Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/09/15 Item 6 ",ot" ~\: ~v ~, ~, C, "to" 1;' f~'Yv < ,. 'l' t-~ '" ,;> ~\ ,.' 0 O"~" PN CIDII'\ICi\CE CF ll-E CI1Y CF Q-UA VISTA A\l8\DII\G TITLE f..." 19 CF ll-E M.NICIPAL <:lIE BY ImII\G SEerIO\l 19.04.235 o ~.. rEFINl1\G ELECTRJ\IIC I\iESSl'ff EDOfO SIG\S JlN) A\l8\DII\G SEer I 0\1 19.00 10 EsrABLls-l t1-O:H I PES 10 EXPIDI TE t1<n:SS11\G SIG\/ PERvlITS JlN) 10 ALl!W R:R ELECTRJ\IIC I\iESSl'ff EDOfO S I G\S ODIN'lI\CE 1'0. 2529 5'1::.- COIVD I?!;"IDIII;. G -4/1/, '0"1 Dop" ION WEREAS, in Janua ry 1992, the Ci ty Counc i I directed that arenctrents to the City's sign regulations to address: 1) rrodification of the revieN process for sign permits to expedite processing; and 2) allcwmce of electronicrressage board signs; and, WEREAS, an Initial Study, IS-92-44 of possible adverse envirorrrental irTPacts of the proposed arendTent Vl8S conducted and the Envi rorrrental RevieN Coordinator concluded that there~uld be no significant effects and recamrrends adoption of the Negative Declaration; and, WEREAS, on August 12, 1992 the Planning Co1mission voted 5 to 1 with one mrrtJer absent to reccmrend that the City Counci I adopt the arenctrent in accordance wi th Reso I ut ion f'()!I,-92-01. The City Counci I of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follOll5: SEer I 0\1 I: as fo I 10115: That Sect ion 19.04.235 be added to theM.micipal Code to read 19.04.235 Sign, Electronic rressage board. Electronic rressage board sign rreans a sign ~se rressage is displayed in I ights or light enitting diodes, and is electronically changeable. SEerIO\l II: That Sect ions 19.00.030 and 19.00.170 be arended and Sect ion 19.00.000 be added to the ~nicipal Code to read as follOll5: 19.00.030 App I icat ion-Contents requ i red-Determi nat ion authority-Appeals. AI I signs requiring a sign permit shal I be suanitted for approval by the zoning adninistrator, pr ior to installat ion except electronic rressage board signs (see 19.00.000). The appl ication shall indicate the size, location, design, color, lighting and rraterials of all signs to be erected. The appl ication shall also contain sufficient inforrration on the architecture, colors and rraterials of the bui Iding on the site, as is necessary to determine cmpatibi I ity of the sign to the bui Iding. In addition, the appl icant shall suanit a color rendering and/or paint sarple boards or chips and/or actual rraterials to be used on the sign. The zoning adninistrator, or the design revieN cmmittee on appeal, shall ~-'I COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ltemK ~ ,J. Meeting Date~ ;.J>;9.2 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-92-01 - Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code to establish procedures to expedite processing of sign permits a~ to allow for electronic message board signs ~\\o Orc.:l~~~ ?.. 52, Amending Chapters 19.04 and 19.60 of \~<)h~\~unicipal Code to establish procedures to expedite processing \\.$\) of sign permits and to allow for electronic message board signs O~\) ~/ SU~TTED BY: Director of Planning PC- Community Development Director L-. 7. REVIEWED BY: City Manager ",k'" @\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NolO .. On January 28, 1992, the City Council directed the"Staff of the Planning Department and . City Attomey to prepare draft amendments to the City's sign regulations to address: 1) modification of the review process for sign permits to expedite processing; 2) allowance of electronic message board signs in commercially zoned areas; and, 3) allowance of combination sign-murals which may exceed the size restrictions for commercial signs. The draft amendments were distributed for comment to several groups and organizations, including the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee, and were presented to the City Council at a Council wor1<shop held on March 18, 1992. After consideration and discussion, the Council rejected the proposal for combination sign-murals and directed staff to proceed with hearings on the amendments regarding accelerated sign processing and electronic message board signs. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-92-44, of potential environmental impacts associated with the amendments. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded there would be no significant impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-44. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this proposal will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-44. 2. Adopt a motion to enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown on the draft ordinance attached hereto. WPC F_~\'4.92 ~t-I . ~ Page 2, Item. IY r'1. Meeting Date~ ,/1>/ ,;. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1. On August 6,1992, the Town Centre Project Area Committee voted unanimously (7-0) recommending that the City Council deny the proposed ordinance relating to electronic message board signs (minutes attached). 2. On August 12, 1992 the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 with one absent recommending that the Municipal Code be amended in accordance with Resolution PCA-92-01 (minutes attached). DISCUSSION: # 1. Accelerated Sian Processina This amendment would require the Zoning Administrator (or the Design Review Committee on appeal) to render a decision on a sign permit within seven (7) days ~ (or the next available meeting in the case of the ORC). Failure to act within these timeframes would allow the applicant to demand in writing that a decision be made within 3 working days (or at the next available ORC meeting) or the permit would be deemed approved. It would also require that if a sign permit is denied by either the ZA or ORC, the applicant would have to be informed in writing of the changes necessary in order to approve the permit. Staff and the ORC believe the timeframes can be met. The ORC's workload is heavy - 3 to 4 hour meetings are not uncommon - but few sign appeals are anticipated, and probably no more than one would be considered at any particular meeting. Also, the Committee would have the benefit of staff's recommendations in their deliberations on necessary changes in the case of a denial. Any decision by the Zoning Administrator or ORC would be appealable to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 2. Electronic Messaae Board Sians The Code presently prohibits all moving, animated or flashing signs with the exception of barber poles and time-and-temperature signs. This amendment would allow for the consideration of electronic message board signs by the Redevelopment Agency upon recommendation by the Design Review Committee in CoO, C-C, and I-L zoned areas located within either the Town Centre I, Town Centre II or Olay Valley Road redevelopment areas. The amendment limits such signs to specific zones in Redevelopment Project areas where interest has been expressed in the placement of message board signs. This approach will allow the City to gain some experience with readerboard signs before considering any wider application. A message board sign has been proposed at the southeast WPC F:'Mmo'f>lomlngllU2 ~t-~ Page 3, Item~ ~ .A. Meeting Date~ 'f-'/t.2 corner of Third Avenue and "H" Street. The property is zoned CoO and is located in the Town Centre I redevelopment area. Some' interest has also been expressed with regard to the proposed auto center on the south side of Olay Valley Road, just east of the 1-805 freeway. This property is zoned I-L and located in the Olay Valley Road redevelopment area Thus, the amendment has been drafted to accommodate and limit message boards within the redevelopment areas in order to test their effectiveness and aesthetic quality. The Council had recommended that said signs be subject to Planning Commission consideration. However, the amendment seeks to limit the use of these signs to certain commercial sites in specific redevelopment areas within which the Planning Commission is not currently a part of the review process. Therefore, inclusion of the Planning Commission would be advisory only and would add to the time needed to process ,he request. It is for that reason that the proposed amendment does not include Planning Commission review. The requirements include that 30% of tlie message board operation during normal business hours must be devoted to non-commercial messages, and that one message board sign be located no closer than 1/2 mile to another message board sign. The signs must also be located on a major or collector street, which would exclude them from such streets as Landis and Church Avenues in Town Centre I. The amendment provides that a message board must be accommodated within the existing limits on maximum sign area in the C-C and I-L zone, and would allow up to an additional 50 square feet of sign area to accommodate a message board in the CoO zone. This proposed increase in the CoO zone is based on the fact that the existing commercial office sign provisions are intended to provide for limited identification only, and could not reasonably allow for the consideration of a message board without this adjustment. FISCAL IMPACT: None. WPC F:\homo\plannlng\14.ll2 ~ ~-J -, TInS PAGE BLANK to . . ~t.7' \ EDIBIT "A" PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PCA-92-01 Chapter 11.04 DEFINITIONS 19.04.235 Sian. Electronic messaae board. Electronic messaae board sian means a sian whose messaae is disDlaved in liahts or liaht emittina diodes. and is electronicallY chanaeable. Chapter 11.' 