HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A NON-COMPLYING �p� r Nk ng Date:
'II,11111 0 c� San Luis obis 5-2-89
.A 1' Item No.
oft COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Michael Multar , Community Development Director; BY: Gary Price, Associate
Planner
SUBJECT:Appeal of an Architectural Review Commission decision denying an exception to
allow a non-complying pole sign at the Rexall Drug Store, 717 Marsh Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
This case has a long and controversial history which is familiar to the council. After
considering this history, the ARC's action and testimony received, approve or deny the
exception as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 1988, the Council considered the applicant's ARC appeal to allow continuance
of the pole-mounted rotating sign. On a 3 to 2 vote, the Council upheld the ARC's
determination and denied the sign. At that time the applicant wanted the sign to be
designated a "Landmark Sign". The sign regulations did not have a specific provision for
granting exceptions for landmark signs.
The applicant then submitted a petition with 3,300 signatures declaring that the sign is
a landmark sign which should be retained. As a result, the Council directed staff to
explore the concept of warranting exceptions for neighborhood landmarks. The Council
'.1 1% subsequently adopted a new ordinance provision allowing the ARC to consider granting
exceptions for non-conforming signs which act as neighborhood landmarks or focal points.
The applicant applied to the ARC for an exception to allow his sign and on March 13,
1989, the ARC unanimously denied the exception noting that: (1) there are no exceptional
circumstances to justify the sign, (2) the sign is not a neighborhood landmark or focal
point since it does not have any cultural, historic, architectural or artistic merit, (3)
the sign is disruptive to views of community landscape features, and (4) the sign
regulations do not limit the applicant's ability to identify or advertise his business
equitably with other businesses in the area.
The applicant appealed the ARC's determination noting that a petition with 3,300
signatures to designate the sign as a landmark was ignored in the review.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
As an on-premise sign, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review.
Staff expects no significant environmental, fiscal, or service impacts from denial,
approval of the proposed project, or approval of a revised project signing as directed by
the ARC.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING RECOMMENDATION ACTION
If the exception is not granted, the sign must be removed pursuant to the city's
amortization ordinance. If the exception is granted, owners of other non-complying signs
and new businesses may pursue exemptions and appeals; owners of complying signs may
request exceptions or changes to standards for equity purposes.
,111111010111 city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPOW -
EXCEPTION REQUESTED
The specific exception is as follows:
Proposed (existing) Allowed
Freestanding, illuminated Freestanding signs not permitted
pole-mounted rotating 210 sq-ft. Rotating signs not permitted
area identification signs, 30 ft. Total sign area allowed on
in height. site = 200 sq-ft.
DATA SUMMARY
Applicant: James P. Jones, Carpenter's Rexall
Zoning: C-C
General Plan: Retail-Commercial
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 25,970 sq-ft. (.60 acre) site, located at the southeast corner of Marsh and Broad
Street, contains Carpenter's Drug Store, Jason's Hair Salon and a parking lot. The pole
sign is located in the parking lot setback approximately two feet from the corner
right-of-way. Surrounding land uses consist of auto repair to the east, a title
insurance office and parking lot to the north, a shopping center to the south across
Broad Street and the San Luis Obispo Beauty College and miscellaneous retail/service
shops to the west across Marsh Street. i
EVALUATION
1. Overview of Rexall's Existing Signage
The Rexall site currently has three signs for identification purposes including a 35
sq-ft. sign over the entrance (an allowed sign), a 222 sq-ft. wall sign (approved by
exception) and the proposed 210 sq-f t. pole sign. Total combined signage is 234 percent
in excess of the sign area permitted by the sign regulations.
2. The New Ordinance
The sign regulations now include the following related finding which may be applicable to
granting the Rexall sign an exception:
[an exception can be granted for:]
A non-conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while not
disrupting views of prominent community landscape features.
When granting an exemption for a legally non-conforming sign, the architectural
review commission shall require that as many non-conforming elements of the sign be
eliminated while allowing its basic form and character to remain.
