HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2006, PH 3 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN AS a i
council M�D�
j acEnaa Report 1�N.
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO DENY AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN AS
PART OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL PARK AT
4450 BROAD STREET. (ARC 194-05)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's
action to deny the electronic message center sign, based on findings.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a sign program for a new commercial
center "Airport Business Center" on September 18, 2006. The approval excluded the applicant's
proposal to construct a 15 foot tall pole sign with an electronic message center (EMC) on the sign
face. The applicant appealed the ARC's determination and believes that the business park cannot
function properly without the EMC sign. The large EMC sign is proposed to be utilized to advertise
businesses and display community events. However, the City's Sign Regulations only allow an
EMC to be 10% of the overall sign area if on a pole sign or a maximum of 8 square feet if mounted
on a building or freestanding. While a departure from these regulations is permissible under an
approved sign program, based on the land use patterns of the site and vicinity (Services and
Manufacturing) and the site's location adjacent to the Airport Area Specific Plan area, staff believes
a pole mounted sign as proposed, especially with backlit electronic letters, is not appropriate. The
electronic sign will be a potential distraction for drivers and will be an aesthetic contrast to the
location's scenic background, since Broad Street is a designated scenic roadway at this location.
Business parks typically function effectively with discreet monument signs and architecturally
integrated wall signs.
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant/appellant would like to develop the vacant 6.2 acre property at 4.450 Broad Street with
a commercial business park known as "Airport Business Park." Part of the project includes a sign
program that will prescribe custom sign standards for all future tenants. Sign programs are
discretionary, supercede certain requirements of the sign regulations, and designed essentially to set
up a cohesive sign formula that reduces sign clutter and competition when multiple commercial
tenants share single premises. Sign programs also save time by allowing all of the project's signs to
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 2
be approved under one action at the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), rather than requiring
each tenant to obtain separate approval. Since signs for all new commercial development require
review by the ARC, adoption of a comprehensive sign program for a commercial center with
multiple tenants saves the applicant processing time and fees. Typically, large commercial
developments benefit from a sign program since it also allows for the ARC to respond to unique site
constraints and building architecture by allowing modest departure from the standard regulations.
The ARC approved a sign program for the airport business park without one of the applicant's
desired components, an Electronic Message Center (EMC). This appeal is based on the ARC's
decision to eliminate the EMC.
Architectural Review Commission Action
The ARC conceptually reviewed this project on April 3, 2006 and continued the item with specific-
direction. On August 7, 2006 the ARC granted final approval to the project, however continued
discussion of the sign program to a later date due to significant debate over the placement of a large
pole sign with an EMC (Attachment 3). On September 18, 2006 the ARC granted approval of a
comprehensive sign program for the project (Attachments 4, 5, and 6) excluding the proposed EMC
mounted on a 15-foot tall pole. Electronic Message Centers are electronic signs that typically have a
changing or scrolling electronic message similar to the one located on Calle Joaquin adjacent to
Highway 101 used for a Motel 6 price sign or one that is located at the entry to Los Osos at South
Bay Boulevard and Los Osos Valley Road. Cal Trans also relies on EMC signs for construction
projects and road hazards. Due to the nature of the commercial center, and the sensitivity of the
view corridor on Broad Street, the ARC denied the EMC. However, a sign program, which included
exceptions to the Sign Regulations to allow a greater number of signs, was approved. The ARC
allowed the applicant to incorporate a 12-foot tall sign in place of the EMC that will have a wide
base similar to a monument sign and will not be mounted on a pole.
Description of the EMC Sign
The EMC is proposed as part of a 15-foot tall "pole" sign. The face of the sign is approximately 72
square feet in area with the electronic portion constituting nearly half of the sign face. Only one such
EMC currently exists in the City and is located near HWY 101 on Calle Joaquin as part of a price
sign for Motel 6. Currently the sign regulations require that all EMCs require discretionary review
by the ARC. If proposed as part of a pole sign, the maximum area of the EMC may only be 10% of
the sign face. Since the proposed face of this pole sign is 72 square feet, the maximum area of the
EMC would be 7.2 square feet. As proposed, the EMC is approximately 30 square feet and is
therefore inconsistent with the regulations. However, as noted in the Sign Regulations (MC
15.40.485) adoption of a sign program by the ARC allows the ARC to supersede the prescribed
limitations set forth in the sign regulations. Therefore, a sign program allows for, but does not
require, the ARC to grant exceptions to the Sign Regulations. It is on this basis that the applicant
seeks entitlement to additional signs including the EMC.
�'n
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 3
Applicant's Appeal of ARC Approved Sign Program
An appeal was received from the applicant, (VFP- Broad Street, LLC) on September 26, 2006
(Attachment 7). The appellant's basis for appeal is that the elimination of the EMC will change the
entire structure and function of the sign program.
In his evidence for appeal the appellant claims he will install additional signs at the property if
the sign program with an EMC is denied.
Analysis of Appeal Issues
1. ARC approved sign program is adequate
The appellant states that without the proposed EMC the approved sign program is not adequate to
provide exposure to all the businesses in the business park. Even with the elimination of the EMC,
the signs approved by the ARC exceed the limits normally imposed by the Sign Regulations and
thus constitute an unusual precedent for a business park at the periphery of the City. As noted above,
the Sign Regulations, MC 15.40.100, allow commercial projects to adopt a sign program that
enables the ARC to create a custom set of sign regulations for the commercial center. One reason
for this process is better integration of multiple signs rather than providing a variance to the
standards. Normally, a single commercial center (or single premises as defined in the Sign
Regulations Article X), is allowed to have only one monument sign and each tenant is allowed to
have up to two wall signs. In this case, the ARC approved two monument signs and a larger
freestanding "pole" sign. Each of the tenants is also allowed up to two wall signs. In addition to the
three large signs identifying the center, many of the tenants' wall signs face Broad Street. To direct
visitors to each business on the interior of the site, up to five directional signs listing various tenants
are allowed within the parking area. Attachment 2 illustrates the proposed sign program including
the proposed EMC.
2. Attention getting signs are not appropriate in the C-S zone
This commercial center is a business park in the Commercial Service zone. Allowed land uses for
this location are service related uses that typically draw clients to this location on a pre-determined
basis. Unlike retail uses, street exposure for the name of each business is not key to attracting
customers. The General Plan map has designated this area for service and manufacturing uses,
typically not the type of land use that relies upon attention getting signs and impulse shopping.
Other business parks in the vicinity contain single, low monument signs and smaller tenant signs
near each building entry. The Airport Area Specific Plan contains specific standards that dictate the
type of signs that are appropriate. Although this property is not within the specific plan area, it is
directly across the street from it and should complement the vicinity. Page 5-35, of the specific plan
discusses signs in detail:
33
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 4
"Throughout San Luis Obispo, the City's intent is that signs identify and locate,
rather than advertise and sell. This is particularly appropriate in the Airport Area
given its emphasis on uses other than retail."
Additionally, the Specific Plan contains standards that would restrict the type of signs requested by
the appellant:
Standard 5.18.1 Building identity signs shall be limited to major site entries from
public roadways.
Standard 5.18.2 Signs on poles or other raised structures are not allowed in the
planning area.
3. EMC effectiveness and traffic concerns
Putting the question of whether the approved sign program is adequate aside, EMC's are not an
effective strategy for identifying multiple businesses and can create a traffic hazard. Unless the
person reading an EMC is stationary, the technology becomes less effective for communication as
the amount of information they display increases. This is especially the case when the signs are
viewed from moving automobiles. Depending on vehicle speed and sign location, a driver may
have only a few seconds to focus on an EMC. At the posted speed limit of 55 mph, a driver on
Highway 227 will only have a few seconds to view the proposed EMC. In fact, Cal Trans designs
their EMC signs to be readable in 5 seconds or less when situated along a highway. Using the EMC
to identify 16 different tenants would require the message to change more frequently than every
second or faster if"community benefit" messages are added to the mix. At this interval, the EMC
could very likely become distracting to drivers as it quickly flashes different information (e.g. 16
tenant names). When used in this manner, the EMC functions like an "attention getting device" that
is prohibited by the sign regulations (MC 15.40.300A). To be readable without distracting drivers,
the proposed EMC would have to be substantially limited in size and with regard to the type and
duration of information it would be used for.
