HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 21, 2004 G-01 PHCITY OF LODI
,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Conduct Public Hearing to consider an appeal received from Key Advertising
Inc., regarding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request of
Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display
sign, and a Variance to double the maximum allowable sign area from 480
square -feet to 960 square feet to be located at 1251 South Beckman Road
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -
foot -high electronic display sign, and a Variance to double the
maximum allowable sign area from 480 square -feet to 960 square -feet to be located at 1251 South
Beckman Road.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The appellant, "Key Advertising," is proposing to construct a two-
sided 75 -foot -tall freeway information sign near the north end of the
Geweke Dodge and Kia Dealership at 1251 South Beckman Road.
The area of signage will be 24 -feet wide by 20 -feet -tall on both sides, for a total of 960 -square -feet of
signage. Each side of the sign has a 21 -foot 8 -inch wide by 11 -foot 3 -inch tall, 245 square -foot electronic
message center panel. The electronic message center is essentially a television and/or computer
monitor. The remaining sign area is proposed to state "Geweke Auto Group." Given the size, height,
and placement of the sign, it is primarily designed for viewing by northbound and southbound motorists
on State Highway 99 (see exhibit 1 & 2).
The Planning Commission at its Public Hearing of February 11, 2004 reviewed and denied the requests
for a Use Permit and a Variance. The Use Permit for the large electronic display was denied on the
grounds that the sign's size, location, and appearance near the intersection of the City's two major
highways were inconsistent with goals and policies of the City's General Plan; in particular those
pertaining to the preservation of Lodi's small town and rural qualities, and the aesthetic qualities of our
major streets and entrances. Staff also pointed out other issues like those regarding potential impacts on
highway traffic, the City's inability to regulate the content of advertisements, the precedent that would be
set, and the visual aspects of the sign.
During the public hearing the applicant's representative suggested that the one large sign would serve
the existing and future auto dealerships of the Geweke Auto Group along Beckman Road. This
suggestion would eliminate the need for multiple 75 -foot high freeway signs. The proposal; however,
would not benefit other auto dealerships within the area, nor would it remove the State's law limiting
advertising on the sign to products and services available on the premises. The applicant also provided
a self-imposed list of conditions, and a donation of advertising time to the City should the City approve
the request (see exhibit 3). Each of the requests was found to be generous but they had their own
issues. Conditions 1(a -e), are essentially required by the State Outdoor Advertising Act. Condition 2,
would not apply to other property owners of the City, which goes back to the precedent of approving the
APPROVED:
Dixon Plynn,
electronic sign. Condition 3, is the variance request. Condition 4, would not be legal, given that the City
or its interests are not exempt from the State law limiting advertising to products and services available
on the premises.
As far as the Variance was concerned, the Planning Commission denied the request because there was
no evidence to support it. The City's Zoning Ordinance, as well as California State Law, requires that the
City make findings to justify the granting of a variance. The findings must include an explanation of how
the property's size, shape, or location somehow keeps the owner from fully utilizing his land within the
constraints of the law. This situation is typically termed a "hardship." The findings could also include an
argument that others within the same zoning are allowed what the applicant is not. This would be termed
an "injustice." The applicant did not provide any information to establish the required hardship or
injustice, so neither staff nor the Planning Commission could justify the request.
FUNDING: None
K radt Bartlam
Community Development Director
KB/MM/lw
Attachments
EXHIBIT
_MOXWM M6WOW S4mv 3442
LV + 4 * a5 3442
2" Setback
a -
T O f of Permitted Signave541 Sq. Ft.
wake $fir sq -4. Ee. = 48 sq.ft.
t 22 Sq -ft- Ea. = 88 S , s
T(2) 42' Jap Wurs 2 *. Ear 46 %k
4 49 sq -ft. to. sqft.
1 24 'ft 24 -k Ea. = 24
(1 14' f' W 1 q�yft. 1 s
� ,
T l Sigh 541 s ft�
�\ 4 t
V (, /<
E `�
14
-� _.---
r+? I f ��� 7f � ,��`.�.•�� 4, � ®°per j
i !{
70
\\
If,** t j �
Z"
E
F
E
e �
i
i
__-------- KETTLCMAN LANA
fa tail freestanding sign(,,) as per attached. drawings. A portion of the sign sham have aro
clec:tronic display.
Applicant would like to have portion of sin be electronic display to operate
under the following conditional use:
�r. Sign shall not portray any motion
b. Sign shall not change images more frequently than. once each 5 seconds
Sign shall not Misplay any backgrounds with more than 25% of the screen
Kea in v" ite,
d. Sign shalt be dirrinie-d below 500 nits during nighttime operation.
e.. Sign shall. not display compart es, products or services that are not
weld on the site for which the permit is issued.
Applicant will agree to abstain frorn installing any other electronic displays on
any of its other properties within the city limits of Dodi, CA,
3, Applicant would like to have sign area calculated on only ono face of the display
as is dote for off -premises signs in section 17.63.370(C) of the Lodi Municipal
Code a.11owig applicant to install one double faced sign instead of two single
faced signs.