These finding allows the ARC, or in this instance, the City Council, to define criteria
for defining neighborhood landmarks on a case by case basis. The ARC commented that
without more specific criteria, such as age, culture, historic, or artistic merit, it
would be difficult tom k
city of san tins oBispo
Wo A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT°
The applicant feels that the sign is a "Classic Landmark Sign," an "antique" designed by
an outstanding Rexall architect. Based on city records, the sign was installed sometime
in 1963. Although the sign may meet some of the criteria for the exception, the ARC does
not feel that the sign acts as a significant landmark. The ARC has also noted that it
has limited cultural, artistic or historical merit and that it disrupts views of some of
the most prominent community landscape features - the Cuesta Ridge and Santa Lucia
foothills backdrop.
3. Apnroval Option
If the City Council wants to approve the exception, staff recommends the following:
(a) The illuminated direction arrow sign attached to the main sign should be
removed. This would give the sign better dimension and balance.
(b) The sign should be stabilized and non-rotational (the original planning
commission use permit which approved the sign required that it be
non-rotational).
(c) The bottom portion of the sign should be repaired and repainted to match the
existing blue color.
(d) A protection system should be installed around the base of the sign to protect
it from getting bumped by cars.
(\ �r Consistent with the sign regulations, items (a) and (b) would eliminate some of the
non-conforming elements of the sign. The elimination of the sign's top spire (see
attached photographs) would further reduce its level of non-conformity.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
Uphold the appeal and approve the exception as requested;
Uphold the appeal and approve the exception for a fixed period of time or until the
business or property ownership changes.
Deny the appeal, but approve a sign larger and/or taller than otherwise allowed;
Deny the appeal, requiring any new sign to meet the current regulations;
Continue the action.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This item was not routed to other departments for comments.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
I
Over the past year several public hearings have been held on this item at ARC and City
Council levels as follows:
I����� ►u�IiIII�lip�u ►��U city of san tins oBispo
WQ; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
April 18, 1988 ARC meeting review two sign exceptions including the
pole sign and two wall signs.
May 17 and June 6, 1988 City Council meetings to review the same proposal.
March 13, 1989 ARC meeting considering the exception for the pole
sign.
May 2, 1989 City Council meeting to review the same proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt one of the attached resolutions to either deny the appeal and affirm the decision
of the Architectural Review Commission or uphold the applicant's appeal and approve the
sign exception (with or without conditions).
Attached: C vicinity Map
Draft Resolutions
Appeal Form to City Council
ARC minutes; 3-13-89
Photos of Proposed Sign
Record of Sign Amortization Period for Carpenters Rexall Drug Store
Sign Permit & Planning Commission Use Permit issued in 1963
Ordinance No. 1125: amendment to the sign regulations }
Letters in Support of the sign
gp/rexall-cc
I
; 1
t
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A NON-CONFORMING FREE-
STANDING ILLUMINATED AND ROTATING POLE SIGN FOR CARPENTER'S
REXALL AT 717 MARSH STREET (SA-4040)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its March 13,
1989, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the following four
findings;
I. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign
Regulations limiting size and type in the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone.
2. The sign is not a neighborhood landmark or focal point and does not contain any
significant cultural, historical, architectural, or artistic characteristics.
3. The sign is disruptive to some views of community landscape features.
4. The current sign regulations do not limit the applicant's ability to adequately
identify or advertise his business equitably with other businesses in the area. A
wall sign was previously approved for the site.
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1989, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council{ and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and
approves the freestanding illuminated rotating pole sign based on the following findings
and conditions:
Findings:
1. The freestanding.sign contributes to the community in a neighborhood landmark-.
2. The freestanding sign is compatible and in character with other signs in the area.
�\ Conditions:
1. The illuminated direction arrow sign attached to main sign shall be removed.
-S
s
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
SA-4040
Page 2
2. The sign shall be stabilized and the rotation feature should be eliminated.
3. The bottom portion of the sign shall be repaired and repainted to match the existing
blue color.