4. The City does not regulate sign content
The appellant's statement regarding the community benefit of the ECM also calls out a related
problem regarding the use of this technology for more than time, temperature or traffic information.
If the sign is approved for the purpose of displaying messages of community benefit, who will
decide on the content of future community benefit messages? Does advertising an on-site event
constitute a community benefit? Would displaying political views, greetings, or quotation be
viewed as having some community benefit? Because the City only regulates the time, place, design
and construction of signs, not their content, the property owner would have a substantial amount of
freedom regarding the information that gets displayed on the sign. Legally, the City's ability to
regulate sign content is limited such that it cannot regulate the content of EMC messages at all once
it has been approved. EMCs have significant potential to display unanticipated and unintended
9_y
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 5
information. The City's practice of allowing specific fixed messages avoids this potential. This
should be carefully considered if EMCs begin to be approved within the City.
5. Signs allowed without a sign program
Regarding the appellant's comments that the sign program will be replaced by single business signs
if there is no EMC, the following should be considered. Commercial projects, regardless of size, are
not required to obtain a sign program, however a sign program is typically recommended for larger
commercial projects in order to benefit the center and the applicant as discussed earlier. However,
all new commercial projects require architectural review for new signs (MC 15.40.480). Therefore,
regardless of what signs are proposed, and regardless of how many lots are created for the new
commercial center, ARC review will be required, and if a sign program is withdrawn then the
regulations will only allow one monument sign per premises. The term "premises" is defined in the
Sign Regulations, MC 15.40, Article X as:
"Premises means a lot or series of lots under common ownership and/or developed
together as a single development site, regardless of how many uses occupy the site."
Therefore, if the applicant withdraws the sign program and applies for a separate sign permit
package, the ARC will be bound by the limitations of the regulations which allow only one
monument sign per premises (MC 15.40.470 F). The amount of signs already approved by the ARC
would need to be greatly reduced, not increased as proposed by the applicant.
Conclusion
The ARC acted appropriately when it approved a discretionary sign program that offered a
compromise to accommodate the applicant's desire for increased number and size of signs as
opposed to what would otherwise be allowed under the sign regulations. Staff believes a large EMC
at the gateway to the City, along Route 227, would be ineffective, potentially unsafe and distract
from the pleasure of observing the City's natural scenic beauty. Broad Street at this location is a
designated scenic roadway as described in the City's General Plan Circulation Element.
Development along scenic roadways is carefully regulated to ensure that structures and signs do not
detract from the scenic views of the vicinity. The appellant's request for a large, pole mounted EMC.
appears at odds with the intent of the Sign Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines. The
Sign Regulations at MC 15.40.110 A provide:
"The Sign Regulations are intended to protect and enhance the character of the
community and its various neighborhoods and districts against visual blight.
Furthermore, a proliferation of signs can seriously detract from the pleasure of
observing the natural scenic beauty of San Luis Obispo and the human environment."
The Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 1.4, summarize the importance of quality design
and sensitivity to the surroundings: {�
J-5-`
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 6
"San Luis Obispo has repeatedly received national recognition as a desirable place to
live. With a beautiful landscape, relatively uncrowded streets and highways, clean air,
a growing business economy, and a unique, and well maintained built environment, the
quality of life in San Luis Obispo is high. How the built environment appears in
relation to the surrounding landscape, and the quality of the architecture and site
design within the city, are key to continuing and advancing the high quality of life."
A. Keep San Luis Obispo architecturally distinctive; don't let it become "anywhere
USA."
"3. The quality of development at City gateways and along key corridors is critical to
the City's overall image for residents and visitors."
The excerpts from the Community Design Guidelines above describe the unique circumstances
which make San Luis Obispo different from other communities. Pursuant to the City's policies it is
very important to maintain a high standard of architectural review for new buildings and signs. The
City's sign regulations are enacted in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and this
includes through the regulation of aesthetics. The sign program approved by the ARC for this
property will introduce a high quality design and fulfills the desires expressed by the guidelines.
However, the introduction of a large EMC sign at this property is not in keeping with the City's sign
regulations and will set a poor precedent for future architectural determinations along this important
gateway corridor. It is recommended the Council allow the sign program approved by the ARC to
stand, however no additional signs or electronic type signs should be allowed as part of a sign
program for this location, and thus the appeal should be denied.
CONCURRENCES
The proposal to install an EMC sign at this location has been reviewed by the Transportation
Division of the Public Works Department and the Police Department. The Police Department staff
feels that an EMC with changing or scrolling messages creates a potential distraction for drivers,
and such messages should therefore be limited to significant public service announcements and
emergency notifications. The Transportation staff agrees with the Police Department and has
provided some analysis with regard to traffic speeds and the amount of time needed to view a sign.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found
that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project (from a
land use context) is consistent with the General Plan, it may only have a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal, thereby approving the EMC sign. If the Council wishes to approve the
3�
Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action denying an
Electronic Message Center sign.
Page 7
EMC sign, a maximum sign size, and limitations to how the sign is used should be
incorporated. For example, the EMC could be restricted for only community events and
information rather than advertising.
2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. The Council should specify the
information needed in order to provide staff with specific direction and to return to a hearing
at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale site plan and project details
3. August 7, 2006 ARC meeting minutes
4. September 18, 2006 meeting minutes
5. September 18, 2006 findings and conditions
6. September 18, 2006 staff report
7. Appeal to City Council
8. Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC action to deny the EMC sign.
9. Draft Resolution upholding the appeal and approving the EMC sign based on findings and subject
to conditions.
G:\CD-PLAN\Pduasmore\ARCWRC\194-05(4450 Broad)\AP CC 19405 I1-14-06.doc
3-�
� f .
� tt
�;° g91mya� 9g Id
Attachment 2
8 Rsb+ ����oil
gI�� tl qy� Iyppyp 6 ry
00 0
CO All w w h �6� Al I
/
I
I
I v
I
I �
I
1
1
1 -
I
I 0
,
,
I. O
♦♦ , rb
Ci
n �
F•,
1:.
I �
I 4>>
� U
O {(1
1 >ti9 yr
1
1
I a
I
I j
I _
I
I
1 Rf
a
I o
I +fix
!
/
I
L
/ 0
a -
v� z°
0 3'91
�Z/2
P
Attachment 2
843
Q a n
LUC
Mt k
¢Q 9
tLG @f Ct; dv�fa ni aAa �€ ➢ 1�8�
..0-.SI
«+ A
.9 p
V] >
a�
gC. 0
.OI-,I �o.C7 �SC3 GAY c'7�C'j�
' I
I I
I I �
I I
I I
I I
I Q I
Io I
1 d �.
I I
I I
I I N
i I
I I
y>j n
I I y E2
--
00
••
l ¢Z I
O
IT
� 4
a� ^
� n
i
.9-9 .0-9 9
# :
2 = � ■ ° | ■ . . -
� Attachment 2
git
2■ % § ] tt/ k
k § \ b §\ Bk ( , 2
Eos § / ! \�!! § � § ■ § Bc � ■ ■
S
#
2
7/} 4
kJ\ \ \
� \
° \ .T
5 Q
t ( ,
\ .§
ZEEIF
2 }
# �
ue
/ � +
)
.a e
)
■ U — m
# �
\ \ ° 7
. ' ,
� t =
2 /
\§ / �
+ ° w \
7 \ �
Ji
_ & 4
a = �
o��;�$�� ��e I s RttaChmenfi 2
`�
FL all Amy � � i
„0 d ,A-,£
°o
y u
Q � I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ■ �:: 'y
I I
I I p
I I y O y
as
-- --
Zai
N
LEUW � a
i+ z I
"0 1-
y 4
fi' iv C aa a a a � n
N C z z z z z � a
� FE ► � � � � V1 � y �"
O V1 LGen V] y
ZZ .OI .9
F .9-'E „9,0
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
August 7, 2006
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Steve Hopkins, Jim Lopes, Anthony Palazzo and Vice-
Chairperson Allen Root
Absent: Commissioners Zeljka Howard, Greg Wilhelm, and Chairperson Michael
Boudreau
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate
Planners Phil Dunsmore, Michael Codron and Jaime Hill, and Recording
Secretary Jill Francis
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public..
