Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1998, 2 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER, SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF SIGNS FOR THE ECONO LODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET (CITY FILE NO. ARC 14-98 counclt _ Z, _yg j agcnaa Report 'mmNwbw C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development DirectorOF5/,4T Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner . SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER, SIZE,HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF SIGNS FOR THE ECONO LODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET(CITY FILE NO. ARC 14-98) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal and upholding the action of the Architectural Review Commission,based on findings. DISCUSSION Situation The applicant is requesting approval of two (2) freestanding signs including an off-premise freestanding sign for the Econo Lodge motel. Sign exceptions are needed for the number, size, height and location of these signs. On March 16, 1998 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the applicant's request for exceptions to the sign regulations and denied the request based on the fact that they could find no special or unusual circumstances which would justify the granting of exceptions. On March 23, 1998 the applicant appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action. Data Summary Address: 950 Olive Street Applicant/Appellant: Rajni Desai Property owner. Same as above Zoning: Tourist Commercial(C-T) General Plan: Tourist Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Class 11, section 15311: construction or replacement of accessory structures,including on-premise signs. Project action deadline: April 28, 1998 Site DescriRttion The site is an L-shaped flat lot developed with a motel built in an"L" shape. The site is adjacent to the Olive Street freeway exit and entrance, one block from Santa Rosa Street. The motel is Council Agenda Report—Desai Appeal(ARC 14-98) Page 2 behind and next to The Heritage Inn. Other motels in the area include the Olive Tree Inn and the Coachman Inn. Existing Signage Signage for this motel project has been the subject of numerous enforcement and Council actions in years past. In 1987 the ARC approved their main identification sign, a monument sign (Sign #1) for the site. Most recently, in 1988 the applicant requested approval of sign exceptions to allow a second free-standing sign (a banner sign) to help identify the project to west-bound motorists on Olive Street and a roof-mounted sign (a banner sign) for freeway visibility. The request was denied by the ARC for reasons relating to sign clutter and compatibility with surrounding signage. The ARC action was appealed and the banner signs were approved by the City Council. To date the following signs have been approved for this property: Approved Signage Tyre Size Height Approval Body/Date 1. Freestanding(monu.) 36 s.f. 814" ARC-1987 2. Freestanding(banner)20 s.f. 12'-0" City Council-1988 3. Roof(banner) 20 s.f. n/a City Council-1988 4. Fence 17.5 s.f. n/a Planning staff-1996 5. Fence 17.5 s.f. n/a Planning staff-1996 Total= 5 signs 111 s.f. The two 17.5 s.f fence signs approved by Planning staff were approved in error. They should not have been allowed to exceed 16 square feet. Existing Signage Tvve Size Height 1. Freestanding (monument) 36 s.f. 8'-9" 2. Freestanding(banner) 20 s.f. 127-0" 4. Fence 17.5 s.f. n/a 5. Fence 17.5 s.f. n/a Total=4 signs 91 s.f. Approved Sign No. 3 is not in place at this time, nor is it in compliance with the current sign regulations adopted in July of last year. If it can be determined that the sign has not existed for a minimum of three months, the sign is no longer permitted and must receive City approvals in order to be replaced. Photographs of these signs are attached to this report and identified by the numbers above. Council Agenda Report—Desai Appeal(ARC 14-98) Page 3 Proposed Signage The City's sign regulations allow each business to have a maximum of four signs (one of which may be a freestanding sign) within a total of 200 square feet. The applicant currently has four signs (including two freestanding signs)within a total of 91 square feet. The applicant is requesting approval of two new freestanding signs. Sign A is a 70 s.f. sign that would replace the Council approved 20 s.f. freestanding banner sign and Sign B is a 72 s.f. sign that would be located off-site on the Heritage Inn property. Sign A requires an exception because it exceeds the City's Sign Ordinance regulations regarding number of freestanding signs and the height of the sign. Sign B requires an exception for the number of freestanding signs,the height of the pole and the sign's location off site. A comparison of what is allowed and what is proposed is detailed below. Signs Allowed/Proposed in the CT Zone Allowed Proposed No. of signs 4 5 No. of freestanding signs 1 3 Sign A height 16'-0" w/ARC apprvl. 20'-0" Sign A area 72 s.f. w/ARC apprvl. 70 s.f. Sign B height 16'-0" w/ARC apprvl. 9'-0" Sign B pole height 8 feet or higher 3 feet Pole Sign B area 72 s.f. w/ARC apprvl. 