4. A protection system shall be installed around the base of the sign to protect it
from cars. A plan for the protection system shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Community Development Department staff prior to its installation.
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 -,
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Of icer
Cil
City Attorne
Community Development Director
1
t
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A NON-CONFORMING FREE-
STANDING ILLUMINATED AND ROTATING POLE SIGN FOR CARPENTER'S
REXALL AT 717 MARSH STREET (SA-4040)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its March 13,
1989, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the four findings noted
below and were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the.sign
regulations; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1989, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal based
on the following findings:
1. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign
Regulations limiting size and type in the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone.
2. The sign is not a neighborhood landmark or focal point and.does not contain any
significant cultural, historical, architectural, or artistic characteristics.
3. The sign is disruptive to some views of community landscape features.
4. The current sign regulations do not limit the applicant's ability to adequately
identify or advertise his business equitably with other businesses in the area. A
wall sign was previously approved for the site.
On motion of - seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES-
NOES-
ABSENT:
YES:NOES:ABSENT: 2
T
t
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
SA-4040
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Ad inistrative Officer
City Attor
Community Development Director
'yl
�8
VICINITY_ MAP SA ,3�
It
� :� �.� til '� `G .`•I� Si • �, ,�. ,y,� i
F or
06
• � *• � •� ✓1 .` �.�• ♦ �'�,. '�j+fit .•�• ',
•�fI•i ��lie: 1 G'+ f• �r r� •• �.R IL
-1 `e • ' •- q `yam i
•• • ♦ �• •• 1, . lam.
`sw P j i•�% try 'i a�• -t • r^•.•- •• ..^'per + . .
�Lel, } � ��t (�,• t��?��� �' : w � Ii7'J
- � w if • �� `•• •� 10 i �* •• •
ow
,y r
.• � P- �•♦ � �G��` ,�� C r Oma,•
� � .q't'r r •
o �0� , fit
� j .i°9 ••: r .'+''°i'{�•.r , JY�4 � �` t• 'j a dJ"�t
ow
Ar
.•- �• ��i�."� .•�. �� •'� �� 'lam O O•• � �'at4
CIO
�'-� e e
O / (� • t ' ~
ol ,r•Ai � •r�. •S �
.•••' 44,
.' � off• °'�
/
��i��� lll�l�lllllll������� Iii►�1I I�I�� C, It luis O
SAnOBISp
IMP
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
REC
. 43WR 2 3 1989 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL `z 3— 7
crryc ! Accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I , Chapter
SAN LUIKr1 '
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned h reby appeals
r n
from the decision of �� 5D? ����`� ^ "" erpLLd
on ��� �— (C( ��� which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
At its Marsh 13, 1989 regular meeting, the Architectural Review Commission denied your
request for exceptions to the sign regulations to allow an existing freestanding rotating
sign for Carpenter's Rexall finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would
justify exceptions to the sign regulations. The sign is not a neighborhood landmark or
focal point since it does not contain any significant cultural, historical, architectural
or artistic merit, and the sign is disruptive to views of community landscape features
and that the sign regulations do not limit your ability to identify or advertise your
business equitably with other businesses in the area.
It is a 'sad state of affairs When a City Administrationuill nott honor a
contract entered into by a previous City Administration Under present
conditions, our simplest and next recourse is to ask the City Council to
declare our sign a Landmark Sign or approve a variance that Will enable
Rexall Drug to retain their present signing.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with-
' ���DU �(►1k UC
on 61 . J
Ap llant:
7 / -�
Name/Title
RECEIVED
Represen tive
X231989 It C� i S�
Cm'ClfWK Address
SAN LUISOSOWO.CA
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared ;or: '� '-° � � Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the, following department(s) : ^�
:�,.��i .'�-- y, ,c>•. �-=:gyri ' .�.L
i City Clerk
ti7o? t 1
I.