BUSINESS ITEM
1. Tumblinq Wa s Plan Distribution. ARC 151-0td
d 953 Orcutt Road.
Overview an istribution of plans for the Tumbers project, a new
residential n ig orhood of 178 homes located on tside of Orcutt Road
between Lau el ne and Broad Street. ARC review oproject is scheduled as a
public hearing fo he August 21st agenda. (Michael CAssociate Planner hael Codron presented the staff rlaining that the item
was listed as busine item on the agenda so that staff ide the Commission
with a brief overview f�the project and distribute project ing the Commission
additional time to bec a familiar with this complex projs noted that the first
public hearing is sched led before the ARC on August 21,
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Z. 4450 & 4460 Broad Street. ARC 194-05; Review of a proposed business park
development including a total of 74,883 square feet of new commercial floor area;
C-S zone; VFP - Broad Street, LLC, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff, recommending approval of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and final approval to the project design, based on
findings and subject to conditions, mitigations measures and code requirements. He
presented a photo simulation showing view corridors and a photometrics for the lights.
Brian Starr and Will Drake, applicant's representatives, presented a slide presentation
including the visual impact from the street, and discussed the proposed project signage.
Fred Vernachia, applicant, further explained the reason for a main entry sign with a.
large electronic message center.
3-,13
ARC Minutes JJ �- �'J Attachment 3
August 7, 2006
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission discussed the proposed sign program at great length, debated the
proposed Electronic Message Center, and decided to move the project forward without
the sign program and continue review of the sign program to a date uncertain
Commr. Lopes questioned the location for backflow, asked about future usage and
upkeep of the main sign, discussed the creek setback exception relevant to the
pedestrian pathway, and suggested discussion of different roof pitches.
Commr. Hopkins questioned the usage of the sign.
Commr. Palazzo asked staff for a further explanation on the Sign Regulations as it
relates to the size of the proposed sign, and noted concerns with the creek setback
exception.
The Commission's general consensus was supportive of the proposed design with the
staff's findings and recommendations. Final resolution of the mitigation measures
recommended by the Air Pollution Control District will be made by staff.
On motion by Commr. Palazzo to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and grant
final approval to the proiect design, based on modified findings and conditions including
a requirement to move the proposed pedestrian path outside of the creek setback,
install additional shade trees in the parking lot to comply with the City's Parking and
Driveway Standards, and with the project's sign program to return to the ARC.
Seconded by Commr. Hopkins.
AYES: Commrs. Root, Hopkins, Palazzo
NOES: Commr. Lopes
ABSENT: Commrs. Howard, Wilhelm, Chair Boudreau
ABSTAIN: None
The above motion allows the applicant to install pole lights at the rear of the site,
contrary to staffs recommendation to limit allowed lighting to bollard lights in this area.
Commissioner Lopes voted against the motion with concerns about visual resources
along the scenic corridor.
The motion carried on a 3:1 vote
3-/V
' Attachment 4
ARC Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 2
Commr. Lopes questioned t e proposed colors and types o street trees.
Commr. Boudreau asked i a the roof had been eonsid red, and was told that the
building could not structural) support the weight of tiles.
On motion by Commr. Lo s to approve the design of th remodel based,on findings
and subiect to conditions rec mmended by staff.. Seconde by Commr. Root .
AYES: Commrs. Wilhe , Howard, Root, Boudreau, opes, Hopkins and Palazzo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 v
2. 4450 and 4460 Broad Street. ARC 194-05; Review of a proposed sign program for
a business park development including a total of 74,883 sq. ft. of new commercial
floor area; C-S zone; VFP- Broad Street, LLC, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report including an extensive
presentation regarding the characteristics of each of the signs, recommending approval
of a modified sign program based on findings and subject to conditions which he
outlined.
Pierre Rademaker summarized the various components of the sign proposal.
Fred Vemacchia, applicant, provided an extensive presentation in an attempt to justify
the use of a large pole sign with an electronic message center (EMC) and explained
the need for the proposed signage, noting that the ARC can approve signs that do not
meet the City guidelines. He explained how the sign program decreases street signage
from three or four monument signs to one pole/EMC sign and two vehicle entry signs
and decreases wall signage. He did not feel that approval would set a precedent for
future projects.
Brian Starr and Will Drake, applicant's representatives, answered questions regarding
street trees.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission discussed the Sign Regulations and proposed sign program at length
in order to understand their purview. Commissioners agreed with staff that the large
EMC is not appropriate at this location and not appropriate in the City of SLO.
Commissioners felt that EMC's should be reserved for public uses or for clocks and
?- �5'
ARC Minutes _:-� Attachment 4
September 18, 2006 .
Page 3
thermometers. As a compromise the ARC allowed the sign program to have two
monument signs and a 12-foot tall pole/monument sign at the Broad Street frontage.
Commr. Howard stated that the proposed signs were attractively designed but
expressed reservations with the pole/EMC sign and its necessity given the type of
project and its location near the airport.
Commr. Wilhelm asked about consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
the Sign Regulations regarding this sign program and how it could affect future projects
if approved. He felt the project had an attractive and appropriate sign package but
expressed reservations with the EMC sign and its potential to set an undesirable
precedent.
Commr. Palazzo asked if street trees would be altered to adjust for the EMC sign, and
noted this was a good sign program that worked for the site, including the EMC.
Commr. Lopes expressed the need to follow City regulations and agreed with staffs
recommendations. He questioned the compatibility of proposed signs 'with the
architecture of approved buildings and encouraged their redesign.
Commr. Hopkins felt the sign program was well designed but had reservations about
the EMC sign since it did not seem to have a functional relationship to the project.
Commr. Root discussed the impact of various signs and the need for the City to have
sign programs. He agreed with staffs proposal but not with the motion presented.
Chair Boudreau concurred with staff recommendations with the inclusion of a pole sign,
without the electronic message board.
On a motion by Commr. Howard to approve a modified sign program based on findings
and subject to conditions with a change to condition #6 to allow a pole sign without EMC
no more than 12-feet in height and with a minimum width of 6-feet and pole sign of 60
sq. ft..Seconded by Commr. Lopes.
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Howard, Boudreau, Lopes, and Hopkins
NOES: Commrs. Root and Palazzo
ABSENT: None
REFRAIN: None
Commissioners Palazzo and Root cast the dissenting votes; Palazzo felt that an EMC
could have been incorporated into the sign program and Root felt that the applicant
should have a larger pole sign but no EMC.
The motion carried on a 5:2 vote.
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
346?
Attachment 5
IIIIIIIIIII�IIIII� III CSAn
O I
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
September 19, 2006
VFP — Broad Street, LLC
1930 Valle Vista Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: ARC 194-05 -4450 Broad Street
Review of a proposed sign program for a business park development
including a total of 74,883 sq. ft. of new commercial floor area
Dear Applicant:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 18, 2006, approved
the sign program for the Airport Business Center, based on the following findings, and
subject to the following conditions, and code requirements:
Findinas
1. The sites location along a designated scenic roadway, at the gateway to the City,
adjacent to a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate location for intemally
illuminated cabinet ora pole sign with an electronic message center.
2. The proposed sign program, with the recommended conditions and modifications, is
consistent with the intent of the Sign Regulations, since the design, height, number
and quality of*the signs will be commensurate to other similar approved commercial
centers, and the size of each sign meets the intended standards for the C-S zone.
