The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/15/1997, 5 - ARC 61-97: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO USE A ""BILLBOARD"" SIGN FOR A GROCERY IN THE UNIVERSITY SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER ON FOOTHILL, NEAR SANTA ROSA."council j acjEnaa aEpoRt C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O " L s -,9 �- I. NmSv A FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community entDirector Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ARC 61 -97: Appeal of Architec Review Commission's denial of an exception to use a "billboard" sign for a grocery in the University Square shopping center on Foothill, near Santa Rosa CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby denying use of this sign, and requiring the sign to be removed, based on finding that the sign is not consistent with the ARC Guidelines. DISCUSSION Situation The applicants are moving into the space formerly occupied by Vons Market Because of concerns about visibility, the applicants want to make use of an existing billboard -type sign above the market. The applicants' proposal is to paint a mural on the south side of the sign and to make the north side available for "public art". The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) considered this request, along with a request for a copy change for the existing shopping center identification signs, on June 2, 1997. The ARC denied the billboard request. The applicants have appealed that decision. Site description The site is the market in the University Square shopping Center, on the northerly side of Foothill, near Santa Rosa Street Project description The applicants want to paint a mural on the south side of the billboard, to include identification of the business, "similar to the non - intrusive identification given to sponsors on public television ". The north face of the sign would be made available for "public art", with the design chosen through a competition (see application packet, enclosed). Evaluation 1. The sign is non - conforming in several respects. The sign structure is 45' tall and 256 square feet in area. It is above the roof of the building by several feet. The sign was S'/ ARC 61 -97 appeal 896 Foothill Blvd. Page 2 constructed prior to 1967, when signs needed only building permits, and has not conformed since the adoption of the City's first sign ordinance in 1967. After adopting the 1979 sign regulations, the City activated an amortization program for signs that did not conform to these regulations. As the attached letters indicate, the first notice about this sign was sent in 1979, when an abatement period of four years was given for its removal. Changes were made to the regulations shortly after their adoption, and in 1982 another letter was sent out, giving a total of eight years from the 1979 date for the removal of this sign. The sign has therefore been illegal since 1985. It has been 18 years since the tenant was first notified that the sign must be removed. Present regulations (effective July 3, 1997) in the C -R zone allow up to 200 square feet total, in up to four signs. The types of signs allowed are 1) wall, window, or awning (up to 100 SF total); 2) suspended (up to six SF); and 3) projecting (up to 24 SF). No roof signs or tall freestanding signs are allowed. (See excerpt from the sign regulations, attached.) These limitations are similar to the previous regulations for the C -R zone. The sign is therefore not an allowed type of sign and it exceeds area limitations, in fact exceeds the total area allowed for all signs for this business. 2. The Architectural Review Commission said no. The attached Architectural Review Commission staff report explains the request and the reasons for the staff recommendation for denial. At the ARC meeting (see minutes, attached), all of the Commissioners present indicated their support for public art, but said they did not feel the proposal would produce an effective piece of public art. They noted that the primary purpose of the structure would still be as a sign, and the sign does not conform to present regulations. Commissioners and a member of the public pointed out that the store's reputation would be its best advertisement, and that in this high - traffic area such a large, tall sign would be distracting to motorists. The Commission did approve a copy change for the existing shopping center identification signs, and the proposed wall signs are within the City's regulations and therefore were not a part of the request. The Council is only considering the tall billboard -type sign. CONCURRENCES No other department had concerns with the request. FISCAL IMPACT Approval or denial of the sign exception will have no effect on the City's coffers. ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the appeal, thereby approving an exception to allow retention of the existing sign and its use for a mural and for public art. The applicants could then add new copy to S=a2 ARC 61 -97 appeal 896 Foothill Blvd. Page 3 the south face and proceed with a contest for the public art portion. A building permit may be required for the public art portion, depending on what specifically is approved. Staff suggests that if the Council approves the appeal, that the applicants be required to return to the ARC with the public art design. The Council may approve the appeal with modifications to that approval. For example, the Council may require that there be no lettering on either side of the sign. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. Attachments Draft resolutions Vicinity map ARC report for June 2, 1997 Sign amortizationletters Minutes of ARC June 2 meeting Appeal letter Excerpt from sign regulations: standards for C -R zone Letters from citizens In packet: Signage proposal package S -3 RESOLUTIONNO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY DENYING USE OF A BILLBOARD SIGN AT 896 FOOTHILL BLVD. (ARC 61 -97) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June 2, 1997 and denied an exception to the sign regulations to allow use of an existing non- conforming sign; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of that action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is the use of an existing facility with no significant expansion of that use; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SEC'T'ION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission application ARC 61 -97, and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding: 1. The proposed exception to the sign regulations is not consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, because it is out of scale with adjacent signage, is taller than nearby buildings, and does not conform to any aspect of the sign regulations. SECTION 2. Appeal denial. The request for an exception to use an existing non - conforming sign structure is hereby denied, and therefore the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld, and the applicant and property owner are hereby notified that the non - conforming structure must be removed. 454 Resolution no. (1997 Series) ARC 61 -97 appeal 896 Foothill Blvd. Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July , 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: I 111, j, i •' 1 " ey S .S RESOLUTIONNO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'SACTION, THEREBY APPROVING USE OF A BILLBOARD SIGN AT 896 FOOTHILL BLVD. (ARC 61 -97) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June 2, 1997 and denied an exception to the sign regulations to allow use of an existing non- conforming sign; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of that action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is the use of an existing facility with no significant expansion of that use; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission application ARC 61 -97, and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding: I. The proposed exception to the sign regulations is consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because (COUNCIL STATE WHY)- SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The request for an exception to use an existing non - conforming sign structure is hereby approved, and therefore the Architectural Review Commission's action is overturned, subject to the following Conditions: (COUNCIL STATE CONDITIONS) j -b Resolution no. (1997 Series) ARC 61 -97 appeal 896 Foothill Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of _July , 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen .s�7 799 F A 119.e6 U t 2'F 93 - ^c ny 172 eaa¢_88 48•ge wroists, orl7 +7 A i Lod 6 = N 0 N J Q. 7•B8 a ��",. . '��,� ". � v v. e8 s a fryr, s py7�c lop A90-Qg72 A Za- A78- a+ I Fo®�h LLL VICINITY MAP ,,,Se. '... IV c'1i o`lt�ii4r s A .. a .: �:4. F� •f� rg0�0 WILUAH9. 8679••. : 'r.t �e .: Aso -91 A aEVA- !.4(jNp/p „ r •.. � �'.'� 1 , ,:• ,.• �'�P ply E �'�'•... pF A IOO.87.,: • :: Amz&eA BID at" 87t.; v'IB6-g1 ". g1. u IZ33 'A 89 -88 00785 A D9 -86 PLC 17G�2. SA 52 '7 9 A47 -66 ARCSZ -I%h .• ARC 91 =7s Mi ' A58 -91 972 . t48 45G,A -F 972 C833).'. • .0 G/� �BGS) 985 (475 ARC bat 97S 461.7 (977. .. �t4•164A }_ /iRG .: A94- C77 -77 .0c �y 9s X 0 3 RESTAURANT ` s- j: • 1 sae - u000 UOSB/ 2G• ARC 8 A67AlL �?P /ls 01 & rvo� r`! m/mos 5 -4? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMM BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development FILE NUMBER: ARC 61 -97 PROJECT ADDRESS: 896 Foothill Blvd. STAFF REPORT ITEM A 3 MEETING DATE: June 2, 1997 Manager SUBJECT: Exception to sign regulations to allow retention of an existing billboard, plus change to existing shopping center identification signs to include new business. RECOMMENDATION • Deny the exception, thereby requiring removal of the billboard; • Approve a change in copy on the identification signs, with a condition that the name of the center be on top, based on finding that, as revised, the shopping center signage provides adequate identification of the center and is consistent with shopping center identification signs elsewhere in the city. BACKGROUND Situation. The applicants want to install and modify signs for their business, which will replace the former Von's market. The request includes retention of a non - conforming sign and change of