N r
n •J,
Y N
0
a
j
r s•
C
SIGN �pGATID � � � A ►�
SA'•
71650
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
March 13, 1989
B. SA-4040: 717 Marsh Street; request for exception to the.Sign Regulations to allow a
freestanding rotating pole sign at Carpenter's Rexall Drug Store; C-C zone.
Gary Price, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending a denial of the
request.
James Jones, applicant, responded to the staff report and submitted a copy of a letter
from a commercial artist which made an argument for the "Rexall name being a historical
landmark. He also submitted a letter from a citizen in support of his request. He would
be happy to use the initiative process to get his sign approved, if necessary. He
submitted an old Planning Commission resolution approving the sign and noted that the
City Council had approved the rotation portion of the sign later. He said he used to
have low-key signing at his original site at Higuera and Chorro, which was not
successful. Since moving to the new location at the corner of Broad and Marsh and with
the new signs, business has improved. Mr. Jones elaborated on the value of tourism in
the community. He noted that this corner-was not only a high traffic area, but also a
high tourist area. He noted that the dent in the bottom of the sign came from mischief
since review of the sign was initiated, not from cars running into it. He also felt thatl
sign area calculations were wrong, that the sign was only 128 square feet in size. J
Whether the sign was a landmark or not, Mr. Jones felt it should be removed when the
business closes or moves, so that its maintenance will not be a burden to future property
owners or the city.
Commr. Morris was not convinced the sign was a landmark as the applicant did not give any
reason to consider it as a landmark or focal point.
Commr. Gates could not make the exception to the regulations.
Commr. Starr agreed with Commr. Morris. He wanted to be consistent with the commission's
previous action. He was concerned that any sign significantly larger than the ordinance
allows may be considered a landmark because it is so big, and yet the recent sign
regulations amendment says a "landmark sign" should not obstruct views.
Commr. Jones agreed with Commr. Starr, and followed up by saying that the same argument
could be made for the beauty college sign. He did not feel that this business could be.
considered a "landmark", similar to one-of-a-kind businesses whose signs have been
preserved (in other cities).
Commr. Bradford admired the applicant's tenacity but felt the signatures obtained by Mr.
Jones on the petition did not make the sign a landmark. She felt people would prefer to
look at the surrounding mountains than at advertising.
Commr. Cooper felt the finding to approve the exception based on the sign not disrupting
views of prominent community landscape features was peculiar and felt it may mean the
sign must be small.
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
Page 2
Jim Jones felt the 3300 signatures collected on the. petition reflected concern with the
sign regulations. He reiterated the genesis of the current sign regulations and repeated
that a previously-approved sign should be allowed to remain.
Commr. Starr moved to deny the request for exceptions to the sign regulations to allow an
existing freestanding rotating sign for Carpenter's Rexall based on the following
findings:
1. There are no exceptional circumstances that would justify exceptions to the sign
regulations.
2. The sign is not a neighborhood landmark or focal point since it does not contain any
significant cultural, historical, architectural, or artistic merit and the sign is
disruptive to views of community landscape features.
3. The sign regulations do not limit the applicant's ability to adequately identify or
advertise his business equitably with other businesses in the area.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Starr, Bradford, Gates, Jones, Morris, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None (one vacancy)
Cr
The motion passes.
C
iC ;A R E N T_ E_R'S
ti.
r
CARP [ MT[ R�f
PABRII�
'F. C
:a.
.o
Y
i
N
_� f M 1'i i•""
4
� . . titer•: ..
RECORD OF \ `)
SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD
717 MARSH STREET
CARPENTER'S REXALL DRUG STORE
March 1, 1978 Surveyed Site and identified non-conforming
freestanding and wall signs.
July 27, 1979 City notifies applicant that a new set of sign
regulations became effective, replacing the 1967
non-conforming.
February 9, 1983 City notifies applicant that sign regulations
have been revised and therefore amending the
amortization period of the non-conforming
signs. Note that these new regulations are
currently in effect.
March 1, 1983 Applicant files for sign permit for the
non-conforming wall sign specifically requesting
approval of an exception to sign area.