3. The proposed sign program, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent of the
Community Design Guidelines since the proposed signs will be architecturally
compatible with the building designs, and compatible to the site and vicinity.
Conditions
1. The Community Development Department shall have the authority to approve minor
changes to the sign program, that (1) result in a superior site design and
appearance, and/or (2) address a construction design issue or building code
discrepancy that is not substantive to the Architectural Review approval.
2. The sign program allows for up to two wall signs for each tenant not to exceed the
limits prescribed by the City Sign Regulations.
3. Two monument.signs (Vehicle Entry Signs) may be allowed, one adjacent to each
driveway entrance. The maximum height of each monument sign shall not exceed
4.5 feet. The maximum sign area for each monument sign may not exceed 20
square feet.
O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. -
7
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
r -
� Attachment 5
ARC 194-05 ` �-
Page 2
4. Directional signs may be allowed at up to five locations not to exceed four feet in
height above natural grade with a sign.area not to exceed 5 square feet.
5. No internally illuminated cabinet signs with full Plexiglas faces shall be allowed, only
push through Plexiglas letters shall be allowed for intemally illuminated signs.
6. A pole sign with a height up to 12 feet may be allowed near the Broad Street
frontage. The "pole" sign must have a solid base that is at least 2/3 of the width of
the sign face. The area of the sign face may not exceed 60 square feet.
7. No electronic message centers shall be allowed.
8. No banners, flags, or other related attention getting devices shall be allowed.
9. A final sign program incorporating all conditions noted above with colors materials
and finishes shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of any sign permits.
10. All signs will require a City sign permit.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 1.0
days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal
forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless
the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community
Development Director may grant a single one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at (805) 781-7522.
Sincerely,
Pamela Ricci, All
Senior Planner
cc: County of SL0 Assessor's Office
Brian Starr/ Will Drake
Studio Design Group
641 Higuera Street, #303
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3���
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522 ETING DATE: September 18, 2006
FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner PR
FILE NUMBER: ARC 194-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 4450 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Review of a sign program for an approved commercial center (Airport Business
Center) located on the east side of Broad Street just south of Fuller Road between the creek and
the street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Approve a modified sign program based on findings and subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to develop the vacant 6.2-acre property at 4450 Broad Street with a .
variety of office and retail buildings. The ARC conceptually reviewed this project on April 3,
2006 and continued the item with specific direction. At a hearing on August 7, 2006 the ARC
granted final approval to the design of the project, but continued action on the sign program to a
later date. Now, the applicant is seeking final approval of the sign program for the center.
Data Summary
Address: 4450 Broad Street
Property Owner/Applicant: VFP-Broad Street, LLC
Representative: Brian Starr/Will Drake Studio Design Group
Zoning: C-S (Service-Commercial)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental status: A mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was
adopted by,the Architectural Review Commission on August 7,
2006:
Site Descrintion
The development site is a generally flat, triangular shaped parcel between Broad Street and a
creek. The creek separates the commercial zoning boundary from a single family residential
tract to the east.- The size of the property is approximately 6.2 acres. The existing site contains
1A
ARC 194-05 � �% Attachmert 6
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program
Page 2
low brush and semi-native vegetation with dense willow trees lining the creek bank. Former
stockpiling debris and an existing eucalyptus tree exist near the south end of the site.
Project Description
Seven buildings are proposed to accommodate a variety of commercial uses as allowed within the
Service Commercial zoning district. The cover page of the plans describes the size, height, and
proposed occupancy class of each building. No tenants are known at this time. Parking is
proposed to be accommodated with outdoor asphalt parking areas combined with pedestrian paths
and landscape areas.
The design of the buildings is somewhat "agrarian" with ribbed metal roofing, large overhangs,
ribbed metal siding and metal awnings. The proposed sign program proposes a variety signs that
attempt to include some of the design features of the buildings. In summary, the sign program
includes the following signs: two `vehicle entry signs" approximately 4', 6"in height with a 16
square-foot sign area; three "directional signs" that are 3', 6" in height with approximately 4 feet
of sign area; internally illuminated cabinet signs for each of the tenant spaces (a total of 32
illuminated cabinet signs; and a "pole sign" with a internally illuminated graphics and an
electronic message center(EMC) with a total sign face of 71.5 square feet.
EVALUATION
At the August 7 ARC hearing, the ARC discussed the sign program in detail, particularly the
EMC sign, and decided to continue the sign program to a later date to allow staff to respond to
purview and procedural issues associated with the review of the overall sign program. The
ARC's action included a condition that refers to the required sign program:
7. A final sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the ARC.
Plans shall include all proposed signs and note any requested exceptions to the Sign
Regulations. If exceptions are requested, then the applicant shall provide a written
statement regarding how required findings could be substantiated.
The applicant disagreed that the proposed signs needed exceptions since the ARC was acting on
a"Sign Program" and instead referred to MC 15.40.485 of the Sign Regulations which states:
The ARC may approve a sign program for a particular development or property. In
this case, the requirements of the sign program supercede Article III (Prohibited
Signs)and Article IV(Sign Standards) of these sign regulations.
MC 15.40.485 has been discussed in detail with the City Attorney and it was determined that
the ARC does have the discretion to approve sign exceptions through the Sign Program process.
However, this does not mean that the ARC can approve a sign program that includes signs that
exceed the limits of the sign regulations without making specific findings. Although a sign
program allows the ARC to relax the sign standards, as the ARC sees fit on a case-by-case
basis, specific findings must still be made that the program is consistent with the intent of the
'7L
i"
ARC 194-05
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program Attachment 6
Page 3
Sign Regulations and the City's Community Design Guidelines. In most cases, sign programs
are designed to regulate a commercial center so that all of the signs work together in a logical
fashion and complement building architecture. Sign programs are not designed as a method of
circumventing normally imposed sign regulations for a site, but rather as a way to create a
comprehensive program that provides the center and its individual tenants adequate
identification while respecting site conditions and context.
At this time, the proposed sign program has not changed and staff has serious concerns about
the size and design of the pole sign and EMC that will be located along a designated scenic
corridor. This is a Service-Commercial (C-S) zone at the boundary of the City limits, alongside
a designated scenic corridor. The range of allowed uses in the C-S zone and the business park
style of the approved project are not designed to accommodate intensive retail, restaurant or
other uses that rely upon attention getting devices, including excessive signage. In the City of
San Luis Obispo, most business parks incorporate monument signs, small directional signs, and
wall signs that rely upon external illumination with architecturally detailed lighting.
Considering the proximity of the site to a residential neighborhood, and the generally service
related and office character of the intended land uses, the ARC should carefully review the
Community Design Guidelines and the Sign Regulations for guidance on the appropriate styles
of signage prior to taking action on the sign program.
The following analysis highlights the proposed sign program in comparison with the
Community Design Guidelines and the City's Sign Regulations.
Community Design Guidelines
Staff has attached the complete text of chapter 6.6 of the Sign Regulations (Attachment 4) for the . .
ARC to review, however the sections below are particularly significant to the discussion of the
proposed sign program.
6.6-Signs
The City encourages signs that effectively identify individual business establishments
and support public safety and.convenience by providing good directions. The design
and content of signs are important in shaping the image of the city in the minds of
visitors and residents, and how they feel about the city, and themselves.
Staff Response: As noted above, the design and content of signs are important in shaping the
image of the City. The ARC should consider this when reviewing the proposed program. The
City prides itself in high quality design and carefully regulated signs. In staff's opinion, the
EMC sign in particular is misplaced at this visible gateway .location given the type of
development project and its approval raises concerns with setting an undesirable precedent.
A. Sign standards. The City's current Sign Regulations limit the type, size and
location of signs in each zoning district. The regulations allow the ARC to approve
signs not normally allowed, under exceptional circumstances. Exceptional
��L
ARC 194-05 �'� '�
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program Attachment 6
Page 4
circumstances might include impaired or difficult visibility, or unique or innovative
sign design.
