HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Kentucky Fried Chicken Sign Appeal S'HE CITY OF DUBLIN® (-400-30
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin.CA 94566 (415) 829-3543
TO: Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney
DATE: April 30 , 1982
RE: ZONING VARIANCE; CONTINUANCE: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN SIGN
The question has been raised as to the period of
time the Council may continue the hearing on the appeal of
Keith Holmes (Kentucky Fried Chicken) .
The County Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the
City pursuant to Dublin Ordinance #1 provides (Sec. 8-101 . 0) for
a hearing on an application for a variance . Section 8-101 .1 pro-
vides that the presiding officer may continue the hearing and no
further notice is required. There is no provision in the County
Ordinance that a decision be reached within a specified period
of time . Without such a requirement, the Council is free to
continue the hearing from time to time . The applicant may, however,
bring a writ of mandate under C.C.P. S 1085 to compel the Council
to hear the matter, if the applicant is dissatisifed with the
Council ' s action in continuing the matter. This is unlikely,
given Holmes ' desire to keep the sign as it presently stands .
City Attorney
/`
a
-ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
March 31, 1982
Dublin City Council
P O Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94566
RE: Appeal -- Variance V-8422, Keith Holmes
Dear Council Members:
Attached and following is the record of the referenced appeal:
THE APPLICATION:
Application for a Variance to allow retention of a freestanding sign
located in a required 30' front yard and not in the middle 1/3 of the
lot in an "C-2-B-40" (General Commercial, 1 acre minimum building site
area with 30' front yard) District, located at 6797 Village Parkway,
east side, 150' north of the intersection with. Dublin Boulevard, Dublin,
Assessor's No. 941-210-33.
PERTINENT FACTS:
History: November 10, 1976, Conditional Use Permit C-3152 and Variance,
V-7142, approved drive-in restaurant on the subject property with front
yard reduced from 30' to 25'.
Size of Parcel: 1.5 acres.
Physical Features: A level, irregular shaped parcel with approximately
170 feet of frontage on Village Parkway. The lot tapers so that there is
91 feet of width at the rear lot line and average depth of approximately
335 feet. Development consists of a restaurant building with drive-up
window on the north side. There is a 20 foot deep planter strip across
the front and the balance of the lot is paved and striped for parking.
Adjacent Area: Business, light industrial and commercial uses, easterly
and westerly along Dublin Boulevard, and mixed business uses northerly
and southerly along Village Parkway.
Environmental Impact: Categorically exempt, Class 5 h.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
The proposed sign has already been erected; zoning approval was
erroneously given. Free-standing signs, other than the low-profile
type, are not allowed in the 30' front yard of the B-40 district.
The plot plan submitted for Building Permit purposes gave an inaccurate
frontage measurement, leading to the sign being located outside of the
middle 1/3 of the lot frontages
—/
•
•
Dublin City Council
March 31, 1982 - rage 2
• For the purposes of analysis, the two issues of.the variance (free-
standing sign in the front yard and location not in the middle 1/3
of the lot) should be dealt with separately. Taking the middle 1/3
issue first, there are features of the property which indicate that
the existing location of the sign is reasonable and without detriment
to any other properties. The frontage is physically divided into -
approximately equal thirds with the two outer thirds developed with
planted area and the middle third containing the main access driveway.
The ordinance requires the sign to be located in the middle one third,
which is the driveway area. The proposed sign location is just outside
the middle one third, fifty feet from the side property line where the
ordinance would require a 53 to 57 foot setback from the side property
line. Being 50 feet from the neighboring property, the sign will not
block any view of the neighboring property and is therefore not
detrimental.
. With respect to the issue of locating a free-standing sign in the
30 foot front yard, there simply are no facts relevant to the findings
required for a variance that would justify the proposed request. The
property is not deprived of the low-profile sign that is available and
utilized by many other properties in the vicinity and at this intersection.
