HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1988, 1 - CONTINUATION OF REXALL DRUGSTORE SIGN APPEAL CONT RESOLUTION NO. (1988 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 AND DENYING THE
EXISTING WALL SIGN FOR CARPENTER'S REXALL AT 717 MARSH
STREET (SA-3850)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign and non-conforming wall mounted channel letter sign
for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review.Commission reviewed the request at its April 18,
1988, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the finding that there
were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations
and continued consideration of the wall-mounted sign to allow for possible redesign; and
and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1988, 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 and
takes an action to deny the freestanding and large wall signs subject to 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 freestanding rotating sign is a visual nuisance to the area and is out of scale
with other signs in the vicinity.
3. The larger wall sign is out of character and not compatible with other signs in the
area.
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 same
vicinity or in the Central Commercial (C-C) zone.
/-.3
C�
0
C
A p
A
O
A
O
l�J
ti
A
n
O
h
i�
1
AS
a
b
b
M
d
*,
A
a
a
0-]
O
r
E,
0
A
a
O
0
e
y
o
M
co
o
z
y
y
,
y
0
00
h
A
N
O
r
C
O
d
W
N
9
Le
N
N
A
a
w
D
a
.W
'd
O
9
A
d
S
r•
N
W
O
d
0
0
a
O
CI
13.
O
D
A
O
r
O
r.
D
00
r1 N
n
r O
A D
r a
<
A
-0 ;o
03 A
Cb
N C
0
z
O
r
�O
00
00
rA
A
h
N
v
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 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 AND REFERRING
THE WALL SIGN BACK TO THE ARC FOR FURTHER REVIEW FOR
CARPENTER'S REXALL AT 717 MARSH STREET (SA-3850)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign and non-conforming wall mounted channel letter sign
for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its April 18,
1988, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the finding that there
were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations
and continued consideration of the wall-mounted sign to allow for possible redesign; and
and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1988, 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 and
takes an action to refer the wall sign back to the Architectural Review Commission for
further review and to deny the freestanding subject to 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 freestanding rotating sign is a visual nuisance to the area and is out of scale
with other signs in the vicinity.
3. The current sign regulations do not limit the applicant's ability to adequately
identify or advertise his business equitably with other businesses in the same
vicinity or in the Central Commercial (C-C) zone.
—s
1
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
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.
1.988.
.. Mayor -- - - ---- - -- -
ATTEST:
City Clens - - -
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
�010i y Attorn -- - ---
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 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 AND CONTINUING
ACTION ON A NON-CONFORMING CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN FOR
CARPENTER'S REXALL AT 717 MARSH STREET (SA-3850)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign and non-conforming wall mounted channel letter sign
for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its April 18,
1988, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the finding that there
were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations
and continued consideration of the wall-mounted sign to allow for possible redesign; and
and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1988, 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 both the freestanding illuminated rotating pole sign and the wall mounted
channel letter sign based on the findings that the site and/or exceptional design of the
signs meet the intent of the regulations and are compatible with surrounding signs and
development.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
1 - 7
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Cittministrative Officer
\7
y Attorn
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 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 AND DENYING
THE NON-CONFORMING WALL MOUNTED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN FOR
CARPENTER'S REXALL AT 717 MARSH STREET (SA-3850)
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a non-conforming freestanding
illuminated and rotating pole sign and a non-conforming wall mounted channel letter sign
for Carpenter's Rexall at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its April 18,
1988, meeting and denied the exception for the pole sign based on the finding that there
were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations
and continued consideration of the wall-mounted sign to allow for possible redesign; and
and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1988, 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 findings that the
site and/or exceptional design of the signs meet the intent of the regulations and are
compatible with surrounding signs and development, but denies the wall-mounted channel
letter sign based on the finding that the larger wall sign is out of character and not
compatible with other signs in the area.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
�- 9
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
=A -
ty
Officer
6d
Community Development Director
11
cityo san l�u�s oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of ARC SA3850 Carpenter's Rexall Drug rendered
on April 18,1988 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) : ARC denied the Rexall freestanding
rotating pole sign and continued the hearing on their wall sign. 7hey
rejected requests for a variance and completely disregarded the fact that
these signs were originally installed under a contract with the City of
San Luis Obispo. All permits and conditions of this contract were obtained
and honored by Carpenter's Rexall Drug.
