Pedestrian Sign shall mean any
lettered, figured, or pictorial matter or device which is oriented towards
pedestrian traffic and serves to identify and indicate pertinent facts
concerning a business or professional service lawfully conducted on the
same premises.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.11-2 SIGN, POLITICAL. The term Political Sign shall mean a sign placed
on the premises for the sole pupose of advocating the election of a
declared candidate for public office, or relating to an election
proposition on the ballot.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22-11.3 SIGN, PROJECTING. The term Projecting Sign shall mean a sign
which projects twelve inches or more beyond the wall or other vertical
surface of the building or structure to which it is attached.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22-12 SIGN, SALE OR LEASE. The term Sale or Lease Sign shall mean a
sign which serves exclusively to indicate, with pertinent information the
offer for sale or lease of the real property or premises upon which it is
located, or the original sale or lease of the real property in a tract or
subdivision upon which the sign is located. A Directional Tract Sign when
not located in the tract or subdivision shall not be deemed to be a Sale or
Lease Sign.
8-22-12.1 SIGN, SUBDIVISION SALE, RENT OR LEASE. The term Subdivision
Sale, Rent or Lease Sign shall mean a temporary sign located within the
boundaries of a subdivision to advertise the original sale, rental, or
lease of building lots or &,iellings.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22-12.2 SIGN, SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGN. The term Service Station Price
Sign shall mean a sign indicating gasoline prices and available services
when accessory to an existing service station.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.12.3 SIGN, SHOPPING CENTER MASTER IDENTIFICATION. The term Shopping
Center Master Identification Sign shall mean an on-site identification sign
for a shopping center.
-2- 4/85
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.12.4 SIGN, FALL. The term Wall Sign shall mean a sign attached to,
erected against or painted on a building or similar structure, and not
extending above .or outward from the building face or parapet or structural
canopy more than twelve inches. Additionally, signs not extending more
than 30 inches from a wall parapet or roof, located below the height of the
roof of the building to which they are affixed, may be considered a Wall
Sign if approved by Site Development Review pursuant to Section 8-95.0 of
this chapter.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
8-22-21.5 SIGN, WIM. The term Wind Sign shall mean flags, banners, pennants
or other similar devices which consist of any material made in any shape,
which are fastened together or placed in such manner as to move by wind
pressure.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-22.12.6 SIGN, AREA. The term Sign Area shall mean and be computed as, the
entire area within a single continuous rectilinear perimeter of not more
than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of the sign;
provided that in the case of a sign with more than one exterior surface
containing sign copy, the sign area shall be computed as the sum of all
exterior faces. Any structure or part of a structure which departs from
standard architectural procedures in an attempt to attract attention to the
premises by reason of color scheme, building shape or unusual architectural
features shall be considered sign area and subject to all pertinent
regulations. Where two Advertising Signs are located on the same
supporting members and the two faces of the signs are at no point more than
two (2) feet from one another, each face shall be considered a single sign.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
-3- 4/85
8-25.4 ACCESSORY USES: A DISTRICTS. When- located in an A District, and
subordinate to a lawful Use, the following Accessory Uses, in addition to
those normally accessory to a Dwelling are permitted:
e) Accessory Business Signs not exceeding an aggregate area of
twenty (20) square feet; having no moving parts or
illumination;
8-25.7 SIGNS: A DISTRICTS. No sign in an A District shall be
illuminated. No more than two (2) Sale or Lease signs shall be placed on
any Lot, and no such sign shall have an area in excess of twenty-four (24)
square feet, except in conformance with Section 8-60.58 and 8-60.59
(Subdivision) . In other respects, Section 8-60.1 shall control.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 72-29)
8-30.10 OTHER REGULATIONS: R-4 DISTRICTS. The following regulations
shall also apply in R-4 Districts:
a) One Identification Sign is permitted a multiple dwelling or a
dwelling group in an R-4 District, but shall not be illuminated,
nor have an area in excess of twelve (12) square feet.
(See also Section 8-60.59 and 8-60.63)
8-45.8 SIGNS: H-1 DISTRICTS. Signs permitted subject to Section 8-60.68.
Size: Area of all signs not to exceed two (2) square feet for each one
(1) lineal foot of Primary Building Frontage and one (1) square
foot for each (1) lineal foot of Secondary Building;Frontage, up
to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet for each business,
provided that each business is guaranteed fifty (50), square feet
of sign area.
Type: Business Signs.
Location: Wall Signs.
Freestanding Signs as follows: no more than one (1)
Freestanding Sign shall be permitted for each lot, twenty-five
(25) feet maximum height, one hundred fifty (150) square feet
maximum total area.
Character: No sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain moving
parts, or be located so as to be directed towards lands in any
adjacent R District.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-46.7 SIGNS: C-0 DISTRICT. Signs permitted subject to Section 8
60.68.
Type: Business Signs.
Size: Area of all signs not to exceed one (1) square foot for each two
(2) lineal feet of either Primary Building Frontage or Secondary
Building Frcnage, up to a maximum of fifty (50) square feet for
each business, provided, however, that each business is
guaranteed twenty-five (25) square feet of sign area.
Location: Wall Signs only.
-4- 4/85
Character: No signs shall be flashing or intermittent; contain moving
parts, or be located so as to be' directed towards lands in any
adjacent R District.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-46.7.1 OFFICE BUILDING MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN: C-0 DISTRICTS. In
addition to signs permitted by Section 8-46.7 but subject to Section 8-
60.68 and as qualified below an office building may be permitted an Office
Building Master Identification Sign, subject to Site Development Review --
pursuant to Section 8-95.0. The Office Building Master Identification Sign
shall be architectural harmony with the design of the buildings intended to
be identified, if wall-mounted by its design as an integral part of the
wall of the building to which it is attached and if freestanding then
limited to a low-profile sign not exceeding eight (8) feet in height with
its means of support concealed and located 'within a planter of appropriate
dimension. The Office Building Master Identification Sign shall not exceed
fifty (50) square feet in area, shall be permitted for office building
which contains no less than four (4) tenants or any institutional use, and
the copy shall include only the name of the office complex or institutional
use.
8-47.5 SIGNS: C-N DISTRICT. Signs permitted subject to.Section 8-60.68.
Type: Business Signs
Size: Area of all signs not to excced one (1) square foot for each one
(1) lineal foot of either Primary Building Frontage or Secondary
Building Frontage, up to a maximum of one hundred (100) square
feet for each business; provided, however, that twenty-five (25)'
square feet is guaranteed to each business.
Location: Wall Signs only.
Character: No sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain moving parts,;
or be located so as to be directed towards lands in any adjacent
R District.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-47.5.1 SERVICE STATION SIGN DISPLAY STRUCTURE: C-N DISTRICT. Subject to
Section 8-60.68, one Service Station Sign Display Structure, 32 square feet
total area or when combined with the Service Station Price Sign permitted
by Section 8-60.65(p) , 64 square feet total for the entire structure, Such
sign shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. The Business Sign portion
shall be included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted on the
property; however the supporting members and design elements shall not be
soincluded and the sign may be freestanding and may be located within a
required yard. Every such sign shall be subject to Site Development Review
pursuant to Section 8-95.0.
(Based on sec. 1, Ord. 75-80; amended by sec. 1, Ord. 76-11)
8-48.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-1 DISTRICTS. The following are Conditional
Uses in C-1 Districts and shall be permitted only if approved by the Zoning
Administrator as provided in Section 8-94.0.
r) Advertising Signs, provided that no single sign shall be
flashing or intermittent, contain moving parts or be located so
as to be directed towards lands in any adjacent R-District.
-5- 4/85
8-48.8.1 BUSINESS SIGNS: C-1 DISTRICTS. Business Signs are permitted
according to EITHER of the following two options that if one option is
used, the right to the use of the other is waived.
Option 1: Wall Signs and Projecting Signs.
Size: Area of all signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each
one (1) lineal foot of Primary Building Frontage for the first
one hundred (100) feet of Primary Building Frontage and one (1)
square foot for each one (1) lineal foot of Primary Building
Frontage thereafter; plus one (1) square foot for each one (1)
lineal foot of Secondary Building Frontage; provided, however,
that twenty-five (25) square feet is guaranteed each Frontage by
this provision.
Type and location: Wall Signs are permitted. only one (1) projecting sign
shall be permitted for each business subject to the conditions
(1) that said projecting sign shall not extend from the front
wall to which it is attached a distance greater than seven
percent (7o) of the Business Building Frontage or five (5) feet,
whichever is less; and (2) that said projecting sign shall be
located within the middle one-third (1/3) of the front wall of
the business building to which it is attached.
Option II: Wall Signs and Freestanding Signs:
Size: Area of all signs shall not exceed one and one-half (12) square
feet for each lineal foot or lot frontage on an approved street
at the front lot line. The total sign area of any one sign
shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet and no wall
sign(s) shall be utilized so as to exceed frontage ratios
contained in this Section. No business sign shall be limited by
this Section to less than twenty-five (25) square feet.
Type and Location: Wall signs are permitted. Only one (1) freestanding
sign shall be permitted for each lot subject to the conditions
that: (1) said freestanding sign shall be located in a planter
of appropriate dimension: (2) said freestanding sign shall be
located within the middle one-third (1/3) of the street frontage
when said freestanding sign is within twenty (20) feet of said
street frontage: (3) said freestanding sign shall be a maximum
of ten (10) feet high and have a maximum area of thirty (30)
square feet, provided that for each one (1) foot that said
freestanding sign is set back from the nearest street frontage
the maximum height may be increased by one-half (2) foot and the
area may be increased five (5) square feet; (4) said
freestanding sign shall not in any case exceed thirty-five (35)
feet in height. A sign for a service station may be combined
with a Service Station Price Sign as permitted by Section 8-
60.65(p) . and the area of the combined sign may exceed these
height-area-setback regulations by thirty-two (32) square feet.
Character: No sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain moving parts,
or be located so as to be directed towards lands in any adjacent
R District.
8-48-8.2 LOW PROFILE SIGN: C-1 DISTRICTS: Subject to Section 8-60.68, one
Law Profile Sign, twenty-four (24) square feet maximum area, six (6) feet
maximum height, may be constructed on a lot with no less than 100 lineal
feet of lot frontage on an approved street at the front lot line. The sign
-6- 4/85
area shall be included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted on the
property. The supporting members and design. elements shall not be included
in the computation of the sign area and the sign may be located within a
required yard. Every such sign shall be subject to Site Development Review
pursuant to Section 8-95.0.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
8-48.8.3 SHOPPING CENTER MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN(S) : C-1 DISTRICTS. In
addition to those signs permitted by Section 8-48.8.1, each shopping
center, subject to Section 8-60.68 and as qualified below, may be permitted
Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) subject to Site Development
Review, pursuant to Section 8-95.0 to assure conformance to established or
proposed design theme of the shopping center signing program. The Shopping
Center Master Identification Sign shall be located at one or more main
entrances to the shopping center, shall not exceed 100 square feet in area,
shall not exceed 25 feet in height, and shall be permitted for shopping
centers which contain no less than twenty (20) separate tenants. The
Shopping Center Master Identification Sign shall not advertise or identify
any tenant of the Shopping Center and shall be located in a. planter of
appropriate dimension.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-48.8.4 OFFICE BUILDING MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN: C-1 DISTRICTS. In
addition to those signs permitted by Section 8-48.8.1, each office
building, subject to Section 8-60.68 and as qualified below, may be
permitted an Office Building Master Identification Sign, subject to Site
Development Review pursuant to Section 8-95.0. The Office Building Master
Identification Sign shall be in architectural harmony with the design of
the buildings intended to be identified, if wall-mounted by its design as
an integral part of the wall of the building to which it is attached, and
if freestanding then limited to a low-profile. sign not exceeding eight (8)
feet with its means of support concealed and located within a planter of
appropriate dimension. The Office Building Master Identification Sign
shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, shall be permitted for
office building which contains no less than four (4) tenants or any
institutional use, and the copy shall include only the name of the office
building or institutional use.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord.74-1)
8-48-8.5 SERVICE STATION SIGN DISPLAY STRUCTURE: C-1 DISTRICTS. A Service
Station Display Structure is permitted in accordance with Section 8-47.5.1
on a Service Station S4 Lte in lieu of the Low Profile Sign otherwise
permitted.
(Based on Sec. 1, Ord. 75-80)
8-49.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-2 DISTRICTS. In addition to the uses listed
in Section 8-60.60 and 8-61.0 the following are Conditional Uses in C-2
Districts and shall be permitted only if approved by the Zoning
Administrator as provided Section 8-94.0:
-7- 4/85
j) Advertising Sign, provided that no single sign shall exceed three
hundred (300) feet in area and no sign shall be flashing or
intermittent, contain moving parts or be located so as to be
directed towards lands in any adjacent R-District.
8-49.6.1 BUSINESS SIGNS: C-2 DISTRICTS. Business Signs are permitted
subject to Section 8-60.68 and Section 8-48.8.1.
(Based on Sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-49.6.2 LOW PROFILE SIGN: C-2 DISTRICTS. A Low Profile Sign is permitted
in accordance with Section 8-48.8.2.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
8-49.6.3. SHOPPING CEN= MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN(S) : C-2 DISTRICTS.
Shopping Center Master Identification Sign(s) are permitted subject to
Section 8-60.68 and Section 8-48.8.3.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-49.6.4 OFFICE BUILDING MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN: C-2 DISTRICTS.
Office Building Master Identification Signs are permitted subject to
Section 8060.68 and Section 8-48.4.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-49.6.5 SERVICE STATION DISPLAY STRUCTURE: C-2 DISTRICTS. A Service
Station Sign Display Structure in accordance with Section 8-47.5.1 on a
Service Station site in lieu of the Low Profile Sign otherwise permitted.
(Based on sec. 1, Ord. 75-80)
8-50.8 SIGNS: M-P DISTRICTS. Business Signs are permitted provided they
are Wall Signs which are made structurally and architecturally a part of a
Building, up to an aggregate area not in excess of eighty (80) square feet
per Building Site. No sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain
moving parts, or be located so as to be directed toward lands in any
.adjacent R. District.
8-51.3 CONDITIONAL USES: M-1 DISTRICTS. In addition to the uses listed in
Section 8-60.60 and 8-61.0 the following are Conditional Uses in an M-1
District, and shall be permitted only if approved by the Zoning
Administrator, pursuant to Section 8-94.0:
i) Advertising Sign, provided that no single sign shall exceed three
hundred (300) feet in area, and except as regulated by Section 8-
60.67, and no sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain
moving parts, or be located so as to be directed towards lands in
any adjacent R-District;
8-51.9 BUSINESS SIGNS, LCW PROFILE SIGN, SERVICE STATION AND SIGN DISPLAY
STRUCTURE: M-1 DISTRICTS. Business signs, Low Profile sign, and Service
Station Sign Display Structure are permitted subject to Section 8-60.68 and
Section 8-47.5.1, Section 8-48.8.1, Section 8-48.8.2 and Section 8-48.8.5.
-8- 4/85
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
8-52.2 CONDITIONAL USES: M-2 DISTRICTS. In addition to the uses listed
in Section 8-60.60 and 8-61.0, the following are Conditional Uses in an M-2
District and shall be permitted only if approved by the Zoning
Administrator, as provided in Section 8-94.0:
b) Advertising Sign, provided that no single sign shall exceed three
hundred (300) square feet in area, and except as regulated by Section
8-60.67 and 8-60.68, and no sign shall- be flashing or intermittent, -
contain moving parts, or be located so as to be directed toward lands in
any adjacent R District;
8-52.9 BUSINESS SIGNS, LOW PROFILE SIGN, SERVICE STATION AND SIGN DISPLAY
STRUCTURE: M-2 DISTRICTS. Business Signs, Low Profile Sign, and Service
Station Sign Display Structure are permitted subject to Section 8-60.68,
and Section 8-47.5.1, Section 8-48.8.1; Section 8-48.8.2 and Section 8-
48.8.5.
(Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
8-60.61 SIGNS. For the purpose of this Chapter, additional types of signs are
distinguished and defined and shall be subject to the regulations specified
for each. The word "illuminated" when used in reference to signs shall
mean giving forth direct artificial light, and shall not refer to light
cast upon a sign from an outside source. Where the aggregate area of signs
is limited, all faces of a sign shall be included in the calculation.
Where two advertising Signs are located on the same supporting members and
the two faces of the signs are at no point more than two (2) feet from one
another, each face shall be considered a single sign.
(Based on sec. 1, Ord. 69-33)
8-60.65 SIGNS. Permitted. The following signs are permitted in any District
and may be located in required yards, other sign control provisions
notwithstanding; and need not be included in any computation of permitted
aggregate sign area.
a) Official public signs or notices or any Temporary notice posted by a
public officer in the performance of his duty;
b) House numbers, mail box identification, street names, "no trespass"
signs, and other warning signs;
c) Courtesy signs identifying a benefactor, a location of historic
interest, or a statue or monument;
d) Any sign which has been determined by the Historical Landmarks Committee
for Alameda County to have significant historical merit;
e) One (1) Name Plate two (2) square feet maximum area and shall not be
illuminated;
f) Pedestrian Signs:
a) Must be suspended from a canopy over over a sidewalk which is
directly in front of the door of the business thereby identified;
-9- 4/85
b) Must be perpendicular to the business building wall;
c) Must not be more than 10 square feet in area if double faced, 5
square feet in area if single-faced;
d) Must provide a minimum of 8 foot clearance to the sidewalk below;
e) Are limited to one per business per building elevation.
g.) Signs serving to direct the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
with (8) square feet per sign, except pavement markings which are not so
restricted as to maximum area;
h) Temporary non-structure signs promoting public health, safety, or "-
welfare programs and activities; eight square feet aggregate area per
lot;
i) Temporary Political Sign(s) eighteen (18) square feet aggregate to area
per lot;
j) Sale or lease sign, with two (2) signs permitted per lot, six (6) square
feet minimum, area per sign and shall not be illuminated ; provided,
however, that sale or lease signs in any C or M District shall not
exceed 24 square feet. One such sign may be placed for each 100 feet of
street frontage.
k) Subdivision Sale, Rent or Lease Sign, to advertise the original sale,
rent or lease of buildings or lots in connection with a subdivision
development sixty-four (64) square feet plus one additional, sign of like
dimension for each thirty-five (35) lots or buildings for sale, rent or
lease, twenty (20) feet maximum height, and shall not be illuminated,
1) Apartment Rental Sign, for apartment complexes of no less than 5
dwelling units, one sign, thirty-two (32) , square feet maximum area,
ten (10) feet maximum height, shall not be illuminated , and shall be
removed when initial occupancy occurs within eighty percent (80%) or
more of the dwelling units;
m) A bulletin board used to display announcements relative to meetings held
on the premises of a church, school, auditorium, or other place of
public assembly, twenty-four (24) square feet in area, unless otherwise
approved under a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Site Development
Review, attached to the wall or regulated as to height by those
limitations on fences and hedges contained in Section 8-60.65;
n) A directory or other exclusively informational listing of tenants' names
attached to the wall at the entrance of a building, or if freestanding,
regulated as to height by those limitations on fences and hedges
contained in Section 8-60.55, and other provisions of this Section
notwithstanding, may not be located within a required front or street
side yard, twelve (12) square feet maximum aggregate area;
o) Identification' Sign, twenty-four (24) square feet maximum area unless
otherwise approved under a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Site
Development Review or if freestanding regulated as to height by those
limitations on fences, walls, and hedges contained in Section 8-60.55;
-10- 4/85
p) Not more than two Service Station Price Signs .thirty-two (32) square
feet maximum aggregate area, six (6)� feet maximum height, and may be =
attached to and made part of Service Station Sign Display .Structure
pursuant to Section 8-48.8.5;
q) Signs located inside a building or structure, provided any such sign is
neither attached to windows with its sign copy visible from the outside
not otherwise so located inside so as to be conspicuously visible and
readable without intentional and deliberate effort from outside the
building or structure, provided, however, that any sign or signs which
in the aggregate have an area not exceeding 25% of the window area which
they are viewed are also permitted and need not be included in any
computation of permitted aggregate sign area.
8-60.65.1 SIGNS, CCNDITIONAL USES. Except where signs are listed as
permitted uses, the following are Conditional Uses in any District, may be
located in required yards, and shall be permitted only if approved as
provided in Section 8-94.0:
a) Directional Tract Sign, twenty-four (24) square feet, fifteen (15)
maximum height, shall not be illuminated, and shall not be located
within six hundred sixty (660) feet of an Interstate Freeway.
b) Community Identification Sign, one hundred twenty (120) square feet,
twenty (20) feet maximum height, shall be located within one thousand
(1,000) feet of the corporation boundary of the community to which the
sign refers, illumination shall not be intermittent and sign copy shall
be limited to:
1) The name of the Post Office or offices serving the area; and/or
p community in which the sign is located.
.2) Information relating to the service clubs active in the area;
3) Community slogans or mottos;
. 4) Directional information;
c) Identification Sign, twenty-four (24) square feet, eight (8) feet
maximum height.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-60.65.2 ABATEMENT OF SIGNS RELATIN3 TO INOPERATIVE FUNCTIONS. Signs
pertaining to enterprises or occupants that are no longer using a property
shall be removed from the premises or sign copy on such signs shall be
obliterated, within thirty days after the associated enterprise or occupant
has vacated the premises. Other signs of a temporary nature (including
political signs) shall be removed within fifteen days following the event
or election or other' purpose served by the sign in the first instance.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 74-1)
8-60.66 SIGNS PROHIBITED. Except in conformance with Section 8-60.59 and
8-60.60 no Advertising Sign is permitted in any A or R District (Repealed
by sec. 1, Ord. 74-1) .
-11- 4/85
8-60.67 ADVERTISING SIGNS ADJACENT TO SCENIC ROUTES. Notwithstanding
other provisions of this Chapter, and except for routes where a Scenic
Route Corridor has been adopted as a part of the Specific Plan for Areas of
Environmental Significance, no advertising sign shall be located or
constructed in any District within three hundred (300) feet of any existing
right-of-way line of any scenic . route as depicted on that map entitled
Scenic Route Element of the General Plan - Alameda County, April 1966, said
map on file with this Commission.
8-60.67.1 ADVERTISING SIGNS ADJACENT TO SCENIC ROUTES CORRIDORS. No
advertising Sign shall be located or constructed in any District in a
Scenic Route Corridor adopted as part of the Specific Plan for Areas of
Environmental Significance.
8-62.10 NONCONFORMING SIGNS. All Signs, Name Plates, and their supporting
members that did not comply with all provisions of this Chapter as of May
10, 1969, shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of this
Chapter within the time limits set forth in this Section:
Change required to bring sign into compliance Conformance Date:
May 10, - 1969, plus
Alteration of lighting or movement one year;
Size or height reduction three years;
Removal of sign painted on wall one year;
Change required to bring sign into compliance Conformance Date:
May 10, 1969, plus
Relocation on same Building Site two years;
Removal of a; free-standing Business Sign; three years;
Removal of an Advertising Sign where not permitted five years;
provided, however, that any sign nonconforming in more than one respect
shall be brought into compliance with the time limit of the greatest
duration.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 69-33)
8-62.11 NONCONFORMING SIGNS. All Signs, Name Plates and their supporting
members that were rendered nonconforming by Ordinance No. 74-1, effective
February 8, 1984, and Ordinance No. 75-80, effective August 9, 1976, shall
be brought into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter on or prior
to February 8, 1977. All Signs, Name Plates and their supporting members
that are rendered nonconforming by amendments to this Chapter enacted
subsequent to August 9, 1976, shall be brought into compliance with the
provisions of this Chapter within three years of the effective date of any
such amendments.
8-62.12 SIGNS ACCESSORY TO NONCONFORMING BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY. Signs and
supporting members which are accessory to a business or industry existing
as a Nonconforming Use in any A or R District are permitted subject to the
sign regulations contained in Section 8-47.5.
-12- 4/85
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 69-33; amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
8-62.13 SIGNS. ACCESSORY TO A BUILDING I,OC= WITHIN A REAL= YARD.
Signs accessory to a building located wholly or partially within a required
yard may be located on such a building in accordance with the regulations
of this chapter regardless of the Building encroachment.
(Based on sec. 1, Ord. 72-11; amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1; amended by sec.
2, Ord. 75-80)
-13- 4/85
old in heritage - new in ideas
MW
"�d U All-
bt
Chamber ®f Commerce November 18, 1985
Mr. John Alexander, Chairman
Dublin Planning Commission
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Chairman Alexander & Planning Commission Members :
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at its regular meeting
of November 13, 1985 voted unanimously to endorse the proposed Sign Ordinance
Draft for the City of Dublin.
The Chamber would like to commend the Dublin Planning Commission and staff
for their cooperation in working with the Chamber and the business community
in drafting an ordinance that is both fair and equitable to all commercial
establishments.
John, I want to thank you and the Members of the Planning Commission for keeping
the Chamber informed of the hearings on the ordinance as well as details and
changes made in the draft. I know the Planning Commission and staff spent
many hours writing, re-writing and reviewing the Ordinance in the best interest
of Dublin, and on behalf of the Chamber I would like to say thank you and
express our appreciation for all the Commission's efforts.
jo s very trul ,
JIM DA dERTY, President
Board of Directors
JD: of
7986 Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 (415) 828-6200
RACHMENT
nt
r
i
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: December 13 , 1982
SUBJECT An ordinance ' of the City of Dublin prohibiting
certain signs -
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION Consider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION! At the City Council meeting .of November 23 , 1982 ,
the City Council requested the City .Attorney to
draft an ordinance which clarifies the. City' s
existing sign ordinance ' s prohibition of A-frame
and sandwich board signs . The City Attorney has
drafted an ordinance which prohibits .portable
on-site signs including but not limited to A-frame -
signs .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Chamber of Commerce
ITEM NO. C� • �
Aga,In a
97r
� Or
AA
CHME
r".. .. r.. - .:. a _ s.. . ... ,�,.,,1 ,, L t r ' r �,,. ., t x,•�.2r i , , t,�i i .�''.,.:iY; d.r�.�r,.•.`�r. �,xSf
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
PROHIBITING PORTABLE SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1. PURPOSE
This ordinance is intended to preserve locally recognized-
values of community appearance, to encourage signs that are well designed,
to protect the character of public streets and sidewalks , to reduce
hazards to motorists and pedestrians , and to thereby promote the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 2 . PROHIBITED SIGNS
Except as otherwise permitted herein, portable cn-site
signs , including but not limited to A-frame signs and any sign attached
to, placed upon, or painted upon any motor vehicle shall not be permitted
in any land use district in the City of Dublin.