March 1, 1983 ARC reviews sign exception request and continues
item indefinitely noting the following concerns:
a. The long-term issue is the freestanding pole
sign.
b. Both signs are unacceptable and. the wall sign
requires redesign even if the freestanding sign
is removed.
March 29, 1983 Applicant withdraws sign application noting that
the wall sign was installed before 1967 and
considered legal at that time.
December 18, 1988 City notifies applicant that the amortization
period ended in September, 1987 requiring that
the signs be removed or otherwise made to
conform with the sign regulations.
March 18, 1988 City notifies applicant that the signs are in
violation and the case would be referred to the
City Attorney for legal action (15 day notice).
March 29, 1988 Applicant submits sign permit application for
exceptions of the existing non-compliance signs
for ARC review on April 18, 1988.
.I April 18, 1988 ARC reviews exception request; denies pole
sign and continues wall sign noting the
following concerns:
a. There are no exceptional circumstances to
justify a sign exception to regulations limiting
size and type in the C-C zone.
b. Direction to redesign wall sign for possible
compliance with regulations.
April 26, 1988 Applicant files an appeal to ARC determination
on both pole sign denial and wall sign
continuance.
June 6, 1988 City Council upholds ARC determination to deny
the pole sign and refers wall sign back to ARC
for final review.
June 20, 1988 ARC reviews exception for wall sign request;
approves noting;
a. There are exceptional circumstances to
justify the exception in the C-C zone.
b. The sign is not out of character and is
compatible with other signs in the area.
c. Wall texture and surface justifies a sign
style of separate letters which otherwise meets
the intent of the sign regulations.
OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO THE REXALL SIGN
September 20, 1988 Council directed staff to explore amending
sign regulations to allow for landmark or focal
point signs.
November 15, 1988 City Council considered an amendment to the
sign regulations and introduced adoption of
the ordinance.
December 12, 1988 City Council took final action to adopt the
new sign ordinance amendment.
January 10, 1989 New ordinance takes affect.
February 10, 1989 Applicant submits new request for an exception
to allow the non-conforming sign.
March 13, 1989 ARC denies sign exception request for the
freestanding rotating sign noting the following:
a. There are no exceptional circumstances to
justify the sign. /�
Page 3
b. The sign is not a neighborhood landmark or
focal point since it does not contain any
significant cultural, historical, architectural or
artistic merit.
c. The sign is disruptive to views of community
landscape features.
d. The sign regulations do not limit the
applicant's ability to advertise his business
equitably with others in the area.
May 5, 1989 City Council reviews applicant's appeal of the ARC
noting that a petition of 3,300 signatures
supporting the sign as a landmark was ignored in
the review.
gp#8/rexall
� I 1
y I I
c14 I I I 1 •C V.y q° � 6. 1 � �
cri
god 1 1 00•o L a u I m ! I
'y
W,— .>.
CO V m G p V W
{..,. m ,,. .-i I G L m I N O I I
z C2 coo; o
1.4
Lo
V 6/ ! I C w D larl E .F cn � Oc. m 1 p,coGEi > Srs EopZ O oGC w U C C
II I I I p C CO.^° �i-M r'•' C C U m H �m
d v y i ;L3v ° clo O m
C c c d-E '3 9 Uc . „
�J I aI y CC m Q L W N V 0 "`�
O i O A P4 0O Y a+ 61 6J I m a� 000 WL. I+
05 C)
I I CC eo wo
M i I I T I V s t E d 7 �> �.
CO E-, ° E o 9s CO
d I I I I
W v U L V C v
®
Hy o e ° L c c ° e o
m�/ z c E o E ° v € '°- u' a W'E.E u
e e LS6 m m t a
R U cd 7 N m
I I I I I fY�l I I t t: u
! U I I I ��JI I t W �•`�.t
U U !