copy on shopping center identification signs, both of which require architectural review. Data Summary Address: 896 Foothill Applicant: New Frontiers Natural Foods Property owner: Theodore Maino et al Representative: LandPlans Inc. Zoning: Retail Commercial, with Special Considerations (C -R -S) General Plan: General Retail Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Class 1, Section 15301 signs) and Class 11, Section 15311 (a) (new signs) Project action deadline: August 6, 1997 Project description 4 (g) (new copy on existing The applicants want to install two wall signs, which conform to the regulations and therefore do not require special approval. Designs and sizes of these signs are included in Commission packets, allowing evaluation of the whole picture. Requiring approval are: • Retention of an existing billboard sign: The applicants want to paint a mural on the south side of the billboard, to include identification of the business, "similar to the non - intrusive identification given to sponsors on public television ". The north face of the sign would be made s -9 ARC 61 -97 896 Foothill Page 2 available for "public art', with the design chosen through a competition (see application packet, enclosed). • Change of copy on shopping center signs: The applicants want to change the face of the existing shopping center identification signs by replacing the upper panel with a panel that identifies the center plus the New Frontiers business. The Carl's Jr. Sign would remain as is. EVALUATION 1. The billboard should go. The existing billboard sign is a prohibited type of sign. It was installed prior to 1967, when the City's first sign ordinance was adopted. After new sign regulations were adopted in 1977, the City surveyed all commercial property and sent out notices to owners of legal nonconforming signs (including this one), informing them of the need to remove their signs after an amortization period calculated on the basis of the value of the sign. The abatement period for this sign expired in September 1985. It has therefore been illegal since that time. Billboards and roof signs are no longer sign types that are allowed in this city, because they are generally considered unattractive and a substantial contributor to visual clutter. A change of copy on this sign, even if in the form of a mural, will still have the effect of adding to sign clutter. The applicant's proposal to create a mural on one side and some sort of public art on the other is imaginative but does not justify the retention of this illegal sign. If the applicants are serious about public art and murals, there are more appropriate media for these elements. The easterly building wall itself might present an opportunity for a non - commercial mural, for example. Public art can include any type of visual art, and therefore is not restricted to flat surfaces. 2. The shopping center needs more identification, not less. The proposal to modify the shopping center identification signs (on Foothill and Santa Rosa) would include replacement of the existing "University Square" sign with one that says "New Frontiers natural foods" above "University square ". The identification of the center is lost in this configuration. Staff suggests that if the Commission feels it is appropriate to include the names of two major tenants on this sign, that "University Square" retain its place of prominence at the top of the sign, with "New Frontiers" below it. Attached: In packet: Vicinity map Sign proposal sign amortization notices letter iri support of request S- /0 I ��;16f•.�`�''�''!`I�II�I�I II`L�p:4�.,�l illt�lli .l�� CIty Of SAn WIS OBISPO yr, ?r— - 4. DEPARTMENT OF COMM 15. UNITY DEVELOPMENT Post Otfice Box 321 — San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 — 805/541-1000 JkiuA�-f 24i I9-75 W i u; i4rl5 �r�r des e9 (-q fEx�:vn- 1LL- itUv f> :rl Lvi-rD Dblq:q CA As you probably know, the City of San Luis Obispo has a new set of sign regulations, intended to make our - community a better place to live. These regulations, which became effective September 2, 1977, made significant changes in the types and sizes of signs allowed. A city inspection team has checked all property in the city to see whether signs conform to the new standards. Your property/business at �50 -��yD was inspected on �D % The city team found that your signing doesn't conform to Stan ards for a�_ zone. These are the problems we found: (Numbers correspond to the numbered photos on the attached sheets. Section numbers refer to the section of the sign ordinance where the standard is discussed.. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed.) X Signs lacking permits (Sec. 9702.1): I I * Z1 +�3 X Prohibited types of signs (Sec. 9702.3, Sec. 9704): 4 I1,# 21 Signs too tall (Sec. 9704): Signs covering too much of a building face (Sec. 9704): Too many signs of one type (Sec. 9704): Signs in setback (Sec. 9702.3D): Sins jutting too far over sidewalk (Sec. 9704.4C): Total area of signs more than allowed (Sec. 9704) Signs where there is no frontage or public entrance.