Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Robin Barlo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review board denies sign exception for Robin restaurant at Barlo
Summary
The Sebastopol Design Review Board denied a requested sign exception for a new restaurant at 6700 Sebastopol Avenue, citing oversized signage, removal of a monument entry sign and content concerns; staff will prepare written findings and the applicant has seven days to appeal.
The Sebastopol Design Review Board voted Sept. 24 to deny a sign-exception request for a proposed Robin restaurant at 6700 Sebastopol Avenue in the Barlo marketplace.
Board member Melissa said the oversized, colorful branding already installed on the building was “out of proportion to the building” and inconsistent with the Barlo master sign program. She and other board members objected to replacing the development’s monument entry sign with tenant-branded pole signage and to additional text on wall signs that reads “burgers” and “chicken.”
Planning staff presented the application and told the board the package includes one externally illuminated wall sign of 136.6 square feet plus three additional non-illuminated wall signs. Staff said the package exceeds the square footage allowed under the property’s sign program and that replacement signs that do not conform to an approved program must be reviewed by the board under section 17120 020 of the sign ordinance.
Michael, the applicant’s signage designer from Scott AG, told the board the Robin concept uses mid‑century branding and that the tenant’s prominent patio and indoor/outdoor configuration led the team to expect anchor-tenant allowances. He apologized for installing signs before final approval, saying the team was racing to meet a planned opening date.
Board members pressed the applicant on two points: whether outdoor patio area should be counted toward tenant square footage and whether allowing descriptive copy such as “burgers” and “chicken” would set a precedent for other tenants. Carrie said the monument entry had been removed and replaced with a pole sign, a change she said was “not consistent for all the other tenants.” Len and Lynn called the signage “dominant” and said the scale and character were inappropriate for the building and surrounding neighborhood.
Melissa moved to deny the exception; the board voted to deny the application (4 yes, 0 no; 2 absences). The board directed staff to prepare the written findings for denial. Planning staff notified the applicant that a seven-day appeal window is available; staff set the appeal deadline as Oct. 1 by 5:00 p.m.
The applicant indicated they plan either to appeal or to propose modifications and said they will work with staff on next steps.