Staff Response: As noted above, the ARC has the discretion to allow a sign or sign program to
deviate•from'the normal standards under exceptional circumstances. Staff does not believe that
the site or building layout presents exceptional circumstances, and nor does staff believe that a
very large EMC along a busy arterial roadway at the edge of the City limits constitutes an
innovative design. Instead, this is a scenario that calls for carefully designed signs that integrate
with the building design and the surroundings. Logical exceptions for a development like this
might include allowing more than one monument sign, or allowing a monument sign that is
slightly taller than the limits of the regulations.
H. Message content. Text should be kept to a minimum and designed for
business identification, not advertising purposes. Location, size, materials and
other features of a sign should be selected to achieve legibility.
Staff Response: Again, this speaks to the EMC. Signs should be limited to business
identification and not advertising. An EMC is likely to be utilized like a banner sign for a
variety of advertising scenarios.
L Types. Wall signs, monument and other types of low-profile freestanding signs
are encouraged. Distinctive architectural features, planting, window displays
and merchandise can often communicate some of the message and identity
usually conveyed by traditional signage.
Staff Response: Low profile monument signs, similar to the two that are proposed in this center,
are appropriate• in the C-S zone and reflect a high-quality image. Wall signs are also
appropriate, especially when they take advantage of exterior lighting and utilize custom painted
surfaces.
M. Materials. Internally illuminated cabinet signs (can signs) are strongly
discouraged. The City instead encourages signs comprised of individual letters
of quality materials (metal, ceramic, etc.), signs of carved wood, and three-
dimensional signs in appropriate circumstances.
Staff Response: All of the wall signs proposed in the center are internally illuminated cabinet
signs, however they have a surface of brushed aluminum with push through Plexiglas letters.
Different than a typical can sign these signs are appropriate since they do not have a large
illuminated Plexiglas surface. Instead, only the letters are illuminated.
Sign Reeulations
The following sections below are from the introductory section of the regulations and could be
used to formulate findings when approving or denying a sign program.
/Z
ARC 194-05
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program Attachment 6
Page 5
MC 15.40.110
A. The Sign Regulations are intended to protect and enhance the character of the
community and its various neighborhoods and districts against visual blight.
Furthermore, a proliferation of signs can seriously detract from the pleasure of
observing the natural scenic beauty of San Luis Obispo and the human
environment.
Staff Response: The proposed location'of this commercial center is alongside a scenic highway,
adjacent to a creek and a nearby residential neighborhood. It is on the edge of the City, and not
an appropriate location for excessive signage or excessive lighting. The ARC should compare
this primary Sign Regulations objective to the proposed program.
C. Controlling the size and number of signs is necessary to implement community
goals and policies expressed in the General Plan.
Staff Response: The Sign Regulations, just like the Community Design Guidelines, are an
implementing component of the General Plan. The General Plan has numerous goals and
policies which speak to the preservation of neighborhoods and the sensitive design of
commercial and residential areas.
D. Signs have an important design component and must be architecturally
compatible with affected structures and the character of surrounding development
in order to maintain the overall quality of a neighborhood or commercial district.
Staff Response: Just as noted in the Community Design Guidelines, the regulations
acknowledge that signs are very important to the design of a commercial center and the
surrounding properties.
The following discussion highlights the components of the sign program in comparison with the
applicable regulations.
7.ki ivoi =r
Monument signs
(Vehicle Entry Signs)
2 proposed
inatx!Cabine
ARC 194-05 � �O -- �`J
Aftachment 6
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program
Page 6
The program includes two internally illuminated monument signs approximately 4', 6" in height
with a 16 square foot sign area. The regulations allow only one monument sign per premises,
per street frontage. Monument signs may be a maximum of 24 square feet. The maximum
height of a monument sign is 6 feet. The largest single sign face is used to calculate the area of
monument signs. If illumination of monument signs is desired, then external illumination or
halo lighting is preferred. Staff believes that the proposed signs are appropriate in size and area,
however the ARC should consider the type of sign lighting.
2'-0"
r7 � ' Directional Signs
TENANT ONE 4 proposed
N TENANT TI#Rcs
1
N C= TENANT SIX The program includes three "directional signs" that
G- TENANT E f___V E N are 3', 6" in height with approximately 4 feet of
T E NAN T TWELVE sign area. The regulations allow one directory sign
per premises. Directory signs may be no larger than
12 square feet in area, and individual letters may
not exceed 6 inches in height. Staff believes that
the size of the center and number of tenants
warrant three directional signs as proposed.
Directional Signage
„.- Wall signs
- -
Approximately 32 proposed
y
The program includes intemally illuminated
I-�-M- 1 I 1 ,;ti�1ib -
cabinet signs (wall signs) for each of the
O TENANT SIGNAGS 0
tenant spaces, some tenant spaces have two
signs (a total of 32 illuminated cabinet signs).
The regulations allow up to two wall signs per
tenant space up to a maximum of 100 square
'—25.5 Sq.Fc
day
Wz
ARC 194-05
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program Attachment 6
Page 7
feet or 15% of the building face where the sign is attached, whichever is less. Cabinet signs are
allowed in the C-S zone. Staff would not support typical can signs with a Plexiglas surface,
however these are different since only the letters would be Plexiglas and the lighting levels
would be more subdued than a typical can sign. Other forms of lighting, such as gooseneck
lights or halo lighting are the preferred lighting methods for wall signs.
A` R ME R'S MMRKET
E
TONIGHTN
C
(1
,.
fi
"Pole 'sign/EMC
{ , 1 proposed
Tr I Tk
'[s?J.a: Y ':Q., :k'r�':`lJ.. ._.J`•�` J4 4. �..,r.
:i"�:,•sr:S.',��'•:Fti;�';'dt!?;. r,!'Y; iia� ,z:�i':.'.r .r �luruk� t;;�•:.•rs,.,t;:o"r.:�
Side Elevation (2 Sides)
Scale: 1/2"=V-0"
The sign program includes a large freestanding sign with internally illuminated graphics and an
EMC with a total sign face of 71.5 square feet (the EMC is approximately 30 square feet). This
z
ARC 194-05 ��' � � � -`
Attachment 6
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program
Page 8
sign is most appropriately treated as a pole sign due to its extensive size and height. The height of
the sign is 15 feet. The "pole" sign has a sign face of approximately 72 square feet in area and an
electronic face that constitutes nearly half of the sign face. The Sign Regulations allow pole
signs to be up to 16 feet tall with up to 72 square feet of sign area. All pole signs require review
by the ARC.
When the sign regulations were drafted it was the intent to allow EMCs only for small clocks,
thermometers or other applications where the electronic portion is only a small percentage of
the sign face. The sign regulations require that all EMCs require discretionary review by the
ARC. If proposed as part of a pole sign, the maximum area of the EMC may only be 10% of
the sign face. Since the proposed face of this pole sign is 72 square feet, the maximum area of
the EMC would be 7.2 square feet. As proposed, the EMC is approximately 30 square feet or
greater. The approval of an EMC sign is not ministerial. EMCs require discretionary action by
the ARC and are allowed only in limited circumstances. If the ARC believes that an EMC is
appropriate for this location, the maximum size should not exceed the maximum size allowed
by the regulations, approximately 7 square feet.
CONCLUSION
This commercial center has an extensive amount of frontage on Broad Street and a large
number of tenant spaces. A sign program is an appropriate tool to incorporate the amount of
signage that is necessary for this center. A monument sign at each entrance, combined with
carefully designed wall signs and directional. signs are all appropriate. It may even be
appropriate to slightly increase the height and area of each of the monument signs in order to
achieve appropriate visibility within the landscape area. However, a tall, freestanding sign such
as a pole sign, or an EMC, are not appropriate at this location.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the project with a specific list of items to return to the Commission.
2. Approve the sign program. Action approving the program should include the basis and
findings for approval including any necessary conditions the ARC may wish to incorporate.