Approval of the sign simply grants a competitive advantage to this
property, which would not be available to any of the other restaurants
in the area. The application clearly has precedent-setting capabilities.
• The required front yard comes about only because the property is in the
unusual C-2-B-40 zoning district. Ordinary , C-2 zoning does not have
a front yard and the subject sign meets the height, area, and setback
requirements of the C-2 District. Perhaps the B-40 zoning is no longer
appropriate. The B-40 zoning was applied to the property as a transition
from the original M-S Industrial Park zoning for this area of Dublin.
Consideration of rezoning would be within the purview of the new Dublin
City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING:
• The matter was heard on January 27,1982, at which time the applicant
and his representative compared their sign to others in the vicinity
and pointed to the errors in issuing the Building Permit as reason to
grant the Variance.
▪ The matter was continued to March 3, 1982, to inquire of the Dublin City
Council regarding retention of the B-40 Combining District as this
would affect the variance consideration. (On February 16, 1982, the
Council declined to initiate any changes in the Combining District.)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION:
At the March 3, 1982, hearing no additional testimony was offered and the
variance was denied since there was no information in the record that would
allow affirmative findings of fact required for the grant of a variance.
Since• -
RPF:klc RIC - P. -N.;
ZONING ADMINIST• •TOR
!R 1
•
PRE-HEARING ANALYSIS, March 3, 1982
KEITH HOLMES
VARIANCE, V-8422
Application for a Variance to allow retention of a freestanding sign located in a required
30' front yard and not in the middle 1/3 of the lot in an "C-2-B-40" (General Commercial, 1
acre minimum building site area with 30' front yard) District, located at 6797 Village
Parkway, east side, 150'north of the intersection with Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, Assessor's
No. 941-210-33.
PERTINENT FACTS&
History: November 10, 1976, Conditional Use Permit C-3152 and Variance, V-7142,
approved drive-in restaurant on the subject property with front yard reduced from 30' to
25'. -
May 4, 1977, Variance V-7295, permitted division of the subject property from a parcel
adjacent southerly, each reduced in area to 37,000 sq. ft. where 40,000 sq. ft. is required.
November 9, 1977, Conditional Use Permit C-3305, permitted modification of the existing
restaurant building so as to provide a drive-up window.
Size of Parcel: 1.5 acres.
Size of Parcel: 1.5 acres.
Physical Feature= A level, irregular shaped parcel with approximately 170 feet of
frontage on Village Parkway. The lot tapers so that there is 91 feet of width at the rear lot
line and average depth of approximately 335 feet. Development consists of a restaurant
building with drive-up window on the north side. There is a 20 foot deep planter strip
across the front and the balance of the lot is paved and striped for parking.
Adjacent Area: Business, light industrial and commercial uses, easterly and westerly along
Dublin Boulevard, and mixed business uses northerly and southerly along Village Parkway.
Environmental Impact: Categorically exempt, Class 5h.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
. The proposed sign has already been erected; zoning approval was erroneously given.
Free-standing signs, other than the low-profile type, are not allowed in the 30' front
yard of the B-40 district. The plot plan submitted for Building Permit purposes gave
an inaccurate frontage measurement, leading to the sign being located outside of the
middle 1/3 of the lot frontage.
. For the purposes of analysis, the two issues of the variance (free-standing sign in the
front yard and location not. in the middle 1/3 of the lot) should be dealt with
separately. Taking the middle 1/3 issue first, there are features of the property
which indicate that the existing location of the sign is reasonable and without
detriment to any other properties. The frontage is physically divided into
approximately equal thirds with the two outer thirds developed with planted area and
the middle third containing the main access driveway. The ordinance requires the
sign to be located in the middle one third, which is the driveway area. The proposed
sign location is just outside the middle one third, fifty feet from the side property
line where the ordinance would require a 53 to 57 foot setback from the side property
line. Being 50 feet from the neighboring property, the sign will not block any view of
the neighboring property and is therefore not detrimental.