It is a sad state of affairs when a City Administrationwill 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 • :.:i
Rexall Drug to retain their present signing. We intend to present
additional facts at the time of our hearing, since time is of the essence
in getting this appeal on file.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Ken Bruce on 4-15-1988
Appellant:
RECEIVED Carpenter's Rexall Drug
Name/Titl
APR 2 6 199
James P. Jones
w sow Aw
siw cA Representative
717 Marsh Street, S.L.O. 93401
Address
( 805) 543-7874
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calefsdarld for: �' Copy to City Administrative Officer
Co y to the following department(s):
City Clerk
Draft ARC Minutes
April 18, 1988
D. SA-3850: 717 Marsh Street; request for exceptions to the Sign Regulations to allow a
bigger wall sign and a freestanding rotating pole sign at Carpenter's Rcxall Drug
Store; C-C zone.
Judith Lautner, Associate Planncr, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the
signing request based on findings listed in the staff report.
James P. Jones of Rexall Drugs responded to the staff report and submitted a copy of a
newspaper article regarding increased tourism in the county. He reit that the sign
regulations restricted the free enterprise system causing prices to rise. He indicated
that he needed identification for his business in an area that was visible to the
public. He also said that the signs were well-maintained.
Commr. Morris felt the applicant had made a good presentation and noted that signage was
a form of advertising. However, he indicated that he saw more of the Rcxall logo on
mailouts he has received than at the site. He noted it was city policy to do away with
all pole signs downtown. While he felt the existing sign was unique and he liked it, he
did not feel it was appropriate in the downtown arca. He also felt redesign was needed
for the existing wall sign.
Commr. Bradford felt the sign was a landmark in that it was easily visible from the
business district, but had no historical significance. She also felt the pole sign was
too high, but had no strong feelings about the wall sign.
Commr. Gates agreed with Commr. Bradford's comments. She felt it was better to update
the business' image by modifying the wall sign.
Commr. Starr felt the sign amortization program applied to this sign.
Commr. Jones felt the sign did not evoke the current image of the downtown, but had no
adverse feeling about the sign.
Commr. Cooper noted the intent of the sign regulations requirements for the downtown was
to keep signs at a pedestrian level. He felt the sign was too cyccatching and would
prevent views of trees in this arca.
Commr. Morris moved to deny the freestanding pole sign subject to the finding that there
arc no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign Regulations
limiting size and type in the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Morris, Bradford, Jones, Gates, Starr, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Baur
The motion passes.
Commr. Morris moved to continue consideration of thc..cxistipg .wall sign.
Comms. Gates seconded the motion.
AYES: Morris, Gates; Bradford,_ Joncs; Starr, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Baur
The motion passcs.
city o� san Luis ogispo DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
FOR Architectural Review-Commission MEETING DATE April 18, 1988
BY Gary rice, Associate Planner ITEM NO, D
J
PROJECT ADDRESS 717 Marsh Street FILE NO, SA-3850
SUBJECT: Exceptions to sign regulations for-the non-compliance signage for Carpenter's
Rexall Drug Store
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Denial
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant is requesting approval to allow all existing non-compliance signs at
Carpenter's Rexall. ARC approval is required to allow deviations from the city's sign
regulations as follows:
Proposed Allowed
Sign No. I Freestanding, illuminated Freestanding signs not
pole-mounted rotating 210 sq. ft. permitted.
area identification sign, 30 ft.
in height.
Sign No. 2 Wall mounted channel letter 222 Maximum 150 sq. ft. each sign,
sq. ft. sign, 12 ft. in height not to exceed 15 percent of the
encompassing 14 percent of the building face, and not to be
building wall. located above the second story.
Combined Two wall signs, and one pole sign Maximum of four signs not to
for a total combined sign area of exceed 200 sq. ft. combined
467 sq. ft. signage.