If the ARC is inclined to support the pole sign with EMC, the Commission should be
prepared to make very specific findings as to why it should be allowed of the large size
proposed and what exceptional standards warrant it being installed at this location. Staff is
particularly concerned about the precedent such an approval would create and findings
documenting the rationale for allowing this type of attention-getting signage is especially
critical.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the sign program without a pole sign and without an electronic message center based on
findings and subject to the following conditions.
�z
ARC 194-05
4450 Broad Street, Airport Business Center Sign Program aAftclC�`C1)ef1t s
Page 9
Findings
1. The sites location along a designated scenic roadway, at the gateway to the City, adjacent to
a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate location for internally illuminated cabinet
or a pole sign with an electronic message center.
2. The proposed sign program, with the recommended conditions and modifications, is
consistent with the intent of the Sign Regulations, since the design, height, number and
quality of the signs will be commensurate to other similar approved commercial centers, and
the size of each sign meets the intended standards for the C-S zone.
3. The proposed sign program, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent of the Community
Design Guidelines since the proposed signs will be architecturally compatible with the
building designs, and compatible to the site and vicinity.
Conditions
1. The Community Development Department shall have the authority to approve minor
changes to the sign program, that (1) result in a superior site design and appearance, and/or
(2) address a construction design issue or building code discrepancy that is not substantive
to the Architectural Review approval.
2. The sign program allows.for up to two wall signs for each tenant not to exceed the limits
prescribed by the City Sign Regulations.
3. Two monument signs (Vehicle Entry Signs) may be allowed, one adjacent to each driveway
entrance. The maximum height of each. monument sign shall not exceed 6 feet. The
maximum sign area for each monument sign may not exceed 30 square feet.
4.- Directional signs may be allowed at up to five locations not to exceed four feet in height
above natural grade with a sign area not to exceed 5.square feet.
5. No internally illuminated cabinet signs with full Plexiglas faces shall be allowed, only push
through Plexiglas letters shall be allowed for internally illuminated signs.
6. No pole signs or other types of freestanding signs exceeding 6 feet shall be allowed.
7. No electronic message centers shall be allowed.
8. No banners, flags, or other related attention getting devices shall be allowed.
9. All revised sign program with colors materials and finishes shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any sign permits.
10. All signs will require a City sign permit.
3-a� qui
Filing Fee: $100.00' �`
• did Date Received
NIAfli
'°°'' -'A- tachrh1M t 7''
City Of
'REFER TO SECTION 4
San Luis OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION I. APPELLANT INFORMATION
V F-P - ISroowJ St reef Z- LCA 10130 Va 11e VIS PL St'0
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
�OS-54ff -32_-2KCr -
Phone Fax
8noL kA Sf-a rc SD G 4 I H-rQ I Sf 303, SLU,,CO q 3 w I
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
i 4, f 8O5 =541 -354 8 51-1 - 2 D
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Co-fde (�c(opy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
rC.� t7'el �/I(� I �_C>I C-C•t1 �ihiYtr �e�
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: SPI �1
3. The application or project was entitled: A R-C I C14 -05—LI 450
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
eh(' ! 0(An C t'Y\.0 re on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has t i matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s,you are appealing and 4y you believe the.Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
�u
Attachment 7
ARC 194-05-4450 Broad Street
What: Action on September.18, 2006 by the ARC to decrease the proposed sign size of and to deny_
an Electronic Message Center(EMC) in one sign integrated into a complete Sign Program.
Why: Changing one sign within the proposed sign program changes the entire structure and function
of the proposed sign program. By making the changes required by the ARC to the sign program, the
sign program is no longer able to function effectively to create exposure for a Business Park of at
least 16 different businesses, the majority of which do not have frontage-on Broad Street. In addition,
the sign proposed by staffiwill not appropriately serve the project . Staff wants a single sign listing all
the tenants, like a"Shopping Center Sign." Sign regulations specifically state that only "anchors" can
be listed on the main sign. This is not a "Shopping Center," and it will not have"anchors." Sign
regulations also limit the number of tenants listed to no more than five, and there will be at least 16
within this development.
The EMC was specifically integrated into the sign program in order to eliminate multiple signs on the
street. The EMC replaces up to 6 monument signs, the number of signs necessary to create visibility
for the number of the business in this Business Park, most of which are not located on Broad Street.
In addition, the EMC was added to provide community benefit as well. Given its location at one of the
gateways to the City, it offers potential exposure for activities happening in town. Community based
messages would complement the banners hanging at other gateways to town and create exposure in
a location where these activities.might otherwise go unnoticed.
Evidence for Appeal: City regulations allow a sign program to supersede the sign regulations based
on individual signs and properties. These regulations allow one street sign per premises. This
project was purposely proposed as a single project/single premises rather than a subdivided,project
to create a uniformity of design and minimize street Gutter. By eliminating the EMC, we will need to
withdraw the sign program, subdivide the project, and propose a series of conforming monument
signs (none of which will require ARC review). Subdividing the property and adding more signs is not
my preference. However;if the present Sign Program is denied, it will be necessary in order to gain
exposure for the owners and tenants who will not have Broad Street frontage. These options were
presented to the ARC but staff stated that even with a subdivided project, the signs would require
ARC approval. I believe the ARC was given incorrect information. ARC was instructed that a
"Project of this size always requires a sign program and.would require ARC review." When I was
unable to find any evidence in the Sign Regulations to support Staffs position, I contacted. To date, I
have not heard back from them.
�-a q
Attachment 8
MS 158-04 Resolution to deny(9-13-06)
Page 2
3. Granting approval of a large electronic message center is not in accord with the intent and
purposes of the Sign Regulations since the regulations are intended to allow such signs for
small incidental uses such as clocks and thermometers and not advertising.
4. A large, pole mounted electronic message center at this location would set an unusual
precedent and would not be consistent with the architectural character or nature of the site
and vicinity.
5. The sign program approved by the Architectural Review Commission is a logical,
reasonable program that allows for adequate identification for potential commercial tenants
without the use of an electronic message center.
On motion of , seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon well, City Attorney
G:\CD-P1AN\Pdunsmore\ARCVARC\194-05(4459 Broad)\CC deny appeal reso.doc
J -J Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO.####-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER
FOR A SIGN PROGRAM FOR A NEW BUSINESS PARK AT 4450 BROAD STREET
ARC 194-05
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on
September 18, to consider the applicant's request for a sign program for a proposed business park to
be constructed at apremises known as 4450 Broad Street;
WHEREAS, The Architectural Review Commission approved the sign program and denied
the incorporation of the electronic message center sign in the sign program, based on findings; and
WHEREAS, An appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to delete the
electronic message center sign was received by the City on September 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of
the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The request to appeal the Architectural Review Commission's action
denying the electronic message center sign in the sign program is hereby approved, based on the
following findings and conditions:
SECTION 1.. Findings.
1. The site or land use pattern is suited for the type and design of the electronic message center
sign since the proposed land uses will rely upon such a sign and the sign will benefit the
community by providing communitywide information.
2. As conditioned, the proposed sign, due to the size and location, will protect and preserve the
scenic resources. An electronic sign at this location would not detract from the scenic
background of the site nor conflict with applicable General Plan policies.
3. As conditioned, granting approval of an electronic message center is in accord with the intent
and purposes of the Sign Regulations since the regulations are intended to allow such signs.
4. An electronic message center at this location would not set an unusual precedent and would be
consistent with the architectural character or nature of the site and vicinity.
cz
Attachment 9
MS 158-04 Resolution to deny(9-13-06)
Page 2
Conditions
1. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign (or group of signs).
2. The height of the sign that includes the electronic message center shall be limited to a maximum
height of 10 feet. The area of the electronic portion of the sign face shall be limited to 10% of the
total sign area as prescribed by the City's Sign Regulations. The maximum area of the sign face in
total (including the electronic portion and other sign area) shall be limited to 72 square feet,
consistent with the sign regulations.