4. Applicant would be willing to share 10% of time promoting downtown Lodi,
Wine and Visitor Center events and community not for profit events such as Lodi
Street faire, Oooh Ahhh .festival and Chamber of Commerce Wine ;Stroll etc.
5 Applicant would b willing to offer tip participation and cooperate with the
N ational Amber Alert program,
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development
Department
Toe Planning Commission
Community Development Department
Date. February 11, 2004
Subject-. The request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -
high electronic display sign, and a variance to double the maximum
allowable sign area from 480 square -feet to 960 square -feet, to be
located at 1.251 South Beckman Road.
BE, COMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requests of Key
Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display sign, and
Variance to double the maximum allowable sign area. from 480 square -feet to
960 square -feet, to be .located at 1251 South Beckman Road, relative to the
findings luted in the attached resolutions.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-sided 75 -foot -tall freeway
information sign near the north end of the Geweke Dodge and Kia Dealership at
1.251 South Beckman Road. The area of signage will be 24 -feet wide by 20 -feet -
tall on loth sides, for a tectal. of 960 -square -feet of silage. Each side of the
sign has a 2I -foot. 8 -inch wide by I I -foot 3 -inch tall, 245 square --foot electronic
message center panel. The electronic message center is essentially a television
and./or- computer monitor. The rem;adning sign area is proposed to state
"G eweke Auto group," Given the size, height, and placement of the sign., it is
primarily designed for viewing by northbound and southbound motorists on
State Highway 99, The sign requires Planning Commission approval of a Use
Permit for the electronic message center panels and a Variance to double the
maximurn allowable size of the overall display area.
USE PERMIT ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission, at its public hearing meeting of October 22, 20013
unanimously determined that electronic message center display's require use
permit:. approval. Given this decision, the applicant is now requesting a Use
Permit for the electronic: message center displays (see memo of 10/22/03).
The applicant has provided a list of self imposed conditions that staff would like
to address first (sec attached), We find that each of the items listed under
ni.i be.r one are required by the State regulations in the Outdoor .Advertising
Act. Number two, is generous but does not restrict ether property owners from
applying, ar°zc3 if the sign is approved, a precedent will be set prompting more
appl:ic;ations. Number 3, is addressed in the Variance Analysis section below.
Nurrrbers 4 and 5, are generous but unbinding offers of the applicant that
benefit the public and citizens of Lodi,
Staff has found many different issues regarding the proposed sign including its
inipac is on traffic, the City's difficulty in regulating the content of
U03024.doc - 1 m
advertisements, the precedent that will be set, the aesthetic aspects of the sign,
and first and foremost whether the; sign is consistent with the City's, General
Given that the Project is adjacent to two highways, the traffic issues will be
addressed by Cal Trans through their regulations and permitting process, The
C AY's ability to control sign content i5 limited by the first amendment. The
proposed sign is an on -premise sign restricting signage to goods arad services
available on this property only; however, conditions may be tested or challenged
once the sign is in dace. If the sign is approved, the appearance and
coxzstr�rcticrn of tkze sign will be reviewed by the Community Development
Department during the building permit and plan check review process.
The following paragraphs include excerpts from Cadifornia State Government
Code and City of Lodi General Plan Policies,
The State of California, Manning and Zoning Law, Section 651.03 (b), mandates
that the City of Lodi shall: "Implement the general plan through actions
including, but not limited to, the administration of specific plans and zoning
and subdi-,rision ordinances," Thus, the provisions of the zoning code must be
consistent with the General Plan policies, Section 17.75.030 of the zoning
ordinance requires that building permits must be consistent with the zoning
code and thus the provisions of the General Plan,
Section 65 301 farther states, "The degree of specificity and level of detail of the
discussion of each such element shall reflect local conditions and
circ iznstaz o s." In other words, it does not matter what other cities visions are
in their local context. What is prevalent is what Lodi's expectations are for the
cc malunity.
Section 65392 states that, "The general plan shall consist of a statement of
development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting
forth obJectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals". The provisions of
the General Plan give staff day-to-day direction on interpretation. Our general
plain does in fact specifically mention: development standards along the 99
corridor,
Section 65303 states that, "The general plan may include any other elements or
address any Cather- subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate
to the physical development of the county or city." The City has adopted an
furban Design and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan..
Section 65400 (a) mandates that staff "investigate and make recommendations
to the k�gislativc body regarding reasonable and practical means for
implementing the general plan or element of the general plan., so that it will
serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development," Cowen this
unandaie, we find that it is staffs duty to make recommendations to the
legislative body regarding the implementation of the General Plan.
The C ity's General plan Land Use Element Goal "A" Policy 1, states that: "The
City shall seep to preserve Lodi's small-town and rural qualities," Policy
Question: Does a large, electronic sign serve to preserve small-town. and rura
qualities'?
IJ`) 02 .dcac -2-
Urban Design and Cultural Reso-urces, Ek- ment, Goal "B", "To establish
identifiable, visually appealing, and memorable entrances to the City", Policy 1,
"The City shall upgrade the principal roads entering the City at strategic entry
points through landscaping, signage., light stemdards, and other physical
elements that identify and enhance gateways to the community. Entry points
should be identified and designated on SR 99", Policy question- Will an
clectronic sign create an identifiable, visually appealing and memorable
entrance at the interchange of Highway's 99 and 12?
Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element, Goal 'C", "To maintain and
enhance the aesthetic quality of maior streets and public/civic areas," Policy
Qiuestiom Will an electronic sign maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of
the 99 corridor?
Given each of the adopted policies above and the historic position of the City to
maintain Lodi's character and. appeal, staff finds that the proposed electronic
inessage center sign and its location near the intersection of our two major
highways is in direct conflict with the stated policies of the General Plan. In
addition, staff finds that the self-imposed conditions are generous but that a
mqjority of them are required by the California Outdoor Advertising Act anyway,
most particularly condition 1( ' e) limiting advertising to goods and services
availablQ, on site. Cal Trans would not allow off -premise advertising on this site
because the sign is adjacent to the northbound on-ramp of Highway 99,
We felt that it was important to note that the City has recently approved two
electronic time and temperature signs; one of the signs is located on Cluff
Avenue w -td Lockeford Street and the other is at the Bank of Stockton on the
corner of Church and Walnut Streets, These signs were approved based on the
fact that affl they display are time and temperature which was found to be
beneficial to the, general. public, did not include advertising, and are no larger
than 6--square-feet per side. We also wanted to make it clear that the electronic
message center sign at the Lodi Grape Festival Grounds is owned by San
Joaquin County and is not under the jurisdiction of the City.
YARIANCE ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission may remember that the original proposal was for two
separate sign poles to be located a short distance from one another, That
proposal was an attempt to circumvent the intent of the Sign Ordinance, which
limits individual signs to a maximum of 480 -square --feet, Since they couldn't
have one sign with 960 square -feet, they would build two with 480, Research
by City Staff found; however, that the California Outdoor Advertising Act
requires that electronic inessage center displays must be at least 1,000 -feet
from one another, This fincling has prompted the additional request for a
Vaxiance to �,fflow one sign with 480 square -feet of signage on each sign face.
The Zoning Ordinance states that "In specific cases where it is exceptionally
difficult, if not impossible, to comply urith the exact provisions of this title, the
planning comm. is sion has the power to allow such adjustments from the
provisions contained in this title as will prevent unnecessary hardships or
injustice, and at the same time most nearly accomplish the general purpose
and intent of this title." The Zoning Ordinance requires that "in granting any
adjustment, the planning commission shall find that such adjustment will
U03024,doc -3-
relieve an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty that would otherwise be
caused by the application of the strict letter of this chapter and that such
adjustment will not be contrary to the public welfare."
Variance requests place a difficult burden of proof on the applicant, and in
certain situations findings can he made to justify a request. In this case;
however, the applicant has not provided an example of how their request
constitutes a. hardship or injustice. They have simply made a request in
Number 3 of their list that they: ".,.would like to have sign area calculated on
only one face of the display as is done for off premises signs in section
17 .63.370(C) of the Lodi Municipal Code allowing applicant to install one
double faced sign instead of two single faced. signs" (see attached). The
statement is not a hardship or an injustice; it is a desire to use an inapplicable
and inappropriate section of the municipal code merely because it allows more
signage. The proposed sign is an on -premise sign that is restricted to
advertising of goods ari.d services available on this property only, The section
they have quoted is limited to off premise signs only, which are limited to
advertising good and services available at some other location or business;
there is no in-between..
The Sign Ordinance specifically states in Article I, Generally, Section 17,63.1 10
Area Calculation, that. "In calculating the total area of signs, all readable
surfaces shall be counted." We find that there is no room for interpretation of
this code, In Article V., General Commercial and Industrial Zones, Section.
1 `T.63.330 Size. --Absolute maximum, states that. "'The maximum size; of any one
sign shall be facer hundred eighty square feet." Once again, we find there is no
room for interpretation of this code. Furthermore, staff is not aware of any
approval of a Marianne to increase the allowable signage for any business in
Lodi, We find that the City's Sign Ordinance is more than generous, and that in
the majority of eases allowable signage goes unused.
In closing, had the applicant provided the City with a hardship or injustice, it
would have been difficult for staff to support because the site is completely
visible from the highway, is unmistakably a Dodge and Kia automotive
dealership, and has been without need of a freestanding sign on its highway
frontage since it was completed back in Mune of 2002,
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Approve the requests with conditions
Deily the requests
C untinue the requests
Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed and Concur,
r
Mak Meissner Konr°adt Bartlam
Associate Planner Community Development Director
U030 4, doc - 4 -
-CITY OF LODI
PLAN$ING COMMIMON
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004
APPLICATION NO. U-03-024 (Use Permit) &
A-03-025 (Variance)
REQVEST; The request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to
allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display sign, and a
Variance to double the maximum allowable sign
area from 480 square -feet to 960 square -feet to be
located at 1251 South Beckman Road.