Section 3 . TEMPORARY CIVIC, CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL,
MUNICIPAL SIGNS , PENNANTS AND BANNERS
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 . of this
ordinance, temporary signs , pennants and banners of a civic , charitable,
educational or municipal nature may be placed on or over public' streets ,
sidewalks and thoroughfares providing the person proposing such signing
;first obtains a permit from the Planning Director. The Director shall
be authorized to impose conditions on the permit relating to size,
placement, color, length of posting, indemnity or to the health and
safety of the public generally.
Section 4 . EFFECT; POSTING
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the
date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days
from the passage thereof, the City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall
cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places
in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 38933 of the Government
Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin
on this day of 1982 , by the following votes :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Mayor
By
City Clerk
_ .
(11D,
' If Staff could be certain that development activity would co nue at its
present rate, Staff would recommend that the City Counci eriously
consider hiring an additional full-time planner. How r, because of the
backlog which the City inherited from the County a the rather limited
workload data ( 6 months) which the City has as s time, it is Staff ' s
opinion that the City should wait until fisc year 1983-84 in order to
ascertain whether or not the level of dev pment activity will be
maintained, before hiring an additiona -anner. In the interim, it is
Staff ' s recommendation that the City ouncil authorize Staff to continue to
use the services of a part-time p ning consultant on an as-needed basis
not to exceed 20 .hours per wee This will enable the City to provide a
better level of service to t public. The estimated cost of such service
for the remainder of the f . cal year would not exceed $17 ,700 . The funds
remaining in the Planni Department ' s contract services account is
approximately $15, 700 Therefore, it is further recommended that the City
Council authorize udget transfer of $2 , 000 from the contingent reserve
to the Planning partment Contract Services account.
On motion o Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Coun authorized Staff to secure services of contract planning
assis ce on an as-needed basis , not to exceed 20 hours per week, and
aut ized budget transfer of $2 , 000 from contingent reserve to planning
C MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE
At the City Council meeting of November '23 , 1982 , the City Council
requested the City Attorney draft an ordinance which clarifies the City' s
existing sign ordinance ' s prohibition of A-frame and sandwich board signs .
The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance which prohibits portable on-site
signs including but not limited to A-frame signs .
The City Attorney explained that the ordinance submitted was purposely
drafted in a broad manner in order that ramifications could be discussed.
The direction was to ban A-frame signs, and liberty was taken which could
be deleted by removing certain wording in ordinance . There are occasions
when a sign other than an A-frame could be placed, similar to a real estate
sign. This could be a portable on-sight sign. Also included for purposes
of discussion was a ban on any motor vehicle advertising parked away from
facility, but directing attention to a sales location. None of the J
restrictions would apply to any civic, charitable or educational type of
advertising which may be temporary; i .e . a school advertising a school
play, or a Chamber of Commerce affair, etc .
Mayor Snyder questioned whether exception should be made for real estate
signs . Attorney Nave then brought up the point that a group could then
question why the City was favoring real estate profession.
Cm. Jeffery felt section 3 was confusing with relation to political signs .
She felt from reading this section that these types of signs were allowed.
CM-1-169
y
Attorney Nave felt it would be much more effective to sit down and review
the complete sign ordinance situation rather than do this type of
modification on a piece meal basis . A draft of a sign ordinance covering
all types of signs would be the correct way.
Cm. Burton felt that drafted ordinance presented was so all inclusive, it
would be very difficult to enforce . He also felt it of utmost importance
to notify business owners . When we eventually change the rules , we should
be very careful to make sure it is highly- publicized and that the City will
be enforcing the new law. Fees should also be discussed. Before we get
into this type of enforcement, the City should offer an applicant an
alternative. Instead of advising applicant only what they can' t do, we
should be able to advise them what they can do and what would be
acceptable .
Cm. Moffatt felt a closer communication with the Chamber of Commerce would
be advisable with regard to the sign situation as far as publicity. Cm.
. Hegarty concurred and felt perhaps the Chamber could call a meeting to get
input from the businesses and let them work with the Council insofar as
establishing what is and isn' t acceptable . No one wants to have Dublin
looking like "Coney Island" , yet merchants have a legitimate interest in
this area, and with all the businesses working together, an acceptable
solution could be arrived at.
Ms . Beth Grant DeRcos addressed the Council, indicating several of her
friends own businesses in Dublin. Considering the fact that unemployment
L- is at 10 . 3% and that all but 3 shopping centers in Dublin have vacancies , .
and that there are 23+ "nook and cranny" shopping centers around town, she
could understand why some of the merchants have signs out. Because Alpha
Beta is no longer there, that center is very dark. People, in driving down
the street, are unaware that there are even businesses in that center. She
felt that if a sandwich sign would sell one more sandwich .or sell one more
house, etc . , the City should be willing to let the signs remain. She felt
a one year moratorium on the removal of sandwich board signs should be
instigated. other areas involve the high schools in designing one
acceptable size A-frame sign. They are doing this in Palo Alto.
Bill Tenery, Planning Commissioner, addressed the Council . He indicated
this matter has been discussed and, as a result, at next Monday ' s Planning
Commission meeting, it is an agenda item. The intent was to gain support
from the business people and interested citizens to establish a committee
to give input on the types of signing they would like to see in Dublin.
They hope to have a good turnout of both sign makers and merchants , in
order that a good committee can be established to give direction to the
Planning Commission.
Ms . Georgean Vonheeder stated that the Chamber of Commerce has chosen to
stay out of this issue at this particular time .
Robert Dunn, a property owner at 6930 Village Parkway brought a plea to the
City Council that a decision be made as soon as possible. His tenants are
all asking when a directory will be in place out front . He has presented a
1.
CM-1-170
plan to the Planning Director, but cannot-g.et it approved because it
contains too much square footage . The signs on the individual businesses
do not give the exposure required.
Council suggested that perhaps the individual sign size could be reduced in
order to utilize the largest possible size for their directory.
Cm. Jeffery felt it important that this issue be resolved as soon as
possible, but that it was a lengthy process .
Bruce King was present at the meeting representing the Chamber of Commerce.
He felt they do know what is going on and they ask that he attend this
meeting and request that no decision be made on this ordinance at this
meeting, but rather delay in order that the Chamber has an opportunity to
look at it and set up a sub-committee to gain input from the business
community.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote the
Council deferred the matter to the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
At its. meeting of November 8 , 1982 , the City Counc ' adopted a Resolution
of Intention and introduced an ordinance authori ng the adoption and
execution of a contract between the City of Dub in and the Public
L' Employees ' Retirement System. This contract uld provide retirement
coverage for employees under the PERS .
Cm. Moffatt discussed whether or not ele ed officials should be excluded,
as was the ccncensus of the Council on vember 8 , 1982 . The City tilanager
indicated the contracts could be modi ed at any future point in time. If
this request were made, the PERS peo e would conduct an actuarial
valuation and indicate what the im ct on the City ' s present rate would be,
and Council would .have something o act upon. Clarification was made that
elected officials are locked o but the Council could have them included
at some future time should th so desire .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, conded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the
Council waived the readi and adopted the ordinance. Opposed to the
motion was Cm. Moffatt
ORDINANCE NO. 24 l
UTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND EXECUTION
OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
N
CM-1-171
�_A
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 20 , 1982
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations and Committee to Study Signs
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Dublin Sign Regulations
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Review and discuss the sign regulations
2 . Consider a Committee to Study. Signs
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : At its December 13 , 1982, meeting, the City
Council requested that the Planning Commission begin reviewing the
City' s sign regulations. Attached is a copy of the City' s current
sign regulations. The regulations are generally organized as
follows :
1. Definitions
2 . Signs by Zoning District
a. A, Agricultural
b. H-1, Highway Frontage
C. C-0, Administrative Office
d. C-N, Neighborhood Retail
e. C-1, Retail Business
f. C-2 , General Business
g. M-1 , Light Industrial
3 . Permitted Signs
4 . Conditional Use Signs
5 . Signs exempt from building permits
At the Commission meeting, Staff will be prepared to discuss
the sign regulations with the Commission.
At its December 6 , 1982, meeting the Commission requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. 9 . 1 COPIES TO:
-lei I
ATTACHMENT
IISSION MEETING DATE: DECErIBEK
Agenda Statement: Sign Regulations and Committee to Study Signs
GD
Page Two
Staff to agendize a Committee to study the sign regulations. Given
the Council ' s direction, it is appropriate for the Commission to
form a Committee to study signs . The composition of the Committee
is to be determined by the Commission-. The Commission may want to -
consider representatives from the Commission itself, the business
community, local design professionals (architects, landscape
architects) , and the non-business community (homeowners, interested
citizens, general public) .
1
QL
• ���ivN,Nv Corn►��- _
m W iJTfz j
`'�01 ►z�za/g 2
Widening the streets within the pro ' t
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
On motion from Cm. Alexander and- second from m. Vonheeder, the
reading of the minutes from the meeting of ecember 6, 1982, was
dispensed with, and. with one correction r arding the date of the -
meeting, the motion was made by Cm. Vonh der and seconded by
Cm. Alexander to approve the minutes as rinted, and passed by 'unani-
mous approval.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tong introduced three letter from the Planning Commission
which were generated as a resu of the discussions occurring at the
December 6 , 1982, meeting. Th letters were addressed as follows :
Anthony A. Dehaesus , Dir ctor of Planning
Contra Costa County Pl ning Department
Re: Comments on Noti of Preparation of EIR for Gumpert Ranch
General Plan Am dment
Robert J. Harris
Director of Plann' g and Community Development
City of Pleasant
Re : Comments o Notice of Preparation of EIR for North Pleasanton
Improveme t District 1982-4
Adolph Mart' elli, Senior Planner
Alameda Co ty Planning Department
_ Re : Comm is on Draft EIR for R.C. Johnson/Interstate 580
Tec ology Park
UNFINIS BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
9 . 1 Sign Regulations and Committee to Study Signs
Cm. Tenery expressed a desire to formulate a committee to study signs
in Dublin and the regulations pertaining to them. There was discussion
regarding methods of nominating members of the committee, as well as
the desired number of members., and the purpose/goals of the committee .
There were several citizens and businesspersons in attendance at the
Commission meeting, and each of them were asked if they. wished to
comment on the organization of the committee and/or become a member
of the 'committee.
. Volunteers wishing to serve the City of Dublin in studying the
existing Ordinance pertaining to signs and making recommendations to
the Planning Commission and Staff are:
Beth Grant-DeRoos , 8467 Deervale
Roger Coupe, c/o Creegan & D'Angelo, 11822 Dublin Blvd.
Bruce King, c/o aActive Sign Service, 6398 Dougherty Rd.
Albert Lucas , c/o Peg' s Quality Look, _ 6920 Village Parkway
Donald Vesey, 3731 Kolb Place
The decision was made to include a member of the Planning Commission
in an advisory capacity, and Cm. Alexander volunteered to attend the
meetings in this capacity. It was also felt that Mr. Tong might
attend the first meeting to aid in the organization and direction
as well as to possibly give technical advice.
The motion was made by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Woy and passed by
unanimous vote. that the committee consist of five members of the
private sector and business community plus one non-voting member from
the Planning Commission, with the make-up of the committee in a
3 businessperson, to 2 private citizen ratio.
Cm. Vonheeder made a motion, with Cm. Alexander ' s second and unanimous
agreement of the Commission, to accept the five volunteers as members
of the committee with the purpose of the committee to be : To rewrite
the [sign] regulations to be understandable, and to recommend to the
Planning Commission sign regulations which will balance the esthetics of
the community at large with the needs of the business community.
Guidelines proposed by Cm. Tenery are:
1) By the next Planning Commission meeting, each committee member
should gain an alternate for his corresponding business or
private citizen position;
2) The committee should establish regular meeting times and
frequency of meetings;
3) The committee should appoint a chairperson responsible for
input to the Planning Commission;
4) Establish a target date for completion of revised sign
regulations .
Mr. Tong suggested that regarding the target date for completion,. this
might better be anticipated after the complexity of the issues involved
are examined.
With motion from Cm. Alexander, second by Cm. Vonheeder, and unanimous
vote of the Commission, the above guidelines were adopted for the
sign committee.
Cm. Vonheeder suggested that Staff provide copies of Ordinances from
�- other cities for guidelines , along with zoning maps, Dublin' s sign
regulations , and a roster of the committee members.
The first meeting of the new sign committee will be held on
uary 4 ,
Dub 1983, at 7 : 30 p.m. , at the office of Creegan & D'Angelo,
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
.� Dublin. CA 9.3568 _ (41;5) 829-4600
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 4 , 1984
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations - Tentative Schedule
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Sign Committee Recommendations
(Under separate cover)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
r
DESCRIPTION: In the Fall of 1982, the City Council
and Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the Dublin
sign regulations , particularly in terms of clarifying those
provisions that prohibit A-frame signs .
On December 13 , 1982 , the City Council discussed modifications to
the sign regulations . During the discussion it was determined
that a review of all the sign regulations would be a more
effective approach than a piece meal review. The City Council
deferred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation.
On December 20 , 1982 , the Planning Commission established an
advisory Sign Committee, consisting of two local business
persons , a local sign maker, and two residents . Commissioner
Alexander was an ex-official member of the sign committee and
Planning Director Tong provided staff support. The purpose of
the Sign Committee was "To rewrite the sign regulations to be
understandable and to recommend to the Planning Commission sign
regulations which will balance the esthetics of the community
at large with the needs of the business community" .
From December 1982 to September 1983 , the Sign Committee met
about a dozen times to review and discuss the sign regulations .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
Chamber of Commerce
Sign Committee Members
CHMENT;
On September 19 , 1983 , the Chairman of-'the Sign Committee =
presented the Sign Committee recommendations to the Planning
Commission . The primary recommendations were :
1 ) Rewrite the Sign Regulations to be more understandable
to the business person and laymen.
2 ) Include graphics and photographs to clarify the ordinance .
3 ) Allow low profile signs where they are not now permitted
because of frontage requirements .
4 ) Group sign regulations for similar zoning districts .
5 ) Consider the proposed format and technical recommendations .
6 ) Separate store front signage areas allowed from street
signing.
The Planning Commission suggested some additional revisions and
directed Staff to begin rewriting the Sign Regulations .The
Planning Commission requested the information be submitted to the
Planning Commission at a future meeting . Since that time, Staff
has been concentrating its efforts on the General Plan. With the
General Plan nearly complete, and with the additional benefit and
perspective of several years experience dealing with the Sign
Regulations , it is appropriate to again focus attention and
effort on rewriting the Sign Regulations .
The primary intent of the Sign Regulations is to provide
effective and attractive identification . A sign needs to be
large enough to be effective for identification from the street
but small enough to be attractive and compatible with the design
of the building . The intent is not to provide advertising to
areas blocks away.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
following tentative schedule for preparing and reviewing
revisions to the Sign Regulations :
September - Review slides and photos with Staff,
discuss and provide direction for
additional review
October - Discuss issues and potential solutions
November - Review draft ordinance regarding Sign
Regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
Rev. 8/84
C.
COMMITTEE TO STUDY SIGN REGULATIONS
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ROSTER OF MEMBERS
Roger Coupe - c/o C.reegan & D 'Angelo 463-9150
6658 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, California 94566
Bruce King - c/o Active Sign Service 829-8888
6398 Dougherty Rd.
Dublin, California 94568
Albert Lucas - c/o Peg ' s Quality Look 829-7878
6920 Village Parkway
Dubl°in, California 94568
Donald Vesey - 7331 Kolb Place 829-3695
Dublin, California 94568
pL.ANNDCD
n'1
,r. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Sign Regulations tentative schedule .
Mr'. Tong gave the Staff presentation regarding the tentative _
schedule for the new sign regulations .
Mr . Tong gave a brief history of the Sign Committee ' s
recommendations and previous work that had been done on the sign
revision.
Mr. Tong recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
following tentative schedule for preparing and revising the sign
regulations : '
September - Review slides and photos with Staff,
discuss and provide direction for
additional review
October - Discuss issues and potential solutions
November - Review draft or ordinance regarding sign
regulations
Mr . Tong then proceeded to give a slide presentation of several
types of signs that exist within the City of Dublin.
Commissioner Alexander suggested that the Chamber of Commerce be
contacted for their input.
It was moved .by Commissioner Petty and seconded by Commissioner
Mack to adopt the schedule as indicated in the Staff Report.
Voice vote found all in favor.
n
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr . Tong gave the status o the Conditional Use Permit relative
to Winning Action Investm is American City Truck Stop.'
The Planning Commissio expressed concern regarding oversized
drawings submitted w' Planning Applications .
l
- Commissioner Alex der requested Staff to investigate the storage
of restaurant su lies on the lawn at 11647 Manzanita.
Regular Mee g PCM-3-98 9/4/84
-FugNN►N 6 Ccii-rn
m►N Ups
b) Item 8 : Change to read: The island in the middle of the
central connector street to be redesigned to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer .
Cm. Alexander ' s motion was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and
passed by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present .
RESOLUTION 83-18
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5180 CONCERNING
PA 83-035 AMADOR LAKES
After a short break, the Commission reconvened at 11 : 05 p .m.
with all Commissioners present, except Cm. Mack.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SIGN REGULATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Rodger Coupe, Chairman of the Sign Regulation Committee,
introduced members of the committee which were present at
the meeting, and presented a report detailing the progress
of the Sign Regulation Committee since its inception to its
final recommendations . He also presented a brief slide
program which illustrated some of the desirable and
undesirabl.e signs found in the City of Dublin . He noted
that he would be on hand to present the same program to the
Chamber of Commerce, at their next general meeting .
The recommendations forwarded to the Planning Commission
were :
1) Rewrite the Sign Regulation.
2 ) Add graphics , for clarification.
3 ) Simplify the format used ( i .e . group like district
requirements together for uniformity and clarity. )
Cm. Tenery thanked the Committee for their report and
continued the discussion regarding information received from
the sign committee until the next regular meeting (October
3, 1983 ) .
AA
62AAI,f 5AAA1 so
AT.TAC'3*12ME.N00
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 1, 1984
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
(Additional information and slides)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: None - -
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Question Staff
3 ) Continue discussion to the 10/15/84
meeting
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: At the 10/1/84 meeting, Staff wi;l
present several case studies to discuss how the existing sign
regulations affect selected commercial and office sites in:
Dublin.
Staff will have available both plans and slides of the selected
sites so that a thorough analysis of the existing sign
regulations can be made . It is the intent of this presentation
to show the amount of permitted sign areas at these sites in
relationship to the amount of existing signage and to document
some inconsistencies which need to be corrected.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and
discuss the Case Studies, keeping in mind the primary intent of
providing effective and attractive identification.
Staff also recommends that, in addition to the issues identified
in the Sign Committee ' s report, the Planning Commission consider
the following issues :
- Signage for shopping complexes) with . little street frontage
or street visibiity
- Signage for promotional events , such as banners, balloons,
and flags
- Height limit for signage on multi-story structures
- Signage in the frontage yard areas in the C-2-B-40 District
- Procedures regarding signs that may become non-conforming
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. , COPIES TO:
Chamber of Commerce
. 4-rw
11 9P
v,,&&AtW4.r4 evd�e Fi I ENT
TAun
�%
oeo�(/
Mr. Robbins stated that they would like to have the sign onoosthe
back of the building, but would prefer to have the freest ding
sign instead. He stated they would comply with the hei and
other requirements of the City on the second freestan ' g sign.
Mr. Woulfe added that they would be willing to com omise with a
20 ' tall freestanding sign .
It was moved by Commissioner Raley to continu the hearing until
the October 15, 1984 meeting so that Staff uld research whether
a variance was granted for Crown Chevrole, o erect an additional ---
freestanding sign and to enable Staff to repare a draft
resolution approving Shamrock Ford' s v ance request. Chairman
Alexander found concensus for the con nuance .
Chairman Alexander called at reces at 8 :35 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
9 . 1 Joint Planning mmission Study Session.
Mr . Tong present the Staff Report, which was a request by San
Ramon for a Joi Planning Commission Study Session meeting. '
Mr . Tong not that the date for the Study Session conflicted
with the op ing ceremonies of the Hacienda Business Park. The
Commissi0 determined not to attend the Joint Planning Commission
Meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Review of Sign Regulations .
i
i
Mr . Tong presented the Staff Report which was a review of the
existing sign regulations .
Mr . DeLuca showed slides of selected commercial sites within the
City and also discussed the existing signing for these sites in
relationship to the Sign Ordinance .
Regular Meeting PCM-4-110 10/1/84
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION -MEETING DATE: October 15, 1984
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
(Additional information and slides)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Aerial photograph along
Village Parkway.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Question Staff
3 ) Continue discussion to the 11/5/84
meeting
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : At the• 10/15/84 meeting, Staff will
present several case studies to discuss how the existing sign
regulations affect office, gas station and automobile dealer
sites in Dublin . These case studies will supplement the studies
presented at the last meeting where only commercial and
restaurant uses were examined.
In addition, Staff will have slides available of the buildings on
Village Parkway that do not have direct street exposure . Special
attention needs to be given to these buildings to'-provide
effective and attractive identification for 'persons trying to
find the businesses .
t
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
t.
Chamber of Commerce
AWOMS -
0 m nHMLNT
n" GrTAG&
�„�✓� Vt
i
�. sign on their property, and to enable Staff to prepare a d ft .
resolution approving a variance for Shamrock Ford to erec an
additional freestanding sign at 7499 Dublin Boulevard.
Staff found that in 1970 Alameda County granted a va ance for
Crown Chevrolet to erect an additional freestanding ign on their
property. Unfortunately, no findings or reasons support this
variance were given by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, it
is difficult to use the Crown Chevrolet_ Varianc as a basis to
support the granting of this variance applica on.
Mr. Tong stated a 20 ' sign could be placed s close as 20 ' from
the property line. It could be placed in ront of the existing
building:
Staff recommended that, if the Plannin Commission wanted to
approved the application, the Planni Commission should adopt
the draft resolution approving the plication.
Chairman Alexander .did not re-ope the public hearing .
Commission Raley asked Mr. Woul e if they had a problem with
Condition #4 regarding docume ation. Mr. Woulfe stated that he
did not. Also, Mr. Raley as d if they agreed with the 20 ' sign.
Mr. Woulfe stated he would efer a 35 ' tall sign but would go
along with a 20 ' tall sign as indicated in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Raley move' Commission Barnes seconded, and by
unanimous vote, the Pl ning Commission adopted; .
RESOLUTION NO. 84-51
A RES UTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 4-048.1 A REQUEST BY SHAMROCK FORD FOR A VARIANCE
ERECT AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN
AT 7499 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
OLD BUSINESS
Sign Regulation Review
Mr. Tong presented several case studies to discuss how the
existing sign regulations affect offices, gas stations and
automobile dealer sites in Dublin.
i Staff then presented slides of the buildings on Village Parkway
- that do not have direct street exposure. The Planning Commission
concurred that special attention needs to be given to these
buildings to provide effective and attractive identification.
Regular Meeting PCM-4-113 10/15/84
Chairman Alexander said he was concerned about signage along the
freeways . He would like to review the existing signs and whether
or not such signs are appropriate.
Chairman Alexander also asked Staff to check with other cities
regarding allowing more than one freestanding sign for auto
dealers.
In response to a question from Commissioner Raley, Rich Robbins
of Shamrock Ford said that there were many dealers in the Bay
Area with two opposing domestic brands.
Mr. Robbins also said that the Department of Motor Vehicles
requires each dealer to have signs showing name of the dealership
and the brand names.
The Planning Commission continued the discussion to the November
5, 1984 Planning Commission meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Joint Planning Commission Study Sessio .
Planning Commission has voiced an in erest in attending the Joint
Planning Commission meeting set for ovember 1, 1984 if possible,
if not, the November 8, 1984 woul be O.K.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong stated tha the Newspaper Recycling Bin Ordinance has
been adopted with e slight change to the resolution. That
being "Dublin bas non-profit groups" may have the bins.
Valley Christi Center ' s Site Development Review will be heard
at the October 22 , 1984 City Council Meeting.
i
Regular Meeting PCM-4-114 10/15/84
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 5, : 1984
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
(Additional Information and Slides)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - Photos of Miscellaneous Signs
RECOMMENDATION• 1) Hear Staff presentation
2) Question Staff
3) Continue discussion to the 12/3/84
Planning Commission Meeting
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION• At the 11/5/84 Planning Commission
meeting, Staff will be prepared to discuss the following six
issues :
1 - Potential .solutions to the Village Parkway sign problem '
2 - Sign regulations -in front yard setbacks
3 - Non-conforming signs
4 - Signage for promotional events
5 - Multiple signs for automobile dealerships
6 - Signs for multi-story buildings
1) Potential Solutions To The Village Partway Sign Problem.
The sign problem along Village Parkway is more a function of the
irregular development pattern than the sign regulations. Many of
the business and office uses along Village Parkway simply do not
have any street exposure. Consequently, many shoppers are not
(.l aware of the business and office uses that exist behind the
buildings on Village Parkway. Obviously, it is not possible to
relocate the buildings or realign Village Parkway. What is
needed is a series of attractively designed, tenant directory
signs that both identify the businesses and direct the shoppers
to the businesses .
Under the Zoning Ordinance, "directory" signs have a maximum area
permitted of 12 sq. ft. and may not be placed in a required front
yard setback. Since most of Village Parkway is zoned C-2-B-40 ,
which has a 30 ' front yard setback, this regulation needs to be
amended to allow at least directory signs in the front yard .
setback. Further, the 12 sq. ft. limitation needs to be amended
.because in many cases it would not be large enough to include all
-------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES T0:
Chamber of Commerce
Ah
ENT.
a 1 a s r z
y •z 4-.4 -x+•4
the sign area limitatenantsrthatlexistron
the tenants.