. With respect to the issue of locating a free-standing sign in the 30 foot front yard,
there simply are no facts relevant to the findings required for a variance that would
justify the proposed request. The property is not deprived of the low-profile sign that
is available and utilized by many other properties in the vicinity and at this
intersection. Approval of the sign simply grants a competitive advantage to this
property, which would not be available to any of the other restaurants in the area.
The application clearly has precedent-setting capabilities.
■
PRE-HEARING AN ' al _ 'March 3, M2
KEITH HOLMES
• VARIANCE, V-8422
Page 2
The required front yard comes about only because the property is in the unusual C-2-
B-40 zoning district. Ordinancy C-2 zoning does not have a front yard and the subject
sign meets the height, area, and setback requirements of the C-2 District. Perhaps
the B-40 zoning is no longer appropriate. The 8-40 zoning was applied to the property
as a transition from the original M-S Industrial Park zoning for this area of Dublin.
Consideration of rezoning would be within the purview of the new Dublin City
Council.
FINDINGS REQUIRED:
1. Are there special circumstances applicable to the property which deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical
zoning classification?
Location of existing planter areas are such that the sign should not be located in the
middle one third of the lot as this location would block the driveway; the property has
no extraordinary circumstances which deprive it of the opportunity for the permitted
low-profile sign in the front yard or a free-standing sign behind the 30 foot setback
line.
2. Will the granting of the application constitute a grant of special privileges
Inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone? •
To require modification of the driveway system so as to locate a free-standing sign
in the middle one third would present a hardship to this property; approval of a free-
standing sign in the front yard represents a privilege not available to other parcels in
the vicinity.
{
3. Will the use be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the
public welfare?
Setback 50 feet from the side property line, a freestanding sign would not block
visibility of the business or business signs on the adjoining property; approval of the
free-standing sign in the front yard represents a precedent having the effect of
removing the B-40 zoning from the property.
PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information available, the required findings cannot be made in the
affirmative and the application should be denied.
February 16, 1982, staff approached the Dublin City Council concerning the possibility
of rezoning the subject property and vicinity so as to drop the 5-40 combining district
and alleviate the major aspect of the subject variance. The Council declined to initiate
the rezoning consideration. -
I
•
k -
RESOLUTION NO. Z-4621 OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
ADOPTED AT THE HEARING OF MARCH 3, 1982, CONCERNING V-8422
WHEREAS Keith Holmes has filed an application for a VARIANCE,
V-8422, to allow retention of a freestanding sign located in a required 30' front
yard and not in the middle 1/3 of the lot in an "C-2-B-40" (General Commercial,
1 acre minimum building site area with 30' front yard) District, located at 6797
Village Parkway, east side, 150' north of the intersection with Dublin Boulevard,
Dublin, Assessor's No. 941-210-33; and
WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on said
application at the hour of 1:30 p.m. on the 3rd day of March, 1982, in the Alameda
County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and -
WHEREAS it satisfactorily appears from affidavits on file that proper
notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
•
WHEREAS this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to
be categorically exempt, class 5 h; and
WHEREAS a Pre-Hearing Analysis was submitted recommending the
application be denied; and
WHEREAS applicant appeared at said meeting and presented testimony
in support of the application; and
WHEREAS the zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; Now Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator finds that:
(a) There are no special circumstances applicable to the property
which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
• in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification as the
property has no extraordinary circumstances which deprive
it of the opportunity for the permitted low-profile sign in the
front yard or a free-standing sign behind the 30 foot setback
line;
(b) The granting of the application will constitute a grant of special
privileges-inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone as approval of a free-standing sign
in the front yard represents a privilege not available to other
parcels in the vicinity;
(c) The use will be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood
or to the public welfare as approval of the free-standing sign
in the front yard represents a precedent having the effect of
removing the B-40 zoning from the property—This should be
considered by the legislative body-not accomplished by administrative
action.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator does hereby
deny said application as shown by materials labelled Exhibit"A" on
file with the Alameda County Planning Department.