LOCATION- 1251 South Beckman Road; APIC, 049-250-75
APPLICANT- Key Advertising, Inc.
c/o Kelly Higgs
1020 South Beckman Road
Lodi, CA 95240
PROPERTY OWWER: GFLIP 111, LP
P,0- Box 1210
Lodi, CA 95241
§�t_e_C_JWr_RCteri5Uq§:
The project site is a triangular shaped property fronting on Business Park Drive
on the south, Beckman Road on the east, and the Highway 99 northbound on-
rat-np on the west. The site is fully developed as the Geweke, Dodge and Kia
automotive dealerships,
General Plan Designation. L1, Light Industrial,
Zoning Designation, M- 1, Light Industrial.
Property Size 6.78 acres,
Aftgent Zuni n d Land Use:
LAn
Northeast- 1-61, Light Industrial, Across Beckman Road to the northeast is
approximately 42.5 acres of vacant land owned by the applicant.
A little further to the northeast is the Geweke Toyota dealership,
Southeast: M- I., Light Industrial. To the southeast across Business Park
Drive is a Taco Bell, and a vacant 2 -acre parcel owned by the
applicamt.
est® Highway 99. Adjacent to the east or rear of the site is the
northbound on-ramp to State Route Highway 99.
South, C-2, General Commercial, Directly south of the auto dealership is
a McDonald's restaurant fronting Kettleman Lane and Business
Park Drive.
U03024r,doc
This area of the City is seeing an increase in attention in the development of
auto dealerships and autol'transient oriented businesses. The majority of land
surrounding the project site is owned and controlled by the applicant, whose
desire is to develop this area as an auto mall with associated transient oriented
services, Dennis Plummer, the ow-ner of Plummer Cadillac and his towing and
body shop service,-,, will be moving his interests to the area to the east on
Kettleman Lane,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Upon stud project I _y, the pr 'ect was found to be consistent with the provisions of
Section 15305(a), "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations," of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines making the project Categorically
Exempty
PUBLIC HEARJNG NOTICE -
Legal Notice for the Variance was published on January 31, 2004, A total of 6
notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of
the subject property,
RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requests of Key
Advertisirig for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display sign, and
Variance to double the maximum allowable sign area from 480 square -feet to
960 square -feet to be located at 1251 South Beckman Road, relative to the
findings listed in the attached resolution.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNIM COMMISSION ACTIONS-
• Approve the request with alternate conditions
• Deny the request
• Continue the request
ATTACHMENTS.
1. Vicinity Map
2e Memo 10/22/03
3, Applicant's Conditions.
4, Site, Plan
5; Elevations
6, Draft Resolutions
U03024r.doc 2
7zo—fo— 1
peo�j upwjoag glnoS [sZ [
'DUI 'SUISIjA�npV AOS{
i::"� 5ti't)E'.Z:; W �'213h=r32 �eW aZ�i[6'iu�4stki«aw��sSu�tjz4
M
m
m
r—
z
4�pJ
«6.
Trym
✓W
0�+(�
6�
m
m
s—
z
ml
m 9s
0
m
Eazn
No
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
To; Planning CCiIT MisSiOD
From. Community Development Director
Dates October 22, 2003
Subject. appeal of the Community Development Director's interpretation of the
.honing Ordinance regarding flashing, moving or animated signs. Burnstead
Display Consultinua on behalf oI'K Y Advertis er , Inc. (Gew ke)
The request before the Planning Commission is fairly straightforward. The appellant
bclieves that ray° interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance is wrong, and has
appealed my decision regarding their sign application.
The appellant is a sign consultant hired by Ge eke Automotive Group to erect two
electronic message, display signs on the Dodge/Chrysler dealership property. At issue is
Section 17.63.080 Flashing, Ynoving or animated signs, Specifically, this Section reads:
`:Flashing, moving or animated suns are subject to
the issuance of a Use Permit, and no such permit
shall be issued if the sign will tend to cause a traffic
hazardo9
,My interpretation of this Section follows racy predecessor's view as well, Simply, an
electronic message display flashes. Absent a specific definition in the .Zoning Ordinance,
staffwould typically look to a common definition found in a dictionary of wide spread
use, In my ease, I have a Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Webster's defines
flash as follows:
"'to appear suddenly"
..to move with great speed"
"to break forth or out so as to make a sudden display"
Ali of these are consistent with my understanding of an electronic message display. In
fact ', a similar example may be found on the Grape Festival Grounds at the corner of
Loc eford Street and Cherokee Dane.
The appellant has provided a detailed ,justification far his position, In response, I would
offer 'he following observations:
l�roc€ �t_l csczcipfzo z. in fact, the appellant has submitted building permit applications for
two, single -faced electronic display sages. One is proposed to face north and a second is
proposed to face south.
Appe to l hin
desLujni xa. I believe I have described the rationale rased in makin ray decision.
would further argue that my predecessor held the same interpretation, Moreover, this
interpreta€ion has been applied to recent time & temperature suns that also electronically
flash.
California Outdoor Adviprti&ZAqt and various Citi�re rzirerxaerrtse The fact that
the state mwf define a sign in a certain way has no hearing on the City of Lodi. In terms
of what other cities may allow, I would tend to disregard this as a basis for what the City
of Lodi should allow; however, I would note that almost all of the cities shown only
allow these types of signs following some other Planning Commission review. As an
example:
i anteca requires a Major Sign Permit (Plani-iing Commission approval).