Perhaps nd with the number of t
sign should corresp ft, per tenant seems reasonable. &
A limitation of 2 sq• with 3" to 4"
the lot. j
This limitation would result in a sign 6 x ect to Site
letters.
The directory signs should be subj na e. i
velo ment Review to ensure pVer 11 maximumaarea cfor ethe
g rg the '
De P
Further, there needs to be an
rectory signs for those sitewhnotice tonerect the new
nt
di iven appropriate 1I
property owners were g the City could begin a strict enforcement
tenant directory signs, signs that presently clutter
portable sig n problem along �
against the A-frame or p i
Village Parkway. It should be noted that the sig P
will never be corrected without the cooperation
Village Parkway property owners.
of the tenants and p ro P i
2 Sign Regulations for Front Yard Setbacks.
regulations in the front yard setbacks have not been
The sign most o the comm ercial areas of the City
much of a problem since and setback. However, The I
(C-1 and C-2) do not have a front y portion of Dublin
c-2 Zoning District, which covers a
e Parkway, has a 30 ' front yard
Boulevard and most of Villag ;I
The M-1 Zoning District also hasordi0anceoonlyaal lows a
setback. resent time, the Zoning to
maximum area 24 sq. ft - )setback. At the p 1 . .
low-profile sign (maximum height 6
Gated in the front yard setback. This regulation has not
be to problem for the industrial uses but has caused
been much of a p l uses . The present regulation I
some problems for the
commercial
can provide for an attractivnaserebutfp enalizeshthe- commercial
uncluttered by excessive sign Zoning District.
uses who fall in the C-2-B-
t 3) Non-conforming Signs. ns will
adopted, many existing sig
After new sign regulations are or location.
either by size, height,
become non-conforming, man cities included an amortization
Y
Until fairly recently, eriod,
non-
period in their new sign ordinance which required al si signs new s removed within a certain time p
conforming g Ho��ever, a recent State Law states that;
usually 3-5 years .
remises advertising display w hich is used' for any
of the
"no on-p f to Section 5490 shall be
purposes set forth and conforming
cam"elled to be removed or abated, and its customary maintenance,
P air shall not be limited, whether or not removal or
use, or rep ordinance or regulation o�
limitation is required because of of fair and just
any city or county, without the P Y
compensation. "
Ordinance adopted by the City contains
The Alameda County . Zoning signs '.
the following section with respect to nonconforming sig G
Name Plates and their
8-62 .11 NONCONFORMING SIGNS. All signs ,
/ and Ordinance No. 75-80,
supporting members thatrwere sen19r4a nonconforming by Ordinance
P` effective February ,
No . 74-1, 1976 , shall be brought into complian�celwith
effective Augus, 9 , ter on or prior to February
the provisions of this Chap supporting members that are
All Signs , Name .Plates and their v,- enacted
rendered nonconforming by amendments to this Chapter
ust 9 , 1976, shall be brought into compliance
subsequent to Aug ter within three years of the thi
With the provisions of such s amendments .
effective date of any
How this provision relates to he n byS the eCity Attorney-
ordinance ' oning
will have to be evaluated
4) Signs for Promotional Events.
The City receives several requests each month to erect balloonThe
flags and banners for promotional events or grand openings .
present regulations allow
randAopeningsaor`,inCcconnjunctionUwith a
Permit to be issued for g
C.
'000�)
s, The problem the
exceeding 60 day wish to
temporary use of land not past is that 'One store may ear.
temp erienced in the p -
City has eXP s or promotional events in one temporary
rand opening
have several g allow temporary signage
to an excessive amount of
This type of sit reasonable to is within the first
signage- It seem rand openings , that ,
temporary signage can also
only for bona fide grand perhaps i
month of the store opening.
for each business to hold a
time a y signage would be limited to a one
be allowed one Temporary
promotional even t.
week period-
Multiple - -
Signs for Automobile Dealerships.
5)
Commission is automobile dealers Sarerinterested in
As the Planning lication, auto carry a new line
Chrysler/Ford app sign when they
an additional freestanding
having easy to understand the car dealer' s
of cars . While it is uish their situation from
it is difficult to disting
position, n, For
' n Dublin where several freestandingnsigs are located
other sites 1 ,
on one lot but are allowed onlCenter and the Dublin Station A
the Orchard Shopping have only one
example, which contain several tenants,signs are allowed
Shopping Center,
sign. If multiple freestanding u is to deny an
freestanding ealers , it would be
for automobile n to separate tenants on one lot or in
sign cities to
additional freestanding signs for
center . Staff has checked the following
a shopping ulations with respect to multiple
determine their reg
automobile dealerships =
le signs for automobile d4ale shipsmay e
i
Multip de ding on existing i
Pleasanton be possible, P en
and design of the new, signs
signs for an automobile dealership
multiple eLsig roved unless unusual
San Ramon would no be app
circumstances relating to the site exist
Livermore
Only- one freestanding sign per lot
In most cases only one freestanding sign Zs
Ham ara allowed per lot
freestanding sign per lot
Walnut Creek Only one
Con__.--c- °rd
Only one freestanding sign per lot
6} Signs for Multi Story
$u11d1ngs
low height of most of the buildings ve
With the relatively problem.
However, as
Dublin, this issue has not been much of a P s wanting
values increase, it can be expected that buildings will
land r and the City will be faced with businesses
become higher which are a considerable distance
to place signs on the the height of a sign increase off the
above the ground. As the height the sign becomes more for the
ground a distance of more than 15 ' ,
advertisement rather tQhanbnsthaaebecomeamuitim In
purpose of the of�ic buildings
most cases, it is only
y, the office buildings do not need the sign
story. Obviousl
il center .
exposure of a reta ns o�he
The zoning regulations can be amended toveagradeWalTnsadditi Kn,
first floor only, not more than
directory signs listing the tenant can also be approved.
UNr1N15riL"u DUJIINZOO �VI/vu
(Y 6 V U " , r
Review of Sign Re( 3tions /�t (AA)r S ` u
Mr. DeLuca presented the Staff Report, which examin !lam J U
following six issues:
1) Potential solutions to the Village Parkway sign problem
2 ) Sign regulations in frontyard setbacks
3 ) Nonconforming signs
4 ) Signage for promotional events
5) Multiple signs for automobile dealerships
6) Signs for multi-story buildings
Mr. DeLuca noted that the 'sign problem along Village Parkway is
more a function of the irregular development pattern than the
sign regulations. Many of the business and office uses along
Village Parkway simply do not have any street exposure. What is
needed along Village Parkway is a series of attractively-
designed, tenant directory signs that both identify the
businesses and direct the shoppers to the businesses .
Sign regulations in front yard setbacks have not been much of a
problem since most of the commercial areas of the City do not
have a front yard setback. However, the C-2-B-40 Zoning District
which covers a portion of Dublin Boulevard and most of Village
Parkway, has a 30 ' front yard setback.
Mr . DeLuca noted that after the new sign regulations are adopted,
many existing signs will become nonconforming, either by size,
height, or location. Reference was made to a recent State Law
that requires a legislative body to pay for the removal of
nonconforming signs that the ,City requires to be removed. It was
noted that the City Attorney would have to review the State Law
and how it relates to the new Sign Ordinance.
Signs for promotional events were discussed, specifically how
many events seemed reasonable for any one store.
Multiple signs for automobile dealerships were also discussed.
Six cities were surveyed with respect to their regulations for
multiple signs on a single lot. In most cases, only one free
standing sign was allowed per lot.
Signs for multi-story buildings were discussed with respect to
how high off the ground a sign should be allowed. Mr. DeLuca
noted that a distance of 15 ' off the ground seemed appropriate.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
Mr. Woolverton, representing Crown Chevrolet, addressed the
Planning Commission. Mr. Woolverton displayed an aerial
photograph which showed the intersection of I-580 and I-680 in
the 1950 ' s . Mr . Woolverton stated that he was pleased with how
Dublin has grown and that signage is very important, particularly
to the small businessmen .
Regular Meeting PCM-4-117 11/5/84
_ i
No one else spoke on the Sign Regulations .
Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Petty asked whether a standard design for directory
signs along Village Parkway could be developed.
Chairman Alexander reinforced the need to combine the Zoning
Districts in the new Sign ordinance for easy reference. Chairman
Alexander also felt that 2 sq. ft. per tenant was too small and
that 3 sq. ft. would be more appropriate.
Commissioner Raley asked what the purpose of the C-2-B-40 Zoning
District was and what the schedule of the Sign Regulations would
be .
Mr. DeLuca stated that he would research the establishment of the
C-2-B-40 Zoning District and report back at the next Planning
Commission Meeting.
It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that they needed
to hear additional testimony from the business groups in Dublin
in order to make accurate decisions on the Sign Ordinance.
Mailing notices to the individual tenants and/or landlords in the
affected areas was discussed.
It was the concensus of the commission to continue this item to
the December 3 , 1984 meeting.
1 J
Many of the commissioners expressed interes in attending the
Joint Planning Commission Meeting in the ty of San Ramon on
November 15 , 1984 .
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to Joint Planning Commiss ' n Study Session at 7 :30 p.m.
on November 15, 1984 at the San amon City Hall, 2222 Camino
Ramon, San Ramon.
Respectfully submitted,
Pi nning Commission C rman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
Regular eting PCM-4-118 11/5/84
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 3 , 1984
SUBJECT- Sign Regulations '
(Additional Information and Slides)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - Draft Sign Graphics
RECOMMENDATION: _D J_,- 1} Hear Staff presentation
d-� 2 ) Question Staff
3 ) Continue discussion to the 12/17/84
Planning Commission Meeting
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: The Sign Committee stated that the main
problem with the current ordinance appears to be one of format
organization and wording. The Sign Committee further stated
that "the most important recommendation which the Sign Committee
can make is that the ordinance be rewritten in a more
understandable manner and that graphics be included to further
clarify points which are difficult to make by words alone" .
C', In drafting the new Sign Regulations , Staff will make every
effort to make the Sign Ordinance a very concise, clear and easy
to read document.
The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Sign Regulations
with the overall intent of providing attractive and effective
identification. e
Prior to drafting the Sign Regulations , Staff needs .to receive
some direction from the Planning Commission on several issues .
Outlined below is a partial list of some of the issues which
decisions need to be made . This listing is not intended to be an
all incompassing list, but rather an outlining of some of the
more major issues . Each issue is discussed individually along
with a Staff recommendation for each issue .
1) Height of freestanding signs . The Sign Committee
recommended the maximum height of a freestanding sign to be 15 '
or the height of the roof line, whichever is lower . The Planning
Commission has recently approved signs up to 20 ' in height and
not higher than the roof line . A limit to the height of a
freestanding sign should be written into the Ordinance so that a
prospective or existing business person knows what the maximum
height of a freestanding sign would be.
��✓ Staff Comment: Staff would recommend that the maximum height of a
freestanding sign be 20 ' or the height of the roof
line, whichever is lower. The 20 ' height
limitation will provide for an attractive street
frontage and yet also allow an adequate sign
exposure and identification for the business
community.
2 ) Multiple freestanding signs on one lot. Shopping Centers
with 20 or more tenants may have multiple freestanding
identification signs . Otherwise, the current Sign Ordinance only
allows one freestanding sign per lot . A survey of six. cities
within our geographical region indicated that most cities allow
only one freestanding sign per lot. ' The Sign Regulations could
be drafted so that multiple signs are allowed for certain
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TG-
awl
io Chamber of Commerce -
T A A ENi
T m CHM
r
specific uses, such as automobile dealerships; however, this
would be a very difficult regulation to justify to tenants in
other retail commercial centers .
Staff Comment: Staff would recommend that the new Sign
Regulations maintain the provisions for multiple
shopping center master identification signs and
otherwise allow only one freestanding sign per
lot. Allowing multiple freestanding signs per lot
in other areas will not provide more attractive
and effective identification.
3 ) Aesthetics The Sign Committee studied the issue of sign
aesthetics (design, colors and materials) at great length, but
made no formal recommendation to the Planning Commission. The
only recommendation was that the City consider the pros and cons
of a Design Review Committee and make their own conclusion. It
should be noted that signs covered by the Site Development Review
are subject to aesthetic regulation. If signs are not .subject to
Site Development Review, should they be regulated with respect to
aesthetics? The advantage of regulating the aesthetics is that
the City can insure not only the proper location, height and
area, but that the sign is attractive also. Regulating size,
height, and location may serve little purpose if an unattractive
sign still results . The disadvantage in . regulation sign
aesthetics is that the colors and materials of a sign are often
very subjective matters and differences of opinion can be
expected.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider whether or not all signs should be
subject to aesthetic regulation. This would
insure that the color and materials of a sign
blend in with the architecture of the building and
would insure compatibility of design. An appeal
process could be established so that Staff ' s
decision could be appealed to the Planning
Commission, if agreement was not reached.
4 ) Portable Signs . This issue relates to the "A" frame signs
along Village Parkway and certain other portions of the City,
more than anything else . The Sign Committee recommended that the
portable signs not be permitted in the new Sign Regulations . The
Committee did recommend that other alternatives be established
for the portable signs .
Staff Comment: Staff would also recommend that portable signs not
be allowed in the new Sign Regulations . Portable
signs have a way of being erected in large
numbers, on the sidewalk and with no design
characteristics . They also tend to clutter the
streetscape . In the next section Staff will
discuss a possible solution to the portable sign
problem.
5) Sign Problem Along Village Parkway. The sign problem along
Village Parkway is more a function of an irregular development
pattern than sign regulations . Many of the business and office
uses along Village Parkway simply do not have any street
exposures . what is needed is a series of attractively designed
tenant directory signs that both indentify the businesses, and
direct the shoppers to the business . At the present time, only a
low-profile sign ( 6 ' high, 24 sq. ft. ) is allowed in the
frontyard setback . Since most of the Village Parkway has a 30 '
frontyard setback, this regulation needs to be amended to allow
at least the directory signs to be put in the frontyard setback
areas . Further, the 12 sq. ft. limitation for directory signs
needs to be amended because in many cases it would not be large
enough to include all the tenants .
-2-
ry
Staff Comment : To Arge degree, the success the new Sign
Regulations will be determined by how well it
deals with the Village Parkway sign problem. As
noted above, what is needed is a series of
attractively designed tenant directory signs .
Perhaps a standard size, height, location and
design could be established for these signs. The ,
standard design would eliminate a series of signs
along Village Parkway that are incompatible with
each other with respect to size, height, location
and esthetics . The limitation of 2 - 3 sq. ft. per
tenant may be reasonable with an overall
limitation of around 15 - 20 sq. ft. After the
property owners were given appropriate notice to
erect the new tenant directory signs, the City
could begin strict enforcement against the "A" _
frame and portable signs that presently clutter
Village Parkway. It should be noted that the sign
problem on Village Parkway will never be corrected
without the cooperation of the tenants and
property owners . Staff recommends that directory
signs be allowed in the frontyard setback, be
increased in area and have architectural
treatment which is compatible with the principal
structure.
6 ) Nonconforming Signs . After the new sign regulations are
adopted, many existing signs will become nonconforming, either by
size, height or location. The Sign Committee recommended that
the Sign Regulations contain an amortization period for the
removal of nonconforming signs . However, as_ noted in a recent
Staff Report, a new state law requires that cities pay for the
replacement of signs if they are required to be removed. This
new State Legislation is fairly complex and will have to be
reviewed by the .City Attorney.
Staff Comment : Staff agrees that an amortization period needs to
be included in the new sign. regulations, so that
nonconforming signs are brought into compliance.
The amortization period could be from three to
five years . The final wording on the amortization
section and the issue of nonconforming signs
cannot be established until the City Attorney
advises Staff of all the options available .
7 ) Signs for Promotional Events. The Sign Committee
recommended that signs for promotional events be regulated, but
did not recommend any specific regulations . The present
regulations allow for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit to
be issued for grand openings or in conjunction with a temporary
use of land for 60 days . These Administrative Conditional Use
Permits typically allow for banners , pennants, and/or flags . The
problem that the City has experienced in the past, is that one
store may wish to have several grand openings or promotional
events in one year . This type of situation leads to an excessive
amount of temporary signage .
Staff Comment: It seems reasonable to allow temporary signage
only for bona fide grand openings, that is, within
the first month of the store opening. Perhaps
temporary signage can also be allowed one time a
year for each business to hold a promotional
event. Temporary signage would be limited to a
one week period.
8 ) Signs for Multi-Story Buildings. With the relatively low
height of most of the buildings in Dublin, this issue has not
been much of a problem, however, as land values increase, it can
be expected that buildings will become higher and the City will
be faced with businesses wanting to place signs on the building
-3-
which are a considerable distance above the ground. As the
height of the sign increase off the ground a distance of more
than 15 ' , the sign becomes more a purpose of advertisement rather
than business identification. In most cases it is only the
office buildings that become multi-story. The office buildings
do not need sign exposure of a retail center. At the present
time there are no regulations governing the height of a sign on a
business building.
Staff Comment: 'The new Sign Regulations can be drafted, such that
all signs will be allowed on the first floor only,
not more than 15 ' above grade. In this manner,
signs will not be put on the businesses for
advertisement purposes,- but merely for business
identification.
9 ) Window Signs . Many of the businesses routinely put up
window signs to advertise special sales . In the past, this type
of signage has not been regulated by the City, although there is
a provision in the existing regulations that states no more than
25% of the window area may be covered with signage .
Staff Comment : Staff would recommend that the 25% limitation on
window signs be included in the new Sign
Regulations . There are those few stores that
insist upon covering their entire window area
with window signs , and this regulation will
assist in correcting that type of situation.
10 ) Painted Wall Signs . Many of the buildings in Dublin have
signs that are painted directly on the wall . This is not a very
desirable type of sign, considering the new sign technology with
sign cans and individual letters . Most of these are temporary
signs that are not compatible with the architectural design of
the buildings . Many communities do not allow signs to be painted
directly on the wall .
Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider whether the new Sign Regulations
should contain a provision that would prohibit
signs from being painted directly on the wall .
These type of, signs are usually unattractive and
detract from the appearance of the building and
are incompatible with the architectural design of
the structure .
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission review each
item and attempt to make a decision on each issue. Other items
that the public or Commission want to discuss can also be
adressed.
-4-
�7y�
Csh%:*7��N N I N V Cb--rn m
M�NU�S
/Z�3�gcf
3 - The bus shelter easement along Dubli/,=+.nefit a maximum time frame during which the Ciexe its
option. Mr. Gaspare suggested a three yframe
discussion purposes .
4 - Mr. Gaspare said he did not see any from granting to
the City an e asement for access to the ry parcel. He was
receptive, however, to entering into reciprocal access
agreement with the westerly propert wner to provide cross
access.
Mr. Norm Miller, from Union 76, lso stated his concerns, with an
8 ' dedication along Dougherty oad and questioned future
operational problems.
Mr. Dennis Sherry stated hat a cross easement would make the two
parking areas easier t get in and out of.
Commissioner Raley oved to close and continue the meeting to the
December 17, 198 lanning Commission Meeting. Seconded by
'Commissioner P y. The Planning Commission directed Staff to
meet with th pplicant prior to the December 17th meeting so
that the is es could be resolved.
Voice v e found all in favor.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
Mr. DeLuca noted that the Sign Committee ' s main problem with the
current ordinance appears to be one of format, organization and
wording. The Committee further stated that the most important
recommendation which the Sign Committee can make is that the
ordinance be rewritten in a more understandable manner and that
graphics be included to further clarify points which are
difficult to make by words alone .
The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Sign Regulations
with the overall intent of providing attractive and effective
identification.
Prior to drafting the Sign Regulations, Staff needs to receive
some direction from the Planning Commission on several issues .
Only 3 of the 10 listed issues were discussed.
1) Height of freestanding signs . The height of 15 ' or the
height of the roof line, whichever is lower, was recommended to
the Commission by the Sign Committee. The Commission has
recently approved signs up to 20 ' in height.
Staff recommended that the maximum height of a freestanding sign
be 20 ' or the height of the roof line, whichever is lower.
Regular Meeting PCM-4-127 12/3/84
Mr. Robert Dunn stated he needed a freestanding directory sign.
The problem with his site was that it ha.s the maximum signage
allowed under the existing ordinance. He asked the Planning
Commission to consider allowing him more signage.
Mr. Frank Clark, General Manager from Ozzie Davis, stated that a
Freeway Corridor signage is important because 90 - 95% of the
purchasers lived outside of Dublin. He requested consideration
of a Freeway Corridor
Mr. Dick Franz said he thought the City ' s intent was to restrict
signs from being visible from the freeways.
Mr. Mark Harvey, of Dublin Honda stated there was limited access
to Dublin.
Mr. Rich Robbins from Shamrock Chrysler/Ford stated there was a
definite need for advertising. Over 90% of their business came
from the outside communities. They settled for a 20 ' sign but
would have liked a taller sign.
Mr. Albert Lucas, who served on the Sign Committee, said it would
have been nice to have had the input when the Sign Committee was
meeting .
Mr. Bruce King, who also served on the Sign Committee, stated
that the 15 ' height limit was somewhat arbitrary, but that a
definite limit was needed. He agreed that a Freeway Corridor
might be considered. He also supported using the Site ,
Development Review process to regulate signs.
Ed Wright, 6305 Dougherty Road, also expressed a concern
regarding the signage for his property.
Mr. Clark said a 20 ft. height may be okay in town, but along the
freeway; -he would like to have signs visible to freeway
travelers .
Mr. Harvey said a 20 ft. sign at Caspers could knock you out, but
a 20 ft. sign at the Honda Dealership would not be out of place .
Mr. Robbins said the City needed land marks or points of
reference to help orient out of town customers.
Mr. Bob Woolverton and Mr. Robbins stated that their companies
had standard signs .
Commissioner Mack and Chairman Alexander requested the auto
dealers and others to submit their companies' sign standards .
Mr. King said he would provide the company sign standards that he
had available .
1
Commissioner Raley requested Staff to check with other cities
regarding Freeway Corridors and the height of berms along
freeways in the City.
Regular Meeting PCM-4-128 12/3/84
P�ANN�NC, ce mrn
rn,NUTES
��. Mr. Stan Harrop said that if Freeway Sigfis were allowed, they
could not be restricted to just auto dealers. . Other businesses
legitimately rely on outside sales .
Commissioner Raley asked if the auto dealers would be willing to
give up some wall signage in exchanged for freeway signage.
Mr. Clark said he was willing to give up the wall signage.
Mr. Robbins concurred.
Mr. Donald Sullivan of Howard Johnson' s Motor Lodge said his case
was the converse. He would give up his freestanding sign for
additional wall signage.
2 ) Multiple freestanding signs on one lot. Staff Comment:
Shopping Centers with 20 or more tenants may have multiple
freestanding identification signs . Otherwise, only one sign is
permitted. The Sign Regulations could be drafted so that multiple
signs are allowed for certain specific uses, such as automobile
dealerships, however this would be difficult to justify to other
tenants in other retail commercial centers.
Staff recommends that the new Sign Regulations maintain the
provisions for multiple shopping center identification signs and
allow one freestanding sign per lot.
Mr. Robbins stated that he had two dealerships on one lot;
ther6fore he needed two freestanding signs.
Commissioner Raley commented that Mr. Robbin' s situation was
unique because of the site control maintained by Ford Motor
Company.
John Babalot, Mr. Dunn, and Mike Laterotte all expressed concerns
regarding the multiple freestanding signs on one lot because
multiple tenants were involved.
3 ) Aesthetics . Staff Comment: The Sign Committee studied the
issue of sign aesthetics at great length. No formal
recommendation was made to the Planning Commission. The
disadvantage in regulation sign aesthetics is that the design
colors and materials of a sign are often very subjective matters
and differences of opinion can be expected. J
Mr. King brought up the fact that other cities have a Design
Review Board. All signs are presented to a formal board for
approval . He also stated he did not want to see that occur in
Dublin, as it takes the process almost 3 to 4 weeks, which is
precious time for a businessman trying to open a new store.
Chairman Alexander asked Mr. King if he was opposed to a separate
Design Review Committee .
Mr. King stated he was . But he was for Site Development Review
for all signs .
Regular Meeting PCM-4-129 12/3/84
The Planning Commission concurred that- all signs should be
subject to Site Development Review. Should someone be
dissatisfied with the Site Development Review Action, the action
could be appealed to the Planning Commission for resolution.
Chairman Alexander continued the discussion of the other sign
issues until December 17 , 1984 .
NEW BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Raley stated that all commissi ers received in the
mail passes for the Snyfy Theaters . He as ed if Staff was aware
of the passes .
Mr. Tong stated that he was not aware o the passes. He
suggested that the Planning Commission ring in one of the passes
so that Staff could check it for repo ting purposes .
The Planning Commission raised the uestion of having two
optional resolution with each acti n item. The Planning
Commission did not reach concens on the question.
Chairman Alexander asked if a ility lock out procedure would
have prevented the Sawmill si ation. Staff indicated it did not
know for sure, but that the S wmill had proceeded to install
their signs in spite of Sta ' s explicit directions to obtain
permission.
The Planning Commission r ised the question of requiring Site
Development Review appro al for all project in the City.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no fur er business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:30 p.m. .
Respectfully submitted,
1
Planning ommission Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
Re lar Meeting PCM-4-130 12/3/84
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 17 1984
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations -
Supplemental Staff Report .
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - Draft Sign Graphics
2 - December 3, 1984 Staff Report and
Draft Sign Graphics
RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Hear Staff Presentation
2 - Question Staff
3 - Receive Public Comments
4 - Continue Public Hearing to the
1/7/85 Planning Commission Meeting
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
PREVIOUS ACTION AND SUM-MARY: ' The December 3, 1984 , Staff Report
outlined ten issue areas involving the subject of sign
regulation. The listing identified some of the major issue areas
the Commission and Staff will have to .tackle in formulating a new
sign ordinance. Each issue area was presented individually along
with a Staff recommendation.
At the Planning Commission Meeting of December 3, 19841
discussion was held on the first three issue areas; Height of
Freestanding Signs , Multiple. Freestanding Signs on One Lot, and
Aesthetics .
