HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 07-18-1985
~ ~ s ~ ~ I~
Adjourned Meeting - July 18, 1985
An adjourned meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission
was held on Thursday, July 18, 1985, in the Community Room,
Homestead Savings, 7889 Dublin Blvd. The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m, by Cm. Alexander, Chairman.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT; Commissioners Alexander, Barnes, Petty and Mack, and
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior
Planner.
ABSENT: Commissioner 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 c~ntinue 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.
I • l ~ ~
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-l, C-1, C-2 and M-1 Districts.
The motion was withdrawn prior to a call for the vote.
Cm. Alexander proposed ar.d 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.
i •
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 follcwing 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.
• I ~ ~
- Set hours of use to weekend periods from noon Frida~
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 nning,' ommission Cha'rman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
* * * *