Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1988, 2 - APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A FREE-STANDING BANNER SIGN AND A ROOF-MOUNTED BANNER SIGN AT THE TRAVELODGE MOTEL, WESTERLY SIDE OF OLIVE STREET NOR�����►u�Ilul�ip°iq�l�ll city of San tins OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Data Summary Address: 950 Olive Street Applicant: Rajni Desai Representative: Zoning: C -T General Plan: Tourist Commercial Environmental Status: Categorically exempt Site Description The site consists of an "L" shaped lot of 0.48 acres bordered by a bed -and -breakfast inn (Heritage Inn) on the north, Olive Street on the east, Stenner Creek on the west and a 25 -unit motel (The Homestead) on the south. US Highway 101 is southeast of the subject property approximately 150 feet. The site is relatively flat nearest Olive street and slopes toward Stenner Creek at the rear of the site. Evaluation 1. Previous Review -- Signage for this 32 unit motel project has been the subject of numerous enforcement and commission actions over the past three years. At three previous ARC meetings (November 18, 1985, May 4 and May 18, 1987) the applicant requested approval of an exception to the sign regulations to allow a second free-standing sign to help identify the project to west -bound motorists on Olive Street. Each time the request was denied for reasons relating to sign clutter, potential nuisance problems from glare (previous sign proposals were taller and internally illuminated), and compatibility with surrounding signage. The Commission did state on one occasion that a free-standing sign could be supported if it was located along the project's Olive Street frontage and so long as it was shorter than the maximum height allowed (25 feet). The applicant pursued the Olive Street option for a free-standing sign when the motel name changed from the Holland Inn to Travelodge (see Existing Signage, below). A condition of approval for the monument sign was that all other signage on the site be removed. 2. Existing Signage -- Existing signage consists of one, 8 foot tall monument sign in the planter along Olive Street, approved by the ARC June 29, 1987. Previous signage consisted of a free-standing sign identifying the project under its former name (Holland Inn) and a wall sign, both of which have been removed. 3. Free-standing Banner Sign -- The proposed 20 square foot free-standing banner sign consists of the same colors and lettering style as that used in the. approved monument sign and is supported by metal pipe (see photos attached). Its location is depicted on the attached site plan; photographs of the sign will be available at the meeting. The sign satisfies the sign regulations with respect to size and height. The applicant contends that he is losing business to surrounding motels which is directly attributable to a lack of signage exposure, particularly to west -bound motorists on Olive Street headed for the freeway on-ramp (see statement, attached). Nevertheless, staff does not see any substantive difference between this request and those denied by the Architectural Review Commission at previous meetings except that the sign is more temporary in nature. Staff continues to feel that an additional free-standing sign visible from Olive Street is not warranted because: 2-2� 11 city of San tuis osispo iiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -- it would contribute to sign clutter in an area where the city is actively trying to abate several non -conforming signs. -- it would be generally incompatible with the existing signage and with the lower, streetside signage in the area. -- it would not be visible at all to vehicles passing in front of the motel itself. In this regard, the sign could actually be counterproductive to its intended use by confusing prospective guests. Olive street serves as the primary freeway on-ramp and off -ramp connector between the 101 freeway and State Highway 1 (Santa Rosa Street). There are very few streets in the city which are more heavily traveled by the visiting public. 4. Roof -Top Banner Sign -- This sign is identical to the other in size, colors and materials and is mounted on a wooden frame to the chimney above the roof line. The utility of this sign is somewhat questionable as well. The south -bound lanes of Highway 101 are approximately 200 feet distant and are at a lower grade than the motel. Vehicles passing by at 55-60 mph would have a brief glimpse of the sign between two tall, dense stands of trees along the northerly side of the freeway, as illustrated by the attached photographs. The banner sign, however, is less visible than the approved monument sign from the freeway vantage. This will be especially true at night when the monument sign is illuminated and the banner is not. For this reason, staff could not support an exception to allow a sign above the roof line nor an illuminated wall sign below the roof line. ALTERNATIVES Adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 granting exceptions to the sign regulations to allow the two banner signs with findings as recommended by staff. Draft Resolution No. 1 approves the banner signs as permanent sigange. As an altenative, the Council may wish to consider the banner signs to be temporary signs and approve them subject to a time limit, such as 60 days. This condition would be incorporated into the resolution. 2. Continue review of this item to a later date (no later than) to allow the subdivider to revise his plans. Staff asks the council to give specific direction to the subdivider and staff as to changes requested. 3. If the council cannot make the required findings to approve, the council must adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 denying the request. These alternative resolutions reflect council action to approve or deny both signs. The council may consider each sign separately which would require amended draft resolutions. �-3 ��►►nni�i►I�IIIII��JIn�������ll city of san tins mi spo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT RECOMNMNDATION Adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Architectural Review Commission. Attachments: draft resolutions No.'s 1 and 2 vicinity map excerpts from the sign regulations applicant's statement photocopies of photographs of the illegal banner signs available at the meeting: polaroids of banner signs 2-4 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 FREE-STANDING BANNER SIGN AND A ROOF -MOUNTED BANNER SIGN AT THE TRAVELODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a free-standing banner sign and a roof -mounted banner sign at the Travleodge Motel at the above address; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its July 18, 1988, meeting and denied the exceptions based on the finding that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 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 banner sign and the roof -mounted banner sign based on the findings that the site and/or exceptional design of the signs meets the intent of the regulations and is compatible with surrounding signs and development. 