There was a substantial amount of public comment received not
only on the three issue areas formally discussed.
Much of the* testimony received at the Planning Commission meeting
of December 3 , 1984, centered. around concerns and desires of
special business uses adjoining the freeways . Discussion
included the concept of establishi.bng a freeway coridor in
response to special identification needs of freeway oriented uses
such as car and truck dealerships, motels, restaurants, etc.
Staff was directed to investigate the use of freeway sign
corridors in other communities . A representative of the sign
industry, Bruce King, who also served as member of the Sign
Committee, indicated he would also research /the use of freeway
sign corridors . No information was received from Mr. King at the
writing of this staff report.
As indicated in the previous report, Staff has reviewed sign
regulations of nearby jurisdictions (Concord, Fremont, Hayward,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, Tracy and Walnut Creek) . A detailed
review of the ordinances revealed that three of the seven
jurisdictions have formalized sign regulations for uses adjoining
a freeway. Both Concord and San Ramon prohibit use of freeway
oriented signs, with Concord identifying a freeway corridor 660 '
in width. The City of Tracy provides for "Freeway Identification
Signs" permitting greating allowance of size limitations "for
easier vision to highway motorists" . In addition .to allowing a
larger sign area, the Tracy ordinance ties the sign height to the
freeway elevation allowing a sign 35 ' above the grade of the
freeway or 45 ' maximum height, whichever is more restrictive.
---------------------------------------------------------------
IT�iI iJO . , ' 0� � C0PI"S m
1 �
_h:«...
,a {
J.
In the following report, Staff will summarize the points raised
at the previous meeting regarding the first three issue areas.
Staff will also provide supplemental information involving issue
areas #1 and #2 in response to comments received at the previous
meeting.
The next section of the report provides supplemental information
in regards to issue area #8 Signs for Multi-Story Buildings,
expanding this issue area to discuss generalized standards for
building sign heights and projections and to consider location
and use of roof signs .
DISCUSSION AREAS OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 3, 1984
As mentioned previously in this report, much of the discussion at
the Planning Commisson Meeting of December 3, 1984 centered
around the question of allowing freeway freestanding sign
identification for certain business uses along freeways
580 and 680 . The concept of a "Freeway Corridor" was discussed
which could involve the formulation of special sign regulation
criteria to regulate freestanding -business identification signage
for certain uses adjoining the freeways . As discussed at the
Commission meeting, regulations 'pertaining to corridor width,
qualifying uses and sign height, copy, area and number might be
considered to address special identification needs of uses such
as car and truck dealerships, motels, etc. The following
issues/questions arose in relation to the "Freeway Corridor"
concept:
What questions/concerns would such a corridor raise?
If the intent of business signs is to provide identification
for customers going to a particular business, should special
freeway signage be allowed?
Should feeway travelers be subjected to business signage
even if the traveler is not looking for these businesses?
In addition to the discussion involving the concept of a "Freeway
Corridor" , discussion was also made involving the following
areas :
A. Function of Current Site Development Review (SDR)
Current use of SDR provides staff opportunity to make
limited aesthetic review of proposed signage to assure signs
compliment proposed structures and surroundings.
SDR is done on site by site basis
!r. . B. Provision 'of Special Freestanding Signage
Current ordinance regulations pertaining to Directory Signs,
Master Center Identification Signs or Low Profile Signs provide
special types of freestanding signs under specified
circumstances .
C. Height of Freestanding Signs
Cc-- ions to measure/regulate height of freestanding signs
include; measure from finished grade at base of sign, tie to
"silhouette" of roofline, tie to height of roofline measured
parallel to slope.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING ISSUE AREAS #1 AND 92; HEIGHT
AND NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS:
In researching the sign regulations of nearby jurisdictions, a
common denominator in the regulation of freestanding signs became
apparent. Only one jurisdiction utilized a standard height/area
limitation for freestanding signs (San Ramon limits the height of
freestanding signs to a maximum of 12 feet and the area to 1 sq.
ft. @ 100 sq. ft. of lot area up to a maximum size of 35 sq. .
ft. ) . The remaining jurisdictions utilize more complex
approaches by providng varying standards within the same
lov
_' ordi%nance to regulatt ie height, area, copy an, smber of
freestanding signs utilized on any particular lot. Although the
means of regulation varies widely by jurisdiction, the
controlling factors to regulate the signs were observed to be
some combination of sign setback, lot area, lot frontage or
zoning district. _
Another common denominator (six of seven ordinances) is the
provision of special situation freestanding signage. Whether
labeled "master center signs" , "directory signs" or "low
profile-planter type signs" , the apparent intent is to allow in
very specific instances the use of special types of additional
freestanding 'signage. Again the criteria varies between each
ordinance, but each dictates some type of requirement such as lot
size, total frontage or number of tenants to determine when and
where additional freestanding signage can be utilized. The
current City ordinance also makes allowance for use of special
situation freestanding signage using similar criteria to that
listed above.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider
what approach, or combination of approaches, it
feels should be utilized to regulate height, area,
copy and number of freestanding signs. Two types
of approaches are listed below:
1 - single, uniform standard used throughout city
2 - differing standards based on lot dimensions
(lot area or frontage) , zoning district or
types of businesses (e.g. regional serving
vs . local serving users) .
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING ISSUE AREA 18; SIGNS FOR
MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS AND GENERALIZED STANDARDS FOR WALL SIGN
HEIGHT, PROJECTION AND LOCATION:
The Staff Report dated December 3 , 1984 , recommended that wall
signs be allowed on the first floor only, not more than 15 ' above
grade. Directly associated with this issue area is the question
of whether to differentiate between wall signs and roof signs and
whether it is desirable to establish locational criteria for roof
mounted signs .
Roof/wall signs can be grouped into the- categories listed below.
Representation of each of these categories currently can be
observed in the City of Dublin. The categories are graphically
depicted at the end of this report.
1. Signs located on flat wall surface (tilt-up concrete panel
or equivalent)
2 . Signs mounted on wall below roof drip line
3 . Signs mounted on architectural facia or facia insert .
4 . Signs mounted on roof beam support
5 . Signs located on building wall or parapet above roof/walkway
cover
6 . Signs located on sloping roof supported by bracing or angle
bar
7 . Signs located on lower slope of mansard roof forward of
building wall
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends that in addition to
considering the imposition of a 15 foot height
limit for wall signs that the Commission also
provide direction as to whether it considers it
desirable to differentiate between roof and wall
signs and whether it is desirable to establish
categories and design standards for acceptable -
-3-
R :r;•..., _ .. . ,.. .' _,S: . .. .. �.-^?�i.s:us:.:.'ti. '`:'�.""�.'i�:L•i3.'��5,'T.:...r... '""i' i;'�aPS.-ci .�„z _. a,�rn�,,;.:, r ;r_,-
roof mounted signs. The alternative is to retain
the approach currently utilized within the City' s
sign regulations which lump roof and wall signs
into one category.
EXEMPT OR PERMITTED SIGNS. A common element found in many
jurisdiction ' s sign regul tions are listings of exempt or
permitted signs . By exempting certain categories of signage,
jurisdictions . can direct regulatory attention to regulation of
signs utilized to advertise, promote, and/or identify businesses.
While the City' s current ordinance includes a comprehensive
listing of permitted signs (Section 80-60 .65) , it is recommended
that the Planning Commission give consideration to the categories
included within the existing ordinance and categories found in
other ordinances . Categories in Grouping . "A" are currently found
in some manner in the City' s existing ordinance and within the
recommendations of the Sign Committee . Categories in Grouping
"B" have been derived from Staff ' s review of sign regulations of
seven cities within our geographical region and information from
the Sign Users Council of California.
A - EXEMPT OR PERMITTED SIGNS - E:{ISTING CITY ORDINANCE AND SIGN
�Q COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Official public signs or notices or any temporary notice
posted by a public agency or official, or by a person giving
legal notice;
2 ) House numbers, name plate or identification of house
members, or mail box identification;
3 ) Memorial tablets or signs, or signs identifying a
benefactor, a location of historical interest, or a statue or
monument;
4 ) On-premise signs displayed for the direction, warning or
safety of the public : including pedestrian and vehicular traffic ;
5) Temporary political signs ;
6) Temporary sale or lease sign which is to be intended for use
solely as a notice of an offering for sale, lease, or rental of a
parcel, structure, or establishment on which the sign is located;
7 ) A bulletin board used to display announcements pertaining to
an on-site church, school , community center_ , park, hospital,
and/or public or instituional building;
8) A directory or other exclusively informational listing of
tenant names attached to the wall at the entrance of a building;
9 ) Signs required to be maintained by law or governmental
order, rule or regulation;
10) One identification sign when used to designate the name or
the name and use of a public or semi-public building, or of a
community facility, medical or Residential Care Facility,
multiple dwelling or dwelling group, or mobilehome park or to
inform the public as to the use of a lawful parking area,
recreation area, or other use permitted in the District;
11) Service station price signs , with prescribed maximum area
and height;
12) Pedestrian signs, such as shingle signs, which are oriented
towards pedestrian traffic and serves to identify and indicate .
pertinent facts concerning a business or professional service
lawfully conducted on the same premises ;
-4-
�.....T Y9." V YL"W�b L 'C+44SUyt+.�2
`.?��.!.��...4..,�. ..,... ..., ....,..,i .��. .�' �• :_1,ni y.: "„"�j'V.`.�:�Y"17�..�,-.,YC'�:�nfuC—..�'t:^,^.",4+,^rrViter.^m4tstrR`ic:^,�ravr
J
., � 13 ) Signs located inside a building or structure provided any
such sign is neither attached to windows with its sign copy
visible from the outside, nor otherwise so located inside so as
to be conspicuously visible and readable, without intentional and
deliberate effort, from outside the building or structure;
14 ) Signs, flags, emblems and insignia of duly constituted
governmental bodies, including traffic signs or similar
regulatory devices of public utilities ;
15) The flag, pennant, or insignia of any charitable,
educational, philantropic, civic, professional or religious
organization;
B - EXEMPT OR PERMITTED SIGNS - OTHER POSSIBLE CATEGORIES
1) Murals or other artistic paintings on walls, provided no
logos, emblems or other similar devices, sign copy or
illustrations of activities associated with uses on the premises
or in the vicinity are included in the mural or painting;
2) Holiday decorations commonly associated with any national,
local or religious holiday;
3 ) Signs which are within a private recreational use and which
cannot be seen from a public street or adjacent properties;
4 ) Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor,. or
lending agency when placed on work under construction;
5) Parking lot traffic regulatory signs and signs denoting
parking time limits or legal responsibilities as permitted or
required by Off-Street Parking Regulations;
STAFF COMMENT: In considering the categories of exempt or
permitted signs , the Commission should define
limitations on the size, height, location and
manner of illumination of certain categories of
exempt or permitted signs.
PROHIBITED SIGNS. Just as a listing of exempt or permitted signs
is a common element in many jurisdiction ' s sign regulations, a
listing of signs prohibited from use is also a typical element.
The recommendations of the Sign Committee included a listing of
five categories of signs recommended to be prohibited under the
sign ordinance ultimately adopted. The City ' s existing ordinance
has only one explicit sign prohibition, a restriction of use of
advertising in any agricultural or residential district (Section
8-60 . 66) , but serves to prohibit a wide spectrum of signs by not
specifically indicating that their use is allowed.
Listed below for consideration by the Planning Commission is a
comprehensive listing of possible categories for prohibited .
signs . Grouping "A" covers the five categories indicated within
the Sign Committee ' s recommendations . Grouping "B" includes
categories derived from other jurisdictions sign regulations .
A - PROHIBITED SIGNS - SIGN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) No sign shall have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights
or any other illuminating device which has a changing light
intensity, brightness or color;
2 ) Any sign which rotates, moves, or contains moving parts or
depicts animation in any manner;
3 ) Pennants , banners , balloons, other "wind signs" and
searchlights and similar advertising devices ;
4 ) Portable on-site signs including sandwich type, A-frame and
bench signs ; /
-5- -
5) Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer on a right-of-way
or property, unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used
in its normal business capacity and not for the sole. purpose of
attracting people to a place of business.
B - PROHIBITED SIGNS - OTHER POSSIBLE CATEGORIES
1) Paper, cloth, or other temporary-type signs;
2 ) Signs, either permanent or temporary, painted on any
building wall, fascia, parapet, awning or fence;
3) Signs using colors that contain fluorescent properties;
4 ) Advertising signs in any agricultural (A) or Residential (R)
District:
5) Any sign designed for emitting sound, odor or visible
matter.
6) Any sign containing any obscene matter;
7 ) No illuminated sign shall be located so as to be confused
with or to resemble any warning traffic control device;
e
8 ) Neither the direct, nor reflected light from primary light
sources shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor
vehicles ;
9 ) Signs which purport to be, or are, an imitation of, or
resemble official traffic signs.
10 ) Statuary when used for advertising purposes;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider
the above listed categories of prohibited signs
and provide direction as to what categories they
feel should be included 'in a draft ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue their point-by-point consideration of the
issue areas outlined in the December 3 , 1984 , Staff Report. Time
permitting, Staff further recommends that the Commission consider
.the new issue areas presented in this Staff Report and the
supplemental information offered on the issue areas previously
discussed. Public comment/input should be encouraged on each of
the issue areas . It is anticipated that at least one additional
hearing will be necessary to consider the issue areas provided
for discussion. To that end , Staff recommends this matter be
�-. continued to the January 7 , 1985 Planning Commission Meeting.
-6-
PCB N 1 N G C.Brn f
rn►NV
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
Mr. Gailey reopened the discussion on the Sign Regulations by
summarizing the material presented to the Planning Commission in
the December 17 , 1984 Staff Report. The Commission had been
discussing major Issue Areas at their December 3, 1984 , meeting
leaving off at Issue Area #4 . In the December 17, 1984 Staff
Report, Staff introduced two additional Issue Areas and provided
supplemental information on some of ten initially presented Issue
Areas .
4 ) Portable Signs Staff Comment: The major problem was the
use of "A" frame signs, especially along Village Parkway. Staff
recommended the new ordinance prohibit the use of portable signs .
Susan Hunt, of Sacbor, requested clarification of definition of
"A" frame signs .
Ken Braillard, of Chicago Title and the Valley Marketing
Association, stated that the real estate industry depends on use
of open-house signs . Typically used on weekends, which account
for up to 40% of the traffic through open homes . Mr. Braillard
said real estate agents would be receptive to regulations and
willing to work with the City. Mr. Braillard requested a
distinction be made between quality open-house signs and
temporary cardboard signs . He stated a need to use signs in
commercial areas .
Mr. Franz stated that regulations should be directed at
controlling the cluttering of signs at street corners.
Chairman Alexander stated "A" frame signs and open-house real
estate signs should be looked at differently. Possible controls
on use of open-house signs could regulate the number, size,
placement and duration of use . Chairman Alexander stated the
signs should be limited to residential areas .
Mr. Franz and Mr. Braillard stated signs were needed occasionally
during the week.
Mr . King stated he supported allowing open-house signs and
stressed problems revolving around enforcement of regulations .
Mr. Tong advised that Staff will draft information concerning
open-house real estate signs and return to the Commission.
5 ) Sign Problem on Village Parkway Staff Comment: The
problems of tenant identification were unique along sections of
Village Parktaay and may warrant use of specially designed tenant
directory signs .
Regular Meeting PCM-4-135 12/17/84
l
Mr. John Babalok asked what type of signage could be used for a
N 20+ tenant commercial lenter. A
Mr. Tong discussed the various types of freestanding signs as
options available above and beyond use of directory signs.
Chairman Alexander supported the concept of directory signs and
stated there was a need to use- address ranges to aid in
building/tenant identification. He called for Staff to survey
the Village Parkway area to look at the number of buildings _.. .
involved and the number of tenants involved. He also suggested
that detailed directories located on-site out of the traffic flow
might be appropriate where large numbers of tenants were present.
Ms . Joyce Getty stated that clear address identification was also
needed for police and fire calls .
Mr. Tong advised that Staff would conduct a detailed study of the
parcels, tenants , building spacing involved and design
alternatives that may be appropriate for directory signs .
6 ) - Nonconforming Signs Staff Comment: While application of an
amortization schedule to handle the use of non-conforming signs
was considered desirable, the implication of recent State
Legislation concerning signs would have to be revie:aed between
Staff and the City Attorney.
` Chairman Alexander stated there is a difference between illegal
signs and nonconforming signs .
Mr. Babalok and Commissioner; Mack discussed what time frame was
needed to amortize value of non-conforming signs . Mr. Babalok
stated it was dependent on the length of time the tenant had on a
lease .
Mr. King stated any amortization schedule utilized would have to
be very specific accounting for different costs, locations of
signs and the type of business and reliance upon the individual
sign.
Mr. Woodward discussed the concept of impulse buying and
dependence on adequate signage.
Mr . Woolverton stated he hoped the City would not opt to try to
remove signs which were legally installed but made non-conforming
by an ordinance change.
Mr . Davis stated that it is difficult to comment on the concept
of "non-conforming signs" until that new ordinance is actually
drafted. He stated that a 3 - S year amortization schedule was
not adequate .
Mr. Robbins stated that amortizi.ion may conflict with the use of
standardized industry signs .
Mr. King stated that the new legislation, SB 142 , would have to
be closely analyzed.
Regular Meeting PCM-4-136 12/17/24
7 ) Signs for Promotional Events Staff Comment: Staff
recommended that promotional signage be limited to bona fide
grand openings and once-a-year special events.
Mr. King stated an alternating approach ( i .e . , one week up - one
week down or one month up - one month down) was a typical
approach to regulating promotional signs.
Mr. Tong described the current means of handling promotional
signs . One time events are subject to a Conditional Use Permit
Review. Where more then one special event per year occurs; a --
formal Conditional Use Permit application is required. Time
frame is typically 30 days , with a maximum of 60 days .
Mr. Babalok stated many businesses face several special
promotional events a year.
Commissioner Petty stated preference of a 30 days - a year time
frame .
Chairman Alexander supported the current system and stated if
more events were anticipated per year, that a blanket Conditional
Use Permit covering those events could be filed.
Mr. Davis described in detail his particular situation stressing
the large amount of money spent on advertising each year and the
special role of promotional signage in his overall advertising
� . package . Mr. Davis suggested a one year trial period without
regulation.
114s . Getty stated concerns that with a developing auto row, use of
a moritorium could mean 1/2 the businesses in the area could have
promotional signage up at any one time. Monitoring use of
promotional signs is typically a problem. The total square
footage of all signage should be considered.
Mr. Robbins , Mr. Babalok and Mr. King stated that promotional _
events often have short lead time that create problems if a
permit needs to be secured from the City.
Mr. King stated he was asked to represen`. Lhe Dublin Chamber of
Commerce regarding the Sign Regulations . He stated that strict
regulations will result in blatant violations and that he would
ask that promotional signage not be regulated.
8 ) Signs for Multi-'-Story Buildings Staff Comment: Staff
recommended that Sign Regulations limit signs to the first floor
of buildings and that a 15 ' height limit be observed.
Commissioner Petty stated preference to have roof and wall signs
lumped into the same category . He also requested Staff review
what regulations other cities use.
Chairman Alexander stated a desire to restrict use of signs
extending above the roof silhouette and use of signs on sloping
roofs . He also expressed his opposition to signs painted on
walls .
Regular Meeting PCM-4-137 12/17/84
i
i
Mr. King indicated signs on sloping roofs could 'utilize "wrap-
arounds" to mask supporting members/brackets.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Site Development Review (SDR) process
could be used to review signs on roofs .
9 ) Window Signs Staff Comment: Staff recommended that the
existing 25% limitation be maintained.
Mr. King stated that 25% was not adequate in his opinion.
Ms . Getty stated that window signage should be assessed against
that total allowable square footage of signs allowed. She also
stated that more signage does not necessarily equate to more
business . A quality vs . quantity question comes into play.
Commissioners Barnes and Petty stated that a 25% limitation
appeared appropriate.
10 ) Painted Wall Signs Staff Cogent: Staff recommended that
the Commission consider whether wall painted signs should be
prohibited.
Mr . King stated that prohibiting such signs would put financial
burden on tenants rather then the landlord.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Site Development Review process could
be used to regulate such signs but that use of attached,
articulated signage should be encouraged.
The consensus of the Commission was to prohibit use of painted
wall signs .
The problems of enforcement were discussed with the use of a
citation process considered.
Chairman Alexander continued the discussion of the two remaining
sign issues until January 7 , 1985 .
NEW BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Regular Meeting PC14-4-138 12/17/84
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 7, 1985
SUBJECT: Sign Regulations
Supplemental Staff Report
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - December 3 , 1984 Staff Report
2 - December 17, 1984 Staff Report
3 - Village Parkway map indicating --
properties which would benefit
from use of directory signs
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff presentation
1 2 ) Question Staff
L 3 ). Receive public comments
u 4 ) Close discussion segment of
hearings on Sign Regulations
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
PREVIOUS ACTION AND SUMMARY: The December 3 , 1984 , Staff Report
outlined ten issue areas involving the subject of Sign
Regulations . The December 17 , 1984 , Staff Report provided
supplemental information on the three of these issue areas and
introduced two additional Issue Areas (Issue Area 1711; Exempt or
permitted signs and Issue Area 1412 : Prohibited Signs) . During
the course of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 17th,
Issue Areas #4 through 1410 were discussed. The Planning
Commission continued this item to the January 7, 1985, meeting to
consider the final two Issue Areas and to allow Staff to respond
to testimony received at the December 17, 1984, Planning
Commission Meeting.
ISSUE AREA 144 : PORTABLE SIGNS - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
In response to the public input received at the previous Planning
Commission Meeting, the Commission directed Staff to return with
draft language for consideration by the Commission that would
provide for the use of off site open-house signs . This category
of signs could be included within the listing of exempt or
permitted signs (see Issue Area 1711) . The text used to allow y
such signs could include specifications to control location,
l size, height, number and period of use of the signs.
Possible draft language is provided below for consideration;
EXEMPT OR PERMITTED SIGNS
B. 6) Open-house signs used in connection with the sale of
real property subject to the following special provisions ;
a. A maximum of two open-house signs are permitted
for each property being advertised for sale. Such
signage is permitted only in the public right-of-way
when adjacent to property lines of residentially zoned
lands or, upon proper authorization by the affected
private property owner, at the street corner on private
residential property. Such signage shall be located in
such a manner that it does not disrupt the normal flow
ITEM NO. f
/9 eAl 0 rS OF.
H
AT.TA.C.H_Mm3NT1
ip 014 , : � �
' of vehicle pedestrian traffic and not block
J/ views of such traffic. Signing is pro,._jited in the
center divider strip and/or traffic islands of public
streets .
b. Open-house signs are to be located at a distance
no further than the nearest intersection(s) of a
residential street and a major thoroughfare from the
property being advertised for sale. The size of the
sign shall not exceed four square feet and the height
shall not exceed four feet above grade.
C . Open-house signs- shall be securely installed and
shall be permitted only during the weekend period from
noon Friday sunset n or attached gtachedntoanys
e pubic -
signing is not o
sign post, traffic signal or utility pole.
Discussions with Staff from the Cities of Walnut Creek and
Fremont, the two nearby cities with provisions in their sign
ordinances to regulate the use of open-house signs, revealed that
even with the adoption of specific guidelines the use of such
signs remains an enforcement problem. The experiences related by
the Staff of each City indicated that the real estate industry
was not adequately regulated itself to -observe the guidelines in
the respective ordinances .
� ^ findings, Staff recommends that the Planning
In response to these
Commission consider requiring that a cash deposit or bond be
posted by each real estate agent/firm before they utilize open-
house signs . If enforcement problems then occurred, the City
could assess the costs of enforcement (i.e. , costs *to cover the
time spent on removing the illegal signs) against the deposit or
bond.
ISSUE AREA ILS ; SIGN PROBLEM ALONG VILLAGE PARKWAY - SUPPLEMENTAL
INFOROMATION
Staff performed a field survey of 34 properties along a section
of Village Parkway (extending from intersection of Amaoy Valley
e
Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard) to g supplemental
information regarding this issue area. The findings of the study
are summarized as follows ; Only five of the properties surveyed
currently utilize directory signs . Of these five properties;
four were observed to also utilize portable, or A-frame signs in
conjunction with the directory signs. In staff ' s opinion,
approximately 22 - of the 34 properties have no special
circumstances that would warrant the use of directory signage.
The majority of the uses along Village Parkway are actually
single story - single user commercial sites . Four of the
remaining twelve properties are commerical shopping centers or
commercial/office centers with at least 12 tenants which
t.� would probably derive more benefit from use of some type or
center identification sign. This signage would probably need to
be something between a low profile sign and a Shopping Center
Master Identification Sign . The large number of tenants in these
centers probably precludes the use of directory sign
identification as the resultant size of individual tenant
identification could not be large enough to be effective, or,
conversely, the size of the sign would be larger than considered
desirable .
The survey also provided base information to help staff determine
what type of design, site and locational criteria is considered
desirable for a possible directory sign program along Village
Parkway. As indicated abode, staff feels approximately 8 of 34
properties along this corridor have special circumstances and
could benefit from use of directory signs. These sites are
graphically depicted on Exhibit 3 . These sites include
properties where tenants occupy the rear of buildings which front
-2-
r -
. c
jl along Village Parkway or occupy buildings located behind other
buildings and are screened from viewed from Village Parkway. In
a few cases, the sites include buildings set perpendicular from
Village Parkway with some tenants located an extended distance
from the street. If such signage is all staff feels the
directory signs developed should be of a uniform design to
further promote their function for tenant identification. To
supplement this aspect of staff ' s review, a more comprehensive
field survey was performed of the design characteristics of the
twenty directory signs currently used in the City (including the
five directory signs along Village Parkway) .