• RICHARD P. FLYNN - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
▪ ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AL
AM EDA CU NTY PLA
NNIN6. DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
TO: Dublin City Council
FROM: Alameda County Planning Department, Steve Richards
RE: Business Sign Regulations
DATE: May 17, 1982
Dear Council Members:
During your consideration of the appeal on the Kentucky Fried Chicken
sign on Village Parkway, staff was asked to present some general
information about business sign regulations affecting Dublin.
History:
Business signs in Dublin have always been subject to the regulations
contained in the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. Prior to 1974,
any business was allowed up to 300 square feet of sign area, attached
to the building or freestanding, without regard to projection, setback,
height or number of signs. It is apparent from the attached drawing
of actual existing businesses on East 14th Street in San Leandro that
these limited regulations resulted in sign clutter, view blockage and
competition for visibility between adjoining businesses that was
detrimental to all concerned.
Rational For Current Regulations:
Effective February 8, 1974, a comprehensive revision of the business
sign regulations was adopted. The new regulations limit the size of
signs allowed so that they are in scale with the size of businesses
that they identify and so that they are closely related to the business
building. Signs are to be mounted flush on the building wall, are limited
in the distance they can project out, and are required to be near
the middle of the frontage so as to prevent neighboring signs from
blocking one another. Only one freestanding sign is allowed and the
size of the sign is required to be in scale with the viewing distance
by requiring a larger setback for larger signs. All of these features
of the new sign standards are designed to obviate the problems of sign
clutter and blockage experienced with the prior regulation.
By applying a "B" Combining District to properties, a 30 foot front
yard may be imposed within which freestanding signs are prohibited. In
this situation, only low profile, iness community placed up
near the street allowing a uniq ue bus
front yards normally contain freestanding signs.
0
Memo Re Business Sign Regulations
May 17, 1982 Page 2
Enforcement of Regulations:
Prior to Proposition 13 staff reductions, enforcement of sign regulations
was the full-time assignment of one Zoning Enforcement Officer. All
building permits were checked for compliance and there was an area-by-area
program of contacting businesses that had illegal signs and working
towards compliance. Significant gains were made in some of the older
sections of the county where sign problems were the worst.
Following staff reductions, there has been no active enforcement of
business sign regulations. While Building Permits are still checked,
any action such as putting out a sandwich board goes unchecked unless
a complaint is filed and then the enforcement is taken up within the
priorities of all of Zoning Enforcement. There is currently just one
Zoning Enforcement Officer and no sign enforcement program.
II
I hope this brief report will answer some of the questions as to how
Dublin sign regulations came into their present form. These regulations
are based on both practical and theoretical analysis of the causes
of sign clutter and view blockage. We believe that what problems
exist with business signs are directly attributable to a lack of active
enforcement and that enforcement effort should be stepped up prior
to giving consideration to amending the regulations.
Stephen F. Richards
Planner III
SFR:klc
s .
3i
3p{{p
��r►�� i
� W 'RT
�U
NDRY
PA
‘glea
LEAVERS F'` M I�. . T _ 1 .n../..:w.l.7;1!7. m03,--z!:'... , . ...+.._�—�
-_'___ _ 1 _ 7..
Existing situation on East 11th Street. (Utility pole and wires
have been left out to focus attention on the structures.) •
T.,,,, ,, .
_____
",- -- ...111 i I EMI TV REPAIR.� 5 ��- "1�IW.!`lilt u
ii0; ). UNir1
-.1L,t, IN 1 ,,..
iii D j--
Re-drawing shows the probable result of the proposed sign regulations.
•
0 0
. -
Mt W --
_ _1_ _
-
--.1 --
(- ... • .....-
■ —7- ::------.11 -
.- .- .
C.D
- ----/
03 ar) - -
- ..
_
1 /
•
/
CO /
b. I
ettnt.