Data Summary
Address: 717 Marsh Street
Applicant: James P. Jones, Carpenter's Rexall
Zoning: C-C
General Plan: Retail-Commercial
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
J - ly
.1).11ll
Page 2
Staff Report
Site Description
The 25,970 sq-ft (.60 acre) site, located at the southeast corner of Marsh and Broad
Streets, 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. The wall sign is located on the southwest wall of the concrete block Rexall
building. The only conforming sign is located over the building entry, facing toward the
street. 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.
Conforming signage in the vicinity includes an assortment of awning and painted wall
signs with some channel letter can signs in the nearby shopping center.
Evaluation
1. Sinn Amortization
The city adopted an amended set of sign regulations in July of 1980 intended to make San
Luis Obispo a better place to live. The new standards set an abatement program into
effect which identified non-conforming signs throughout the city. The new regulations
amortized these signs, including Rexall's signage, requiring them to be brought into
compliance over a period of time. This period assured that the signs realized their full
value prior to their removal. The Rexall sign amortization period expired in September
1987. The applicant submitted for the sign exception request on March 29, 1988. A history
of Rexall's sign amortization period is attached for reference.
2. Freestanding Revolving Sian
The Rexall pole sign is one of the last remaining animated revolving sign in the city. It
is staff's opinion that the sign is out of character with the neighborhood and clashes
with development and other signage in the area. The site, located on the corner of a
major intersection, is highly visible and therefore there are no special circumstances
which warrant exceptions to the sign regulations. Staff also suggests that the removal of
the sign would eliminate a visual nuisance in the community. Also, the sign does not
achieve a central goal of the Central Commercial zoning district which encourages
pedestrian oriented features and signs.
3. Wall Sign
The wall sign, by itself, is 48 percent greater in size than that allowed by the sign
regulations. This takes into account the existing conforming wall sign. The channel
letter wall sign, incorporated into the massive wall siding accented with orange and blue
roof line stripes, gives the building a billboard sign effect. Staff feels that this sign
is larger than is needed to identify Rexall at this location. Staff also believes that
the sign is not conducive to the pedestrian orientation focus on the downtown. Previous
ARC review was conducted on the sign (refer to attached outline).
I- /S'
Page 3
Staff Report
4. Combined Si¢naee
In a broader context, the overall sign package proposes 234 percent in excess sign area
than permitted by the sign regulation. Complying with current sign regulations, and given
the large amount of wall area visible along Marsh and Broad Streets, the applicant has
ample opportunity to advertise his business. The highly visible location could actually
be considered more advantageous than other businesses in the area. It is staff's opinion
that a sign program could be design for the business, within the boundaries of the sign
regulations. which would more than adequately identify and advertise Carpenter's Rexall.
The logical conclusion would be to have the project comply with current sign regulation
by removing all existing non-compliance signs on the site.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, continue, or deny the freestanding
and/or wall signs. Any approval or denial should include appropriate findings.
Special findings must be made to approve either, or both signs, since they require
exceptions to the Sign Regulations. For example, these might include findings that the
site and/or exceptional design of the sign(s) meets the intent of the regulations and is
compatible with surrounding sings and development.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the freestanding and large wall signs subject to the following findings:
I. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to Sign
Regulations limiting size and type in the Central Commercial (C-C) zone.
2. The freestanding rotating sign is a visual nuisance to the area and is out of
scale with other signs in the vicinity.
3. The larger wall sign is out of character and not compatible with other signs in
the area.
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 same
vicinity or in the Central Commercial (C-C) zone.
Attachments: vicinity map
Sign location plan
Photos of signs
Sign amortization outline for 717 Marsh Street
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
regulations and that the two signs are
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.
gpa2SA-3850 l — 1
�4�► VICINITY MAP SA 3850
sH
Ire! t �`� '� • A �+��N��•�7.��• i� ✓ f _
O' S • ai .�� to /,�� , e �y*rf�' .�, 'z„ e
. �,• + I � �O r A 4•••• Cm l s
ti+s .. ••e !V/
ti*,s4� i 1 f i♦ + � c�• 4�,L,1'!�•" ••••� ` • •i/'�?.rfGrst, 4 �i»
a t ti +14� +� ••• :�i
• 'Fs'
�'+ •, � ♦tic w
slow
1
AIF
•",% AD
...