The findings of that survey are summarized below:
1) Use of interior sign illumination: 10-yes 2-partial 8-no
2 ) Use of double faced copy: 16-yes 4-no
3 ) Average number of tenants identified: 5.3 tenants
(range from -1-14 tenants)
4 ) Average number of tenant identification that
existing signs could handle: 7 . 7 tenants
(range from 4-38 tenants)
5) Average number of tenants in building 7 .9 tenants
(ranged from 3-20 tenants )
6) Average size of directory sign face: 19 square feet
(ranged from 6 sq. ft. to 51 sq. ft. )
7 ) Average height of sign: 6 . 4 feet
(ranged from 3 ' to 15 ' )
8) Size range of letters used: most are 2"-5" with some up
to 10" .
9 ) Use of interchangeable copy: 17-yes 3-no
10 ) Sign identities building complex: 17-no .3-yes
11) Sign identifies address range : 14-no 6-yes
12 ) Use of portable/"A frame sign present in conjunction with
directory sign: 12 7yes 8-no
To further facilitate the Commission ' s review of this material,
staff has prepared a slide preparation which will allow a visual
presentation of desirable and undesirable features of the
directory signs surveyed. Based on the above information staff
is providing a "first-cut" summary of design, size and locational
criteria for a possible Village Parkway directory sign program.
Sign Size To further facilitate easy tenant identification,
Staff recommends that a standard sign size by used. The
height and width at the sign should be adequate to list a
range of 3 to 10 tenants while also providing adequate room
to identify the building complex. and address range . A sign
size of approximately 20 - 25 square feet would appear to be
adequate .
Sign Height A ma:cimum height of 7 ' is suggested which
would provide room to identify the building complex and
address range at the top of the sign ( 18"+) and still give
adequate room to identify a range of 3 to 10 tenants.
Sign Location A minimum setback of ten feet from face of
curb is suggested. Signs would have maximum visibility if
Placed adjoining project driveways next to the exiting /
traffic lanes . A ,triangular sight-distance area with 30 ' /
legs should be observed at the driveway.
_3_ _
:.� Standard Sign Copy It is suggested that each sign uniformly
identify ( i .e. , standard letter size and location) the name
of the building complex and/or one major tenant, and also
' clearly indicate the full address range of tenants located
on the premises . Flexibility in the color of sign copy is
recommended, but .letters used should be of a standardized
height and lettering style and copy should be limited to
what is functionally necessary to identify the tenant (i.e. ,
no extensive listing of products or services. should be
allowed) . Additionally, the design of the sign should
provide for easy interchanging of tenant identification
signs as tenants move in or out of the building. Sign copy
is recommended to be limited to one side of the sign only,
the side oriented towards oncoming traffic. A double faced
sign is not considered appropriate as copy on the reverse
side would not be clearly legible from the other traffic
lane located across the Village Parkway median strip.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the above
material and direct Staff as to whether a uniform directory sign
program is considered appropriate for use in the Village Parkway
area. If the Planning Commission finds this approach
appropriate, then Staff could return with more detailed ,
recommendation regarding the design, size and locational criteria
for the signs .
ISSUE AREA #6 ; NONCONFORMING SIGNS - SUr?LEMENTAL INFORMATION
In response to testimony at the previous Planning Commission
Meeting, Staff surveyed the Sign Regulations of neighboring
cities to review other approaches used in establishing
amortization schedules for nonconforming signs . This survey
revealed use of a; wide range of time frames for amortization
schedules . The survey did reveal that it is typical to utilize a
relatively short period ( 30 to 180 days) as the time frame for
the required removal of signage which becomes obsolete. Signage
of a more substantial/permanent nature which becomes
nonconforming as a result of an ordinance change, rezoning or
annexation was found to be subject to amortization periods
running all the way from one to seven years.
Recent changes in the State Business and Professions Code
covering on-premises advertising serves to restrict the ability
of jurisdictions to adopt new or modified sign regulations where
amortization schedules establish the time frame for removal of
non-conforming advertising displays or which serve to control
their maintenance, use, or repair. This 1983 Legislation
requires payment of "fair and just compensation" to the owner of
the display where amendments to an existing ordinance result in a
more restrictive amortization period than set forth in a pre-
existing ordinance .
As indicated in a previous report, Staff is or the opinion. that
final wording of any amortization section of a new ordinance
cannot be established until the City Attorney advises Staff of
options available in light of this new State Legislation.
A key factor in determining the City ' s options on use of
amortization schedules for nonconforming signs will be the
language used in the current City ordinance . The recent State
Legislation provides for amendments or modifications to existing
ordinances if the amortization period established is not more
restrictive than the period used in the pre-existing ordinances .
The current City ordinance has a provision that establishes a
three year amortization period for advertising displays rendered
nonconforming by amendments to the Sign Ordinance standards .
What options this provides to the City will have to be .determined
by way of review and input from the City Attorney.
One possible option to establishing and monitor� , g a sign,
amortization schedule within the new sign ordiiance would be to
deal with nonconforming signs through the regular development
review process . The business area in Dublin has proven to be a
rapidly changing and evolving area, which would seem to lend
.itself to a system that depends on the development review process
-4-
to incrementally impose the standards of a new sign ordinance.
It should be noted that even this approach would be impacted by
the new State Legislation. Certain thresholds of change to the
advertising display and/or the building or land use w.herd the
advertising display is located would have to be surpassed before
the City could require removal or modification to a non-
conforming sign without payment of "fair and just compensation"
to the owner of the sign.
ISSUE AREA #7 : SIGNS FOR PROMOTIONAL EVENTS - SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
At the Planning Commission meeting of December 17, 1984 , the
Commission received extensive testimony regarding the use of
promotional signs . Specifically, there was discussion concerning
the regulation of the range of allowable types of promotional
signage, the frequency and duration that promotional signage can
be utilized, and the processing requirements to allow City Staff
to review of promotional signage.
Public testimony centered around concerns that flexibility be
retained in any new Sign Ordinance that is adopted to allow a
wide range of types of promotional signage (e.g. grand openings,
new product lines , special sales, etc . ) , that the system used to
monitor promotional signage not involve extended processing
periods, and that only limited controls be imposed on the
frequency and duration that promotional signage can be utilized.
A field survey conducted by Staff revealed that the majority of
promotional signage being utilized was used by "fast-food"
restaurants ( advertising new food product lines or that the
restaurant was currently hiring help) or regular sit-down
restaurants (advertising special meal deals or the provision of
live entertainment) . The use of promotional signage by
businesses other then these two groups was very limited.
Staff continues to recommend that the new Sign Regulations
include stringent standards regarding promotional signage. Use
of liberal standards for regulating the type, size, frequency and
duration of promotional signage is considered counter productive
to the ceneral purposes of developing sign regulations which will
provide effective and attractive identification. It is
considered undesirable to frame the regulations governing use of
promotional signage for the whole City by the needs of one or two
small sub-groups .
The existing regulatory method ( i .e . use of Administrative
Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits) has proven
to be generally effective in handling the small number of
requests for special promotional signage. Minor fine-tuning to
this system can be considered to provide the necessary
flexibility, to fast-track requests and to facilitate
enforcement.
ISSUE AREA Ir° ; SIGNS FOR MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS - SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
The Planning Commission requested that Staff review sign
ordinances of other jurisdictions to determine the approaches
used to regulate the height of building signs and the means, if
utilized, that other jurisdictions differentiate between wall
signs and roof signs . The patterns observed in the ordinances of
neighboring cities in regards to these two areas are summarized
below.
While the majority of the ordinances specifically define wall
signs and projecting signs (typically any sign extending more
than twelve inches from a wall surface) they do not typically
differentiate between wall signs and roof signs.
Only the cities of Sar/ Ramon and Walnut Creek have special
regulations that relate to roof signs . The other jurisdictions
typically only restrict use of any signs extending above the
parapet or roof ridgeline but do not prohibit .the use of roof
mounted signs as long as they observe those restrictions. San
-5-
i'
r' Ramon 's ordinance also restricts use of signs projecting above
the facia of the building to which it is attached. Walnut
Creek ' s ordinance allows use of roof mounted signs only by single
story buildings and regulates their position on sloping roofs to
below the mid-point of the slope of the roof they are located on.
The Planning Commission expressed an interest in specifically
discouraging/disallowing use of roof mounted signs on sloping
roofs with visible mounting brackets and use of signs extending
above the building silhouette. One approach is to include a
category within the listing of prohibited signs (Issue Area #12 )
that specifically addresses both these -types of roof mounted
signs .
Possible draft language is listed below for consideration.
PROHIBITED SIGNS
B. 11) Any sign mounted on a sloping roof with visible
support brackets or any sign which extends above the roof
ridgeline or parapet.
Only the ordinances of San Ramon and Hayward regulate whether
non-first floor establishments can have signs. San Ramon' s
ordinance restricts use of any wall signs higher than fifteen
feet above grade, Hayward' s ordinance allows non-first floor uses
signage of a prescribed size ( 10- 50 square feet) depending on
the type of use and zoning district involved.
As an option to outright prohibiting second floor advertising, or
adopting a specific height limit for wall signs . The Commission
may consider use of the Site Development Review (SDR) process for
any signs located above the finished floor elevation of a second
floor level .
STAFF RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue their point-by-point e:-�nsideration at the
issue areas outlined in the previous Staff Reports . Once
discussion has been taken on Issue Areas 1#11 and 1#12 , Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission consider the supplemental
information provided in both the December 17th and January 7th
Staff Reports . Staff further recommends that the Planning
Commission close the discussion secment of the hearing on the
Sign Regulations . Staff will return to-the Commission for formal
Public hearings once a draft ordinance has been written.
COPIES :
J Chamber of Commerce
_ p�NN►NG e,pm/n
Commissioner Petty asked if additional envir mental re
il �/as
especially in terms of traffic impacts, wo d occur at a later
stage . Staff said that additional envi,ro ental review would
occur with the processing of the Site D elopment Review.
Commissioner Raley said that the Pla ing Commission should
review the overall site plan. Chai an Alexander said that a
general site plan for the entire a a should be required prior to
individual Site Development Revie being processed.
Commissioner Raley and Mack no d their concerns with the
proposed height of the five-s ry office buildings . - -
Chairman Alexander requeste more detailed information be
provided on the plans and oted he would like to see the
development plans come b k to the Planning Commission.
It was the consensus the Planning Commission to continue this
item to 1/21/85 so t t revised conditions could be developed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Sign Regulation Review.
Mr . Gailey reopened the discussion on the Sign Regulations by
summarizing the actions taken to date at two previous Commission
Meetings and by describing the material presented to the Planning
Commission in the January 7 , 1985 , Staff Report. The Commmission
had been discussing major sign issue areas at their December 17 ,
1984 , meeting leaving off at Issue Area #10 . Remaining for
discussion were Issue Areas #11 and #12 and supplemental
information on some of the ten previously discussed issue areas
as supplied in the December 17 , 1984 , and January 7 , 1985, Staff
Reports .
11) Exempt or Permitted Signs Staff Comment: Staff advised
that a listing of exempt or permitted signs is a common element
of most sign ordinances . Two lists were supplied for
consideration by the Commission; The first list included 15
items taken either from the existing City Ordinance or from the
recommendations of the Sign Regulation Committee . The second
list included items taken from other City ' s sign regulations . An
additional category, open house real estate signs, was also
suggested for consideration and had been presented in detail
within the January 7 , 1984 , Staff Report in response to testimony
received at the December 17 , 1984 Commission Meeting.
The Commission expressed its consensus opinion that two open
house real estate signs was 'an appropriate limit, as had been
proposed by Staff in the draft language for these signs .
Commissioner Raley inquired as to what regulations were realistic
governing open house real estate signs given the problems
anticipated with on going enforcement .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-004 1/7/85
Mr . Gailey advised of the enforcement problems described by Staff
members of the cities of Walnut Creek and -Fremont, two cities
with regulations dealing with open house real estate signs . The
conclusion of the Staff members contacted was that the real
estate industry could probably not be relied upon to be self-
regulating regarding this issue .
Chairman Alexander and Mr. Tong -relayed their understanding as to
how the City of Pleasanton handles illegal use of open house real
estate signs placed in the public right of way (police pick them
up) and within the City of Dublin (street maintenance people pick
them up) .
Commissioner Raley and Mr. Tong discussed the possibility/need to
have regulations controlling the total number of open house real
estate signs at any one intersection. No consensus was expressed
by the Commission regarding this matter.
Arnold Durer stated concerns over the proliferation of paper off
premises subdivision signs advertising new residential
developments .
Mr . Tong advised that use of these signs are not allowed under
the existing ordinance .
Mr. Robbins redirected the discussion away from Issue Area nll by
referring to the January 7 , 1985 , letter received from Jim
Daugherty, President of the Board of Directors of the Dublin
Chamber of Commerce . The letter stated the Chamber ' s desire to
withhold taking a position on the proposed sign ordinance until
such time as the final recommendations and changes had been made
by the Planning Commission.
Mr . Robbins continued by asking how the Sign Regulation Committee
secured its input.
Chairman Alexander indicated that a copy of the Sign Regulation
Committee ' s Report could be made available to Mr. Robbins for his
review.
Mr. Robbins posed specific questions about the use of
freestanding signs inquiring if the intent of Staff and the
Commission was to start from scratch with new regulations, go
with the Sign Regulation Committee ' s recommendations ; or use the
existing ordinance as a starting point. Mr . Robbins requested
that the existing standard be retained and stated he objected to
the use of a 20 ' maximum height limit for freestanding signs . He
also indicated his objections to the possible use of the
development review process as a means to bring non-conforming
signs into conformance with new or modified regulations .
Mr . Gailey explained briefly the new state legislation concerning
on-premises advertising displays and the legislation ' s impact on
amortization schedules and the ability of jurisdictions. to
require removal or modifications of non-conforming sigs . Mr .
Gailey discussed two options in approaching the elimination of
non-conforming signs . The first option was explained as
Regular Meeting PCM-5-005 1/7/85
incorporating the City ' s existing amortization schedule into the
amended ordinance and systematically eliminating non-conforming
signs at the end of the amortization period. The second option
discussed involved the use of the development review process
under this option, as parcels file for modifications to their
existing land use, Staff could require removal or elimination of
non-conforming signs as part of the development review process .
Mr. Gailey advised that both options are subject to sections of
the recent referenced State Legislation.
Issue Area #6 Nonconforming Signs Responding to the discussion
centering around Mr . Robbins comments, the Commission discussed
the supplemental information involving non-conforming signs
supplied in the January 7 , 1985, Staff Report.
Commissioner Mack requested that Staff ..provide copies of the
State Legislation directly to the Commission.
Commissioner Raley stated a desire to establish a low threshold
for "tripping" the development review process which could allow
the city to require an upgrading of non-conforming signage
present on the site . He expressed support of the "turn-over"
approach which would provide for incremental upgrades as new
project submittals were processed. On a general note,
Commissioner Raley questioned whether a lower threshold should be
used than a 1, 000 square foot addition to trip the requirement
that a Site Development Review be processed.
Mr. Robbins expressed concern that the Business Community may
have missed their opportunity to give input on the subject of
Sign Regulations . He also reiterated concerns that involved his
own car dealership regarding potential future use of a portion of
his property and the prospect that signage located elsewhere on
his property*,might be required to be removed or modified once new
regulations are put in place .
Chairman Alexander summarized the six recommendations included
within the Sign Regulation Committee Report for Mr. Robbins
benefit .
Issue Area #12 Prohibited Signs Mr . Gailey described the format
of the Staff Report listings of potential categories of
prohibited signs .
Commissioner Raley questioned item B ( 4 ) which recommended a
prohibition of advertising signs in the agricultural districts .
Mr. Tong explained the regulations present the existing ordinance
involving signs in the agricultural districts . Following Mr .
Tong ' s statement there was general discussion about the steps
necessary to assure the language incorporated into the new sign
ordinance would be compatible with other sections of the existing
ordinance . Mr . Tong indicated that it would be staff ' s intent to
format the regulations into a standardized manner which would
have sign regulations set into each affected zoning district and
a section providing for the general sign regulations .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-006 1/7/85
Issue Area #1 and #2 Height and Number of Freestanding Signs -
Supplemental Information: Mr. Gailey Summarized Staff ' s survey
of how other jurisdictions approach regUlation of the height and
number of freestanding -signs . He explained most jurisdictions do
not have a single uniform standard, but use varying standards
which are tied to zoning , location, parcel size, etc . , to
control the height. and number of freestanding signs.
Commissioners Barnes, Mack and Raley expressed their opinion that
a 20 foot maximum height limit was appropriate and reflected
recent actions by the Commission on sign requests they've
reviewed (e .g . Pak "N Save, Lew Doty Cadillac) . Chairman
Alexander indicated his opinion that a 25 ' height limit was okay.
The Commission expressed a consensus 'opinion that formation and
application of a freeway sign corridor was not necessary or
desirable.
Issue Area #5 ; Sign Problem Along Village Parkway - Supplemental
Information Mr. Gailey made a detailed presentation of the
supplemental information included in the January 7 , 1985, Staff
Report as it pertains to this issue area. The commission
expressed support of the concept of developing special design
criteria for use by certain businesses along Village -Parkway.
The Commission also indicated support of the "first-cut" Summary
of design, size and locational criteria that had been developed
C by Staff for the Commission ' s review.
Commissioner Raley indicated that once the new Sign Regulations
are in place, concentrated efforts to assure` compliance should be "
directed to the Village Parkway corridor. He also questioned
Staff as to what steps would be necessary to secure elimination
of use of wall painted signs .
Issue Area 11T7 Signs for Promotional Events Mr. Gailey described
the findings of a field survey of the users of promotional signs
that had been observed in the City of Dublin. The businesses
observed using promotional signs were described as typically
being restaurant uses . Mr . Gailey indicated Staff ' s
recommendation was that use of explicit standards be made and
that Staff continue to use the processing format currently in
place .
The Commission expressed a consensus opinion to support Staff ' s
recommendations regarding use of promotional signage, retaining
the basic format used currently to process promotional signs .
This approach would allow for bona fide grand openings and use of
one promotional event a year, both subject to the Administrative
Conditional Use Permit process . Support was expressed by the
Council to allow the use of inflatables for promotional events,.
subject to review and authorization by Staff .
4 Issue Area #8 Signs for Multi-Story Buildings Supplemental
Information: Mr . Gailey summarized the findings of Staff ' s
review of neighboring city ' s sign regulations as regards to the
heicht and location of wall/roof signs . The Commission expressed
as consensus opinion that use of separate standards for roof
Regular Meeting PCM-5-007 1/7/85
signs and wall signs was not necessary/desirable. The Commission
reiterated their desire to preclude use of roof signs projecting
over the roof ridgeline or above the parapet and use of roof
signs mounted on sloping roofs .
Commissioner Raley moved that the Commission close the discussion
portion of the review of the Sign Regulations. Commissioner Mack
seconded.
Voice vote found all in favor of the motion. (4-0 with
Commissioner Petty absent) .
NEW BUSINESS
Mr . Tong asked the Commission to review the Supple ntal to the
EIR for Dublin General Plan and make their comme s to him at the
January 21, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting, o call him
directly at the office .
OTHER BUSINESS
_ Sawmill Sign was discussed. Mr. Ton explained to the Commission
the City ' s action regarding the Sa 11 Sign.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further bu ness , the meeting was adjourned at
10 : 53 p.m. .
Respectfully submitted,
/Pl \ ing Comm sion Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
Regular Meeting PCM-5-008 1/7/85
i
AGENDA STATEMENT .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 4 , 1985
SUBJECT: Sign Regulation's -
State Legislation Regarding
amortization schedules and
removal/modification of non-conforming
advertising displays.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - Copy. of State Legislation
2 - Copy of existing amortization
schedule from City Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Hear Staff Presentation
2 - Question 'Staff
PREVIOUS ACTION AND SUMMARY: In response to testimony at the
January 7 , 1985 , Planning Commission meeting, Staff has prepared
this brief supplemental report providing additional information
-- about the recent changes in the State Business and Professions
Code covering on-premises advertising. A copy of the legislation
in question is attached for review by the Planning Commission.
As indicated in previous Staff Reports , it is apparent that the
recent changes in the State Legislation covering on-premise
advertising displays may impact the City ' s ability to amend its
sign regulations if inclusion of an amortization schedule is
desired to establish a time table to provide for the removal of
non-conforming signs .
In the following paragraphs Staff provides a summary of what are
seen as the most, important aspects of this legislation;
Section 5490 serves as the introductory section and
provides a detailed working definition of on-premises
advertising displays to clearly establish which
displays are covered by this chapter of Stag-
Legislation.
Section 5491 constitutes the heart of the new
legislation establishing the requirement that local
jurisdictions make payment of "fair and just
compensation" if they require the removal or
modification of on-premise advertising displays .
- Sections 5492 and 5493 spell out what constitutes
"fair and just compensation and lists alternatives to
payment of compensation.
Section 5494 establishes a provision allowing local
jurisdictions to adopt amendments and/or modifications
to their existing sign regulations to require removal
of additional advertising displays, including displays
which had previously been conforming, if the
amortization periods utilized are not more restrictive
then set forth in the jurisdiction ' s existing sign
regulations . This section is of particular interest to
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. � ' 1 COPIES TO:
9krbr,61 644 AWOFF _ -
aollr :AT-TAC ,
AM ,(Pd1_185 .�l
Staff as the existing City Ordinance sets out a three
year amortization period for signs rendered non-
conforming by any subsequent amendment to the sign
regulations (See Section 8-62 . 10 to 8-62 . 11) . Staff
has requested a determination- from; the City Attorney as =
to whether the existing amortization schedule can be
incorporated into an amended sign ordinance allowing
the City to provide for the removal or modification of
non-conforming signs (at the end of the three year
amortization schedule) without being required to make
payment of "fair and just compensation. "
Sections 5495 - 5497 establish other categories and
situations where local jurisdictions can require
removal or modification of signs without payment of
compensation.
Section 5498 establishes areas or districts where this
chapter of State Legislation does not apply.
Section 5499 prohibits the removal of any on-premise
display on the basis of its height if the height
reduction would, due to "special topographic
circumstances" , result in a material impairment of
visibility of the sign.
r -
ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING
(Business and Professions Code)
Chapter 2.5. On-Premises Advertising Displays
On-premises advertising 5490. (a) This chapter applies only to lawfully erected
displays on-premises advertising displays. "On-premises advertising
displays" means any structure, housing, sign, device, figure,
statuary, painting, display, message placard, or other con-
trivance, or any part thereof, which has been designed,
constructed, created,- intended, or engineered to have a
useful life of 15 years or more, and .intended or used to
advertise, or to provide data or information in the nature
of advertising for .any of the following purposes:
(1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name or business
of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the
advertising display is located.
(2) To advertise the business conducted, services available
or rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for
sale, upon the property where the advertising display has
been lawfully erected.
(b) This chapter does not apply to advertising displays
used exclusively for outdoor advertising pursuant to the
Outdoor Advertising Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Sec-
tion 5200)).
(Added by 5tats 1933, Ch. 1232.)
Removal of display 5491. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 2 (com-
with compensation mencing with Section 5200), except as provided in this
chapter, no on-premises advertising display which is used
for any of the purposes set forth and conforming to Section
5490 shall be compelled to be_removed or abated, and its
customary maintenance, use, or repair shall not be limited,
whether or not removal or limitation is required because
of any ordinance or revelation of any city or county, without
the payment of fair and just compensation.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
Payment of fair and 5492. For purposes of compliance with Section 5491, fair
just compensation and just compensation is presumed to be paid upon the
payment of the.fair market value of the on-premises adver-
tising display as of the date written notice is given to the
owner of the display requiring conformance or removal
thereof.
Fair market value consists of the ac Dual cost of removal
for the display, the actual cost to repair any damage caused
to the real property or improvements thereon as a result
of the removal of the display, and the actual cost to
duplicate the advertising display required to be removed as
of the date written notice requiring removal for noncon-
247
formance is given to the owner by the governmental body 1
requiring conformance or removal.
(Added by Stats. 1933, Ch. 1232.)
Alternatives to fair and 5493. (a) As an alternative to payment of fair and just
just compensation compensation under Section 5492, a city or county may pay
fair and just compensation to the owner of the on-premises
advertising display by paying the actual replacement cost
to the owner for an on-premises advertising display which
shall conform with the laws in effect that are applicable
to the owner's business premises, and shall include, as part
of the actual replacement cost, the actual cost for removal
of the nonconforming on-premises advertising display and
the actual cost of the repair to the real property caused
by the removal of the display.
(b) The sum payable as fair and just compensation to the
owner of any on-premises advertising display shall be the
greater of the two methods provided in subdivision (a) of
this section or Section 5492 as the basis for fair and just
compensation. In any event, before any on-premises adver-
tising display is required to be removed, the fair and just
compensation required by subdivision (a) of this section or
Section 5492 shall be paid.
(Added by Stats. 1933, Ch. 1232.)
Illegal erdinanc°J 5494. The ordinances and regulations of any city or
regulations to remove county, introduced or adopted prior to March 12, 1983,
displays which make nonconforming, lawfully in place erected on-
premises advertising displays, and which have provided for
amortization for the lawfully in place nonconforming signs,
shall not be subject to Section 5491. All on-premises
advertising displays which are nonconforming as a result of
any such.ordinance or regulation, or which become noncon-
forming as a result of annexation to a city or county, are
presumed to be illegal when the period of time for amom-
zation has lapsed as provided in the preexisting laws. E:cept
as otherwise provided in this section, amendments or modi-
fications to existing ordinances and regulations of any city
or county, introduced or adopted after March 12, 1983, shall
be subject to this chapter if the amendments or modifi-
cations are more restrictive than the pre-existing ordinance_
Ordinances which have or will terminate may be reenacted
and are not subject to Section 5491 if re-enacted within
12 months of their termination and if it is not more
restrictive than the preexisting ordinance. Amendments or
modifications to existing ordinances and regulations by a
city or county which require removal of additional displays,
including displays which had previously been made conform-
ing, shall not be subject to this chapter if the amortization
period is not more restrictive than the amortization period
set forth in pre-existing ordinances or regulations within the
city or county.
(Added by Stats. 1933, Ch. 1232.)
Removal of display with 5495. A city or county whose ordinances or reo.11ations
out compensation are introduced or adopted after March 12, 1933, and any
248
amendments or modifications to those ordinances and regu-
„- lations, are not in violation of Section 5491 if the entity
elects to require the removal without compensation of any
on-premise advertising display which meets all of the fol-
lowing requirements:
(a) The display is located within an area shown as resi-
dential or agricultural on a local general plan as of the
date the display was lawfully erected. .