-(Sec. 9704): Noncurrent, abandoned or unsafe signs (Sec. 9706): Signs lighted where not allowed (Sec. 9704.1A): S Signs too close to wires (Sec. 9702.3): Not enough room between signs and ground or pavement (Sec. 9. 704.4C)• Other:. What do you have to do, and how much time do you have, to comply? There are three possibilities. The ones that appear to apply to you are checked below: 1. Some signs may remain as they are during a grace period set by law. But then you must remove them or make them conform by a certain date, which is determined by their total value. Two groups of signs fit this category: (1) signs that have permits but don't conform to the new standards, and (2) signs. that conformed until the 1977 standards were adopted, but don't have a permit because they were built before 1967. Signs fitting this category for either reason must be removed or made to conform according to this schedule: Signs Total original value Abatement �period Deadline for compliance `) 2. A sign that conforms to standards for type and size, but doesn't have a permit, may remain indefinitely.if you get a permit for it. Sign permits may be obtained at the Community Development Department, 990 Palm St., downstairs. There is.a $10 sign fee. You may get a permit if you do so before These signs appear to be in this category: 'l_% Some signs must be removed or made to conform to type and size standards within 60 days after the city notifies the business involved. This applies to signs that don't conform and which lack permits (except for pre -1967 signs that met 1967 standards, as explained in paragraph "a "). These signs appear to be in this c tegory and mu be removed or- -made to conform before 282 - We might have put one of your signs in the wrong category if it was built before v: 1967, since the city's pre -1967 sign records are incomplete. Tell us if this is the case. If you believe your property warrants special consideration, you may ask the Architectural Review Commission to waive the sign ordinance requirements. However, the ARC grants such exceptions only under rare circumstances. Applications for ARC review are available at the Community Development Department. If you have questions,.come to the Community Development Department or call 541 -1000. I can be reached on weekdays between 1 and 5 p.m. Thank you for your eration. 0 Candace Mercier Planning Enforcement Technician S"/J- Nit A-1 W IONS August 23, 1982 , Of SAn tuis OBIS PO DLPAP M r T E JT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prat Offiry Box 321 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 - 805/541.1000 Williams Brothers 896 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Signing for 896.Foothill Blvd. The City of San Luis Obispo adopted an amended set of sign regulations in July, 1980. These regulations, which became effective August' 15, 1980, made significant changes in the status of some signs and in the amortization schedule. Your .property /business at 896 Foothill Blvd. was inspected on August 17, 1982. We found that your signing does not conform to current standards for a C -R -S zone. These are the problems we found: (Numbers correspond to the numbered photos on the attached sheets. Section numbers refer.-to the section of the sign ordinance where the standard is discussed. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed.) Signs lacking permits (Section. 9702.1.): — prohibited types of signs .(Section 9702.3., 9704:): , Signs too tall (Sections 9704.2., 9704.3.): Signs covering too much of a building face (Section 9704.): Too many signs of one type (Section 9704.): Signs in setback (Section 9704.4.B.): Signs jutting too far over sidewalk (Section 9704.4.E.(Z)) Total area of signs more than allowed (Section 9704.): Signs where there is no frontage or public entrance (Section Non- current, abandoned or unsafe signs (Section 9706.): _Signs lighted where not allowed (Section 9704.1.A.(2)): Signs with more area than allowed for .type of sign (Section Too many signs (Section 9704.3.C.): Signs too close to wires (Section 9702.3.H.): 9704.(: 9704.): __Not enough room between signs and ground or pavement (Section 9704.4.E.(1)): Architectural Review Commission approval required (Section 9702.4.B.): Other: (continued) 3-/� Most signs -fit in one of three categories. The categories that appear to apply to your signs are checked below: 1-11. Some signs may remain as they are during.a grace period set by law. But then you must remove them or make them conform by a certain date, which is determined by their total value. Two groups of signs fit this category: (1) signs that have permits but do not conform to the new standards, and (2) signs that conformed until the 1977 standards were adopted, but do not have a.permit because they were built before 1967. Signs fitting this category for either reason must be removed or made to conform according to this schedule: Signs Twice Original Value Abatement Period Deadline for Compliance �- 2. A sign that conforms to standards for -type and size, but does not have a permit, may remain indefinitely if you get a permit for it. Sign permits may be obtained at the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, downstairs. There is