: I-..... ...
---- .
/ .-- •-......._.....
-... ,
. .
jog =
...'"
,..
...... -.
OP•tt ,
'.... ii —....■■•
IL,. tt•ti, .
.• ,
a.l.tx w ___-_—
.
Z
-----
../
1 L:w. ■.. '''' '...--. •it /"..
••! I._..„... ----•••■. ,,
.■ . i
‘t. r---:
B - - • ' -
/1 '77-- - .:- -- • i
t k i,..::_.._7-,/I I 1•I .... -
.,•-
•
t .
,4 i
;...-, .
: v6A
--.. ..t.• ...
..
C- -
N..„
._
t'
1 e..........7.1.
.
. . 1
i
.
....
. i
—..,--.-.-----•.,---.-, 4 1
i\,...
q 21• ..
\ N.
II ...../ .
.\... ........... .
• i \
■
•
, - •"-
1 . 0
;-N- --- 1. ; ! l ... , \ ema•
... i--■'. \ .
..../\f/yr,‘" •-•"-.I- \ \ \
R\\
0 ,
,\ ....,.
.4..... ••••• \ •
, .
•
. . .
0
0
•
- 1 '
y be
1: ‘ \
, It., tql. if.
gru
i O, U.1. 4111 m,
ig '0 ka'
cn
tri I M -I
0
.CD Aji-
i--- ij II 10 g
zgLir"
.29 •
z , 44
§36,
too 13- 1
.
1 It 11
fi .--a 9 ________iu. r-.
' 'Er I /
A o
N �
E-1
_
2 S '
s I �` ! t
i
}t
FREESTANDING
SIGNS C-! ( c-2
•
PRoata .
SET314.7X JI6HT AREA LETTER RE4 AZILE
HE/61-1T ACSTi4J4CX
Of 10' 30¢ 6r /87'
5' 124' 55¢ 8s" 2510'
/o' /5 ' 80¢ 102,481 309'
/5' /74' 105° 124;" 350'
20' 20' 130¢ 13t" 394'
25' 224 1550 /4 i" 424 '
30' 25' 180¢ 16" 4100'
35' 274' 205¢ 17" 490'
40' 30P 230w /84/3"
45' 324' 255° 194" 550'
205
/di
1054!
M, •
II I it
agilwiffifr ""*.----__.**,_1,10
0 0 .
• , . ...
F.--4-•1 . w lu, kt: vil
k • 14 0
I I �' 6
1 1 1 1 g LE LO - -
rk
I II p Ifl <
I VR � � t I 9� o Lk
I ' na 14H Li40. D --
... ...
1
1 rvw Tkw
1 ?t : tiJi k
1 1 (.)
I
q e Lq
1 . . ftwg o
cciai
I -') 4V6Ingro. '
1 1 is %. .4 %4k .is .,„, t5
4 Azp. - , c.k.i:;
1 I 1. ..:&Id wak7lqk
1 I '" RAT IQ ?. 04.?. 04.
I
I 8t . -. R 41 ,
I " ii k4"
I gE % Q8 i '
1 1 .i) t .. W;
TrO8k .. . 'I .
A 4,, � I It k
t > i.
N M
I
• J
ED W ,
I w d 'W
Q $ ! '
1 Q
i•
' '
Ii '
t 0
Q
co• • • -.. C f YP, ict-}-
ow w dc) ,
,z v.
Si6 ,tWw
z-, r41, 34
tokl
ow 11 . k,,„_( c'
„kJ Lob ,
iii 1 .141Q
,- P14 ,
1‹ . t , z ,,
,_ x, .,...,4, , Qi`')
/ 't . 0
cv„ tit) L 4., / to t
,,o 6 /
LL , /
j
/
< � h
, ,, -c-J1
W zO° if 1
7\y,,
CD WIL 7
e 'k
fP .
. `4 I
0`41k k
ku
itio
ku Ni
UZOI it I ,
4