2-5 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 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A4ministrative Officer City torney /- Communit evelopment Director 2-(0 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 FREESTANDING BANNER SIGN AND A ROOF -MOUNTED BANNER SIGN AT THE TRAVELODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to allow a free-standing banner sign and roof -mounted banner sign at the Travelodge Motel at the above address; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its July 18, 1988, meeting and denied the exceptions based on the finding that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1988, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 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: There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign Regulations restricting the number of free-standing signs allowed in the Tourist Commercial zone. 2. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify an exception to the sign regulations which prohibit the placement of signs above the roofline. 3. The existing signage adequately identifies and advertises his business. 2-7 Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2 On motion of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by and on the following roll call vote: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: AdAiinistrative Officer City A Communilfy Development Director �� w� Y iy Y G � � 7, F , r ` �y • R i. f 4 `7 +ri`• L• FYY . r t ... !� :s�_: �7'•IV�� :�:y... "�v ~' ."`t i - (.is tA` . AA Vk dT y�ti.r.. -, _ '.F:•''1'�'�dF aC�• tee,•. ::,I CO_. a\1Ic / Ir O � Abjff 7. ,�., wri ?T,t' ' �-1. i•'4 otv �,y t r . F .:: a .:'>� - •.'4. .,t»'•1�y _ 01 jjjjj i a 7'}•v Via. t a1 � fi7 {.1,F � •' .i... r .. ; •g� .. .. ' t ° '- O �` f .a�+rYr, `' �'='ems, • • 4 �aiJ�ti �r4. 1 l�'s � �r��r, - Q �: t� .'�+ yi5c' l„• '� �1 ' ,• a +.. � ` � i4 ♦ �' •ywy . a.- � � . r ~ u�Fr �• .•T�+L� Y'- �. � }i•��f �••iry .tr Ak. •' j i'lfra4 -`lrf tI�•t� � ".�tZJ•'!._LF_'r �I.dy+a--v Y! =�'. � si� �t^L,. c) r r In. � � � �-..:;Tr'vY - £sr. �r }. •�,, t. t.. �jy . t• fit}; '�,• !' l�M,...4". •'•O_.. 'aw r wFSF 1� \� L ! f.;' �;F•+�s , r :- l•µl'i+i '•lC, .� f" l• ' Lt � �! / 1a \ a ��} ', � ccs vry vto V� t. ��-' J. \ •J'7_ t r � � � 4 . >l,y,4/ r, ^' - Il�,la J' lAZ.. aw �`rr r3�tn L aLw i. �h 15.40.080 Signs requiring approval of the architectural review commission. A. Unusual site conditions or other design factors may warrant types. heights and sizes of signs not otherwise permitted by these regula- tions. The following signs shall require approval of the architectural review commission: 1. Sighs consisting of or containing any mov- ing, rotating, flashing or otherwise animated light or component: 2. Roof signs which do not extend above the ighest point of the roof: 3. Any individual sign. or combination of all signs on any one property which exceeds the height or area limitations of the sign standards hereinafter prescribed for the zoning district in which the property is located: 4. Off -premises signs including billboards: 5. Any other visual device which does not. in the discretion of the community development director, comply with the purpose of this chapter or the intended interpretation of these standards. cB. Application to the architectural review ommission shall include reasons or exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards (e.g.. nonconforming use, visual obstruction, unusual building loca- tion on-site, etc.). The architectural review com- mission may approve, deny or modify an application. ( Prior code 3 9702.4) E. The following signs are permitted within the tourist commercial (C -T) zone district. Total area ofsigns shall not exceed two hundred square feet. for each business or tenant, including: 1. Same as subsection D of this section for all uses except those listed in subdivision 3 of this subsection: I. For motels. restaurants and service stations: a. Wall signs not to exceed seven percent of the building face. nor to be locatd above second story and each not to exceed one hundred square feet: b. One freestanding sign at each premises not 1 o exceed twenty-five feet in height or seventy- two square feet in area. This sign may be located within the required yard area on lots where build- ines existed on or before September I. 1980. are in the required yard area. 7-18-88 FROM RAJNI DESAI 950 OLIVE ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 TO A.R.C. 990 PALM ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 DEAR COMMISIONERS, I AM REQUESTING TO ALLOW OUR BANNER TO BE USED AS A WALL SIGN, SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A WALL, BEHIND THE HERITAGE INN. I CONSIDER THIS BANNER A WALL SIGN. I HAVE THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER MY REQUEST: THE OLIVE ST. SIGN ON SANTA ROSA HAS BEEN MISSING FOR A LONG TIME. IT CAN GET TO BE VERY HARD FOR OUR COSTOMERS TO FIND OUR MOTEL. SINCE WE PUT UP OUR BANNER OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE AN EASIER TIME FINDING US. ALL NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES HAVE EITHER ONE OR TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS AND WALL SIGNS. EVEN NEW PROJECTS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGN AND MANY BUSINESSES HAVE HAD BANNERS FOR A LONG TIME. SINCE OUR MOTEL IS BEHIND HERITAGE INN, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME TO DECIDE WHERE TO STAY BECAUSE THE FREEWAY ENTRACE IS ONLY 150 FEET FROM THE ENTRANCE OF OUR MOTEL. SO BY SEEING THE BANNER (SIGN) FROM SANTA ROSA ST. POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DECIDE WHERE TO STAY. I WILL APPRECIATE 1T IF YOU ALLOW ME TO KEEP MY BANNER OR INSTALL A SIGN BEHIND THE HERITAGE INN. YOURS SINCERELY, RAST l DESA I n w rieGirQf;`;IOiei wfit�, From ACIOSa ,�HighWa 101. Note Trdea and }Sle View Of Free -standing -.Banner Sign From Pa=king Lot Of. Heritag Ian.