GSep °y" A`' Wyk
o
Of
ol
ow
•• �.••. �•i.I' ,ter df� 4�.'� /'�/ J'1 ,� ,' a d
�4 a'r •••• • S i� �� �p-s t�i�+�O � �-ii d �ti
e s+� • ♦ d
'r♦ �� ,,•••• n1 •yF • ♦e�?.�•.�
or '! i• +♦ O TCO OJ�
i t°A•X.•+• ���t : sir. • • �L� o �� s ✓ y O '?
OV I
Olt
a lop)
�' 4 • ; Aft
Co tr
010 00
t 'rr. P.• �• Iia" �� '.. Off$ �
0 r�' d�i1,
°ate O J O .
• o`O 1I*� s y�
0
• R=2 -� ,- oma•
- H o o
F I '� .'iii Jj� n /.• �'r, � $s
re O �p
o
�� Nr
J I
s
. s
�o
T
s °
j
SIGN �-ocATioA) � 1- AAl
I EMT_ER $ �, i:, r
_
CARPEL
\I PAB611C
�6 C
J ' c; ^
City of ,.Xi 'pis oBispo
:. :
mhz
. SIGN
PERMIT APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a 990 PALM ST./P.O. BOX 8100, SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93403.8100 a (805) 548.7171
Please fill In the unshaded areae where appropriate,as fully as you can.Use Ins and prim clearly.Attach■site plan and a scale dravrinq or photograph of your
sign.we have a pamphlet that tells what needs to be Included in tin site plan and scale drawing.The pamphlet also tots under what ekelmtatances a sign must be
reviewed by the city's Architectural Review Commission(ARC}Copies of the complete Sign Regulations also are nNlable.
What is the name of the business {-r C• `r' 1� X k l Value of sign: t
which the sign Mentifies? 1
At what address is .f p miser tell•
this sign located? 7 I l y �'�" y �5 ��"c 'C promises sign?
If this is an onf•premises sign,what is the If give
conal to'sor license
sign,
address of the business the sign identifies) give eontreeta's I cense number
Who should we contact if we he
veII
67
Questions about this application? Z Zvi E"� 71.— n c .
Address of person to contact =-r-
1 Where should we send
the approved permits?Name Q
Address
If theres anything else we should know about your sign-something that's NOT shown on the site plan and sale drawing-use this space to explain.If you are
asking for an exception to the Sign Regul ons,give your reasons here. /
A, -a
APPLICANT:I understand the city might not approve what I'm applying for, PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: The applicant has my
or set conditions tell 1. per n to put up a sign
mili r to the one proposed.
Sin re Date Sig ure 1.
Date
NO E:Be sure to obtain the signatures of both the applicant and the property owner If you are the applicant and own the property.sign twice,once on each blank
line designated for signatures.
OFFICE USE ONLY zoos i+
Signa-l— ALLOWED PROPOSED Com: 2Q7ta-II
Setback _2 1 REVIEW AND FEES REQUIRED:
Sign Type �fEE�tR 0.t i YLW Materials: M� r ca-bi WC-t W• 010 Rice ❑Sign Permit Required
/ Sign APp.Fee S
Haight ± 0 Cal ors,t clk j) e ❑Approved ❑ Denied Date
Area of Sign &p'XOther Features:
1 %CJ r7AT1 Yl Q ❑ Banner Installation Fee t
)L
❑ Bldg.Approval Req'd
Sign a� opy ALLOWED PROPOSED C �O y no 1 Q r s [ZQA 0.1) b YVQ t_ 1310q permit Fail S
V Bldg.Inspection Fee s
Setback
❑Approved ❑Denied Date
Sign Type WOI-i) Materlsla ARC Approval Required.
Height Cnlora• aive, an ra nqq Q ARC lee f��`. 'w-
Area of Sign Other Features: [3
Declared minor 8 Incidental
❑Approved ❑ Denied Date
Signa_ ALLOWED PROPOSED Copy:
❑Use Permit Required.