(b) The display is located within an area zoned for resi-
dential or agricultural use on the date the display was -
lawfully erected.
(c) The display is not required to be removed because of
an overlay zone, combining zone, special sign zone, or any
other special zoning district whose primary purpose is the
removal or control of advertising displays.
(d) The display is allowed to remain in existence after
March 12, 1983, for a period of 15 years from the date of
adoption of the ordinance or regulation. For purposes of
this section, every. sign has a useful life of 15 years. Fair
and just compensation for signs required to be removed
during the 15-year period and before the amortization period
has lapsed shall be entitled to fair and just compensation
which is equal to 1115 of the duplication cost of construction
of the display being removed multiplied by the number of
years of useful life remaining for the sign as determined
by this section.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
Legal ordinance/red la- 5495.5. A city or county with an ordinance or regulation
tions to remove adopted prior to March 12, 1983, is not in violation of
displays ' Section 5491 for an ordinance or regulation introduced or
adopted after March 12, 1983, and any amendments to that
ordinance or regulation, even though it requires removal of
on-premises advertising displays in additional portions of
the city or county, if the amortization period in the ordi-
nance or regulation is not more restrictive than the amorti-
zation period set forth in the preexisting ordinance or
regulation of the city or county.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
Deactivating flashing or 5496. A city or county, whose ordinances or regulations
rotating features are otherwise in full compliance with Section 5491 is not
in violation of that section if it elects to deactivate, without
compensation, any flashing or rotating features of the on-
premises advertising display, unless the flashing or rotating
feature of the display has historical significance.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
Criteria to remove 5497. A city or county, whose ordinances or regulations
displays were introduced or adopted after March 12, 1933, or any
amendments to those ordinances and regulations, is not in
violation of Section 5491 if it elects to require the removal,
without compensation, of any on-premise advertising display
which meets any of the following criteria:
(a) Any advertising display erected without first complying
with all ordinances and regulations in effect at the time
of its construction and erection or use_
249
/000�1 (b) Any advertising- display which was ]awfully erected
anywhere in this state, but whose use has ceased, or the i
structure upon which the display has been abandoned by its
owner, for a period of not less than 90 days. Costs incurred
in removing an abandoned display may be charged to the
legal owner.
(c) Any -advertising display which has been .more than
50 percent destroyed, and the destruction is other than
facial copy replacement, and the display cannot be repaired
within 30 days of the date of its destruction.
(d) Any advertising display whose owner, outside of a
change of copy, requests permission to remodel and remodels
that advertising display, or expand or enlarge the building
or land use upon which the advertising display is located,
and the display is affected by the construction, enlargement
or remodeling, or the cost of construction, enlargement, or
remodeling of the advertising display exceeds 50 percent
of the cost of reconstruction of the building.
(e) Any advertising display whose owner seeks relocation
thereof and relocates the advertising display.
(f) Any advertising display for which there has been an
agreement between the advertising display owner and the
city or county, for its' removal as of any given date.
(g) Any advertising display which is temporary.
(h) Any advertising display which is or may become a
danger to the public or is unsafe.
(1) Any advertising display which constitutes a traffic
hazard not created by relocation of streets or highways or
by acts of any city or county.
(j) Ordinances adopted by a city within three years of °
its incorporation, which incorporation occurs after Larch 12,
1932, shall not be subject to Section 5491 except as provided
by Sec-don 5494.
(Added by Stats. 1933, Ch. 1232.)
Areas not subject to 5493. (a) Sections 5491 and 5495 do not apply to re-
Sections 5491 and development project areas created pursuant to the Com-
5495 munity Redevelopment Law (Part I (commencing with Sec-
tion 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code),
planned commercial districts, or to areas listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historical Places,
or areas registered by the Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion as a state historical landmark or point of historical
interest pursuant to Se-ction 5021 of the Public Resources
Code,;/ or areas created as historic zores or individually
designated properties by a city or county, pursuant to
Article 12 (commencing with Section 50230) of Chapter 1
of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(b) As used in this section, "planned commercial districts"
means areas subject to binding agreements, including, but
not limited to, conditions, covenants, restrictions, which do
all of the following:
(1) Affect on-premise advertising displays.
250
(2) Are at least as restrictive as any ordinance of a city
or county, which affects on-premise advertising displays at
the time the agreement was entered into.
(3) Contain a binding financing commitment sufficient to
carry out the agreements.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
Display height 5499. No city or county shall require the removal of
any on-premise advertising display on the basis of its height
if special topographic-circumstances would result in a ma-
terial impairment of visibility of the sign or the owner's
ability to adequately and effectively continue to communi-
cate with the public through the use of the on-premise
advertising display by conformance with any ordinance or
regulation of any city or county, introduced or adopted
after March 12, 1933. Under these circumstances, the
owner or user may maintain advertising displays at the
business premise and at a location necessary to accomplish
continued noticeability at the height the display was pre-
viously erected and in doing so, the owner or user is in
conformance.
(Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1232.)
l
251
i
E 8-62.10 NO1dC0i�OF&IING SIGNIS. All Signs, Name Plates, and their support-
ing menoers that did r_ot comply with a.11 provisions of this Chapter
as of clay 10, 1969, shall be brought into comnliance with the -provi-
sions of this Chapter within the time limits set forth in this
r
Section: 4
Cha=•e recuired to brin, sicn into ccEliance Con- Date:
• May 10, 1969, -plus-
Alteration of lighting or mcv.^ent one year;
reducticn three years;
h
Size or eig
Re::cval of sign painted en wall cue yea_;
C'an.ze 2e-,uired to brinx Slkil into cc.=1i--ce
10. 169. -plus
Relocation on same Building Site two years;
r St?I1d1Pc �llsi ess Sign tirOe yeas;
Re=oval cr, a Tree-
i
Removal of an Advertisi,� Sig= wLere roe
• peritted five yea.--s;
-prcr_dec bcrever,
t:yy a si^ nonconforming ing L-: nore t:.an oue r2s_ect
S^�1l be bro ht �n�O CO�TJI'__"Ce with the tip e l'�_'t Oi t::E' S:°°teS�
(teased on sec. 2, Ord 69.33) _ - --- -
8-62.11 NONCON=ORMING SIGNS. All Signs, Name Plates and their supporting
members that were rendered nonconforming by Ordizar_ce No. 74-1, effective
February 8, 1974, and Ordinance No. 75-80, e-ffecti�7e August 9, 1976, shall .
be brought into compliance with the provisions of ta_s Chapter on or prior
to February 8, 1977 . All Signs, Name Plates and their supporting members
that are rendered ncncor.fo-=ing by amendments to this Chapter enacted
St105e�uenC t0 r_L1g115t
9, 1976, shall be brought into compliance with the '
C - _
prOVi510nS Of tS C�aC ter G it i'_:i three years O. the eriect4ve date OL any i
Such amendments.
(3ased or. sec. 2, Ord. 74-1; 'a=ended by sec. 2, Ord. 75-80)
2LjgrVNp\)( cc fn
(Yl N u T£S
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Subject: Review of State Regulations Regarding Signs
Mr. Gailey presented the Staff Report and advised that the report
had been supplied to the Commission in response to discussions at
previous meetings regarding the impact of recent State "--
Legislation covering on-premise advertising. A copy of the
legislation had been supplied to the Commission as part of the
Staff Report. Mr . Gailey summarized the major aspects of the
legislation.
Subject: Information Regarding Child Abuse Program for Pre-
Schools
Mr. Gailey described the material forwarded for the Commission ' s
review from Detective/Sergeant DiFranco. The transmittal memo
from Sgt. DiFranco advised that the Dublin Police Services Crime
Prevention has a program for child abuse that is available on
request to pre-schools in the City of Dublin.
The general discussion on this item by the Commission centered on
two concerns ; one that the availability of this program, and
similar programs , be made to as wide a spectrum of groups as
possible , and secondly, that programs targeted directly to
children be pursued and offered on a regular basis .
Mr . Gailey advised he would check with Det. Sgt. DiFranco as to
the means and regularity that the City ' s preschools are advised
of the availability of the,_existing program.
Cm. Raley questioned Staff as to whether Conditional Use Permits
for day cares or preschools reviewed by the Commission could be
conditioned with a requirement mandating their Staff ' s to
regularly participate in the program offered by the Dublin Police
Department . Mr . Gailey advised that would probably be an
appropriate condition, but could not be applied retroactively.
NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Review of Regulations Regar" ng Mobilehomes in Single
Famil/rert Districts
Mr. Gailey desce materi supplied to the Commisson
dealing with Sel 1960 garding placement of mobilehomes
in single famil dist cts . The support materials
supplied with tf re rt were discussed. The support
materials inclus aries of frequently asked questions
involving this a Legislation (supplied by the Department
of Housing and y .Development and the League of California
Regular MeetinPCM-5-018 2/4/85
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 6, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 , Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Sign Regulations -
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT- A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
reorganize and amend the City ' s Sign
Regulations
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D
Dublin, California 94568
LOCATION: The Zoning Ordinance Amendment would
r affect all Zoning Districts within the
�. City
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
a
PREVIOUS ACTION AND SUMMARY: In the Fall of 1982 , the City.
Council and Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the
Dublin sign regulations , particularly in terms of clarifying
those provisions that prohibit A-frame signs .
On December 13 , 1982 , the City Council discussed modifications to
the sign regulations . During the discussion it was determined
that a review of all the sign regulations would be a more
effective approach than a piece-meal review. The City Council
deferred the matter to the Planning Commission for re"view and
recommendation.
On December 20 , 1982 , the Planning Commission established an
Advisory Sign Committee, consisting of two local business
persons , a local sign maker, and two residents . Commissioner
Alexander was an ex-official member of the sign committee and
Planning Director Tong provided staff support. The purpose of
the Sign Committee was "to rewrite the Sign Regulations to be
understandable and to recommend to the Planning Commission Sign
Regulations which will balance the aesthetics of the community at
large with the needs of the business community" .
From December, 1982 , to September 1983 , the Sian Committee met
approximately a dozen times to review and discuss the sign
regulations .
On September 19 , 1983 , the Chairman of the Sign Committee
presented the Sign Regulation Committee ' s recommendations to the
Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission suggested some additional revisions and
directed Staff to begin rewriting the Sign Regulations . The
Planning Commission requested the information be submitted to the
Planning Commission at a future meeting.
---------- ---------------------------------------------------
ITEM N0. �.
T ® / V
5-0 6 SY 104*16
From September, 1983 , to September, 1984 , as staff was
concentrating its efforts on the City ' s General Plan Review, no
substantive actions were taken regarding the review of the City ' s
Sign Regulations . As Staff time became available, Staff returned
to the -Planning Commission to initiate the process of a -
comprehensive review of the Sign Regulations .
At five consecutive Planning Commission Meetings from September
4 , 1984 , to November 5 , 1984 , Staff presented various slide
presentations, discussion issue-areas and case studies to the
Planning Commission for consideration and discussion.
On December 3 , 1984 , at a noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission considered a list of sign issues and potential
solutions . The noticing process included a mailed notice to the
approximately 600 businesses in the City of Dublin.
Two subsequent Planning Commission meetings were used to wrap up
the discussion segment of the review of the City ' s Sign
Regulations . A separate, subsequent meeting on February 4 , 1985,
was used to provide the Commission with additional information
relating to recent State legislation regarding sign amortization
schedules and the handling of non-conforming signs .
At the conclusion of this phase of the review process, the
Commission directed Staff to draft an amended and reorganized
Sign Ordinance and return to the Commission for the formal public
Chearings on the Ordinance Amendment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 6, 1985, hearing was
published in the Tri-Vallev Herald, mailed to adjacent
property owners , and posted in public buildings . Notice was
also given to approximately 600 businesses in the City of
Dublin, as shown on listings prepared by the; Chamber of
Commerce .
ANALYSIS :
The Draft Sign Ordinance (Exhibit A) has been prepared in
the form of the preliminary draft for the purpose of
consideration and review by the Planning Commission.
Modifications and refinements to the Ordinance are
anticipated to be made through the course of the public
hearing process . Graphics - to supplement and help clarify
the regulations will be prepared for review at a future
meeting . To facilitate the Commission ' s review of the
Draft Sign Ordinance, Staff has consolidated the various
sign regulations found within the present Ordinance into a
single document (Attachment 1) . This document also
indicates, by way of the notation located at the end of each
section, where and how each section is tied into the Draft
Sign Ordinance document .
The major format changes outlined in the Draft Sign
Ordinance can be summarized as follows :
The consolidation of all pertinent regulations into a
single section of the Zoning Ordinance .
Establishment of a Purpose, Objectives, and Policies
Section for the City ' s Sign Regulations .
Consolidation and . refinement of definitions pertinent
to the Sign Regulations .
Consolidation, refinement and elaboration of
regulations pertaining to size and standards
regulations .
-2-
Refinement and oration of Sections, de-' i.ng with
Prohibited and Ex, _ t-Permitted Signs .
Formalization of a Sign Permit Application review
process and establishment of the submittal requirements
for sign review.
Clarification of the Variance procedure and elaboration
issuanc
and refinement of Section Permits dealing and the
Administrative
Sign Conditional Use
Conditional Use Permits .
Establishment of design criteria to facilitate review
of sign proposals .
i
signs subject to summary removal,
Clarification of
tying into provisions established by recent ' State
Legislation dealing with Advertising Displays .
Individual substantive chages of
summa r intarest outlined
�t
in the Draft Sign ordinance �
and/or
Wall Signs from extending above
Prohibits roof I
to which they are attached (see
roof line of building
Section 4 . 2b) •
- Creates an exemption status for poeduraluguidelineshfor
establishing dimensional and p
their use (see Section 6 .0f) .
Prohibits use of freestanding sign over a height of
twenty feet (see Section 4 . 3c) (4 ) ) •
Creates a new category of monument-type freestanding
sign
for the Village Parkway Corridor for use as
directory sign (see Section 4 .4) .
At the meeting of May 6 ,
1985, Staff recommends that the rial
Commission allow Staf� d thene beg inumaseceion-by-Section
i
submitted for review an
review of the Draft Ordinance .
It is suggested that the meetings of May Gtr, and, May 20th be
o closely review the Draft Sign Ordinance, and
utilized t
tn�t the meeting of Juion3sd b utilized ecommendatiors dto1btheLeCity
formalize the Commlss
Council .
RECON?NIENDAT I ON
public hearing and hear staff
FORMAT : 1) presentation
2 ) Take testimony from applicant and the public
3) Question staff and the public
4 ) Continue public hearing
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
ACTION:
1) Consider the draft ordinance
2 ) Continue the public hearing to the Planning
Commission meetings of May 20 , and June 3 , 1985,
for further public input and Commission
deliberation, and schedule the item for Planning
Commission action on June 3 , 1985 (or June 17 ,
1985) if needed.
-3-
� I
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance amending Sign Regulations
Background Attachments :
1 _ Copy of existing Sign Regulations
2 - Copy of Dublin Chamber of Commerce Sign Questiotaire
3 - Copy of 3/12/85 letter from Jeff Sposito, President,
Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors
- Copy of 2/12/85 memorandum from M. Nave, City Attorney
5 - Copy of 1/31/85 memorandum from Planning Department to
M. Nave
6 - Zoning Map
COPIES TO
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors
f
-4-
��N N 11v 6 GO rr�rn
� � C � a ►m�NV7ES
SAM
Cm. Raley motioned to close the publ ' - hearing.
r�
Cm. Barnes seconded the motion.
Cm. Petty- commended Mr. Papadop ulos for his program, however he
agreed with Staff that the us was inappropriate for the site .
All other Commissioners con rred with Staff that the use was not
appropriate.
Cm. Raley motioned to d y application.
Cm. Barnes seconded e motion.
Voice vote found a in favor of.
RESOLUTION NO. 85-021
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A 85-022, WILDIS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION/ALL SEASONS
RID G ACADEMY' S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A
RCIAL RECREATION FACILITY IN THE FORMER ALPHA BETA
MARKET LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
SUBJECT: 8 . 3 PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Advertising D-isplays (Signs )
Mr. Gailey presented the Staff Report . Mr . Gailey discussed the
steps that lead up to putting the Zoning Ordinance together for
the signs . He briefly summarized each meeting.
The Draft Sign.-Ordinance has been prepared in the form of a
preliminary draft for the purpose of consideration and review by
the Planning Commission.
He discussed the major changes outlined in the Draft Sign
Ordinance.
Such as ;
- the consolidation of all pertinent regulations into a single
section of the ordinance .
Establishment of a purpose, objective and policies section
of the City ' s Sign Regulations .
Consolidation and refinement of definitions pertinent to the
Sign Regulations .
- Refinement and elaboration of Sections dealing with
Prohibited and Exempt-Permitted Signs .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-049 5/6/85
Formalization of a Sign Permit Application review process
and establishment of the submittal requirements for sign review.
Clarification of the variance procedure and elaboration and
refinement of Section dealing with the issuance of Sign
Conditional Use Permits and Administrative Conditional Use
Permits .
- Establishment of design criteria to facilitate review of
sign proposals .
- Clarification of signs subject to summary removal, tying
into provisions established by recent State Legislation dealing
with Advertising Displays .
The document itself was not discussed as yet. Further discussion
regarding the Sign Ordinance will be presented at the Planning
Commission Meetings on May 20 and June 3rd.
Mr . Hansel stated he needed to put out signs for the Murray .
School District Flea Market that he was informed by the City
Manager ' s office that the signs were illegal and that he needed
to remove them. What could he do?
Mr. Tong stated there should be no posting on the public right-
of-way.
Mr . Tong stated the Planning Commission or Staff had no authority
to change the ordinance. Mr. Tong said they could apply for an
Administrative Conditional Use Permit for ,temporary signs on
private property. After Staff action, there would be a 5 day
appeal period. Posting signs in store windows was a potential
alternative .
Mr .- Huddock also asked if they could change, or make an:
exception.
Mr. Collins suggested that the City turn their head the other way
just this time .
Susan Hurl, Board of Realtors , they would like more than two open
house signs . Concerned about their signage for open houses, the
starting time , and the cash bond.
Jim Dougherty, President of the Chamber of Commerce, distributed
copies of the chamber ' s survey and summarized the results . He
stated that the Chamber was going to meet and discuss the
ordinance very soon. ..
Mr. Don Sullivan, representing Howard Johnson ' s, was concerned
about Freeway Corridor signage.
Mr . Tong stated that the City wanted effective and identification
attractive signs .
Mr . Gailey reviewed the Table of Contents of the Draft Sign
Ordinance .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-050 5/6/85
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 20, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
RE: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations (Continued from May 6 , 1985)
On May 6 , 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Sign
Regulations . The Planning Commission heard testimony from
several members of the public . The Staff reviewed the background
of the Draft Sign Ordinance, indicated that revisions to the
draft were expected, and discussed. the Table of Contents . At
that point, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
until the May ;20 , Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed with a
brief Staff summary and discussion on a Section-by-Section basis .
Attached is a copy of the May 6 , 1985 Planning Commission Staff
Report without attachments .
°ITEM NO 7'
ITS 0 F . CHM "NT
45, Ago W"'6* �ffl
AT
: � 1",• e � O °'a�Fr�+`7SVr^�c
PLADGC Cm. Raley said he would 1 • e to see the applicant either re
to the Staff Report or s gest alternative improvements .
On motion of Cm. Ra y, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by '4 0 vote
(Cm. Barnes absen the Planning Commission continued the item
to the June 17 , 5 Planning Commission meeting.
SUBJECT: 7 . 8 PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding'
Advertising Displays (Signs )
Cm. Alexander reopened the public hearing. Cm. Raley suggested
that, due to the lateness of the hour, the public be allowed to
provide input, then the matter be continued.
Cm. Alexander reviewed the recent Dublin Chamber of Commerce
meeting, and subsequent Chamber Board meeting .
Jim Dougherty, President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, said
that the Chamber Board has taken the following position:
- Endorse the existing sign ordinance
- Support replacing sandwich/board signs with directory
signs
- Recommend maintaining the 35 foot maximum of free.
standing signs
- Recommend maintaining the 25% maximum for window signs
Barry James , representing Amador Lakes, requested consideration
of off-site directional signs for new apartment projects .
Mr. Tong reviewed the existing sign regulations regarding
Identification signs and reminded the applicant that the City has
processed such a Conditional Use Permit for Amador Lakes .
Bob Woolverton of Crown Chevrolet said it was frustrating to have- -
two major shopping centers without freestanding signs ,
specifically Levitts and Pak N Save.
Staff said that a Pak N Save free standing sign was previously
approved and Staff had discussed a free standing sign with
Bedford Properties .
Cm. Raley asked the auto dealers how much traffic actuals' come
from signs visible from the freeway . He said he did not drive
down the road looking for an auto dealer. Instead, he knows
where the auto dealers are located before starting out to look
for. a car .
Mr . Woolverton said the City needs to pull people in from other
communities . We need signs and visibility .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-058 5/20/85
J-a Ken Harvey said that a survey was prepared by Honda indicating
that about 38) of the customers lea�r�ed about the dealer by
driving by , and/or seeing the sign . He submitted the information
to Staff .
John Babalogga asked some questions about Signage for the C-2-B-
40 area .
Mr . Gailey discussed the concept of the C-2-B-40 directory sign
being intended for those tenants that were not visible from the
street.
Jim Dougherty requested a provision which would require the
landlord ,to install the C-2-B-40 directory sign.
Cm. Raley asked if a change in tenant was sufficient to require a
C-2-B-40 directory sign .
Mr . Tong said that, if the provisions for a C-2-B-40 directory
sign are adopted, an applicant for a Site Development Review,
Conditional -Use Permit , or other such planning approval could be
required to install the directory sign . Just changing a tenant
would not typically allow the City to require a directory sign .
Jim Dougherty suggested that, if the City could just maintain the
existing sign ordinance and start enforcing it, that would
provide a basis to work from for a year or two, rather than try
to develop a new sign ordinance .
Cm. Alexander continued the public hearing until the June 3 ,
1985, Planning Commission meeting .
SUBJECT : 7 . 6 PA 85-027 Owens-Illinois , Inc . C ditional Use
Permit to a11ow use of a glass r ycling bin at 6665
Amador Plaza Road
Cm. Alexander opened the public hearin Mr. Gailey presented
the Staff Report, with recommended co itions of approval . The
applicant was not present .
Cm. Alexander closed the public he? ing . 1
i
On motion of Cm. Mack , seconde ' y Cm. Raley, and by a 4-0 vote
(Cm. Barnes absent) , the Plann ' g Commission adopted
RESOL ION NO. 85-024
APPROVING PA 85-027 OWE: -ILLINOIS, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST TO ALLOW A GLAS RECYCLING BIN LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKING
AREA OF THE FOUR-BUILD iG OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS
OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
Regular Meeti PCM-5-059 5/20/85
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 3 , 1985
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING STAFF -
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
On May 6 , 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on the draft sign regulations . The Planning Commission heard
testimony from several members of the public . The Staff reviewed
the background of the draft, indicated that revisions proposed by
Staff, Planning Commission, City Council and public were
anticipate, and discussed the Table of Contents .
On May 20 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers , and several others .
The Chamber of Commerce asked that the landlord be required to
install the proposed C-2-B-40 directory sign.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed with a
brief staff summary and discussion on a section-by-section basis .
Attachments : May 6, 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report
without attachments
Note : Copies of Existing Sign Regulations and
Draft Sign Ordinance were previously
distributed to the Planning Commission .
Mv s . AC ME
l
a .
PUgNN)A)6 C-om
M 1N JTE 5
6/sMss
f On motion of Cm. Raley, seconded by /theension and by a 5-0
vote, the Planning Commission grante to the June
17 , 1985 , Planning Commission meetinSUBJECT: 7 . 2 PA 85-007 . 1 & . 2 Veac nstruction
Conditional Use Permit a Site Development Review for
a proposed/-and Mot Mart retail outlet - office
complex at hea terminus of Golden Gate Drive
(continued 2 , 1985 Planning Commission
meeting) .
Mr. Tong advised the oners that Veach/Tulloch
Construction had reqat their item be continued to a
later meeting .
On motion of Cm. Macded by Cm. Raley, and by a 5-0 vote,
the Planning Commisted an extention to the July 1, 1985 ,
Planning Commission
SUBJECT : 7 . 3 'PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Advertising Displays ( Signs ) (continued from May 6 , and
May 20 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting)
Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing which was a continuation
of the May 20 , 1985 , Planning Commission meeting. a
Mr. Tong reviewed the General Provisions of the draft sign
ordinance .
Cm. Raley asked for rewording of the sentence in Section 1 . 1
beginning with "Further" .
Cm. Alexander questioned the use of standards versus the use of
maximum limits allowable .
Mr. Tong presented the definitions of the draft sign ordinance,
section by section, to the Commission. Staff and Commission
discussed various revisions and clarifications.
Bob Woolverton, Crown Chevrolet, asked for clarification of front
lot line requirements , which Mr . Tong proceded to explain. The
Commission asked Staff to see if an applicant on a corner lot
could determine the front lot line .
Bob Dunn, Alcosta Associates , Village Parkway expressed concerns
over a low profile sign for his center.
Ozzie Davis said that the City should notify each business whose
sign may become non-conforming .
Susan Hurl , Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors, was
interested in the definition of "open house" sign .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-62 6/3/85
Rich Robbins , Shamrock Ford, stated Ihat some of the signs posted
at the dealership are required by the State, Department of Motor
Vehicles . He mentioned that the City should be aware of the
state required signs before authorizing changes ..
Ozzie Davis felt that a company that provided services such as
smog checks should post those signs inside the building near the
service areas .
Denny Kahler stated that other signs such as "AAA" or "ASE" signs
need to be outside in view of motorists . Staff said it would
review the state regulations .
Cm. Alexander called a recess at 10 :10 for 15 minutes, after
which, comments from the audience would be continue to be heard.
Cm. Alexander called the meeting back to order at 10 : 25 .