a $15 sign fee. 3. Some signs must be removed or made to conform to type and size standards within 60 days after the city notifies the business involved. This applies to signs that don't conform and which lack permits (except for pre -1967 signs that met 1967 standards, as explained in paragraph "a "). We might have to put one of your signs in the wrong category if it was built before 1967, since the city's pre -1967 sign records are incomplete. Tell us if this is the case. If the status of your signs listed here differs from previous notices you have received, please disregard earlier notices. This information is current. If your signs do not conform to current standards and you want to leave them the way they are, you may ask the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to grant an exception to the ordinance. The ARC may allow you to maintain your present signing if it can be shown that special circumstances or features of your site or signs warrant such exception to the rules. ARC application fees are $15, and forms are available at the Community Development Department. If you have questions, come to the Community Development Department or call 541 -1000, ext. 64. I can be reached on weekdays between 10 a.m, and 3 p.m. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Candace Havens Planning Enforcement Technician CH:drs Attachment: Sign Regulations S-6 IL... i SaI { Y - 1 a NO J. a NO J. ARC Minutes June 2, 1997 Page 6 building. Commr. Joines - Novotny agreed with having a different color. She wa ed to see the lighting shielded and as low as possible. She didn't think it was a go idea to convert residences to offices downtown because housing is hard to find in downtown area. Commr. Aiken said he liked the project, liked the to see the colors changed. and would also like Commr. Regier agreed with Commr. Joines -Novot He would like to see the neighborhood remain as residential. He felt it was great project, though, and liked to see the character of the era retained. He thought ;a driveway strips were a good idea. Commr. Day agreed with all the Commr. Mandeville asked about and appreciated the work. She concurred with the others Commr. Combrink moved to grant iff nal approval to the remodelling, with conditions that 1) the three compact spaces b replaced with two average and the adjacent planters enlarged, 2) tandem parking i approved for the residence and the concrete paving for the residence may be repla ed with concrete drive strips, 3) more substantial planting be installed in the easted planter, 4) lighting be limited to wall- mounted or standards under fifteen feet in h fight, with shielded fixtures, and 5) colors be revised, with changes to return to s ff for approval. Commr. Aiken se nded the motion. AYES: ombrink, Aiken, Day, Joines - Novotny, Regier, Mandeville NOES: one ABSENT: /I Illingworth The motion passed. Joines- Novotny left the meeting. 3. ARC 61 -97: 896 Foothill Boulevard: Review of sign exception to allow a billboard to remain and a change to a monument sign; C -R -S zone; New J- "17 ARC Minutes June 2, 1997 Page 7 Frontiers Natural Foods, applicant. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the exception, thereby requiring removal of the billboard; and approval of a change in copy on the identification signs, with a condition and a finding. Marshall Ochylski, noting that he is now a licensed attorney also, introduced Jonathon King, general manager of the food store, Jeff Bague, architect, Ann Ream, representing the Arts Council, and Ted Maino, property owner. He said the University Square monument sign was at the maximum site. This building houses the largest tenant and the center was previously considered the "Williams Bros." Center. The applicant would just like a change of face. He stated the applicant would prefer to have "University Square" in the center of the sign but can live with the staff recommendation. The "billboard sign" is an eyesore in its present shape and form. He submitted photos and said the store has poor visibility and because of the bad layout of the shopping center. He also submitted a picture of the proposed mural and discussed the use of the other side, the "sculptural element ". He said that Bague went to the Arts Council and got support. Ochylski felt the public are piece could incorporate the beams, trellis and palms and make it three dimensional. He felt it was a unique opportunity. Jonathon King, applicant, stated that the building's position makes it hard to see. Also, traffic moves quickly and there is a lot of other activity. He felt then: was a need to draw attention to the store's presence as artistically as possible. He said the monument sign helps, but not enough. Ann Ream, Arts Council, stated that she and Jeff Bague had been on Arts in Public Places panel for a long time. She described the Palm Desert program and the guidelines in place at the city. She thought this was a private, unique opportunity. He described working with the Parks and Recreation Commission for a new project in front of the new recreation building. She described the process and said they would make sure it was well done