Setback Use permit Fee t
Sign Type ❑Approved [3 Denied Date
Materials:
Tom Iris Total Area
Height Total
of All Signs of All Signs
Area of Sign _ _Other Features: Allowed Proposed
Community Development Dept.
Penult Approved: Date
SlOnsbua
❑With conditions
�- OFFICE USE ONLY
While—File •elle+ —Applicant ��
15.40.170-15.40.200
Article V.Nonconforming Signs V Twin the Origins! Amordadon Period
Value of Sign is: (in rears)
15.40.170 Existing nonconforming signs— Las than$500 Two -
Abatement. $500 to 5999 Three
S "9 Five
Signs which existed as nonconforming signs S1.00000 to SS 999 Eight
under the provisions of Ordinance No. 379, More than 56,000 Ten
adopted August 7, 1967,and which do not com-
ply with the provisions of this chapter, shall be B. The time periods in the schedule set out in
abated according to the schedule for such signs subsection A of this section shall commence Sep-
established in said ordinance, and the adoption tember 3, 1977.
of this chapter shall in no way extend such origi- C. If a sign becomes nonconforming due to
nal abatement period.(Prior code§9705.1) the amendment of these regulations. the period
for abatement shall be measured from the effec-
15.40.180 Abatement or conformance tive date of the amendment.
required when. D. If more than one sign on a premises is or
Signs which do not conform to the provisions becomes nonconforming, the original cost of all
of this chapter, but which lawfully existed and such nonconforming signs shall be aggregated for
were maintained prior to the effective date of the the purpose of determining the amortization
ordinance codified herein, shall be removed or period.
made to conform within sixty days after written E. The owner or user ofa nonconforming sign
notice by the department of community devel- shall. upon written request of the department of
opment. when: community development, furnish acceptable
A. The use of the premises changes and the proof of the initial cost in the form of
exterior of the building or other site conditions 1. An original bill of sale:
are to be altered:or 2. A description schedule from state or federal
B. A sign is damaged by any cause resulting in income tax returns:or
replacement or repair cost equal to or greater 3. A written appraisal by a sign manufacturer.
than one-half of its replacement value at the time (Prior code§ 9705.3)
the damage akcurs:or
C. In accordance with the amortization 15.40.200 Notification of owners.
schedule outlined in Section 15.40.190. (Prior A. The community development department
code§9705.2) shall give written notice to the owners of the signs
which do not conform to the provisions of Ordi-
15.40.190 Amortization. nance No. 379,adopted August 7. 1967, inform-
A. Signs which do not conform to the provi- ing them of the nature of the nonconformity and
sions of these regulations but which lawfully of the city's intent to enforce Section 15.40.170 of
existed and were maintained prior to September these regulations.
1. 1980, shall be removed or made to conform B. The community development department
within sixty-days written notice by the depart- shall give written notice to owners of signs which
ment of community development. in accord- do not conform to the provisions of these regula-
ance with the following schedule: tions informing them of the nature of the non-
conformity, their responsibilities under
subsection E of Section 15.10.200 and of the
city's intent to enforce Section 15.40.200 of these
regulations. (Prior code 3 9705.4)
365 'San Luo Obiw)14-1
.•;?i'n :.iL',.1�/ tif!i. \i' h.i.'ea�:t.•,•.. , i='�'':p— ''yC•roi�?rc .:.5_•�-'.ut. �x
/� •,ti V.\ G ?•'i' �.'.. �, yT.�. -»._ i. ••T;< . • ,. ..`.Y ,•'f• ,�;' F.. .iS.��e4E" :�,/!'.tr :•F"•,on' lrC::.^
- 'b:. Ly�,i���Jp,,t'..7 z .�; a. k.�.e../. 'M J. i4. ./i ��. U y .�.i - 'y''.•::. 4.i. .'�. ei,.. 4.
( p'1 Tho 'pinnnin' C�oamir
! v- Y ..� '.):: � l� '.fir:• �` ...,FSAO' of �
_� , . f �
sr,ffi� �s000esa.Dz+rsams � :
WIMREAS,8D3Rt1. Vis' ,.' -':: fias`'siyAl ler :for':..