3. The sign shall not consist of scrolling, moving, flashing images or symbols. The sign message shall
not be changed on a frequency greater than 5 seconds. The sign shall not be utilized for advertising
but may be used to display business names or community announcements.
4. The sign must not be illuminated or remain on after business hours or between the hours of 10 pm
and 6 am.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\ARC\ARC\194-05(4450 Broad)\CC deny appeal reso.doc
3
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO.####-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS
ACTION TO DENY AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER FOR A SIGN PROGRAM
FOR A NEW BUSINESS PARK AT 4450 BROAD STREET
ARC 194-05
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on
September 18, 2006 to consider the applicant's request for a sign program for a proposed
business park to be constructed at a premises known as 4450 Broad Street;
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission approved the sign program and
denied the incorporation of the electronic message center sign in the sign program, based on
findings; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to delete the
electronic message center sign was received by the City on September 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Denial of Appeal. The request to appeal the Architectural Review
Commission's action denying the electronic message center sign in the sign program is hereby
denied, based on the following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The site or land use pattern is not suited for the type and design of the electronic message
center sign since the General Plan Land Use Element map designates this site for services
and manufacturing uses. Such land uses do not rely upon extensive signs.
2. Broad Street (HWY 227) at this location is a designated scenic roadway identified in the
General Plan Circulation Element. General Plan policies require that new improvements,
including buildings and signs, be designed to protect and preserve the scenic resources. An
electronic sign at this location would detract from the scenic background of the site and
conflict with applicable General Plan policies.
3
Page 1 of 1
Audrey Hooper- File 194-05 0
O �
From: "Linda Shinn" <Ishinn@pacbell.net>
To: <ahooper@slocity.org>
Date: 11/14/20061:21 PM
Subject: File 194-05
O=ACl( LX
Audrey,
Please forward to City Council member prior to 11/14 meeting. Thanks.
November 13,2006
Council Members:
I am a homeowner on Goldenrod Lane. I oppose the installation of any electronic message center signs as a part of a sign
program for the new commercial park at 4450 Broad Street, File No. 194-05.
Many of my neighbors and I have master bedrooms overlooking the planned commercial buildings. The addition of an electronic
sign would add to our already existing annoyance of the airport beacon and also devalue our properties.
Linda Shinn
805-471-4556
Linda Shinn
955 Goldenrod Lane
471-4556.
file://CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/15/2006
RECL, . E., Filing Fee: $100.00
SEP 2 6 2006 Paid Date Received
TY CLERK Ol 0911 i'?GL�L 44:ii 0T3933 Tip
NIA
I=Elk
`REFER TO SECTION 4 I Iiy
San LUIS OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION t/e"���✓/i«c�'` �"
VF-P - 8(bad Stree-rt , LL30 Ua16l/IS&PLSLO
Name Q R30Mailing Address and Zip Code 111340
�05-54 Lf -3 7-L6 7- oaV --5-LF2-:2K Fro
Phone Fax
Qr^r'av� SJj2 r-c . SDG 4 I If(a St #,fid31 ,CQ,C61 q3W /
Representative's Name J VMailing Address and Zip Code
&rCJ I�4t 1 -g-48 SAF 1 - q 2 6 0
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
&-c0a M ii C-W G mmr ee
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) ?
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered:1� /�Eegk �,� a /, 63. The application or project was entitled: h -l_. I 4 'OS—lj 4 5o 6 ro e7
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Z /
P h� D U N C Q ela- on Gl l 0 6
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
A� o
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Reason for Appeal continued
Sce, A.t -t"- el
SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY
The.San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$1100%which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected.to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
.need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
(Signature of Appellant) (Date)
Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decislons. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid
the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is hereby calendared for A,/r7(J&,V/36/ 2QQL!?
c: City Attorney 716 U
City Administrative Officer
S'IAu E W` R
Department Head - 1,v,4 EUiGGE
�/o . ✓E�'"`mac ��•5
Advisory Body Chairperson-/v• ,$dt c,c>RE-* �v Nv A b R EE's vJ�4 ��10.✓�
City Clerk(original)
Page 2of3
D •/a9U ADS4 Al a5-6,4V
/,�• 05 TGc,.��T
ARC 194-05-4450 Broad Street
What: Action on September 18, 2006 by the ARC to decrease the proposed sign size of and to deny
an Electronic Message Center(EMC) in one sign integrated into a complete Sign Program.
Why: Changing one sign within the proposed sign program changes the entire structure and function
of the proposed sign program. By making the changes required by the ARC to the sign program, the
sign program is no longer able to function effectively to create exposure for a Business Park of at
least 16 different businesses, the majority of which do not have frontage on Broad Street. In addition,
the sign proposed by staff will not appropriately serve the project. Staff wants a single sign listing all
the tenants, like a °Shopping Center Sign." Sign regulations specifically state that only anchors' can
be listed on the main sign. This is not a °Shopping Center," and it will not have °anchors." Sign
regulations also limit the number of tenants listed to no more than five, and there will be at least 16
within this development.
The EMC was specifically integrated into the sign program in order to eliminate multiple signs on the
street. The EMC replaces up to 6 monument signs, the number of signs necessary to create visibility
for the number of the business in this Business Park, most of which are not located on Broad Street.
In addition, the EMC was added to provide community benefit as well. Given its location at one of the
gateways to the City, it offers potential exposure for activities happening in town. Community based
messages would complement the banners hanging at other gateways to town and create exposure in
a location where these activities might otherwise go unnoticed.
Evidence for Appeal: City regulations allow a sign program to supercede the sign regulations based
on individual signs and properties. These regulations allow one street sign per premises. This
project was purposely proposed as a single project/single premises rather than a subdivided project
to create a uniformity of design and minimize street clutter. By eliminating the EMC, we will need to
withdraw the sign program, subdivide the project, and propose a series of conforming monument
signs (none of which will require ARC review). Subdividing the property and adding more signs is not
my preference. However, if the present Sign Program is denied, it will be necessary in order to gain
exposure for the owners and tenants who will not have Broad Street frontage. These options were
presented to the ARC but staff stated that even with a subdivided project, the signs would require
ARC approval. I believe the ARC was given incorrect information. ARC was instructed that a
"Project of this size always requires a sign program and would require ARC review." When I was
unable to find any evidence in the Sign Regulations to support Staffs position, I contacted. To date, I
have not heard back from them.
�►��IIB�Il lllfllll IIIA��IIIIII � �'
; n
Iillll I�Ililh ���
Clty of sAn WisbBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RECEIVED
September 27, 2006 OCT 0 4 1006
SLO CITY CLERK ,
Fred Vemacchia
1930 Valle Vista Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPEAL— 194-05 (4450
BROAD STREET)
Dear Mr. Vernacchia:
In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal
to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than
forty;five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City
Clerk.
Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day
deadline (i.e. November 10, 2006), we require a signed acknowledgement.
Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than
October 9An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104.
Fred Vernacchia
Si cerely,
Audrey Ho er
City Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
VFP-Broad Street, LLC ECEIVED �
1930 Valle Vista Place NOV 0 9 1006
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
OUNCIL
SLO CITY CLERK � rF
John Mandeville, ICAOCommunity Development Director RED FILE �'ACAO C' of San Luis Obis A"A170RNEY po M� ING AGENDA OCLERK/ORIG November 9, 2006 DA ( i ITEM # DEP H DS DIR
B"UTIL DIR
Dear Mr. Mandeville, ZHR DIA
X
I am in receipt of the staff report for the City Council meeting of 11/14/06. There are many factual
errors in the staff report, which I would like to call to your attention so corrections may be made at or
prior to the City Council meeting.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: (page 1)
Staff: "However, the City's sign regulations only allow an EMC to be 10% of the overall sign area if
on a pole sign or maximum of 8 square feet if mounted on a building or freestanding."
Fact: Mr. Lowell has previously made it clear to staff that the sign regulations DO NOT APPLY TO A
SIGN PROGRAM. Despite that, Staff continues quote the City Sign Regulations giving the
impression that they must.be followed.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION: (Page 2)
Staff. "However, a sign program,which included exceptions to the Sign Regulations to allow a
greater number of signs, was approved°.