and "in community with the surroundings ". Public art should be incorporated into everything, including sidewalks and bus shelters. Ream said not to be afraid of the process for coming up with a good project, and it is a new aspect of community building. Arlene Zanchuck, 26 Chorro, said she welcomed the store. She has been here since 1941 and reminisced about the changes. She did not like the billboard sign and was concerned because the traffic on Foothill is horrendous and people should be concentrating on driving, not on signs. She felt a good reputation will bring in the S'AO ARC Minutes June 2, 1997 Page 8 customers. The public hearing was closed. Commr. Day stated she did not support the billboard, but the monument sign is okay. Commr. Regier supported public art, but cannot support the billboard. He felt there were other means to attract customers. He felt "University Square" would look better at the top of the monument sign, but it was not critical. Commr. Aiken supported public art, but had difficulty visualizing this particular piece. The public art would be on the shaded side. He thought public are was a wonderful idea, but not at this location. The traffic on both Santa Rosa and Foothill is heavy and there are many traffic accidents. He could not support the billboard. Commr. Combrink agreed with what had been said so far. He stated he is an artist himself and the intentions are good, but felt the sign had to come down. The food store will be well known quickly and won't need additional exposure. The city is trying to clean up some of the nonconforming signs. Commr. Mandeville concurred with the others. She stated that everyone knows the location of Foods for the Family and it is in a worse location than this project. She was not concerned about the monument sign. Commr. Day moved to deny the sign exception for the roof (billboard) sign and approve the copy change for the monument signs, in two separate motions. Commr. Combrink seconded the motions. Action was the same for both motions: AYES: Day, Combrink, Aiken, Regier, Mandeville NOES: None ABSENT: Joines- Novotny, Illingworth The motion passed. 4. Review of the Long /Bonetti Ranch S'/9 In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter CW0agfthe PK San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision o A rendered on - ti7"Jn1 2 , l 9' a -7 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) Y-A cWIE -1 , The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on Name/Department (Date) Appellant: N LV Lecn/TieAfS / F S 4 C c-V /'9 / s S 1 o rj *i4 7 Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) NA iiJWA L, �G f7S 50 L.V- ^16 G4 y 3 -'(0 3 - -• i ork one PO. /43Z7 Representative: M(-L E• Cic)(LSKI SLOI CA 9�9OCd Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the foAowing department(s): Original in City Clerk's Office Date & Time Received: SAN Wro S-oW June 9, 1997 City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 LANDPLANS INCORPORATED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND/SITE PLANNING PROJECT REPRESENTATION P.O. Box 14327 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 (805) 544 -4546 FAX:(805) 544 -4594 E -MAIL: Ippinc @aol.com Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862 Subject: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission Denial of Sign Variance, ARC 61 -97, New Frontiers Natural Foods, 896 Foothill Boulevard By means of this letter we are appealing the denial by the Architectural Review Commission of an exception to allow retention of an existing non - conforming historical sign at 896 Foothill Boulevard. This action was taken at the Commission's June 2 1997 meeting. New Frontier proposes to retain the existing non - conforming historical sign as the location of two pieces of significant public art. New Frontiers Natural Foods is requesting that an exception be granted as allowed under Section 15.40.120 because of "exceptional circumstances." We believe that both the uniqueness of the existing sign and the opportunity it presents for significant public art justify this finding. New Frontiers is proposing that the existing "billboard° sign be retained as the location of an exciting piece of non - traditional art. As staff indicated in the ARC staff report, "Public art can Include any type of visual art, and therefore is not restricted to flat surfaces." New Frontiers Natural Foods believes that the existing sign creates an unique opportunity for just such an expression of visual art. The South face would have a mural commissioned by New Frontiers Natural Foods incorporating their corporate logo. Conceptually, we believe this would be similar to the non - intrusive identification given to sponsors on public television. A copy of the artwork proposed for this face of the sign will be available for review prior to the City Council Meeting. The North face would serve as the location for a piece of public art commissioned by New Frontiers Natural Foods. A public competition is proposed which would be open to anyone desiring to enter. This competition would be administered by the Arts in Public Places Committee under the auspices