R w
E
I I irI I I 1 C x G.$
I I 1 1 I I V O > u
y I i I QI I I 7 Q
ep��I w �fJ
En q o ! C
pq y OUO Z Z � ' I 1 L
W
W.2
"►� i ' i II i i ^o o w
U y I I I I I I 1 or
U
E-4
pp
w
m.O
z
z t w , I
W ��1 i I i i czat'� s
" A
Ey
aj ho
I d 1 I
r ,: d,7 •'L � '�. ♦.e\ •+� �1��.Y�.n� ,,3' ��SFT�r , 4 .� : �a' yr .l ifs
s ? Lf.Mj4t � �y�� r .r �' _ is l8�. � 4ttx 1,i�� .g^!f __ �'j .yY x .i.,YL• ..1
�2 he 4� j., 3-
Tho-Planning Comisis•sion of tirg'tto{►'Sari Gufs�ob�i=s�ei da5oes �solve as fol loss
� II,eCl�ALc .DnT810t gAti` �:
WHEREAS,SSRIAL _ "'..fisc ajPIied' •for
a Use Permit in accordance with ec'_tron.:; o the prov cions of Chapter 2
of Article IX of the Municipal Code.'..oU the City of San Lois Obispo; and
WIIFRFAS, said applicant has submitted certain information to the
attention of the said Planning Commission in support of this application; and
WHEREAS, the said Planning Commission finds that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the
circumstances of that particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general :tre:fnre of persons residing or working in the neighbor -
hood of such proposed use or be detrimental to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general 'velfare of the City;
NOW, TIIFRF.'r'ORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the Planning C•orrimissian of the
City of San Luis Obispo does areb�.• grant the foliowinp Ilse Permit, et:biect to
the conditions listed below:
csrpsater's Resell Dings* T2T� llats_�•• C-2. sons.
Thereby, allowing ane (1) free-stsadIng sign at the above eddmes, subjeot to
the following eonditions:
2. The sign ahall be noa•Siashing and non-rotating
2. The sign shall be erected in accordance vitb the plot
plan snbititt".
The PruTltin;z r,, th:s tis.- '1, rmir dkc: , i-vL r!5r nr T:;
from romplylnt, Mlr•h any nr:,F251!�t] �7! �'. !.!:1c-da! i�O!lt] •}T iPv -t Ctn'.`.�rds .)r
policies adopted by th'S C'sr.' !-n Tiii. "er^, i r�Sl
be met at all rimes or .- ;rafts or
such conditions o; terms of rhis r�r any law or GrdI1:Lt!:i +! t . ^C'!'1'1! ;-a t0
revoke the Use Permit
e1 tY :i;l l•i j !,A 55�C` it I!li '�.!i+l`_,•},. '�i ,':. ' >
Obisrw on the 16th day at July i963 :;. ,he fu? ?o>riar volt
AYES_ Condssioasss Abkin, Blake, -irovn, Sehvartz
NOES- comiresioners Teligiaao and Lenew
ABSENT: Comaiesianer Jobtnson
ATTEST: S/
ester Chapman, Planninp Director
-e.
Li
off ~�,t.• '?Ky� s� _ �: •.. .: t'*.ti-..r.,�yr'1� tr'• y '. 1roc J+.• ?..
1 - "��.t'Ik: J +: x""� r+• 9 „L,. T M .t r^' ,�'� Jr+t..y ,-( - ; k v Y .�
/'-1 - y .�rtJ.,,�eC t - `y a' �.�,,.✓ f .Ca�j�t�'yi L..,
J� w����Y' :�iil .77ri •_��� _ . �}'����w✓la. '.1N,�.5 'f�.I� q 'i
ORDINANCE NO. 1125 (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider amendments to the Municipal
Code regarding criteria for granting sign exceptions as indicated in the attached
administrative draft labeled Exhibit "A;" and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been evaluated (ER 88-60) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the Community Development Director has
granted a Negative Declaration in accordance with city and state environmental
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City o1' San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the amendments to Chapter 15.40.080 B., Sign Regulations, attached
hereto marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference, be approved.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the negative dcclarmion
granted by the Community Development Director is hereby confirmed.