Ozzie Davis had some questions with regards to the 300 ' setback
and the height of allowed signs . He was also concerned with the
set number of promotions that could be held per year. He said
that 3 promotions per year was not enough and would like to see
at least one per month allowed, 4 to 5 days each time .
He also stated he would have a loss in sales if the signage
height changed to 20 ' maximum. He would not develop a new
dealership without a freeway sign visible from both directions on
the freeway .
Cm. Raley asked why the signage was considered essential?
Ozzie Davis said that the sign was part of promoting an image
that was a subliminal reminder of the product he .was selling .
Bob Woolverton, Crown Chevrolet, passed out a letter from
Chevrolet, Oakland Zone , concerning dealership identification .
He asked why the H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1 district sign regulations
were combined. Staff reviewed the existing regulations and the
reason for the proposed combining.
Rich Robbins , Shamrock Ford, stated there was a need for proper
signage in order to sell cars . He stated that visibility through
signage is what 800 of his sales are from. He said that the
individual auto dealers could survive without the tall free
standing signs , but it would be like cutting off ones nose to
spite ones face . He felt it would give auto dealers in other
cities an unfair advantage .
There being no additional comments , on motion of Cm. Raley,
seconded by Cm. Barnes , and by a 5-0 vote it was moved to
continue the public hearing to the July 1, 1985 , Planning
Commission meeting .
Regular Meeting PCM-5-63 6/3/85
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 1, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
On May 6 , 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
.on the draft sign regulations. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from several memebers of.: . the public. The Staff
reviewed the background of the draft, indicated that revisions
proposed by Staff, Planning Commission, City Council and the
public were anticipated. Discussion on the draft document at
that meeting was limited to a brief overview and discussion of
the format of the Table of Contents .
On May 20 , 1985, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers, and several others .
The Chamber of Commerce asked that the landlord be required to
install the proposed C-2-B-40 directory sign.
On June 3 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from
auto dealers, a representative from the Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors, and several others . The Commission ' s
discussions regarding the draft document centered on the General
Provisions section and the Definitions section.
In response to the Commission ' s input from the June 3 , 1985 ,
hearing, Staff has complied a "Working Copy" of the draft sign
regulations which reflect specific modifications requested by the
Planning Commission. To date the "working copy" of the draft
regulations is limited to covering the General Provisions and
Definitions Sections of the draft regulations . It is Staff ' s
intent to continue to compile the Planning Commission' s
amendments to the draft document into the "working copy"
following discussion of each section of the draft document.
One remaining unresolved area involves the definitions for
Effective Lot Frontage, Front Lot Line and Median Lot Width which
collectively tie back to the current method of calculating total
aggregate allowable sign area. The final format of these
definitions will be dependent' on whether changes are made
elsewhere in the regulations regarding how the aggregate
`,✓ allowable sign area is calculated. J
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue with their
analysis of the draft document on a section-by-section basis .
1 ) Review the Working Copy of Section I General Provisions
and Section II Definitions .
2 ) Indicate any additional revisions needed.
3 ) Take preliminary action (by vote or by consensus) on
the Working Copy.
4 ) Then proceed to discuss the next section( s) of •Lhe
draft Sign Ordinance.
----------,----------------------------------�-----------------
ITEM N0.
AW
TTAC
Attachments : May 6 , 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report
without attachments and "Working Copy" of draft
sign regulations.
NOTE: Copies of existing Sign Regulations and
Draft Sign Ordinance were previously
distributed to the Planning Commission.
slc
� J
I
-2-
JBJECT : 7 . 4 PA 81 '7 zoning Ordinance Ame- =nt
Regarding n Regulations ( Continue, from May 6 ,
May 20 , and June 3 , 1985 Planning Commission
Meetings ) .
1r . Gailey opened the Staff Report by advising the Commission
about the proposed . format developed for this hearing which will ���.� ��
)rovide the Commission "Working Draft" of- the Sign Ordinance . �fi
'he intent of using the "Working Draft" wat explained as a mea s
:o allow changes in the original draft precipitated by the Jf � O
:ommission to be pooled into one document as the Commission /
:inished discussion on each section of the draft .
kith his summary of the changes requested at the previous hearing
)y the Commission , Mr . Gailey advised that additional changes to
:he definitions section are anticipated that would be tied to the
introduction of a simplified method to calculate the allowable
zggregate sign area for individual properties .
?rompted by a request from Staff , the Commission indicated a
3onsensus support to combine the definitions for A-frame portable '
,nd Sandwich Board Signs into one definition .
Susan Hurl , Government Affairs Director for the Southern Alameda
'ounty Board of Realtors opened the. public testimony on this item
with a detailed discussion on the issue of Open-House Real Estate
Signs . Her discussion generally followed here submittals dated
.Tune 5 , 1985 and June 20 , 1985 , which had been previously
7upplied to Staff and the Commission .
Pwo petitions supporting the position presented by Ms . Hurl and
3i.gned by over sixty local real estate agents/brokers were
Submitted to the Commission for consideration .
kdditional , supportive comments ,to, Hurl ' s presentation were
jerbally presented by the following real estate agents , brokers
Dr interested parties ; Kate Minor , Jack Quincy, Mike Peel , Bob
Snyder , Harold Woods , and Gus Berkles .
-ollectively summarized the concerns voiced were concerning
Dpen-house signs as follows ; " 1 ) limitation to two signs is overly
Drohibitive , 2 ) size limitation should be clarified as a "per-
side" standard 3 ) time limitations of use should include
allowance for open-house tours 4 ) opposition to requirement that
a bond be placed by agent or broker prior to sign placement , and
3 ) concern that strict enforcement will adversely impact the
marketability of homes in Dublin when compared to the overall
ri-Valley market .
The Commission inquired as to how other Tri-Valley area cities
regulate open-house signs . Staff stressed concerns about the
liability the City would be exposed to if signage within street
right-of-ways was sactioned . Staff reiterated their
understanding of the City Council ' s opposition to use of signage
within the City ' s street right-of-ways .
.4r . Sandy Burger , Crown Chevrolet , presented a letter with
accompanying submittals from Robert Woolverton, President of
Crown Chevrolet , which addressed the proposal to consolidate the
H-1 , C-1 , C-2 and M-1 Districts into one group in the ordinance
Regular Meeting PCM-5-79 7/1/85
.s regards allowable signage . The letter outlined a concern that
.his would result in inequities pertaining to use of free
tanding signage .
}ebra Stein, Executive Director of the California Association of
Display Advertisers requested that the definition for temporary
Tigris be expanded to include search lights . Ms . Stein indicated
dditional comment from her organization would be submitted .
:r . Gailey opened discussion of Sections 3 and 4 of the draft
,rdinance . The general format of Section 3 was explained as a
,istrict by district charting of what signage is allowed where
he corresponding review process that is involved .
,iscussion was made of possible alternate approaches to regulate
se of the freestanding signs approaches apart from use of a
niform height limitation for all districts allowing freestanding
igns .
he question of the appropriateness of regulating the location of
reestanding signs on individual properties was discussed ( i . e . ,
yping location to street frontage ) .
m. Alexander reiterated a desire to prohibit signs from
rojecting above building roof-line silouhettes .
he concept of linking the size , height and setback of
reestanding signs was discussed . The Commission expressed
upport of the development of a formula to tie these factors
ogether proportionately.
he sign ordinance was continued to the Commission hearing of
my 15 , 1985 . Staff was directed to investigate the
vailability of a separate meeting place for a *special commission
earing on the Sign Ordinance for either July 17th or 18th .
NFINISHED BUSINESS
r . Tong advised the Commission that the D -an School Site item
as scheduled to be heard by the City Cou cil on July 8 , 1985 .
EW BUSINESS
one
TANNING COMMISSIONERS ' CONCER
m. Barnes filed a Zoning Co Taint concerning the use of the
acant lot adjoining the e t side of the Ozzie Davis Car Sales
ot .
egular Meeting PCM-5- 80 7/1/85
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING DATE: July 18, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff .
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning rdinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
On May 6 , 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on the draft sign regulations . The Planning Commission heard
testimony from several memebers of the public. The Staff
reviewed the background of the draft, indicated that revisions
proposed by Staff, Planning Commission, City Council and the
public were anticipated. Discussion on the draft document at
that meeting was limited to a brief overview and discussion of
the format of the regulations and of the Table of Contents .
On May 20 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers , and several others .
On June 3 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from
auto dealers , a representative from the Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors, and several others . The Commission' s
discussions regarding the draft sign regulations centered on the
General Provisions Section and the Definitions Section.
In response to the Coflimission ' s input from the . June 3 , 1985 ,
hearing,. Staff complied a "working copy" of the draft sign
regulations which reflected specific modifications requested by
the 'Planning Commission. For the July 1 , 1985 , public hearing,
the "working copy" of the draft regulations was limited to
covering the General Provisions and Definitions Sections of the
draft sign regulations .
At the July 1, 1985 , hearing, the Commission again heard
testimony from a representative of the Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors . In support of that testimony, several local
realtors and brokers also presented testimony.. Two petitions
were submitted expressing viewpoints of the real estate industry
regarding proposed regulations involving Open-House Real Estate
Signs . The Commission reviewed the "working copy" of the draft
regulations and made a few minor refinements. The Commission
then continued with their section-by-section analysis of the
draft regulations with discussions covering Section 3 - General
Limitations By Land Use District and a part of Section 4 -
Regulations Governing Size and Standards .
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue with their
analysis of the draft document on a section-by-section basis .
1 ) Review the "working copy" of the draft sign regulations
covering Section I through Section IV (partial) .
2 ) Indicate any additional revisions needed.
3 ) Take preliminary action ( by vote or by consensus ) on
that portion of the "working copy" complied to date .
4 ) Proceed to discuss the next section(s ) of the
draft Sign Ordinance.
---•--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
_ AA ENT,
® �'
��(y�/_ • a 4
HM
tYr9 .�.,.•Kt.. ..: .:. ., ....,5_. .:. r__.,.fr..._ �..7`irw.PPPATTT4rrr t[--' --
/wMeM1IR1�.N 'lY ri!t+�""613iK
3
5
Af
Adjourned Meeting July 18 , 1985
An adjourned meeting of the C ' y of Dublin Planning Commission
was held on Thursday, July 1 , 1985 , in the Community Room,
Homestead Savings , 7889 Dub in Blvd. The meeting was called to
order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Cm. lexander , Chairman.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commiss ' ners Alexander , Barnes, Petty and Mack , and
Laurence L. Tong Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior
Planner .
ABSENT: Co issioner Raley
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT : PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations .
Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing . Mr . Gailey presented
the staff report starting with a brief review of the process
leading up to the meeting and a summary of the "Working Copy
revisions .
In regards to Section 4 . 3 c) , regarding the height of
freestanding signs, the Commission indicated a consensus support
to remove from the draft regulations the height restriction "and
not above the height of the roof-line. "
Following discussion between Commissioners Petty and Alexander
and Jim Dougherty, representing the Dublin Chamber of Commerce,
the Commission indicated their consensus opinion to have the sign
regulations continue to prohibit message board signs .
The Commission indicated their general concurrence with Sections
1 - 3 of the "Working Copy" of the draft regulations , while
acknowledging further fine-tuning might be necessary as subsquent
sections were reviewed.
Mr . Bob Wolverton, of Crown Cheverolet , gave a presentation
regarding height restrictions on freestanding signs . Mr .
Wolverton indicated he had problems with the proposal to utilize
a city-wide height standard.
Mr . Tong summarized the input received to date from the auto
dealership representatives indicating they collectively would
like to see the current sign regulations pertaining to
freestanding signs retained ( 35 ' height limit - 300 sq. ft.
maximum area ) .
Discussion on this subject continued between Cm. Alexander and
Mr . Ozzie Davis, Ozzie Davis Toyota, with different
approaches/restrictions on higher signage discussed ( i . e . , higher
than the 20 ' limit the Commission had previously indicated) .
Mr . Woodward questioned how automotive uses could be defined if
that group of uses was determined to qualify for more liberal
sign height limitations .
A representative from the Waterbed Factory indicated that the use
of freestanding signs can make or break a business and that he ' d
personally object to liberal height allowances being given just
to auto dealerships .
Mr . Ken Harvey stressed that studies show a large percentage of
auto dealership business is directly attributable to business
signs .
Discussion moved on to what other freeway oriented uses might
have valid reasons to request higher signage. Also discussed was
who through the sign review process had, or hadn ' t, expressed
problems with freeway oriented freestanding signs .
In response to questions from Cm. Barnes, Mr . Tong stated that
the City had approximately two miles of I-580 commercial frontage
and 1/2 mile 1-680 commercial frontage.
Cm. Barnes suggested an approach for allowing up to 35 ' high
freestanding signs for uses abutting the freeway, with a
restriction of no signage within a 50 ' setback from the freeway
right-of-way.
Mr . Davis indicated he could support that type of an approach .
It was moved by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Mack that Section
4 . 3 c) of the draft regulations be modified to allow signs up to
35 ' in height for H-1 , C-1, C-2 and M-1 Districts .
The motion was withdrawn prior to a call for the vote .
Cm. Alexander proposed and alternate approach involving use of a
50 ' freeway setback and allowing signs from 25 ' to 35 ' in height
for auto dealerships and with all other users being allowed signs
up to 25 ' in height .
r.
f
Mr . Gailey discussed approaches that might be used to segregate
certain types of users for the more liberal height standard. The
approaches indicated that might be available included; 1)
proximity to freeway, 2 ) size of lot, 3 ) type of business, and 4 )
some combination of 1 - 3 .
Mr . Davis and Mr . Robbins indicated support of an approach tying
the standard for more liberal height to a specified acreage --
threshold.
Following some additional discussion, the Commission expressed
their consensus position to support a two-tiered sign height
standard utilizing a 25 ' limit for smaller parcels and allowing
25 ' to 35 ' signs for users over a certain size limit, where a 50 '
setback from the freeway was observed. The Commission directed
Staff to research what would constitute an appropriate size
threshold and specifically discussed the 1 . 0, 1 . 5 and 2 . 0 acre
thresholds, with or without some -provision tied to street
frontage lengths .
The Planning Commission indicated a consensus support on the
concept of tying the allowable area of signs to a sign 's height .
They indicated that they were comfortable with the sign areas
depicted on. the chart used for reference purposes found within
the existing ordinance.
Discussion continued on the freestanding sign area issue, with
the Commission expressing a consensus support of limiting the
maximum single-faced sign area to 150 sq. ft , and the maximum
double-faced sign area to 300 sq. ft .
Staff advised of several minor changes proposed for the chart in
Section 4 . 4 and received consensus support of the adjustments
discussed .
The Commission then directed their attention to Section 6 -
Exempt or Permitted Signs, with specific attention to item 6 . 0 t)
Open-House Signs .
With the benefit of input from Susan Hurl of the Southern Alameda
County Board of Realters, the Commission reached a consensus on
the following modifications regarding Open-House Signs
Regulations;
- Limit signs to a maximum of four signs per advertised
property
Not allow signs to be placed within the public right-
of-way.
Limit to one sign, per property advertised, the number
of signs placed along a major -City Arterial .
.. � .,: t .T,.-. + ,� y t 7 '•�^' ; 4.^n w�} 1l. -t S �gt�• �Ys .-1.-•. _{..> �.u'4
i
Set hours of use to weekend— periods from noon Friday
through sunset on Sunday evening, and Tuesdays and
Fridays from 10 : 00 a .m. to 1: 00 p.m.
Incorporate a provision of a "flagrant violater
clause" .
Due to the lateness of the hour , the Commission decided to
adjourn the meeting, ending discussion- on the draft regulations
with Section 6 . 0 . Discussion on this item was continued to the
hearing of August 5 , 1985 . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
P]ranning;' ommission Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
._ ., . ° ,.'�i t:. o ,•_•' _�:.:it's ',.•,•? ;a'z K,,
r
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff !
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations _
On May 6, 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on the draft sign regulations . The Planning Commission heard
testimony from several memebers of the public . Staff reviewed
the chronology -of the process leading up to the preparation - of
the draft sign regulations and indicated that revisions proposed ,
by Staff , the Planning Commission, the City Council and the
public were anticipated. Discussion on the draft document at
that meeting was limited to a brief discussion of the format of
the regulations and of the Table of Contents . The Commission
continued the Public hearing to the meeting of May 20, 1985 .
On . May 20,• .1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from a
representative from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers,
and several others , and continued the public hearing to June 3,
1985 .
On June 3 , 1985, the Planning Commission heard testimony from
auto dealers , a representative from the Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors , ( SACBR) , and several others . The Commission' s
review O"' the draft sign regulations centered On the General_
Provisions Section and the Section 2 - Definitions . The item was
continued to the meeting of July 1, 1985 .
In .response to the Commission ' s input from the. June 3, 1985,
hearing, Staff complied a "Working Copy" of the draft sign
regulations which reflected specific modifications requested by
the Planning Commission . For the July 1, '1385, public hearing,
the text Of the "Working Copy" OL the draft regulations was
limited to covering the General Provisions and Definitions
Sections .
At the July 1, 1985 , hearing, the Commission again heard
testimony from a representative of SACBR. In support of that
testimony, several local realtors and brokers also presented.
. ,
testimony . Two petitions were submitted
expressing vii=apoints of
the real estate industry regarding proposed regulations involving
Open-House Real Estate Signs . The Commission reviewed the
"'r7orking Copy" of the draft regulations and made a few minor
refinement-s . The Commission then continued with their section-
by-section analysis of the draft regulations with discussions
covering Section 3 - General Limitations By Land Use District and
a part of Section 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards ..
The item was continued to the public hearine of July 15, 1985,
with an indication from the Commission that the item would be
subject of a special meeting during the week of July 15, 1985,
the exact date to be established at the July 15th, hearing.
The special meeting was held on July 18 , 1985 , at which time the
Commission reviewed an updated "Working Copy" of the draft
regulations . The Commission continued their section-by-section
analysis of the draft regulations by covering the final portion
of ection 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards and
co�inuing through Section 5 - Prohibited Signs and Loca�ions and
------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. Chamber of Commerce
ATT � n
ke
? n.
Section 6 - Exempt Permitted signs . Public testimony was
received throughout this review, including additional input from
the SACBR representative, realtors and auto dealers . The
Commission gave specific direction to staff ; regarding _
supplemental research and specific changes to the draft
regulations they requestea.
The principle modification they requested was a change in the
maximum height of freestanding signs to provide users on larger
. parcels the option to request signs up to 35 feet in height. The
Commission requested that Staff research the number of parcels in
the City grouped into various size categories ( i .e . , one-acre,
three-acres , etc . ) to determine the threshold at which this more
liberal sign height standard would be most appropriately be
established.
A review of the commercial lands in the City revealed the
following breakdown;
0 .1 to 0 . 9 acres 67 - parcels (31%)
1 . 0 to 1 . 9 acres 71 - parcels (32%)
' 2 . O -to 2 . 9 acres 28 - parcels (13% )
3 . 0 to 3 . 9 acres 14 - parcels ( 6% )
4 . 0 acres and up 39 = parcels (18% )
Based on an analysis of these parcel size breakdowns and a review
of the type of uses within the larger acreage categories, Staff
recommends that the 4 . 0 acres and .up category be utilized as the
threshold for the more liberal signage (see attached copy of City
Map showing affected parcels ) . This approach would provide the
option to request higher signs to all but one of the existing car
dealerships (the Honda dealership being the exception, which is
on a parcel 1 . 9 acres in size ) and one probable future dealership
( the 3 . 1 acre Ozzie Davis holding adjoining the existing
Toyota/Pontiac dealership) .
Revisions to the "Working Copy" of the sign regulations have been
made to accomodate proposed !changes dealing with freestanding
sign heights (see Section 4 . 3 of "Working Copy" ) .
A separate item subject to ongoing discussion over the past
several hearings involves the desire to simplify the means that
the total allowable aggregate sign area is calculated. After
considering several possible approaches , Staff has determined
that an approach tying sign area to store frontage length would
provide an improved means to calculate allowable signage . The
Commission has previously given direction that the new sign
regulations should generally reflect the current standards as
regards allowable aggregate sign area . Based on that direction,
Staff recommends that the maximum allowable aggregate sign area
on primary building elevations be allowed to be up to 10% of the
surface area of the primary building elevation . Where
!.`.' freestanding signage is utilized, it is recommended that the area
of the freestanding sign be deducted from total allowable
aggregate sign area . Signage on other building elevations
(secondary building elevations ) is recommended to be required to
observe a 5% maximum cap of the total surface area of the
building elevation in question . It is further recommended that
Staff be given the discretion to determine which building
elevation constitutes the primary elevation, with that
determination based primarily on where primary public access
occurs . It is considered desirable that a maximum of two
secondary building frontages be allowed, with orientation to
public streets or public areas (e .g . on-site parking areas) being
required for building elevations to qualify for signage .
staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue with their
analysis of the draft document on a section-by-section basis .
/ 1 ) Review the "working copy" of the draft sign regulations
covering Section I through Section VI .
2 ) Indicate any additional revisions needed.
3 ) Take preliminary action (by vote or by consensus ) on
that portion of the "Working Copy" complied to date .
4 ) Proceed to discuss the next Section of the draft Sign
Ordinance .
i
`•�'\ mss/ \\ ! ._.,.°.:,. •
I - -r. ` .�'•'; �:4y.! r -.ii116••_ ax:� \ \�f �JFH1� �� •�' I L LOTS
1
�r `.
�'-�' �ji,/,.'i .�J:� `� 1�,••' `` j� j�•/!'`iI,,:.��1 !i'-:I. 1i'II� ). \
' 1•,:y,�4.'�.r�,.<:�'' � � .i ' !s•`���-'��;:(•-:%ti}IL{`);1,�.,�,�,1�i��� __ `��.,. . .� v�. 1 \ _� OJF� fL�d�tr.0ESirl.free�63 SII�S�
'3. � /) ( ') I \ cam•
'r (AA DEALERSHIPS (3) '
It ( `�. :r�i._ , �4-.'(: =j\ ���iff���,Y;`�zR.�,�"x�. '! [ � (Ilil �)rT:if^..'%j��'y�••.)'�ti� � j '� � ..
��: %f Jc 3 �r�\\l�`` •::C1�>:�,, -_ �'�t,'i �� I�fI�t r,''r Ii 3ji}�.Sir�'�dc �ytj ``� e�✓,�1' I�I A Cat!u'fYht s 0 CAMM14L�Yot jc>Tv,t�r
3�� � J
i_ _ ��•�,`=i� �,� �� ..�t1•`�;. 1 it ���1:1 •1'��1�'-c t%`; .0 ''�,••r•'''-:�� � 1 �fC /ND�STR"1�9L PhRK C6� r
=j !; \.` v�r; J�( r��-fh�l1� `-"r.�I, !(j.ty.` y .• r �� -
k'•i�'�`•:'\.: \' �. '����:`:�1 -����\.x�•:-�tr-:). �_1,',�` � C11��L`L-J�S1�I�Qr'+OT� (['T"1G
�� ri�/"O� .�.' ,��f1 [.y. Y- `� \ `I 'L,• S,i is`,•••w tt _ )/ iti_
\ _ '- .,: , ,j �''. .ti c :>`•',t D ,.�`�:'.' 'i=' � f ! I 1l� te-4TXKE- t1`NhULr F-J f
_�= — ,•t- S1- TY�J"'-•'� .Iti,y�'' '••`••,\�� �'•� \C:•:-''•��' c-.� f�-_^�,r' L1 at �
(�',.7 r.,J,�.• =;1r= 1 art )r f+ \�. �i �f�t1:y T.)([ti
'•���'�l�tl� 3+�1K
�tl 1'�l>,,,.11:(,fit' .�r.l).-�, \ {��� ��.> 0 �� �\�<�������'��'-�ri(�f/� p�• � .�
-�-� I,^Y_rr /''i�:1,=-:(, .CC � J' � �;•�• r, rlf-`Iq�r j l JJ —_ ,
�,<• '�Sv__�.> .,\�,-_r"�:��(�i. �A 1�Q �"�:'.;.. / �/JI,'f`�_I7�L/;Itti��
�; ;� 5 rte' a'° o �.;�,, •� *
It
IN
Ll
.I
S
D
Lb
C
\
18
-j.�-, ",.. :�- /1x• � `� ISM,, t � . . .• .. _•
3 :..
�+�+�' 1��:� 'L '< ,`•_r-,''i•,�;.�-_�;- '� � CfTY OF DUBLIN
.. . ...........-. .... { _ •..'' BASE MAP
— SANTMA 0 1110upS011,1NC-
1 ,
. .. _1... .. ..
�.,
'��+ q I.r ti.
: .
A 1�
Kr..
:�
`t
.1., r'
y
•T'
{
'r
:1•- r
f:
�i.
^-
:..
s.
S.
:y
f; _ ,
r .1. a'.
"3 J: .i' Y
t' - 1='' t
`:
BJEC.P : / . 4 PA b4-t' ' Zoning Ordinance Amen,-'-ent
Regarding S Regulations (.continuec om
Planning Commission meetings of May 6 , May 20 ,
June 3 , July 15 and July 18 ) .
n. Alexander opened the public hearing . Mr . Gailey opened the
:aff Report by indicatin) that along with the brief
ipplemental Staff Report , Staff had supplied an updated copy of jIlk
Ze "Working Copy" of the draft regulations of the sign
,dinance . The "Working Copy" addressed the ordinance up to
action 6 . 0 - Exempt or Permitted Signs . ( �
iitial discussion involving the "Working Copy" centered on t e
)dified language in Section 4 . 3-Freestanding Par the
g Si ns g 4
)mmission s direction , Staff had surveyed parcel sizes of
)mmercial properties in the City looking for an appropriate "
�rcel site for use as a threshold to allow higher signs ( 20 ' to
Staff advised that the appropriate threshold appeared to
four acres , which would involve approximately 39 parcels , or
:oupings of parcels ( 180 of the commercial holdings in the
Lty) .
(tended discussion followed regarding the purpose and intent of
Sing such a threshold, and discussion of uses that would or
;uld not be included if the four acre threshold was utilized .
ae Commission directed Staff to further adjust Section 4 . 3 to
:ovide the option of requesting higher signs ( 20 ' to 351 ) to
:.reels four acres and greater and single-use parcels 1 . 5 acres
id greater in size . It was determined that the request for
Lgher signs should be processed through the Conditional Use
�rmit process .