of the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council. It would be judged by a panel consisting of local artists, cit¢ens, and a representative of New Frontiers Natural Foods. S,J-/ We have already contacted both the Arts in Public Places Committee and the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council and they are both very supportive and excited about this project, We will have letters of support available prior to the City Council Meeting. The commission would remain in place for a 5 year period during which maintenance would be guaranteed by New Frontiers Natural Foods. After the 5 year period lapsed, there would be a repeat commission. We look forward to the opportunity to further explain this concept to the City Council and look forward to their granting this variance to allow the public this opportunity to enjoy the proposed non - traditional public art. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Marshall E. Ochylski MEO /Ipp cc: New Frontiers Natural Foods Jeff Bague San Luis Obispo Arts Council, Arts in Public Places -2- S 'oL SIGN REGULATIONS — Chapter 15.40 3. Total area of all signs, exclusive of any directory sign, shall not exceed 200 square feet for each business or tenant. 4. Each business or tenant may have a maximum of 4 signs from any of the following. a. Wall, window, and awning signs. The total area of all wall, window, and awning signs on any wall shall not exceed 100 square feet or 15 percent of the tenant's budding face, whichever is less. See general standards for awning sign criteria. b. Suspended signs, not to exceed 6 square feet. c. Projecting signs, not to exceed 12 square feet each. d. One non - illuminated monument sign per Premises not to exceed 4 feet in height or 12 square feet in area. e. Internally illuminated cabinet signs and marquee signs in the C-C zone require Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval. G. Retail Commercial (C- zone. The following signs are permitted in the Retail Commercial zone: 1. Signs allowed for residential uses. 2. One directory sign at each premises, not exceeding one square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit. 3. Total area of all signs, exclusive of any directory sign, shall not exceed 200 square feet for each business or tenant. 14 4. Each business or tenant may have a maximum of 4 signs as follows: a. Wall, window, and awning signs. The total area of wall, window, and awning signs on the same wall may not exceed 100 square feet or 15 percent of the tenant's building face, whichever is less. See general standards for awning sign criteria. b. Suspended signs, not to exceed 6 square feet. C. Projecting signs, not to exceed 24 square feet each. d. For uses = located within a shopping center, one monument sign per premises not to exceed 4 feet in height or 12 square feet in area. e. For shopping centers, one shopping center identification sign per frontage, subject to Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval. H. Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufac- turing (1) zones. The following signs are permitted within the Service Commercial and Manufacturing zones: 1. One directory sign at each premises, not internally illuminated and not exceeding one square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit. 2. Total area of signs, exclusive of any directory sign, shall not exceed 200 square feet for each business or tenant. 3. Each business or tenant may have a maximum of 2 signs as follows: S -c;-3 --�T 0 l hry N��v J S L d U S -i.,/ loo�k C) om . C) 4,� I (�� , � --3 (�- () 42, d-oz. CL S� William Beeson 375 Branch Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Arnold Jonas Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93403 -8100 Dear Arnold Ict:EIVtV MAY 2 V. 1997 C, S 1N LUiS O S;Sr'. 1-1- I write you in support of a projected public art installation at University Square on Foothill Boulevard, to be underwritten by the new tenant of that property, Natural Frontiers. It is my understanding that the City intends to condemn the billboard behind this property Natural Frontiers to remove it. This calls for some innovative thinking. Jeff Bague has come up with a positive and viable way to resolve the situation. Natural Frontiers wants to make the billboard an advertisement AND a piece of public art. They will initiate a competition, to be administered by County Arts Council's Art in Public Places mmittee. The artist of the winning design will receive a stipend. The stipend and all costs relative to we installation, including execution, insurance and maintenance, will be underwritten by Natural Frontiers. After five years, they intend to hold a competition for a fresh design, with all the above costs still to be underwritten by them. I see this as a win/win situation for the City of San Luis Obispo, its residents and a public art program which seems to be getting off the. ground, if somewhat sluggishly. It is with the utmost enthusiasm that I urge City Planning to approve this plan and encourage its implementation as soon as it seems feasible. Cordiall 95" t William Beeson May 15, 1997 cc Jeff Bague, Richard DeLong 24 RECEIVED JUN 0 f 1997 C N gcurs ocisro DEVELOgENi �-3a -/1 llw-74 /C 4 phi %%y -/Ak Ali ollh z 61r7 C 3-cs7 FURNITURE i I! 1511 51'15', '/1 I:It : 1 16 1,:16"1 � •1• MY 15, 1997 MY ' I: 6 l: 6"•'1 9 t. • :1' 11 1 1 :'. 