Dred requires a Conditional Us,-- Permit.
Vacaville requires a Planning Commission approved Sign plane
Modesto requires a Conditional Use Perni.ito
Stockton requires a Use Permit
`finally I would like to make clear haat 1 have not opined that the sign proposed might
cause a traffic hazard,
In sono nary, it is not staff's position that those signs are prohibited, bort rather require a
Planning Commission public hearing for a Use Perruit, I would further note that this is
the same circurnstanoe that most of the example cities the appellant has cited use and it is
the most conservative native approach that can be taken. Making an argument that the public
should not have an opportunity for input is not consistent with this City's past practice.
Respectfully Subvnitted,
l onradt Bartlarn
Community Development Director
mum
Attachments
Appealofflashing
Instail freestanding sign(s) as per attached drawings. A portion of the sign shall have an
ele tropic display,
Ap fic nt rogsal/ est fog U -s �e tm
Applicant would like to .have portiere of sign be electronic display to operate
under the following conditional use.
<1. Sign shall not portray any motion
b. Sign shall not change images more frequently than once each 5 seconds
Q Sign shall not display any backgrounds with more than 25% of the screen
area in white.
d. Sign shall be dimmed below 500 nits daring nighttime operation.
k�. Sign shall not display companies, products or services that are not
sold o -n the site for which the permit is issued.
2. Applicant will agree to abstain from installing any ether electronic displays on
any of its other properties within the city limits of Lodi, CA.
I applicant would like to have sign area calculated on only one face of the display
as is done for off -premises signs in _section 17,63.370(C) of the Lodi Municipal
Code alto ing applicant to install one double faced sig" instead of two single
fac(A signs.
/1. applicant would be willing to share 1.0% of time promoting downtown Lodi,
Wine and Visitor Center events and community not for profit events such as Lodi
Street Faire, Oooh Ahhh Festival and Chamber of Commerce Wine Stroll etc.
5. Applicant would be willing to offer up participation and cooperate with the
National Amber Alert program,
Maximum Allowable Signs 4 �
Stan Location
- 7 4590 7 344 2
Setback Total of Petmitted Signage 541 Sq. Ft.
i
�r0
2) 24" Geweke Letters 24 sq. t. Ea. 48 sq.k
�s, \(4) 38" KIA Ovals 22 sq. t. Ea. 88 s : ,
(2) 42" Chrysler Cabinets 47 sq. t. Ea. 94 s ® ,
(2) 42" Jeep Letters 23 s ®t, . 46 s+h.
42" aLettsrs 4 sq.ft. . 9 s t.
\1) 4"" ke yrs 24 s®ft. a. 24 sq.ft.
1 14' DIF Monument Sin 143 sq.ft. 143 s
To i g Signeve 541 s .ft.
rn
\ 4
�,� •} �� � h ., - ..� - i' ice' 5 r t
1 i
jVkinfty Mop
,
i1 �F jj t
f
f
T L. E MA N L A N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 04--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LORI
DENYING THE REQUEST OF KEY ADVERTISING FOR A USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A 75 -FOOT HIGH ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT
1.251 S. BECKMAN RD.
WHEREAS, the Planning commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore
held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, to consider the use
permit request for a 75 -foot high electronic display sign to be located at 1251
South Beckman Road;
WHEREAS, the prqject proponent is Key Advertising, Inc., 1020 South
Becki-aax-i Road, Lodi, CA 95240;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the denial of this request have
occurred;
WHEREAS, the property is zoned lid® 1, Light Industrial;
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1251 South Beckman Road;
WHEREAS, the Property is visible and identifiable as the Geweke Dodge
and Kia automotive dealership- to both northbound and southbound motorists,
on State Hwy. 99;
WHEREAS, the sign is located in close proximity to the intersection of
Stag Highway 99 and Highway 12,
WHEREAS, the requested electronic message center sign is °75 -feet high.
WHEREAS, the requested electronic message center sign has 244
square -feet of viewable area on its north and south faces.
WHEREAS, the requested electronic message center sign is capable of
displaying anything thall- a television or computer may display or create;
WHEREAS, the requested use permit is not consistent with the City's
General Plan goals and polices established to preserve and protect Lodi's
appearance m -id. character.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the
Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows:
I It is hereby found that the requested use permit is not consistent with.
the municipal codes of the City of Lodi regulating signs.
2. It is found that the requested use permit is not required for the applicant
to identify itself,
1 It is further found that the height, size, and location of the electronic
message center sign is not consistent with the General Plan as follows:
a. Land Use Element Goal "A', Policy 1: "The City shall seek to preserve
Lodi's sm,.:dl-town and rural qualities.'
b. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element, Goal "B", "To
establish identifiable, visually appealing, and memorable entranc�s to
the City.`
ResforV0324,doc
c. Urban Desi gn and Cultural Resources Element, Goal "C", "'To
maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of major streets and
public/civic areas."