SECTION 3. This ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and
noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, .and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
C
0 1125
Ordinance No. 1125 (1988 Series) ^1
Page 2 J
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the 15th day of November _ 1988, on motion of Mayor Dunin
seconded by Councilwoman Pinard and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Dunin, Councilmembers Pinard and Settle
NOES: Councilmembers Rappa and Reiss
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTES ( l
V
City erk Pam Vo
APPROVED:
c
City Ad inistrative Officer
AAAttcy
f-��trc
Community Development Director
EXHIBIT "A"
Sion Ordinance Amendment
Add the following underlined provisions to Section 15.40.080 B. of the sign regulations:
Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or
exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards
such as:
1. Non-conforming use,
2. Visual obstruction,
3. Unusual building location on-site,
4. A non conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while
not disruptin¢ views of prominent community landscape features.
When granting an exemption for a legally non-conforming sign. the architectural
review commission shall reauirc that as many non-conforming elements of the sign be
eliminated while allowing.its basic form and character to remain.
l�
EXHIBIT "A"
Sian Ordinance Amendment
Add the following underlined provisions to Section 15.40.030 B. of the sign regulations:
Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or
exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards
such as:
1. Non-conforming use.
2. Visual obstruction.
3. Unusual building location on-site,
4. A non-conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point whilc.
not disruptine views of prominent community landscape features.
When granting an exemption for a Icgally non-conforming sign. the architectural
review commission shall reouire that as many non-conforming elements of the sign be
eliminated while allowing its basic form and character to remain.
.-r
,J
1 I
C)_O
r&aL4-d r
RECEIVED
APR.25 IM
car d �i I
Cbmmw'a1' � .
I
c?'U
I
MEMO
MEMO
000 •The Alternative. ..
moon
{ *Denotes action by Vad Pereon
I Respond by: ?//.? Pj, August 16, 1988
ncil
S"• Le t. }v..�i�u�
CCityAtry.
J.P. Jones lark-0"9.
Rexall Drug Co. H Ae&
VC-A(0
&
717 Marsh St.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Dear Mr. Jones;
It would be such a loss to S L O to lose that distinguished sign on your
corner.
If it must be taken down, I would like to make a model of it to be put into
the SLO Historical Museum.
Sincerely,
Dr. Don Douglass
DD/dh
Encl:
RECEIVE ®
AUG 1 7 1988
CCTV CLERK
SMI LUIS OWSPO.CA .1
i
Thirteen Forty three Higuera St.- San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 a Phone 18051541-6068
j
r • . ..j1
co
1
` c m W
O m W z > q a 2
a m 3 m O U W Q - 4 w a
w F DO Q m w 2 Q a • a ►-!'N0 '. F — . .