0 SIGNS 19.60.030 Application-Contents requi~d-Determination authority- Appeals. All signs requiring a sign permit shall be submitted for approval by the zoning administrator, prior to installation exceDt electronic messaae board sians (see 19.60.600\. The application shall indicate the size, location, design, color, lighting and materials of all signs to be erected. The application shall also contain sufficient information on the architecture, colors and materials of the building on the site, as is necessary to determine compatibility of the sign to the building. In addition, the applicant shall submit a color rendering and/or paint sample boards or chips and/or actual materials to be used on the sign. The zoning administrator. or the desian review committee on aDDeal. shall determine whether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its conformance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein and in the city desian manual. Where an aDDlication is denied bv the zonina administrator. or the desian review committee on aDDeal. the aDDlicant shall be info~ed in writina of the chanaes necessary in order to aDDrove the aDDlication. If the aDDlicant chooses to amend the aDDlication to reflect said chanaes. the zonina administrator shall arant the nermit. The zonina administrator shall render a decision on a sian Dermit within seven workina davs of the date of aDDlication. If at the end of that Deriod a decision has not been reached. the ~~~licant may demand in writina that action be taken on the Dermit. The zonina administrator shall render a decision within three 1 1~~-5 workina days of the date of the receiDt of the written demand or the Dermit shall be deemed aDDroved as submitted. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the planftiftg eemmissieft ift aees:rsaRee wi"-k ~e ,re-:isisRS sf S8e~ieB 19 .It. 9S9. desian review committee within ten workina days after the decision is rendered. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. The desian review committee shall render a decision on a sian anneal at the next available desian review committee meetina at which a auorum is nresent. An anneal received at least ten days Drior to a desian review committee meetina shall be scheduled for that meetina. If the desian review committee fails to render a decision at the next available meetina. the aDDlicant may demand in writina that action be taken. The desian review committee shall render a decision at the next available meetina followina receint of the written demand or the anDeal shall be deemed aDDroved as submitted. The decision of the desian review committee may be further ~DDealed in accordance with the Drovisions of Section 19.14.583. Flashing, animated or mov1Pg signs prohibited- Exceptions-other prohibited signs. No sign, as defined in this chapter, shall be moving, nor shall light be intermittent or flashing, with the exception of time and temperature signs... eM barber poles and electronic messaae board sians sub;ect to the nrovisions of Section 19.60.600. 19.60.170 Signs are also prohibited with the exc~Dtion of those listed as Dermitted in the above DaraaraDh which: A. Intermittently reflect lights from either an artificial source or from the sun; or B. Have an illumination which is intermittent, flashing, scintillating or of varying intensity; or C. Have any visible portion in motion, either constantly or at intervals, which motion may be caused by either artificial or natural sources; or D. utilize whirligigs or any similar item which uses wind as its source of power. 19.60.600 Electronic Messaae Board Reaulations Electronic messaae board sians mav be allowed in any co. CC or XL zoned areas located within Town Centre X. Town Centre II and 2 ~ ~-~ otay Va~leY Road redevelonment areas. sub;ect to conditions deemed appropr1at7 bv the Redevelopment Aaencv upon recommendation bv the Desian Rev1ew Committee as part of an approved sian proaram. Said condit~ons shall include. but are not necessarilY limited to. the follow1na: A. The location of said sian shall be at least one-half (1/2\ mile in any direction from any other lawfullY nermitted electronic messaae board sian: B. The Qnerator of said sian shall devote a minimum of thirty percent (30%\ of the time the sian is in operation durina normal business hours of the establishment to messaaes convevina non-commercial announcements or other messaaes of benefit to the community in accordance with a detailed onerational nroaram sub;ect to review and ~Dnroval bv the Communitv Development Department: C. Said sians shall not r~sult in an increase in the allowable sian area for the type of sian in the zone. except in the C-O zoned areas. in which case. additional sian area for said sians UP to a maximum ~ fifty sauare feet. may be allowed: D. Said sians shall be located on ma;or or collector streets. E. Rooft~n and monument (around} electronic meSS8ae board sians are eXDresslv Drohibited: Failure to comelY with any condition of 8nnroval shall be considered arounds for revocation of the ancroved sian nroaram. ADDITIONS: XXXXXXX DELETIONS: XXXXXXX 3 l:Yr ~-7 - ~..._,,--_._- ="'<-...."