Dated: February 11, 2004
I hereby certify that Planning Commission Resolution Number 04- ...
was approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a
regular meeting held on February 11, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES�
ABSENT:
ATTEST;
Resft) irUO32 4. d oc
Secretary, Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI
TO DENY THE REQUEST OF KEY ADVERTISING FOR A VARIANCE TO
DOUBLE THE MAXIMUM L.L OWA L,E SIGN AREA FROM 480 Ski. FT. TO
960 SQ. Fr. FOR A SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT 1251 SOUTH BECKMAN
ROAD.
WHEREAS, the Planning commission of the City of Lodi has
heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, to
cmisider the variance request to double the maximum allowable sin area
froi a 489 sq, ft, to 960 sq. ft. for a sin to be located at 1251 South
eek nan Road;
WHEREAS, the project proponent is They Advertising, Inc., 1020 South
Beckman Road, Lodi, CA 95240;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the denial of this request have
occurred;
WHEREAS, the property is :roved M- 1, Light Industrial,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1251 South BeckmanRoad;
WHEREAS, the property is visible and identifiable as the Geweke
Dodge e a. d Iiia automotive dealership to bath northbound an. southbound
motorists on State Highway 99;
WHEREAS, the requested variance has no basis for hardship or
injustice that is necessary for the Planning Commission to make the
required findings for approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED ANIS RESOLVED by the
Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows:
It is hereby found that the requested variance is not consistent with
the following municipal codes of the City of Lodi regulating signs in
general, and in the M-1, Light Industrial one:
a. Article I., Generally, Section 17-63, 110 Area. Calculation, states
that., "in calculating the total area of signs, all readable surfaces
shall be counted."
b. .Article V,, General Commercial and industrial Zones, Section
17,63,330 Size --Absolute maximum, imuzxa, states that: "The maximum
size of anv one sign shall be four hundred eighty square feet."
c, .Article V., General Commercial and Industrial Zones, Section
1.7.63-370(C) Off -premises signs, states that: "Ira determining the
maximum size of two off -premises signs which are placed back to
back on, the same structure, only one readable surface shall be
counted,$3
` , Furthermore, it is found that the requested variance is not required
for the Ge eke auto dealership to adequately identify itself.
esforAO 32 ,doc
3, It is further found that denial of the variance does not create ®r
,maintain an unnecessary hardship or injustice on the Gewe auto
dealership.
Dated: February 11, 2004
1 hereby certify that Planning Commission Resolution Number 04 --
was approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi
at a regular meeting held on February 11, 2004 by the following vote,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
secretary, Planning Commission
R es fol r A 0 3 25). d o c
Planning Commission minutes 2-11-04
The request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display
sign, and a Variance to double the maximum um all€wabl.e sign area from 480 square -feet to
960 square feet to be located at 1251. South Beckman Road. Associate Planner Meissner
presented the, item to the C:oanmIssion. He stated that the request conflicted with the City's
General Plan. Staff felt the: sign would create impacts on traffic, be difficult in regulating content,
west a precedent for future requests, and whether the sign was consistent with the City's Genexal
Plan. Staff could not find any hardships to justify the Variance request. Whey felt that the
dealership was completely visible from the highway and that the Variance was unnecessary for
the: auto dealership to properly identify itself. Staff was recommending denial of both of the
requests.
Hearing opened to public
Dale Gillespie, 2471 _5 Maggio Circle, Lodi, Mr. Gillespie was present on behalf of Key
Advertising. As their property is developed for .more auto uses, they would agree, to a deed
restricti tin on the remainder of their property to not construct any pylon signs, upon the property,
if their requestis approved for the subject sign. His. business wants to sell more cars and they are
con the sign will generate more revenue and jobs for the city. He noted that most vehicles
are purchased from people coning. from out of town and he wanted to do whatever they could do
draw more people: to the dealership, Hefurther offered that 10% of the sign time could be used to
promote Lodi events. lie felt the couununity, as a whole, would benefit,
CoanrrsiSsionel- Heinitz asked if sign was a "flashing" sign. Mr. Gillespie replied that it was
digital.
Commissioner White asked if Mr. Gillespie would be willing to remove the existing Toyota sign
on the dealership's property. Mr. Gillespie stated he would be willing to not put any other pylon
signs on the: property if lie were granted the subject sign.
Commissioner Phillips questioned if there were similar sighs in the area to the one being
proposed. Mr, Gillespie replied that the there were some at thQ Home Depot in Manteca and one
alt Roseville Auto Mall.
Co-rnmissioner Mattheis noted that he could not find any hardship for the request of additional
sgcaa-e footage and the: signs already on the: buildings were visible enough.
Commissioner B initz stated that he found these types of signs to be intrusive.
Commissioner Haugan felt that having both sides of the sign would be a good advantage for the
community to promote itself to the people that drive by. He did not have a problem with the sign.
Commissioner Moran stated she did not like digital signs and that: the sign would take away the
small town atmosphere felt in Lodi.
Coinmissioner While stated he would be in favor of the sign only if it changed every 10 minutes.