72 s.f. Total square footage 200 s.f. 233 s.f. Evaluation The City adopted a new set of sign regulations on July 3, 1997. The regulations identify the purpose of the sign regulations as well as the following criteria that the ARC shall apply when reviewing signs: A. The sign proposal together with already existing signs shall be consistent with the purpose of these regulations. B. The sign proposal shall not constitute needless redundancy or proliferation of signs. C. Signs shall not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing approved signs. D. To be clearly readable,the amount of information per sign should be limited. E. Signs shall be visually compatible and in scale with the architecture of affected buildings, existing approved signs, and the character of surrounding development. F. Signs shall primarily function to identify a business or tenant. Prices, phone numbers and detailed descriptions of merchandise and services should be avoided. G. In a multi-tenant commercial development, tenant signage should exhibit continuity in sign type,materials,location and size. .�23 Council Agenda Report—Desai Appeal(ARC 1498) Page 4 H. For internally illuminated signs, a dark background with lighter letters and graphics is generally preferable to the reverse. Raised lettering and graphics with halo or back lighting are also preferable to flat faced signs with a light background and dark copy. It was the ARC's opinion that the two proposed freestanding signs do not meet the above criteria. It is clear from statements made by the applicant at the ARC hearing that he is trying to gain exposure to motorists driving along Santa Rosa Street. The ARC felt there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the proposed exceptions to the Sign Regulations. The Commission felt that the additional advertising signage was not necessary, would result in sign clutter, and would set a precedent for similar requests from other motel businesses in the vicinity as well as citywide. CONCURRENCES Other Departments had no concerns with this request. FISCAL IMPACTS None ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and approving exceptions to the sign regulations to allow a total of three freestanding signs, including one off-premise sign. 2. Continue the matter with specific direction to staff and/or the applicant for additional information. Attached: Resolution denying the appeal Resolution upholding the appeal Vicinity map Draft meeting minutes from ARC meeting of March 16, 1998 Applicant's letter of appeal dated March 23, 1998 Project plans Photographs of the existing signage RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER, SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF SIGNS FOR THE ECONO LODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to the sign regulations to allow two additional freestanding signs for the Econo Lodge Motel at the above address; and WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its March 16, 1998 meeting and denied the exceptions based on the findings that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations;and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1998, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's request for exceptions to the sign regulations and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. There are no exceptional or unusual circumstances which apply to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity in the same zoning. 2. There are not special circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign Regulations regarding the number, size, height, and location of signs in the Tourist Commercial zone. 3. Granting an exception would constitute a special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 4. Granting an exception would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign regulations. -2 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 5. Signage in compliance with the adopted Sign Regulations can adequately identify this business in the Commercial Tourist zone. SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is hereby denied, and the action of the Architectural Review Commission is upheld. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Q�//4 40 q z 9�� rtli.J/gef C1 Attorney � -G RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER,SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF SIGNS FOR THE ECONO LODGE MOTEL AT 950 OLIVE STREET WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to the sign regulations to allow two additional freestanding signs for the Econo Lodge Motel at the above address; and WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request at its March 16, 1998 meeting and denied the exceptions based on the findings that there were no exceptional. circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1998, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider testimony of the appellant and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's request for exceptions to the sign regulations and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. There are exceptional or unusual circumstances which apply to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity in the same zoning. 2. There are special circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign Regulations regarding the number, size,height, and location of signs in the Tourist Commercial zone. 3. Granting an exception would not constitute a special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 4. Granting an exception would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign regulations. o2' Resolution.No. (1-998 Series) Page 2 = SECTION 2. ,Approval.. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action:is hereby upheld, and the request fo%exceptions to the sign regulations approved. Upon friction of __ _ —_ _; seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the.foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 199& Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED AS TOTORM Jeffrey G, Jorgensen, City.Attorney i v x�:• : / N Fir r O ` ,` , it o r � 'Q •�� ate, jib � A 11 -w�� y a r' .