Fact.Once again, Staff is referring to regulations for which exceptions were granted. No exceptions
were requested and no exceptions were granted. A sign program falls outside of Articles III and IV of
the Sign Regulation. Their statement that our Sign Program was approved by granting exceptions is
false and misleading.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EMC SIGN: (Page 2)
Staff. "If proposed as part of a pole sign, the maximum area of the EMC may only be 10% of the sign
face°.
Fact: This regulation DOES NOT APPLY. This regulation is contained within Article IV, which does
not apply to a sign program. Again, staff has been told this by the City Attorney.
Staff: "The face of the sign is approximately 72 square feet with an electronic portion consisting of
nearly half the sign face." "As proposed; the EMC is approximately 30 square feet and'is therefore
inconsistent with regulations."
Fact 1: The EMC is exactly 25 sq. ft, not"approximately 30°as stated by staff. In addition, the EMC
is approximately 1/3 of the sign face, not %as calculated by staff. (One-half of 72 sq. ft. is 36, 1/3 of
72 is 241) Staff has had plans in their possession for 10 months so they've had time to check their
calculations, and I corrected their miscalculations previously at the ARC Meeting on 9/18/06.
Fact 2: Sign Regulations DO NOT APPLY to this sign program; therefore, the EMC is not
"inconsistent with regulations.°This is false and misleading.
APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF ARC APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM: (Page 3)
Staff: "In his evidence for appeal, the appellant states that he will install additional signs at the
property if the sign program with an EMC is denied°.
Fact: My statements have been misquoted and/or misunderstood. If the EMC is denied, I would be
faced with the choice of proceeding with the approved sign or subdividing the property and selling
individual parcels, each of which may have a sign. This project must be economically viability for me
to proceed. With inadequate signage, it is not.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL ISSUES: (Page 3)
1. ARC APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM IS ADEQUATE:
Staff: "ARC APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM IS ADEQUATE"
Fact: This is staff opinion and is not based on any regulation or ordinance.
2. ATTENTION GETTING SIGNS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE GS ZONE:
Staff: "Unlike retail uses, street exposure for the name of each business is not key to attracting
customers. The general plan map has designated this area for service and manufacturing uses."
"This is particularly appropriate in the airport area, given its emphasis on uses other than retail".
Fact 1: This is Staffs opinion. The City Council has approved a car dealership directly across the
street from Airport Business Center. Few types of retail centers are larger than car dealerships and
the car dealership is WITHIN the Airport Specific Plan.
Fact 2: This project is zoned "CS." MC Section 17.22.010 "Allowed use by Zone: Retail Sales"
include: auto and auto parts sales, building and landscape material sales, farm supply and feed
stores, furniture and appliance sales, boat sales, produce sales. In addition, tile shops, paint stores,
carpet stores etc. are also allowed in the CS zone. These are ALL retail uses and could potentially be
owners or tenants in this project.
Staff. "The airport area specific plan contains specific standards that dictate the type of signs that are
appropriate...although this property is not within the specific plan area, it is directly across the street
from it and should complement the vicinity."
Fact: This project and signs complement the vicinity because they fulfill staffs desire for an
agrarian style and airport theme. In addition, as staff states, this project is NOT in the airport specific
area, and as such, its rules DO NOT APPLY. The agrarian design standards were waived for the car
dealership that is proposed for across the street.
Staff. 'Throughout San Luis Obispo, the City's intent is that signs identify and locate, rather than
advertise and sell."
Fact: Once again part of the sign regulations and Staff opinion. Section 15.40.110 of Sign
Regulations, "Intent and Purpose"do not include staffs statement. The regulations do state that the
city wants to "encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication," something we
have worked hard to accomplish. Signs are designed to advertise and sell.
3. EMC EFFECTIVENESS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS: (Page 4)
Staff.-"EMC s are not an effective strategy for identifying multiple businesses and can create a traffic
hazard°.
Fact: Staff is stating an opinion, which is not shared by this applicant nor by research. I would direct
you and your staff to http://www.grandwell.com/selecLhtm. This website provides extensive
information on the effectiveness of an EMC.
Staff. "At the posted speed limit of 55 mph, a driver on Highway 227 will only have a few seconds to
view the proposed EMC.° In fact, Cal Trans designs their EMC sign to be readable in 5 seconds or
less." Using the EMC to identify 16 different tenants would require the message to change more
frequently than every second or faster if'community benefit' messages are added to the mix. At this
interval, the EMC could very likely become distracting to drivers, as it quickly flashes different
information (e.g. 16 tenant names).When used in this manner, the EMC functions like an 'attention
getting device' that is prohibited by the sign regulations."
Fact 1: 1 have never proposed a flashing, scrolling sign or other attention-getting device. My intention
is to place text on the sign that may be unchanged for hours, even days at a time, without flashing or
scrolling.
Fact 2: Staff states that 5 seconds is too little time to gain any benefit from an EMC. Yet, they
encouraged ARC to have me remove $100,000 worth of building, eliminate trees and relocate a sign
so that a driver, with his/her head tumed at a 80 degree angle, at just the right moment, in a car
traveling at 55 mph, would increase his/her view of the mountains by 300 milliseconds.
14. THE CITY DOES NOT RTE SIGN.CONTENT: (Page 4
Staff: "EMCs have significant potential to display unanticipated and unintended information"
Fact: We already have signs in the city capable of doing just that (Downtown Cinema's, Central
Coast Furniture). City regulations do not allow the city to regulate the content of any sign. Yet, staff
is trying to do that with their proposed conditions of approval!
5. SIGNS ALLOWED WITHOUT A SIGN PROGRAM: (Page_5)
Staff: `Therefore, if the applicant withdraws the sign program and applies for a separate sign permit
package, the ARC will be bound by limitations of the regulations which allow only one monument
sign per premises."
Fact: My option is to withdraw the entire project (not just the sign program) from the city, subdivide
the property into sic parcels each with more than 100 feet of Broad Street frontage, and market those
parcels as separate properties, each of which would be a separate premise. The city would then
have six different parcels, sic different premises, six different owners, sic different projects and six
different ideas as to what is a compatible design with this neighborhood. I (and I believe the City)
would prefer to have a uniform look to the project, rather than 6 different projects.
CONCLUSION: (Page 5)
Staff. "Staff believes a large EMC at the gateway to the city, along 227 would be ineffective,
potentially unsafe and distract from the pleasure of observing the City's natural scenic beauty".
Fact: We will show by our computer-generated drive-by that this sign does none of the above.
Staffs statement that it would be °ineffective" is their opinion. However, they are not financially
responsible for the economic success of this development. I am and that is a risk that I am willing to
take.To state that it is potentiallyunsafe is a correct statement It is only potentially unsafe if it
becomes an attention-getting device, which is not, and never has been, my intention.
With respect to staffs citing of Sign Regulations and Community Design Guidelines, I offer the
following regarding my sign program:
a. This sign program meets or exceeds Section 15.40.485 for Sign Programs.
b. It is not an afterthought
c. It creates a dean integrated look with coordinated colors and materials.
d. It creates adequate signage for multiple tenants using a fraction of allowed square footage
of signage.
e. It decreases the total number of signs on the project.
f. It cannot be successfully implemented or be effective without an EMC of the proper scale.
CONCURRENCES: (Pane 5
Staff: Refers to Police and Public Works positions.
Fact: No one in the Police or Public Works Departments has contacted me to discuss the proposed
use of this sign. Staffs concurrences with Public Works and the Police Department appear to be
based on Staffs presentation that this sign is an "attention getting device"with a changing or scrolling
message. That has never been presented nor is it proposed. Therefore, the concurrences DO NOT
APPLY.
Thank you for incorporating this document into your public record.
zm$V604
Applicant/Appellant
CC: City Council and Mayor