F Q 3 J z 3 4 > a W F W m. O h m ,;`a 1w�r
• N ¢ J ❑ J a O F J Q O z I Y F I 2 Q -25 % •, y
❑ z J Q — • J CO JU z O h a 7 :3 O 2 U a.• "
J J m a Q - CO J 2 U m Q Q 0 W
W •— — w 'U O 0 4 - 4 W ❑ w 2 m F J z
• I
3: Ix L "2Fw0 1 w w :> a4a O
L W O f O W W N W m
Q ❑ - z O w O I - h I- 2 Q a.2 ,
O > O F U U m a I I I 4 Z - a g 3 f m o x •.• 3;L'y
L` W - a Z O h F 0 0 0 0 2 F -..O 4 a > F
a m z m - tl I- w . In , };
a - T'Z 'Q' 2 � 2 I m W J Z O w w z Fp
"� ❑ J W $ t-
o
O Q 2 a O F - U - h w w 1c,
> C F W W Z Z F - J a %
' I F • m z Q . • O m W k-' W > - 0 w M
CD L F U W F 2 2 W — - a F O a {Y 0) z Q I
O U F ❑ Z O Z - m m a 0 Q 2 w W F L
W m - - O Q - w 4 I I •w I t O O --?,
O F tr, m - F Q a U U F F m m > F O 1-
h -
J In Q F 0 W U z Q m a O m a I.• �•
I O F U 2 a a 0 0 0 CO I O Q a J m 0
W a W W — W Z — a a I m' W. M D a s
G O W tl: F W Q I I U O W Q Q !- w F F m I 0 0 W a
W ¢ a a F h a - S I a I J W F U S 2
W F W W 4 m h w a w h Q .tl m O m - "m
ld U m I w O F 0 O
(V I X h 2 F w W W Q m X z Z O.I ❑
F W S O p a I O 2 z w m a m Z t 'O m m •ry'
> co a. � m 14Fa • z - a � � > a t flue
a a� •:o. r.. ..• -2 2 F- '-a .m"� �- - ' O`2�:0 ,JiI g w
I O O Q 4 m O O U L Q Q W a — J > 4 h w J
4 a — Q O I W J ¢ a O J — > O a
W J F I m a O O Q O U lm W a w U L#
m h U w — z O —
F tJ ,L .- O m > m I z a a 0 a > O J w J 3 • ,��
L w r- a m O Q tl 0 > Q LJ - _ 2 0 F O W W to -
w 0. D a W a m — F a s m Q m 2 Z m — U i
V) •r O F 0 a w h - w Q W z m m Q > -
w a m O m I Q Z S J m - a O - W F
rc a O z h F D h 4 a J a a W A
u > a Z 0 W F U I O N O
G ti w - - O m a o - O F • W - Z U O
. •• F :. F 3 ❑ F F a o z F Z > " U 0 4m
Er c, c w w a Q W a Q a - m F m z a s a`w �• g
a w = c; - 4 J W tl F o
L Q Y a - F a
w - - c. _ > > J Z o w a Q 3 z - - . z m
• 0l •a C > _i O W Z a m — U 7 1- h - a 01❑ Q
a '7 W : > a — w Q J Q O F .> w Q 2 Q W { z
W T w a 7 F Q J Z. F - 5: C7 F W m W 4
J n C+ O • W m J U z a z w U m a z o >
I m z - O I 0;
6W Q
4 w rn 4 F O C7 > a _z a a > O O U W\ r•�: !7
Ci 2 c, I W a - F h W 4 a a a 0 CO a m r C F
m a w m > N - Y a ¢ o F - a s
j ❑ — (]. 2 J O d W 3 a O F - > a 0 4
U .�•'
- - - Q - w W 'J O O F a h 2 W w a
o ,:o 02411- 4 w z 2 m w w x 1
f- L., _ W h O m
cl a s c, I F z w z 'a h 2 tl a m a 5
T U J •• I- d a
Q F >. ;r; 4 > I I h O J • w Z
aJ
X > I- h F 4 m $ 0 2 I •s W
aI-
W
Q F F
> IJ
, L, h 2 m m > a W t C7 h 2 l) I > h Z — •1 ;_1
O 0: U a 2 w W W Z W — • — tl m fw �,- O m — 2 > m
> a- — - W O > a O I 4 Z.> • m O - fd W. Z W O O J
a O F (n w 7 W O - W 3 W F F m - a 3 w a w
2 O' O - f F W - O C a J F d a s � c cc 3 "%•
S - F W F J G. m J O J w F - o W O Q W "'ti - t.p'Y.".
a U CO w I W W Z F a 4 F ❑ J ' J w:- �` U
z 7 m U U > a a 4 a X — O Q w 6 > a 7 \ 2 •. ,1 '4rr1{{
W T O O O O p X ¢ — I D W O m 7 a U a w `O 4
n - c", t4 U > — w ¢ m F in a d ¢ O' Q m I a
IM W O"' E
W F
O Zco j
❑ m a
wt.
Z - U
4 a
w
z F C O-
z Q W U:
m
CL aIn
zm
o Z c9
a
m a O
a J
> z o g