HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 044-88 AmadorAutoSignVar RESOLUTION NO. 44-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING
THAT PORTION OF PA 87-140 AMADOR AUTOMOTIVE CENTER - SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE
REQUEST CONCERNING BUILDING A - TENANT SPACE A-3, 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford has filed an application for Sign
Location Variances from Sections 8-87.2 and 8-87.10) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance to allow construction of Wall-Mounted Business Signs which are not
contiguous with the commercial service spaces which they are proposed to
identify; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to
be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on November 24, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report prepared for the Zoning Administrator's
hearing was submitted recommending approval in part of the Variance applica-
tion (recommending approval of the proposed Building B Wall-Mounted Business
Sign for tenant spaces B-8, B-9, and B-10 and denial of the proposed
Building A Wall-Mounted Business Sign for Tenant Space A-3); and
WHEREAS, after hearing and considering all said reports,
recommendations and testimony~ the Zoning Administrator denied both Sign
Location Variance requests; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1987, Douglas W. Bradford, Property Owner
and Applicant, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
appeal on January 4, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action and deny the Sign'
Location Variance requests; and
· WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the matter to their
January 18, 1988, meeting and directed Staff to separate the two requests and
return to that hearing with a draft Resolution providing for the denial of the
proposed Building A - Wall-Mounted Business Sign for Tenant Space A-3, and a
second, separate draft Resolution providing for the approval of the proposed
Building B Wall-Mounted Business Sign for Tenant Spaces B-8, B-9 and B-10;
and
WHEREAS, a Supplemental Staff Report was submitted to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and denied
that portion of PA 87-140 pertaining to the proposed Building A Wall-Mounted
sign for tenant space A-3; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 1988, Douglas W. Bradford filed an appeal
of the Planning Commission action; and
- 1 -
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on
March 14, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City
Council uphold the Planning Commission action and deny the sign location
variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Gity Council heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby
find that:
There is no unique physical feature of the property in that the property
is flat, level, and located at the intersection of Dougherty Road, a
major arterial, and Sierra Lane, a minor street.
The applicant can provide effective and attractive identification
through compliance with the sign regulations, and granting the requested
variance would provide a special privilege and may set an inappropriate
precedent for similar, future variance requests.
The variance would not meet the intent and purpose of the sign
regulations, in that the business sign would not identify the occupant
of the premises on which the business sign would be located.
The variance may adversely affect surrounding property, in that it may
set an unwanted precedent of relaxing provisions of the sign regulations
where compliance is attainable; and where it is recognized that the
attractiveness of the community is an important factor of the general
welfare and that reasonable control of signs is in the public interest.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby uphold
the Planning Commission action and does hereby deny that portion of PA 87-140
pertaining to the proposed Building A - Wall-Mounted sign for Tenant
Space A-3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 1988.
AYES:
Councilmembers Hegarty and Moffatt
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder
Councilmember Snyder and Mayor Jef ry
ATTEST:
- 2 -