HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8088 (John Irish Automobile Dealership Signs)RESOLUTION NO. 8088
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
REQUIRING ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE NUMBER OF
FREESTANDING PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
AND SIGN SIZE FOR THE JOHN IRISH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP
AT 475 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST
(SR89-19)
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1989, an application for sign
review was submitted to the City; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that the requested signing
was not permissible under the Zoning Ordinance of the City,
unless sign adjustments were granted by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 1989, the Planning Commission
reviewed the application and accepted a staff report and testimony
from the applicant pertaining to the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not find that
requisite conditions needed to approve sign adjustments, as
contained within Zoning Ordinance Sections 14.12.020A and 14.12.060B,
were present, and therefore denied the subject application
without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 1989, the Planning Commission
also directed staff to prepare a specific amendment to the
City's Zoning Ordinance eliminating restrictions on the content
of an otherwise permissible secondary freestanding sign and
eliminating the need for an adjustment to allow an additional
freestanding primary identification sign as requested by the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the action of the Commission to deny the
application without prejudice was appealed by the applicant
on September 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1989, the Planning Commission
acted to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, said amendment
affecting Chart 1 of Section 14.12.02A thereof so as to eliminate
restrictions on the content of secondary freestanding signs
for certain auto dealerships; and
-1-
ORIGiNAL �0 72(
RESOLUTION NO. 8088
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1989, the City Council acted
to adopt the aforementioned Zoning Ordinance amendment recommended
by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1989, the City Council heard
the appellant's appeal and continued its discussion of the
subject appeal, directing the appellant to prepare an application
for signing more closely meeting the restrictions to be applied
upon final adoption of the aforementioned Zoning Ordinance
amendment; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 1989, the applicant submitted
a revised sign proposal to the Planning Department which required
adjustments for sign size, total sign area and number of primary
freestanding identification signs under the current Ordinance
and would continue to require an adjustment for total sign
area and sign size under the Ordinance in its amended form;
and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1989, the City Council amended
Chart 1 of Section 14.12.02A of the Zoning Ordinance, thereby
eliminating the need to consider an adjustment for a second
primary identification freestanding sign as applied for by
the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the proposal submitted
by the appellant which required an adjustment to allow a total
of 213.85 square feet of signing on the subject site where
only 200 square feet would otherwise be permissible, and an
adjustment to allow a 72 square foot, 21 foot high sign where
a 36 square foot, 14 foot high sign was permissible; and
WHEREAS, Section 14.12.060A2 provides for such adjustments
where necessary:
(1) to overcome a disadvantage because of an exceptional
setback between the street and the sign or orientation
of the sign location;
(2) to achieve an effect which is essentially architectural,
sculptural, or graphic art;
(3) to permit more sign area in a single sign than is
allowed, but less than a total sign allowed at the
site, where a more orderly and concise pattern of
s=
RESOLUTION NO. 8088
signing will result;
(4) to allow a sign to be in proper scale with its building
or use;
(5) to allow a sign compatible with other conforming
signs in the vicinity; and
(6) to establish the allowable amount and location of
signing when no street frontage exists or when because
of an unusual lot shape (e.g., panhandle lot) the
street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion
to the average width of the lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
denies the subject appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's
action to deny SR89-19 without prejudice, based upon the following
findings:
(1) The proposed sign would be located approximately
10 feet behind the front property line of the site
and would be highly visible from both Francisco Boulevard
and Highway 101. The orientation of the sign will
be the same as other freestanding signs on Francisco
Boulevard. The requested adjustment is not necessary
to compensate for an "exceptional" sign setback or
orientation of the sign location.
(2) The primary purpose of the additional area is to
increase the amount of signing to advertise automobiles.
The additional sign area would not serve to advance
architectural, sculptural, or graphic objectives.
(3) The additional sign area is not necessary to produce
a more "orderly and concise pattern of signing",
as required by the Ordinance.
(4) The additional square footage requested is not necessary
for the proposed sign to be in proper scale with
the dealership building or the auto sales use. The
200 square foot total maximum and 36 square feet
for a secondary freestanding sign is sufficient for
the subject use.
(5) A larger sign of 72 versus 36 square feet is not
necessary for compatibility with other signs in the
area in that the majority of freestanding signs in
the area conform to Zoning Ordinance restrictions
for such signs.
(6) The subject site is a common rectangular shape with
approximately 300 feet of frontage on Francisco Boulevard.
No adjustment is necesasry to establish the allowable
amount or location of signing.
_3_
RESOLUTION NO. 8088
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael,
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council
of said City on Monday , the 20th day of November
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Shippey
JE M. LEONCI I, City Clerk
-4-