°T h(- Planning Coanmission on rnotion of Cornn-zissioner Heinitz, Moran second, voted to deny the
request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display sign, and a
Variancc; to double the maximum allowable sign area. from 480 square -feet to 960 square -feet to
be located at 1251 South. Beckman load by the following vote;
AYES: C€ mi-nissioners
N )ES; Commissioners
ABSENT-. Commissioners
ABS M: Commissioners
Aguirre, Heinitz, Moran, and Chairman Mattheis
1 augan and White
Phillips
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
L.OD1 TO DENY THE REQUIST OF KEY AD R FOR A VARIANCE
TO DOUBLE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA FROM 480 SQ.
BE LOCATED AT
BE CKMAN ROAD.
WHEREAS, the Planning commission of the City of Lodi has
heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, to
consider the variance request to double the maximum allowable, sign. area
from 480 sq. ft, to 960 sq. ft. for a sign to be located at 1251 South
Beckman Road;
WHEREAS, the project proponent is Key Advertising, Inc., 1020 South
Beckman Road, Lodi, CA 95240,
WHEREAS, all. legal prerequisites to the denial of this request have
occi.i.rred;
WHEREAS, the property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial;
WHEREAS, the properly is located at 1251 South Beckman load,
WHEREAS, the property is visible and identifiable as the Geweke
Dodge and Kia automotive dealership to both northbound and southbound
motorists on State Highway 99;
WHEREAS, the requested variance has no basis for hardship or
mi j�,istice that is nec essaxy for the Planning Commission to make the
regeiired .findings for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the
Planning Commission of the City of Lodi as follows:
1,. It is hereby found that the requested variance is not consistent with
the folio ng municipal codes of the City of Lodi regulating signs in
general, and in the M--1, bight Industrial Zone:
a. Article T., Clenerally, Sec lien. 1'7,63.1,10 Area Calculation, states
that, "In calculating the tectal area of signs, all readable surfaces
hall be coLmted ."
b, Articlt' '., General Coxnrnercial and Industrial Zones, Section
i .6 3.330 `size---Abso'ute maximum, states that: "The maximum
size of any one sign shall be four hundred eighty square feet,"
c, article V,, General Commercial and Industrial Zones, Section
.17.63.370(C) Off -premises signs, states that; "In determining the
maximLim. size of two off -premises signs which are placed back to
back k on the sane structure. only one readable surface shall be
cou r ted."
2. Urtherrnore, it is found that the requested variance is not required
for the (73, Wej-,C aLlto dealership to adequately identify itself.
3. it is further found that denlal of the variance does not create or
ai taro an unnecessary Hardship or injustice on the Geweke auto
dealership,
I aced. Februar7 1.1, 2004
1 hereby certify that Planning Commission sion Resolution. Number 04-07
was approved and adopted by thQ Planning Commission of the City of Lodi
at a regular meeting held. on Febmiary 1.1, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES, Aguirre, Heinitz, Moran, and Mattheis
NOES. Hau an and White
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Phillips ;
Secre ary, Planning Commission
WHEREAS, the Planning commission of the City of Dodi has heretofore
held a. duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, to consider the use
peru,dt request for a 75 -foot high electronic display sign to be located at 1251
South Beckman Road;
WHEREAS, the project proponent is Key Advertising, Inc., 1020 South
Beckman Road, Lodi, CA 1=35240;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the denial of this request have
occurred;
WHEREAS; the property is coned M-1, Light Industrial;
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1251 South Beckman Road;
WHEREAS, the property is visible and identifiable as the Ge eke Dodge
and -iia automotive dealership to both northbound and southbound motorists
on State H,wv. 99;
WHEREAS, the sign is located in close proximity to the intersection of
State Highway 99 and Highway 12.
W ERI AS, the requested electronic message center sign is 75 --feet high.
WHEREAS, the requested electronic message center sign has 244
square -feet of viewable area on fts north and south faces.
WHEREAS, the requested electronic message center sign is capable of
displaying ar thing that a television or computer may display or create;
WHEREAS, the requested use permit is not consistent with the City's
Ge.-F$cral Pan goals and polices established to preserve and protect Lodi's
appearance and charac:tor.
NOW"I` iEREFOR..E, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED by the
Plann6 g Conamussion of the City of Lodi as follows:
it is hcrob-v found that the requested rise permit is not consistent with
tlli municipal codes of the Lite of Lodi regulating signs,
2, it is found that the use. permit is not regairc d for the applicant
W idez tifv itself,
3. i. ;s furil.x fcsud that the height, size, and location of the electronic
message center szgn is not consistent with the General Plan as follows:
a. Lard Use Element Goal "A" Policy 1: "The City shall seek to preserve
I odi's ;oma -11- town and run_ —d qualities."
1 , Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element, Goal "B" "To
establish identifiable, visually appealing, and memorable entrances to
the
0x'7,.3_cioc
c. Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element, Goal "C", 14 To
maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of major streets and
public/ciN,qc areas,"
Dated: February 11, 2004
i hereby certify that Planning Commission Resolution Number 04-07
was approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi
at a regi -filar m, eedn.g held on February 11, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Aguirre, Heinitz, Moran, and Mattheis
NOES: Havgan and White,
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Phillips
x'17 T.