>a..Use. Permit in aceo ants t on:: ; o t .e;.plov•sions of Chapter 2
ti.
of Article Il; of the Municipal' Code;.."f-th0 City of San-"Luf.`i Obispo; and
WHEREAS, said applieatit hlis.submitted:certain information to the
attention of the said Planning ComaDfssion in support of this application; and.:, V`¢'
WHEREAS, the said Planning Commission finds that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the use or buildiny applied for will not, under the
circumstances of that narticui:.r case, be detrimental to the health, safety, pence,
morals, comfort and general we.fare of persons residing or workinp, in the neighbor-
hood of such proposed use or be detrimental to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City;
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning rorimlissi7n of the
City of San Luis Obispo does hereby grant the foliowinp Use Permit, a7:biect to
the conditions listed below:
• r
Carpenter's Recall Drwq TIT ft•+ C-7l sone.
Shweby, slsaesea MW 00 lice-staid us ala at the above addreaa, subject to
the tollovias eonditioast
1. The zJV sbaU be nonwMabiag and con-rotAIM
2. ?he @360 ,hall be erected in accordance With the plot
plan submitted.
The P•r.2!itinR rid this USC• nrrmit dit c!e
from r..ompl yi nv with any Pro-.!'s ion f747 tht- •'::1:ic:na1 Co!1 c. or 5 or
policies adopted by thSS City an(: ,.nv lorJitions arrli4C: r(r ch'i.; (-Te Perm;? 11L1_^.t
be met at all time's itarcd ir, i:i•: r golution or' 1(T,%„J::1 1 / y. ^'?tlnn of
such conditions or terms of this r.2r-mir or, any law or ordincn::Ct 1J1I : %,C •_au3C to
revoke the Use Permit .
Reyl:l;irly Passed :end ad„�:e.; "6, ,; :i,� Cr7mmfs• _ .:f :F.: - .;T
S
Obispu on the Aft day of Jdl , 1963 by the f0?owir7.r, vote :
AYES: Caemiia@ionere Abisia, 82alte, 8rcev0, Sehvarta
NDES- Commtesionere lelitiaao and Leaser
ABSENT: Co®isaima Johasva '
-- ATTEST: S/
a •: ..:. ;� -:: eter Chapman, Plapninp Dirpqitor y'
,` '. n ': ; a.t ”' `•a.-iii:'::
.tri•' `,�.�i� .' . ,. :\.
Ile � : '!L WSJ,►p 5:..
Ir
Ilk
'e •', .-'f?.F�`A� .c J .Y ?,
.: - `"�<-�.�'��• a _, -:^n'. .ter
l-a3
I
I t
cri
cmCD
CJ I ef► �' i i 1 11 u m ; :i;
�I H 1 1 � 'C J' •Cp � '`�'3� 1 1
� �
Q Y
• 1 r Y m {�
— 1 1
@g Y�
60 C®®•mo o
Q NM I I 3' Y G c
v8 z 1 �49a,2c
--
e I I
COS c
y L N yjy yto
1 Q= Nm y Q 1
I � � Y y Y O.6j W 1 Y•�•_ � 1 I
rt �a Z o O C� < mess cc� Y '
a $.0.0 a WOrs
M ° COm m = E
I I I I I I I S 7 „ ..� i1 ,
V', m I I I I I 1 I .O.M O O z%.jj 1
,
u
t4 I I I 1 I 1 =
_ 'Z W m 1
cr. I 1 1 1 1 I O O Y C ,,�`, m 0 0 O
O I I I I I I Grp r m y „y
E-4 lu
UO 0-0
0
No
Y Y
I = Y�5';.2
I y y O 1—C) y
O r d o4" .S O DD OO I — 1Oq CW 'r
W N O 4 y y y y r m w X00 .. ry r
�� _ °W3 °
z
.4 ca rno 0
z I I OBD L 'C
i H I I I I ' I r • O S .Y. Y im Q 3
ei I 1 I y 'fl s@ O p rj G 06 Y
mo or M
CO � I C. y Q' O�_., m gyp."o 1
Z
e c E C E p> a e = Y a.5
>
•�� Q0 C H d ren Y '� mrJ °•
CID 3 > 20
I I I I
G O y I I I I I I I p'II.Op 2 '
z I 'cm �
ago c d ' j 1 i 5
may+ 1 1 I I Y 00 Z Z I 1 W M01
C E
o a o I I ,Z• r
rA
O O I I I I I I b
8to
m �' m
�
V 1 but
_ y
i
RECEIVED
APR 2 51988
C,"Go SM Lums Obw
CIOIOU
<iDX4.0v CO—
are
Olt
�-as
Mr. Mayor and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council. �7
First, I would like to thank all the City personal, especially Ken
Bruce, Gary Price and Roger Picquet, for their help and cooperation.
