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.