:aff continued discussion of the "Working Copy" by describing
ie introduction of the proportionality clauses into Section 4 . 3
;ich would tie the total area of a sign to the sign ' s height ,
idi.tional changes in the remainder of Section 4 were discussed ,
discussing Section 5 - Prohibited Signs and Locations , Staff
vised that no changes were indicated to the "Working Copy" of
e regulations , but Staff was aware that members of the audience
re present who would like to discuss 5 . 0 g ) as regarded the
:ohibi.tion of all painted signs . Various members of the
siness community with businesses along Village Parkway
�sented testimony of this matter . Mr . Tong indicated that the
ty Attorney had advised that further review of this matter , as
rtains to recent litigation, would be necessary before this
ction was finalized .
.e major adjustments in Section 6 . 0 - Exempt or Permitted Signs
re indicated as involving 6 . 0 t ) Open-house Signs . Staff
vised that the so-called "flagrant violater clause" ( 6 . 0 t ) , 4 )
:uld still require review and input from the City Attorney.
scussion began on the next section of the draft regulations
O-Review of Signs with Staff :indicating sub-section by sub-
�ction what was addressed in this portion of the draft
,gulations . Discussion on this section resulted in direction to
aff to delete sub-section 7 . 5c ) Advertising Sign and sub-
ction 7 . 5g ) Off-premises Business Signs .
PCM-5-93
/(7
tensive discussion centered on the sub-section dealing with
ministrative Conditional Use Permits for temporary signs . The
rection of the Commission regarding this matter was .to retain
e Administrative Conditional Use Permit process for use of
mporary signs used up to a maximum cumulative period of 30 days
nually, with a restriction of 14 consectutive days for any
ngle promotional event using temporary signs . The direction
s given to utilize the Conditional Use Permit process for use
temporary signs up to a maximum - cumulative period of use of 60
ys annually, with the same 14 day maximum consecutive day
�striction .
!e to the lateness of the hour , the Commission continued the
.scussion on the remainder of the draft regulations to the
)mmission meeting of August 19 , 1985 .
,D BUSINSS
)ne
711W BUSINESS
)ne
k -.'c A• �c
\1FINISHED BUSINESS
. 1 Status Report : PA 85-016 Char s Lemoine
c . Tong presented the staff rep t providing a brief summary of
ne project ' s chronology, discu ion of the July 30th Staff
nspection which revealed thre uses on the site which had not
een moved out as required , a Mr . Lemoine ' s written request for
pother extension of the mov out date . Mr . Tong indicated Staff
as recommending that the r uest for a one-month extension be
enied due to the history o the project leading up to the latest
equest .
iil . Alexander asked if a yone was present to speak on the item,
o one indicated a desi e to speak on the matter .
n motion of Cm . Rale , and seconded by Cm. Barnes , and by
onsensus , Cm. Alexa der closed the public hearing .
n motion of Cm. Ni k , seconded by Cm. Barnes , and by unanimous
ote , the Plannin Commission denied the request for the one-
onth extension d directed Staff to proceed with the standard
oning enforcem t action .
PCM-5-94
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE : August 19 , 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
On May 6 , 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on the draft sign regulations . The Planning Commission heard
testimony from several memebers of the public . Staff reviewed
the chronology of the process leading up to the preparation of
the draft sign regulations and indicated that revisions proposed
by Staff , the Planning Commission, the City Council and the
public were anticipated. Discussion on the draft document at
that meeting was limited to a brief discussion of the format of
the regulations and of the Table of Contents . The Commission
I continued the public hearing to the meeting of May 20, 1985 .
On May 20 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from a
representative from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers ,
and, several others , and continued the public hearing to June 3 ,
1985 .
On June 3 , 1985 , the Planning Commission heard testimony from
auto dealers , a representative from the Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors ( SACBR) , and several others . The Commission' s
review of the draft sicn regulations centered on the General
Provisions Section and the Section 2 - Definitions . The item was
continued to the meeting of July 1 , 1985 .
In response to the Commission ' s input from the June 3 , 1985 ,
hearing, Staff complied a "Working Copy" of the draft sign
regulations which reflected specific modifications requested by
the Planning Commission . For the July 1, 1935, public hearing,
the text of the "Working Copy" of the draft regulations was
limited to covering the General Provisions and Definitions
Sections .
At the July 1, 1985 , hearing, the Commission again heard
testimony from a representative of SACBR. In support of that
testimony, several local realtors and brokers also presented
testimony. Two petitions were submitted expressing vi ,,apoints of
the real estate industry regarding proposed regulations involving
Open-House Real Estate Signs . The Commission reviewed the
"Working Copy" of the draft regulations and made a few minor
refinements . The Commission then continued with their section-
by-section analysis of the draft regulations with discussions
covering Section 3 - General Limitations By Land Use District and
a part of Section 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards .
The item was continued to the public hearing of July 15 , 1985,
with an indication from the Commission that the item would be
subject of a special meeting during the week of July 15 , 1985 ,
the exact date to be established at the July 15th, hearing.
The special meeting was held on July 18, 1985, at which time the
Commission reviewed an updated "Working Copy" of the draft
regulations . The Commission continued their section-by-section
analysis of the draft regulations by covering the final portion
of Section 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards and
continuing through Section 5 - Prohibited Signs and Locations and
-----------------------------------------------------------------_..
ITEM NO . COPIES TO: Chamber of Commerce
ATTACHMENT ,,
.r
Section 6 - Exempt Permitted signs . Public testimony was
received throughout this review, including additional input from
the SACBR representative, realtors and auto dealers . The
Commission gave specific direction to staff regarding ` _
supplemental research and specific changes to the draft
regulations they requested.
The principle modification they requested was a change in the
maximum height of freestanding .signs to provide users on larger
parcels the option to request signs up to 35 feet in height . The
Commission requested that Staff research the number of parcels in
the City grouped into various size categories (i .e . , one-acre,
three-acres , etc . ) to determine the threshold at which this more
liberal sign height standard would be most appropriately
established. The item was continued to the meeting of August 5,
1985 .
Based on an analysis of the parcel size groupings throughout the
City and a review of the type of uses within the larger acreage
categories, . Staff recommended that a 4 . 0 acre and up category be
utilized as the threshold for the more liberal signage .
A revised copy of the "Working Copy" of the sign regulations was
supplied to accomodate proposed changes dealing with freestanding
sign heights and other changes to the draft sign regulations
through Section 6 .
Following extensive discussion on the sign height question, the
Commission developed a consensus opinion to expand the category
utilized as a threshold for more liberal signage to include
parcels 4 . 0 acres and greater in size and single use parcels 1 . 5
acres and greater in size.
On separate items , the Commission expressed consensus support of
the proposed modifications to the means of calculating aggregate
allowable sign area (tying if proportionately to the surface area
of the building elevation receiving signage ) and the means of
calculating the size of freestanding signs (tying sign area
proportionately to sign height) .
Discussion at the August 5 , 1985, hearing ended with
consideration of the permit process to be utilized for temporary
signs (end of Section 7 ) .
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue with their
- analysis of the draft document on a section-by-section basis .
1) Review the "working copy" of the draft sign regulations
covering Section I through Section VII .
2 ) Indicate any additional revisions needed.
3 ) Take preliminary action (by vote or by consensus ) on
that portion of the "Working Copy" complied to date ,
4 ) Proceed to discuss the next Section of the draft Sign
Ordinance .
v
�C c
Commissioners Raley and Barnes voice oncerns about any work on
weekends . Cm. Petty indicated h ould see benefits from
speeding up the total construc n period by allowing Saturday
work .
On motion of Cm. Raley econded by Cm. Barnes , voice vote found
3 - 1 ( Cm. Petty dis ting ) to deny the appeal by Kaufman and
Broad of Staff ' s ermilnation regarding days and hours of
construction ac ' ity at the Silvergate Highlands project .
7 . 3 PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations ( continued from Planning Commission meetings of May
6 , May 20 , June 3 , July 1 , July 5 , July 18 and August 5 , 1985 ) .
Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing and called for the Staff
report .
Mr . Gailey presented the Staff report beginning with a summary of
the most recent , major modifications contained within the
"working copy" of the sign regulations , which covered Sections 1
through 7 of the draft regulations .
These major modifications were indicated to include ;
revisions to the Definitions Section to reflect the
revised method of calculating allowable aggregate signage .
revisions to Section 4 dealing with wall mounted signs
( plugging in new method of calculating .allowable aggregate
signage ) and freestanding signs ( to include parcels 1 . 5 acres and
greater in size among those parcels who can request freestanding
signs from 20 ' to 35 ' in height through the Conditional Use
Permit process ) .
- revisions to Section 7 regarding the Administrative
Conditional Use Permit ( ACUP ) and the Conditional Use Permit
processes for temporary signs .
The Commission reaffirmed their consensus position that
freestanding signs be tiered into the following two categories ;
1 ) 20 ' maximum city wide , and 2 ) 20 ' to 35 ' range through the
Conditional Use Permit process for all parcels four acres in size
or greater and single-use parcels 1 . 5 acres in size or greater .
The Commission expressed a desire to retain the ACUP process for
grand opening temporary signs ( up to 30 consecutive days of
signage within 60 days of a bonafide grand opening ) .
Discussion continued into the remaining portions of the draft
regulations , commencing with Section 8 - Enforcement and
Penalties . Mr . Gailey underscored the three year amortization
period with the option of requesting three additonal years for
modification or elimination of non-conforming signs .
PCM-5-86
The Commission indicated a desire to have the ordinance
explicitly prohibit billboard signs .
Discussion on Section 9 - Amortization-Non-Conforming Signs and
Section 10-Amendment and Repeal . Severability was limited to
brief overviews of the contents of the respective sections .
Following a brief discussion between the Commission and Staff , it
was determined that Staff would return to the Commission meeting
of September 3 , 1985 , with a completed "Working Copy" covering
Sections 1 through 10 and a first draft of support graphics . The
Commission meeting of September 17 , 1985 , would be used for
finalization of the Commission ' s review of the draft sign
regulations .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr . Gailey advised the Commission of t actions taken by the
City Council at their hearing of Augu 12 , 1985 ( Hatfield,
Veach , Rafanelli and Nahas Parcel Ma park location and Bedford
Properties Rezoning ) .
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ' S CONCERNS
Cm. Raley inquired as to the sta s of the Sawmill sign .
Cm . Raley filed a zoning compl nt involving exterior storage of
video games on the front yard f ' a residential property on the
west side of Hansen Drive so h east of Amarillo . A second
complaint was issued involvi g the dilapidated sign at the top of
Dillon Way visible from I-5 0 .
Cm. Barnes commented on p oblems on noticing sent with incorrect
zip codes .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no fur er business , the meeting was adjourned at
10 ; 10 P. M .
Respectfully submitted,
P_ a Co isslon Chairman v
Laurence L . Tong ,
Planning Director
PCM-5-87
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 3 , 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff �U
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
On May 6, 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on the draft sign regulations . The Planning Commission heard.
testimony from several memebers of the public . Staff reviewed
the chronology of the process leading up to the preparation of
the draft sign regulations and indicated that revisions proposed
by Staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council and the
public were anticipated. Discussion on the draft document at
that meeting was limited to a brief discussion of the format of
the regulations and of the Table of Contents . The Commission
continued the public hearing to the meeting of May 20 , 1985 .
On May 20 , 1985, the Planning Commission heard testimony from a
representative from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, auto dealers,
and several others , and continued the public hearing to June 3 ,
1985 .
On June 3 , 1985, the Planning Commission heard testimony from
auto dealers , a representative from the Southern Alameda County;
Board of Realtors (SACBR) , and several others . The Commission' s
review of the draft sign regulations centered on the General
Provisions Section and the Section 2 - Definitions . The item was
continued to the meeting of July 1, 1985 .
In response to the Commission ' s input from the June 3 , 1985 ,
hearing, Staff complied a "Working Copy" of the draft sign
regulations which reflected specific modifications requested by
the Planning Commission. For the July 1, 1985, public hearing,
the text of the "Working Copy" of the draft regulations was
limited to covering the General Provisions and Definitions
Sections .
At the July 1, 1985 , hearing, the Commission again heard
testimony from a representative of SACBR. In support of that
testimony, several local realtors and brokers also presented
testimony. Two petitions were submitted expressing viewpoints of
the real estate industry regarding proposed regulations involving
Open-House Real Estate Signs . The Commission reviewed the
"Working Copy" of the draft regulations and made a few minor
refinements . The Commission then continued with their section-
by-section analysis of the draft regulations with discussions
covering Section 3 - General Limitations By Land Use District and
a part of Section 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards .
The item was continued to the public hearing of July 15, 1985,
with an indication from the Commission that the item would be
subject of a special meeting during the week of July 15 , 1985,
the exact date to be established at the Julv 15th, hearing_
The special meeting was held on July 18, 1985, at which time the
Commission reviewed an updated "Working Copy" of the draft
regulations . The Commission continued their section-by-secticn
analysis of the draft regulations by covering the final portion
of Section 4 - Regulations Governing Size and Standards and
continuing through Section 5 - Prohibited Signs and Locations and
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO . COPIES TO: Chamber of Commerce
U A ENT
XQ�4&1 &WA4 9-'s. -Or AMP-. TTAAhH.m
Section 6 - Exempt Permitted signs . Public testimony was
received throughout this review, including additional input from
the SACBR representative, realtors and auto dealers . The
Commission gave specific direction to staff regarding
supplemental research and specific changes to the draft
regulations they requested.
The principle modification they requested was a change in the
maximum height of freestanding signs to provide users on larger
parcels the option to request signs up to 35 feet in height. The
Commission requested that Staff research the number of parcels in
the City grouped into various size categories (i .e. , one-acre,
three-acres , etc. ) ' to determine the threshold at which this more
liberal sign height standard would be most appropriately
established. The item was continued to the meeting of August 5,
1985 .
Based on an analysis of the parcel size groupings throughout the
City and a review of the type of uses within the larger acreage
categories , Staff recommended that a 4 .0 acre and up category be
utilized as the threshold for the more liberal signage .
A revised copy of the "Working Copy" of the sign regulations was
supplied to accomodate proposed changes dealing with freestanding
sign heights and other changes to the draft sign regulations
through Section 6 .
Following extensive discussion on the sign height question, the
Commission developed a consensus opinion to expand the category
utilized as a threshold for more liberal signage to include
parcels 4 . 0 acres and greater in size and single use parcels 1 . 5
acres and greater in size .
On separate items , the Commission expressed consensus support of
the proposed modifications to the means of calculating aggregate
allowable sign area (tying if proportionately to the surface area
of the building elevation receiving signage) and the means of
calculating the size of freestanding signs (tying sign area
proportionately to sign height) .
Discussion at the August 5, 1985, hearing ended with
consideration of the permit process to be utilized for temporary
signs (end of Section 7 ) . The item was continued to the meeting
of August 19, 1985 .
Modifications to the "Working Copy" were brought back to the
Commission for the August 19th meeting to reflect changes agreed
upon at the previous hearing . Discussion at the August 19th
meeting wrapped up the review of the draft sign regulations . The
Commission directed Staff to come back to the meeting of
September 3, 1985, with the completed "Working Copy" of the draft
regulations .
Staff recommends the Commission review the "Working Copy" of the
draft sign regulations covering Section I through Section X and
indicate any additional revisions needed.
7 .5 PA 84-077 Zoning 0 'finance Amendment Regarding- = gn
Regulations ( cont. d from Planning Commissi eetings of
May 6 , & 20 , June j , July 1, 5 , & 18 , Aug. 5 , , A , 1985 ) .
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and Balled for the Staff
report .
Mr . Gailey presented the Staff report advising the Commission
that the completed "working copy" of the draft ordinance was
completed. He continued by advising a "clean copy" of the
completed ordinance needed to be run by the City Attorney and
that the time to do that and to prepare requested graphics to
accompany the ordinance meant an October 7 , 1985 , commission date
for formalizing the Commission ' s recommendations to the Council
would appear appropriate.
Mr . Carl Heyman, Sign Users Council of California addressed the
Commission and indicated; 1 ) he felt the draft ordinance was
well written, 2 ) he had concerns about use of a design review
process, 3 ) he was concerned that the business merchants did not
understand the application process proposed or the problems if
signage is determined non-conforming, and 4) that the ordinance
was not in keeping with the requirements of SB 142 which
addresses sign abatement .
Mr . Gailey in response advised the draft ordinance sets forth
explicit criteria, but does not (as is typical with most sign
ordinances ) imply that the maximum standards are to be
automatically allowed. Mr . Gailey advised the intent of the
ordinance redraft was toward the layman in being able to
understand the regulations and to continue to allow for generous
amounts of signage. Mr . Gailey advised the draft ordinance had
been reviewed by the City Attorney as regards to SB 142 and
determined to be consistent with its requirements . .
Cm. Raley indicated coordination with the Chamber of Commerce
should occur to allow them an opportunity to advise their members
that a final draft document was available for review, even if the
Planning Commission meeting needed to move until October 21 ,
1985 .
The Commission concurred with the continuance to the
October 7 , or October 21, 1985 hearing. for review of the "clean
copy" of the draft sign regulations .
r
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
OTHER BUSINESS
None
PrM-5-q4
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 21, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations -
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 3 , 1985 , Staff
presented to the Planning Commission copies of the completed
"Working Copy" of the draft sign ordinance regulations .
The Commission completed its review of the "Working Copy" and
indicated it desired that Planning Staff coordinate with the
Chamber of Commerce to allow that group to have adequate time to
advise their members that a final draft document was available
for review.
Staff advised that a "clean copy" of the draft regulations would
need to be prepared and sent to the City Attorney for his review
and comment and that Staff still needed to prepare the graphic
appendix to the draft ordinance .
The City Attorney has not had an opportunity to complete his
review of the draft ordinance to date . Additionally, Staff has
not yet completed the referenced graphic appendix .
In acknowledgement of the above, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission open public hearing, take testimony, then
continue this matter to the meeting of November 4 , 1985 .
Enclosed for review and discussion is a "clean copy" of the draft
regulations which incorporates all the changes directed by the
Commission during the course of the public hearings on this item.
Also enclosed is a draft resolution for review and comment by the
Planning Commission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_ ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Chamber of Commerce
�� s � ATOIDACOMENT ,9
>p&Agir,
l�
Paula Fortier, Diamond Signs, indicated that s had received and
reviewed the staff report and concurred wi the conditions of
approval recommended by Staff .
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded y Cm. Barnes , and on
consensus, Cm. Alexander closed the pub i.c hearing.
Cm. Alexander inquired whether bond' g to assure the removal of
the signs would be appropriate .
Mr. Tong said that the City ad required a cash bond on a
previous application several ears ago, but had recently not
required such bonds . Cash onds could be made a condition of
approval .
On motion by Cm. Mack, and seconded by Cm. Barnes , and by
unanimous voice vote, e Planning Commission voted to approve
the request .
RESOLUTION NO. 85-050
A R OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROV G PA 85-081 DIAMOND SIGNS, INC. (APPLICANT) ;
MORET/SEE' CANDY SHOPS, INC. (OWNERS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
QUEST FOR OFFSITE DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS.
The Com ssion expressed a consensus opinion that future requests
for d' ectional tract signs be processed with a condition
requi ng that an appropriate bond be posted to provide for the
rem al of the si n.
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Advertising Displays (Signs )
Cm. Alexander opened the Public Hearing. Mr . Gailey gave a brief
Staff presentation indicating that the Staff ' s recommendation for
a continuance of the item was based on the following :
1 . Staff had not finished preparation of the graphic attachment
for the Draft Ordinance ;
2 . The Citv Attorney had not finished his review of the Draft
Ordinance ; and
3 . Additional time to allow the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to
review the Draft Ordinance appeared to be appropriate .
Mr. Hansen, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, requested the item be
continued to the Commission ' s November 18, 1985 , hearing to allow
the Chamber ' s Board of Directors to consider the draft formally
at their meetina of NovPmhPr. 1 '1 . 14RS
By a consensus opinion, the Commission continued the item to the
November 18, 1985 , hearing.
PCM-5-114
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 18, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sign
Regulations
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 3 , 1985 , Staff
presented to. the Planning Commission copies of the completed
"working copy" of the draft sign ordinance regulations .
The Commission had completed its review of the draft regulations
and indicated it ' s desire to have Planning Staff coordinate with
the Chamber of Commerce to have that group advise its members
that a final draft document was available for review.
At the September 3rd meeting Staff advised the Commission that a
"clean copy" of the draft regulations would need to be prepared
and sent to the City Attorney for his review and comment and that
Staff needed additional time to prepare the graphic appendix to
the draft ordinance .
The item was continued to the Commission meeting of October 21,
1985 , at which time Staff advised the Commission that the City
Attorney had not completed his review of the draft ordinance and
that Staff had not yet prepared the graphic appendix. For those
reasons , and in acknowledgement of a request for a continuence by
a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, the Commission again
continued the item, this time to the November 18 , 1985 hearing .
The City Attorney has now completed his review of the draft
ordinance and provided detailed comments ( see memorandum dated
November 1, 1985 ) .
Enclosed for the Commission ' s review and action is a copy of the
revised draft regulations which incorporates changes recommended
by the City Attorney .
The final draft ordinance presented to the City Council will be
subject to editorial or minor format changes . Prior to City
Council review of the final draft ordinance, the graphic appendix
will be brought to the Planning Commission for review and
comment .
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
1- Re-open the Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2- Take testimony from the public .
3- Question Staff and the public .
4- Close Public Hearing and deliberate .
5- Adopt resolution recommending the City Council adopt the
sign regulations .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Chamber of Commerce
4 ° � ° TTACI IiMENT-4-5_
a
VI
1
again called for provision of an active use (ten s courts, pools
or equivelent) and indicated he did not suppor the sports court
layout presented by the applicant for that si of the project.
In regards to Martin Canyon Creek, Cm. aley reiterated his
position that the project should be des ' ned so as to have the
creek serve as a project accent but not be designed to provide
access to the creek. Cm. Raley indi ted a desire to see the
unit density in the south portion ion the eastern half of the
project decrease . _
Cm. Raley stated support of the u. of a Public Hearing for the
Site Development Review applica ion and his opposition to a
requirement to have a perimeter od-iron project fence installed.
Cm. Petty stated support fo the latest configuration of the
passive recreation area de ailed for the east half of the
project. Cm. Petty continu by stating that as regards the west
half of the project, his i lination was still towards the use of
• pool-type facility, but e did not want to specifically dictate
• specific type of an ac ive recreation use .
Cm. Mack indicated. — pport for the intent of Condition #65
(dealing with the ac ive recreation use on the west half of the
project) . She indicated that the size of the recreation area
would be dictated y the type of activities it would ultimately
carry. Cm. Mack pposed the sport court concept presented by the
applicant for t s area .
Cm. Barnes st ted support for use of a passive recreation area,
not an activ recreation, for the west half of the project and
stated she idn ' t agree with the recommended loss : of units .
Mr. Grud inski made a statement regarding the amount of time
taken t process the application and asked that a December 2,
1985, ontinuence date be observed.
On nsensus direction by the Commission, the item was con , A
SUBJECT: 7 . 5 PA 84-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Sign Regulations (continued from various Planning
Commission meetings ) .
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr . Gailey advised the
Commission that the draft ordinance had been reviewed by the City
Attorney and had been modified to reflect his comments . Mr .
Gailev stated that an appendix to the sign regulations providing
graphic depictionof some of thse signs would be presented later
to the Commission for review and comment. Mr . Gailey finished
his presentation by indicating Staff was recommending the
Commission adopt the draft ordinance prepared for this matter
which would recommend the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment regarding Sign Regulations .
PCM-5-129
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes:, and by
unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by
unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to adopt the
ordinance pertaining to the sign regulations .
RESOLUTION NO. 85-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT REORGANIZED
AND MODIFIED SIGN REGULATIONS
There was acknowledgement by the Commission that the Board of
Directors of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce had indicated their
support of the draft sign regulations .
NEW BUSINESS
None .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None .
OTHER BUSINESS
None .
PLANNING COMMIS ONERS ' CONCERNS
None .
ADJOURNM T
There leing no further business , the muting was adjourned at
12 : 12 .m.
PCM-5-130
CASE STUDIES OF EXISTING
WALL MOUNTED SIGNS
Length x Height Area Area
1. Crown Books Total Wall Area 25'-6" x 14' 357 sf
(7904 Dublin Blvd.) Sign 18'-3" x 18" 27.4 sf 7.7%
Frontage %-Length - 72 % -
2. Record Factory Total Wall Area 55' x 14' 770 sf
(7916 Dublin Blvd.) Sign 29'-6" x 21" 51.6 sf 6.7%
Frontage %-Length 53.6%
3. Shoe Town Total Wall Area 30' x 14' 420 sf
(7912 Dublin Blvd.) Sign 15' x 21" 26.3 sf 6.3%
Frontage %-Length 50%
4. Linens Unlimited Total Wall Area 40' x 13'-9" 550 sf 4.4%
North Sign Sign 16' x 18" 24 sf
(6632 Dublin Blvd. ) Frontage %-Length 40%
5. Import Car Parts Total Wall Area 30' x 13'-9" 412.5 sf
(6622 Dublin Blvd.) Sign 26'-9" x 18" 40.1 sf 9.7%
Frontage %-Length 89%
6. Reveille Waterbeds Total Wall Area 30' x 13'-9" 412.5 sf
(6620 Dublin Blvd.) Sign 20' x 24" 40 sf 9.7%
Frontage %-Length 66.7%
7 . Ozzie Davis
a. "Toyota" Total Wall Area
(West) 64' x 14' 896 sf 5.6%
Sign 20' x 30" 50 sf
Frontage %-Length 31.3%
b. "Ozzie Davis" Total Wall Area
"Pontiac-Toyota" (South) 135' x 16' 2,160 sf 11,3%
Sign 70' x 3'-6" 245 sf
Frontage %-Length 51.9%
ATTACHMENT