They all nice helpful people.
There are several cases, however, where the City Staff report has
misrepresented the facts as they apply to the Carpenter's Resall
signs.
1. The Rexall store area is zoned C-C and there is no reference
to a C-C zone in the sign ordinance.
2. The freestanding sign should be figuered at 100 sq.ft., not
210 sq.ft. . See section 15.40.040 of sign regulations.
3. The so called wall mount channel letrer sign is not 222 sq.ft .
According to section 15.40.150, " Carpenter's " can be figuered as'.one
sign and " Rexall Drhgs " as the second sign for this buildingjace.
This would be a total of 114.67 sq.ft. . We are asking or a variance-
of- only 14.67 sq.ft. .
4. Rexall!s second building face sign, which is considered
legal, is 60 sq.ft. . Our total ( 60 - 114.67 - 100 ) adds up to a
total of 274.67 sq.ft. not the 467 sq.ft. in staff report .
5. The corner of Marsh and Broard is not pedestrian oriented.
It is one of the highest auto traffic corners in S.L.O. . We certainly
do not have window shoppers like Higuera street.
6. Staff refers to our wall sign as a billboard sign. Section
15.40.040 states " Billboard .t means a sign structure which is made
available for lease or-rent. This is a blatant attempt by staff to
create an adverse emotional reaction to Carpenter's Rexall signs.
7. Staff reports our :overall sign package is 23414 in excess of
that permitted. We are permitted a total of 200 sq.ft . according to-
section 15.40.150. We are over by 74.67 sq.ft., which is only 24.897
in excess.
8. Staff says The Rexall Store signs are a visual nuisance. I
have several thousand signatures on a petition that says otherwise.
This is. another attempt by staff to create an adverse emotional reaction
to our sign.
9. Staff:-report refers to our original use permit of 1963, but
they do not indicate that Rexall went before the City Council and
recieved a variance for a rotating sign provided a shutoff switch was
installed on the sign structure, to provide protection for utility
people working on nearby electrical wires, also that the rate of rotation
be slowed to the present speed. This is another example of staff bias.
10. A.R .C . Commr. Cooper at the hearing on April 18,1988, said he
felt our freestanding sign would prevent views of trees in this area.
Quite the contrary, look at the pictures in this folder. The trees nearly
hide the sign at one and two blocks away.
11. The staff has presented the Council with four alternative
options of action. The Council really has unlimitted alternatives of
actions, since there is no C-C Zone indicated in the Sign Regulations.
The options of actions suggexted by staff do not address our request
that the freestanding sign be designated a " Landmark Sign". The A.R .C.
designated the Foster Freeze sign a Landmark Sign in 1983. The Carpenter's
s gn is much more of a Landmark. Carpenter's Rexall is presenting
several thousand signatures on a petition to this effect. The simplest
solution is to declare the Rexall sign a " Landmark ", thus removing it
from the jurisdiction of the Sign ordinance.
Page 1 of 2
12. Carpenter's Rexall also has several options of action if
our appeal is not adjudicated in favor of Carpenter's Rexall. We
discussed some of these with the City Attorney.
13. The Rexall freestanding sign would cost about $ 25,000.00
today and the wall sign about $2,000.00. The Staff attitude it
"tough" its not their money.
14. The A.R.C. are all very nice , helpful, accommxdatipg,°:and
interesting people. one of them even stated at our May 18,1988 hearing,
that they probably should not be reviewing all these sign problems.
