Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1972/04/12 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday - 3:00 p.m. April 12, 1972 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on the above date beginning at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, £gdahl, Hyde Absent: None Also present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Planning Warren, Senior Planner Williams SIGN CONTROL ORDINANCE Mr. Bruce Warren, Director of Planning, opened the discussion on the sign control ordinance, pointing out the difficulty in developing standards. Mr. Don Lindberg Mr. Lindberg stated that the City has had City Attorney difficulty with sign regulations and is confronted with hard issues which may require an ordinance. Mr. Norman Williams Mr. Williams presented slides taken of Senior Planner different signs identifying commercial establishments and cited those lacking architectural style as well as those in- compatible with existing structures. Director of Planning Mr. Warren pointed out the incompatibility of the new proposed Checker building on Broadway with the adjacent Vagabond Motel. He indicated that more guidelines are needed in the ordinance and that there is a lack of conformity. Review of applications Mayor Hamilton asked Mr. Warren how many people review the application and sketches when an applicant brings them into the Planning Department. Mr. Warren explained that two people handle applications. If there is a problem, it may go to an associate, then to Mr. Warren or to the Planning Commission. An alterna- tive would be to set up a design review committee, perhaps involving someone pro- fessionally trained in the design field. Mr. Warren felt that the number of steps one should have to go through should be as few as possible. Councilman Egdahl asked the City Attorney to what extent the law allows for subjectivity in this kind of decision making. Standards and guidelines City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Planning staff can make subjective or judgment decisions if they have some standards, but no detailed standards have been provided (except possibly in D Zone). The City gets little cooperation from those who put up signs and who tend to view the sign as isolated, rather than in relation to the total surroundings. Faces on signs There was discussion on the value of a face on the sign. Councilman Egdahl commented that if the face alone, without any words, told the people what the business estab- lishment was, then perhaps the use of it could be considered. Harold Showers Mr. Showers stated his objections to the control Pacific Sign Construction of color and size of a sign. As a salesman, he asks what the customer wants on a sign and believes the customer should have the right to utilize the colors and design he wishes to display. Councilman Hyde commented that people should be free from visual pollution and entitled to visual aesthetics. Council discussion ensued as to the value of flashing signs. Mr. Welsh Mr. Welsh is the Regional Supervisor for 606 Serino Earl Scheib Auto Painting. He said he under- Imperial Beach stood many sign controls, but does not believe their sign should be questioned as it has been effective in over 200 areas without problems. Mr. Warren stated the objection is to the display of the face in identifying the paint business. He felt that just because it has been dome this way for 50 years does not mean that it must continue that way. Wording should be the first consideration. Reference was made to the display of the $29.95 price sign. Mr. Warren explained that a price sign is per- mitted only on service stations. Purpose of hearing Councilman Hobel pointed out that this is not an appeal and the Council should direct its attention to the introduction of changes in the ordinance by staff. Time should be allowed to compile these proposed changes and to bring them back to the Council, at which time the decisions would be made. Mr. Warren, in response to an inquiry by Councilman Scott, stated that enforcement of the ordinance is going reasonably well, but there are a few problem areas. Motion for staff to It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded bring back changes by Councilman Hobel that the staff be directed to bring back whatever proposals they deem necessary in the ordinance for Council approval. Mrs. Rayetta Morrell She explained that they would like to put a Morrell's Garage sign up on the top of the canopy in proportion 3S9 Third Avenue to the Building, rather than a long, strung out sign on the front of the long building. Mrs. Morrell felt the ordinance is too re- strictive. Mr. Warren explained the ramifications with the Morrells moving their business from the commercial area to the central business district. Attorney Don Lindberg felt the ordinance should be more restrictive in order to spell out exactly what the requirements are. Fran Burger Mr. Burger remarked that he worked on this Pacific Sign Construction ordinance years ago with a group of people from Chula Vista and feels that if the ordinance is going to be re-adopted, this committee should get together with the Planning Department and discuss a workable ordinance to accommodate everybody. Mayor Hamilton asked Mr. Burger if people really know what draws attention to their businesses. Mr. Burger said that he feels that if a person saves to go into business for himself and prefers a sign that stands out from those of others, then he should be entitled to his preference. He again pointed out that if people could get together and create a workable ordinance, then perhaps there would not be need for a hearing every time an application for a sign is submitted. Design of sign Mr. Warren expressed the idea that when the building is designed, so should the sign, and that this should be written into the ordinance. Reference to motion Councilman Scott suggested that the sub- jectivity left to the staff is certainly a problem area. In reference to the motion already on the floor, he said that the ideas expressed by Mr. Burger should be included in the staff's work. Proposed Committee Mr. Warren said Planning would be happy to refer these ideas to the committee and stated that it is not their intent to re- evaluate the specifications in the ordinance, but simply the standards for approval pro- cedure. Sign Ordinance Councilman Hyde assured the staff that the Council wishes them to pursue the firm and fair enforcement of the ordinance. Areas that need improvement as to interpretation should be given every effort of clarifi- cation and staff should be backed up in their efforts. Sign Identification Mr. Burger raised the question as to whether a sign is for advertising or mere identifi- cation. He feels it is both -- advertising one's wares, plus identification. Motion carries The motion for staff to submit changes was unanimously carried. The Mayor asked that the Council be kept informed as to how this progresses and that the group that worked with the Planning Department on the sign ordinance be contacted. RELATIONSHIP OF PLANNED It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS by Councilman Hobel and unanimously carried TO CITYWIDE DENSITY that this item be carried over to the next meeting due to lack of time at this meeting and the possibility that this item would involve a lengthy discussion. LIBRARY BOND Councilman Scott suggested a Council Conference on the Library issue. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nmmilton adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 1972, at 7:00 p.m. Deputy City Clef