-, O Ft. O p • O ~2� O Fap'r A� C _ ,� � S O a,. i O - n d i � � tee, �' ^ `';'<+•' O coo O Oyw V♦� ` i^ o y$ N9 f° 5 O a6 Cts �� rrjt 0NTALB ° AN ST. O 95! E� Ja JPO •!+-t �S O � I '� ❑ OL ` i O O i p 13 a a _ 0,11 710 ♦ m ci m r ^ O rann. VICINITY MAP ARC 14-98 NORTH 950 Olive ARC Minutes March 16, 1998 /ea Pagel :i� Td. The ARC encourages retentiontrees in the fro setback.CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The applicant shall install City seway ramps across the frontage of the property in accordance with City st2. Traffic impact fees for the new strequired to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit 3. The applicant shall obtain an appter allocation through retrofitting. If a larger water meter is required or a s(e desired, water and wastewater impact fees will be charged and are required to a paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The cost of developing an allocation thr gh retrofit could offset a portion of required water impact fee. 4. The applicant will be quire to upgrade the nearest existing (older style) dry-barrel fire hydrant(K-16-11), to a newer wet-barrel type per SLO Engineering Standards. 5. New private (on- te) distribution mains will be required and shall be capable of supplying he required fire fl Private mains shall be lopped per NFPA 24. 6. The buil ' g shall be equipped with an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA- 13. 4. 950 Olive Street: ARC 14.98: Architectural review of a request for exceptions to the sign regulations regarding the number, size,height and location of signs in the C-T zone; Rajni Desai, applicant. Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending denial of the exceptions to the sign regulations,based on findings. Rajni Desai, applicant, explained that he requested the sign because he feels he needs visibility from the traffic on Santa Rosa Street. The city approved his existing 5' X 14' banner. He doesn't mind removing the fence signs if the two freestanding signs are approved. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Doshi, manager of the Homestead Motel, indicated he would like to add his sign to the proposed sign on the Heritage Inn property. ARC Minutes RaiMarch 16, 1998 Page 8 > �: The public hearing was closed. Commr. Parker stated that he doesn't like to grant exceptions to sign regulations.. He has a concern that the existing banner might not comply with the approval given by the City Council. Commr. Rawson agreed with staff recommendation because he doesn't have enough information to support the project. He thought the drawings submitted by the applicant could have been better. Commrs. Regier and Illingworth could not support the request. Commr. Stevenson was troubled by the idea of attracting people off Santa Rosa Street. He felt the applicant should consider a different approach to attracting customers. Commr. Regier had nothing to add. Commr. Illingworth moved to deny the requested exceptions to the sign regulations including number, size,height and location based on the following findings: 1. There are no exceptional or unusual circumstances which apply to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity in the same zoning. 2. There are not special circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign Regulations regarding the number, size,height, and location of signs in the Tourist Commercial zone. 3. Granting an exception would constitute a special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 4. Granting an exception would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign regulations. 5. Signage in compliance with the adopted Sign Regulations can adequately identify this business in the Commercial Tourist zone. The motion was seconded by Commr. Parker. AYES: Aiken,Illingworth,Loh,Parker,Rawson, Regier,and Stevenson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 846 Higruera Street: MOD 168-97• odification to the Architectural Review Commission's approval of building remodel to co ider awning fabric and storefront design; C-C-H zone; Bath and Body Works, applicant 0J/17/98 15:29 17805 7109 5L0 CITY HALL 10001/001 ai+{ 1►��1i4 Cl tofSAn ill S OBISPO y APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of PtRcAkt'C E cy rendered on 3 -k 6 -� which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) C�—1,�v t 5ZC 'P 2F "VZ Z SLG\� w Lm-* z-s 6 �N ��(1- tH��F 4�v� otio 43R�N�fZ ANO 'S LGN ��`h,c�a� ovcL��� S"KM C<T ' �'—LZS\N`'CRfl S�'G N ��fZ`'�4\G� \�N CZE gvFS ZEa R '(z-c ;Zeccx%nz' StG"Z-N QN--4 -S k% wl�-c tion. FcR ev� Ovs�t�Fss � The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: ' on 3 Name/Department (Date) Appellant: 1�r\ ��o CP 3Qcr ©l,\VF c'� cQN1WlS c�ISP v Name/-Fitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Representative: C3 w\m-el� Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: ',/ / , Calendared for �1//y/ Date &Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVED Copy to the following department(s): MAR 2 3 S.7t0 SLO Ci TY GC --RK d' w 1 - J � J (/' V L9 N ' l 99 j Jw / J L) vj �f Jac^' `V J J Q O eC W �L�E 13p,,zmc,- zl _ r S-o Ir A 0 rt `ice �\\mac r S� C-1 � N t�QeP,c»� 14��SPo `. e2/S `� 1 S1 �� � `J c ��o L�`t��- c 2--- o w��`z �' ��� � 1�1, O E 'cc���t� ��� I c�6�L-�� �� _ � �-'� � C � �� L�2`��-� 3�0 ,2-��o EXISTING SIGNAGE • Econolodge VACANCY R Econo La at - - 1:177 " a � i ,440111pm nur.r: o m" w• � .. NI �mos� ■�■ i i