'r'.YY ' `:1.101M MULOD" :'SD I ' S'.9Y ' `1 1 . . l vil 'f. 9 • 18 1 /1•' 1.' 1'I' I/ 9' Y ( I' i' j: fm '15'1' 11' LOB C • I INA :1%11 INNS u WI p IM: ` It. ID I Y15; 5 1'1' I 0:" 1:151" 1:1' 1': �.' 1 !.'.1 IYL' 1I' 11 1 II i' :15 1" " 1 I' 911!1 • .E' 6 :11 ':.m1: 1 v !.'d M 1. 1; 1 9 polulill IMAM NE 16.1ps 951 F.1 1 '1'151 1 I Pw I:' ta VDIN 15' s 1 Ik 1 1 � :• 1 IMIPIMMOVOP 9. iN_l�f1JJ_'v�� //y TtgssoG�j�b' -5l- 020— �"L��✓ J —�/"? / ;►tea ' OF T"�i 2_e _ice �u_��i —Z� f e.• �y 7a�,�G To %fie �uG Rvstiess LA) %ha dl�ey�_we�cc i - J-P110HOIES 956 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE C .SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93405 P ;ONE: (805) 785 0680 FAX: (805) 785 0681 C-,0 vv\, S w`� pc3 tvIl- 1 C� — o- ,Ogden%Eallmark.. 896- A Foothill Blvd. Sanlifl bbi'gi6 .CA:93405 .July 15;.199.7 . City of San'Luis'Obispo `Re: Sign above biffldih at.896 C Foothill'.Blvd. University "Shopping Center.. - We have been in Unrversity,shopping centenfor.30 yeas "and have enjoyed a. • good relationshi witha_ff merchants in this:,center We'are looking fofward' •3o New:Frontier Natural;FOods;opening: The sign in question has always been :there to-help �our,customecs find,their way -into; our center:. 'We understand: New; Frontier•isigoing,to;,put; art -Work. on theisign Ind:-make this` a win win situation for. everyone: Let's!:gwe ttiivsmew company to our area: a tittle help and allow them the cfiance't6 Am wlfat they!can, to. i mprove 'Umvers ty Shopping Center: Let's allow`thd sign,to stay as it always has; and,.W a New,Frontiertia'big welcome: Tt d b6st'to;all . Ogden's.Hallmark, Gii/ l Roger and' Sally Qgden Prechtel July 15, 1997 Dear City Council Members and other concerned citizens: I am writing this letter to wholeheartedly support New Frontier Natural Foods use of the existing billboard sign that is located at the University Square Center on Foothill Blvd., in San Luis Obispo. As the Manager of The Golden 1 Credit Union, which is located in the University Square Center, it is my belief that the use of this existing billboard by New Frontier Natural Foods will enhance the economic vitality for all businesses located within the shopping center. Over the years, this billboard has been used as a landmark identification when the facility was occupied by Williams Bros. and VONS supermarkets. Any action to deny use of this billboard will have a negative impact on us. For the good of the merchants located within the University Square Center, positive consideration by City Council members to approve New Frontier's request will greatly benefit all in the area. Respectfully Submitted, Cam' Charles Flieger Manager The Golden 1 Credit Union 852 Foothill Blvd San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 (805) 547 -3801 P.O. BOX 15966 O SACRAMENTO, CA 95852 -1966 IL CREDIT UNION �► AI 0 . �I /L� /� , i /VI' � / �'�f � J - -� ` (~`� i . �� —� �7 ,Ze1.2� -� � t - - -- II .� i 1 �IA . �I /L� /� , i /VI' � / �'�f � J - -� ` (~`� II .� �II 1 Hurley's ir HEALTWJ MII PHARMACY ISS JULY 15, 1997 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am writing this letter to support New Frontier Natural Foods ability to use the existing sign that is located at University Square Center on Foothill Blvd. in San Luis Obispo. I am the owner of Hurley's Health Plus Pharmacy. My pharmacy is located across the parking lot from the sign. I feel that removal of the current sign would be a negative action. The center has had this sign for ten years that I am aware of and its presence has been a "land mark" of sorts. Thank you for your consideration Dana B Nelson Pharmacist, owner Hurley's Health Plus Pharmacy 948 Foothill Blvd San Luis Obispo, CA 948 Foothill Boulevard • San Luis Obispo, C4 93405 Telephone (805) 543 -5950 • Facsimile (805) 543-3160 jo uraJ foods ''t0 ut'IUgP� OT ��ZZA 5 J DfAY,4 E►1i�!L ERA® PROGRESSIVE REAL ESTATE To Whom It May Concern, The undersigned, each as Independent Contractors, wish to express our opinion that you should allow the signage submitted for The Frontier Market to be located in University Square. All of the businesses need every advantage to attract customers. Bringing traffic to the plaza benefits all of the merchants. We feel that illuminated signage for this store will increase awareness of the University Square in general. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 862 FOOTHILL BLVD. • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 • (805) 544 -1310 • FAX: (805) 541 -3592 Each office independently owned and operated Otevioe Chevron Efienson's Chemoi Sirvice IK N. Santa Rosa St. San 'Luis Obispo, CA 03401 Phone 8057543-3366 Ow �er5oyx Th f\ - rj Gjl�- 1p-� P% mg e - eo e- FDre- we art -Kew, qs -k1�et,� Cvf%rltn-tl+j art. 51 Y,\ &w ,moo Primed on Recycled Paper i _ I I L'liT7J _ A, Al- — A JILL .. �� . I //M n IAA "C-9 `�v_VV �'` � /wI �_ -lam �- /V ,�{i�� (,w(- (_a ✓�'V (11r / Za I vex--