None of the committee have a business sign or their own. I asked one
of them why? He said then he would have to get a permit. Perhaps
there should be a seperate sign committee with a varied assortment
of business people.
Now, a short history of the Sign ordinance. A sign ordinance was
adopted by the S.L.O. City in 1967 with restrictions as we have today.
This restrictive ordinance was repealed by a vote of the people by
way of the referendum process. Two of the main objections that resulted
in the repeal, were the sections that provided for the removal of the
barber pole signs and signs declared non-conforming even though they
were installed with all required permits. A new sign ordinance committee
was appointed consisting,-.of several business people, several other
interested citizens and City staff. ( James P. Jones is probably the
only business man on the committee that is still in active business)
The committee, over several months, drew up a new sign ordinance which
was adopted. About 90 percent of the repealed ordinance was retained.
The primary change was that the City should honor permits and contracts
of previous administrations and signs installed with proper permits and
maintainance should remain for the life of the business involved. The
City enacted more restrictive conditions in 1977 and 1980 so that the
ordinance is back like it was before the referendum. The City seems
to have forgotten the message as expressed by a majority of the voters
iri .the referendum of 1967 .
Carpenter's signs and store doesn't compare in national renown to the
Madonna Innand its sign , however, Carpenter's Rexall store and its
signs are considered Statewide as a show place in the Drug, Profession.
It is tthe Drug Store to see! Fr. A.C . Nielsen President of the nationally
known survey company sent one of his Vice Presidents out to see our store
in 1985, to interview us, because our store was one of only eight
independent drur; stores in the nation that had a consistant yearly
increase in business over the previous ten years. The B 6 E Sales Corp.
of Detroit works with a nation wide network of 2000 drug, stores on
promotional sales wanted to know where was S.L.O. and who was Carpenter' s
Rexall Drug. We were their third largest account. Carpenter's Rexall
Drup, didn't achieve these positions with mediocre signs and business
proceedures. The dominance of murisim as S.L.O. Co. leading industry,
as noted in the Telegram Tribune April 14, 1988 front page, increases the
importance of our signs to our business. Statistics indicate that in the
retail service type of business we are in, a third of all cusomers are
new each year. With Cal Poly here we may have a greater turnover than
the national average. Rexall Signs like ours are landmarks in most small
to medium sized towns of the U.S.A. Our Rexall identification is extremely
important to our survival . '
Page 2 of 2
L�
San Luis Obispo A.A,C. committee April 18,1988
Carpenter's Rexall Drug respectfully reghests a variance in regards to the
conformity of. their signs as per current city sign regulations.
Our signs were designed for Carpenter's and- the Rexall Drug Co. by one of
the leading U.S. sign architects employed by the Rexall Drug, Co. They were
installed by the Maino Construction Co. of S.L.O. and all proper permits were
first had and obtained. They were also considered proper and legal under the
sign ordinance ob 1967, which was the basis of the present ordinance. James P .
Jones, co-owner of Carpenter's Rexall Drug, was one of the 1967 sign ordinance
committee. Our wall sign was considered legal because of the conditions
imposed by the texture of wall face.
Our Rexall free standing sign was legal as our second face sign when considered
under section 15.40.150.43 as a off premises sign. Section 15.40.040.1
considers •"total area of signs on a site is the greatest area of sign faces
which are visible from any one point': Our Rexall cornor sign is approx. 16 ft .
by 6 ft. which equals 96 sq. ft. or slightly less than the allocated 100 sq. ft.
for our second face size.
This Sign may also qualify as a historical or landmark sign. lie wish to also
have this sign declarod ailandmark sign. The Rexall Drug name is a lnn(imark
in almost all small to medium size towns acrost the United States. This is why
our signs are so gmportant to our business and to our customers and prospective
customers. The retail business statistics indicate that one-third of all customers
are new d each year. San Luis Obispo may have a greater turn over, because of
the large student population.
There is hardly a day goes by at Carpenter's Rexall Drug that we do not have people
asking how to find a business location that has inadequate signs. Our town has
a large tourist base , another factor requiring easy to see and read signs.
Sincerely Yours,
ames P. Jones,
Senior Partner
Carpehter's Rexall Drug
717 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401