Secretary, Planning Commission
C. i'lF Y C OU1 N C ; L
LARRY 4) HANSEN, NIayor
!OHN BECKMAN,
Mayor Pro Tenipoe
SUSAN HI I-CHCOCK
EW Y HOWARD
XEITH LANIP
April 8, 2004
Dale Ne Gillespie
G -REM, Inc.
P,O. Box 1210
Lodi, CA 95241
-1 F L 0 1
C I T Y (I
0"Fy HALL, 221 YVLS'?- PINE STREET
P.0, BOX 3006
LOM, CALIFORNIA 95241--1910
(209)333-6702
FAX(209)333-6807
oty(1rk@)Iudl.9ov
RE.. City Council Public Hearings to consider:
H, DIXON FLYNN
City Mdllagcr
SUSAN J, KAM TON
City Clerk
D. 51 EPHEN SCHWABAUER
Interim City Attorney
(1) Appeal rt!(;elved from Key Advertising, Inc., regarding the Planning Cpmmr ssion's
dec;sion to deny the request of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to allow a 75 -foot -high
electronic display sign and a Variance to double the maximurn allowable sign area
from 480 square Feet to 960 square feet to be located at 1251 South Beckman Road
(2)
Redesign concept for G-Basrn (Pixley Park) and the exchange of properties with
GREM, Inc,., to allow the relocation of C -Basin
This is to notify you that on April 7, 2004 the City Council voted to'continue the
above public hearings (pursuant to your request) to April 21, 2004 at 7:00 pm.
or as soon theMaftel as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chambers, at
Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi.
NOTEn if you challenge the proposed action in -court, you may be limited to raring
I
ng
only those JSSU65 YOU or someone eise raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior
to, the public hearing -,spondence for the City Councif may be mailed
j� Written corre
CIG The City Cterk,- Office, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, 95240.
ShoLAM you have any questions, please contact me at 333-6702.
Susan J, Biackstan
City Cl(-,Fk
cc: Community Development Director
Public Works Director
Kelly Higgs, Key Advertising, Inc,
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF LODI
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the April 7, 2004 pw!2iic h�arin� of the City Council of the
City of Lodi to consider an�-eel received froMing
J�dverfjs�, _�cregpLdjng the
ElannincL
Qommission's decision to den- - rm it to
allow a-75-foot-hiah electronic dis la si n and a Vriance to double the maximum
allowable sign qrea fro m 480 sguare feet to 960 square feet to be located at 1251 South
Beckman Road_hasbeen continued to April 21, 2004 at the hour of 7:00 p.m, in the
Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine Street, Lodi, California.
hosted April 8, 2004
SUSAN J. LACK TON
CITY CLERK
Of the City of Lodi
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the April 7, 2004 public hearing of the City Council of the
City .of Lodi to consider an appeal received from Key Advertising, Inc., regarding the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the reguest of Key Advertising for a Use Permit to
allow a 75 -foot -high electronic display sign and a Variance to double the maximum
allowable sign area from 480 square feet to 960 square feet to be located at 1251 South
Beckman Road was continued to April 29, 2004 and has been re -continued to
June 2, 2004 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 W.
Pine Street, Lodi, California.
Posted April 22, 2004
SUSAN J.BLACK ON
CITY CLERK
Of the City of Lodi
[OFCOMMERCE
April 21, 2004
Mayor Hansen & Lodi City Council,
Dixon Flynn & City Staff
City Hall
Lodi, California
Dear Council,
u
The Lodi Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has considered the matter
before you tonight. In regards to item "G-1", the Chamber Board is in
support of this 75 -foot electronic display sign, and asks you provide Key
Advertising and Geweke Auto Group a variance for this sign.
While the Board recognizes the sign's two sides combined are in excess of the
allowable square footage limitation, we believe the sign should be given a
variance. Being a two-sided display, and only seen one side per viewing,
each side is within the size limitation specification, therefore keeping the spirit
of the 480 -foot limit.
Also, the Auto Group is offering the community generous mitigation in the
way of community service bulletins, joining the Amber Alert System and
proposing this sign do the duty of several different dealerships, thus actually
reducing the potential number of pylon signs.
The Chamber Board asks you to support this appeal and grant a variance for
Key Advertising's request.
i
•
Pat Patrick,
President / CEO
35 South School Street • Lodi, California 95240 6 Telephone: 209.367.7840 • Fax: 209.334.0528 0 www.ladichamber.com
Exhibit A
V
uwrwov Acme
PROPOGED 2 wjwA
MM
-7I X/�
1. 11 KOI�
PRCFIDM04WOM
Z
BECIMM ROAD
0 =Proposed Geweke Auto Group Sign
X = Possible Additional Pylon Signs (See exhibit "A-1
P=Existing Pylon Signs Auto & Non -Auto
BECKMM ROAD
STATE HIGHWAY 99
0 2F A& *W zw Sw
NORTH
Now 9 R . —«
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
Pixley Park - GevvekeAuto Mali
G -REM, INC. City of Lodi California July 2003
Lawrence A NordeVam, ASIA Landempe Archlect
Exhibit A- 1
Exhibit B
x' 1- e "�"•-� s, p _-4 -k- s - a
Z.
WINE
• � - `VISITOR CENTER
.: 1i r Road • West 2.5 Miles
Exhibit D