------ alt IJiL .. \ . I I I 1 i I i ! i i I I 1 I f I I j , " , , . . '. ~. -- .' .. OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA ( 1 LOCATOR NO;; (rl-A-"Iz.-tlj) ~ ~-8' <J011\J/lI\r:E lID. 2529 .':>I::co '11;0 1?t:"I OIIVG "IIVO "lOOp IloIV AN aDlNfJN:E a= 1H: CI1Y a= QUA VISTA A\13\D1N3 TInE 19 a: lI-E MNICIPAL CIIE BY JlIDIN3 SECTICN 19.04.235 r:EFININ3 ELECTRJ\lIC fI.IESSI'G: B)llR) SICJ-S /IN) JlllBlDIN3 SECTIQ\J 19.00 10 EsrPBLl9-l t111 H' J6 10 EXPEDITE H<X:t:SS1N3 SIG\! PEFMllS /IN) 10 ALI!JN FCR ELB:TR:NIC ~ B)llR) SICJ-S ~, in January 1992, the City Counci I di rected that 8TIlndrents to the City's sign regulations to address: 1) rrodification of the revi9N process for sign permits to expedite processing; and 2) allOl\Bnce of electronicrressage board signs; and, . ~. an Initial Study, 15-92-44 of possible adverse environrental irrpacts of the proposed 8TIlndTent VlBS conducted and the Envi ronrental Pevi9N Coordinator concluded that thereV\Ould be no significant effects and reC01lT'Elnds adoption of the Negative Declaration; and, ~, on llugust 12, 1992 the Planning Omnission voted 5 to 1 with one rr8Tbe r absent to recam-end that the Ci ty Olunc i I adopt the 8TIlndrent in accordance wi th Pesolut ion f'Cl>.-92-01. The City Olunci I of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follOJ\S: SECTIQ\J I: as follOJ\S: That Section 19.04.235 be added to theMmicipal Code to read 19.04.235 Sign, Electronic rressage board. Electronic rressage board sign rreans a sign~se rressage is displayed in I ights or light BTIitting diodes. and is electronically changeable. SECTIQ\J II: That Sect ions 19.00.030 and 19.00.170 be 8TIlnded and Sect ion 19.00.600 be added to the~nicipal Code to read as follOJ\S: Appl icat ion-Olntents requi red-Determinat ion authority-Appeals. All signs requ i ring a sign permi t sha II be subni tted for approva I by the zoning adninistrator, prior to installation except electronic rressage board signs (see 19.00.600). The appl ication shall indicate the size, locat ion, design. color, light ing and rreter ials of all signs to be erected. The appl ication shall also contain sufficient inforrretion on the architecture, colors and rreterials of the building on the site, as is necessary to determine carpatibi I ity of the sign to the bui Iding. In addition, the appl icant shall subnit a color rendering and/or paint scrrple boards or chips and/or actual rreterials to be used on the sign. 19.00.030 The zoning adninistrator, or the design revi9NCO'TITlittee on appeal, shall ~-1 Ord i nance f\b. 2529 Page 2 detennine Vlhether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its con fo rrrance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein and in the city design rrenual. Wlere an appl ication is denied by the zoning adninistrator, or the design revi8IVccmnittee on appeal, the applicant shall be inforrred inwriting of the changes necessary in order to approve the appl icat ion. I f the appl icant chooses to aTend the appl icat ion to reflect said changes, the zoning adninistrator shall grant the pennit. The zoning adninistrator shall render a decision on a sign pennit within seven VlDrking days of the date of appl icat ion. I f at the end of that period a decision has not been reached, the appl icant rrey dElTBnd in writing that action be taken on the pennit. The zoning adninistrator shall render a decision within three VlDrking days of the date of the rece i pt of the wr i t ten dElTBnd or the pe nni t sha II be deeTed approved as sutmitted. The decision of the zoning adninistrator rrey be appealed to the design revi8lVc01l11itteewithin tenVlDrking days after the decision is rendered. In the absence of such appeal, the detennination by the zoning adninistrator shall be final. The design revi8IV ccmnittee shal I render a decision on a sign appeal at the next avai lable design revi8IV ccmnittee rreeting at lIIhich a quorun is present. An appeal received at least ten days prior to a design revi8IV ccmni ttee rreet i ng sha II be schedu I ed for that rreet i ng. I f the des i gn revi8lVc01l11ittee fai Is to render a decision at the next avai lablerreeting, the appl icant rrey dElTBnd in writing that action be taken. The design revi8IV c01l11ittee shal I render a decision at the next avai lable rreeting follOJlling receipt of the written dElTBnd or the appeal shall be deElTBd approved as sutmitted. The decision of the design revi8IV ccmnittee rrey be further appealed in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.14.583. 19.00.170 Flashing, anirreted or rroving signs prohibited- Exceptions-Other prohibited signs. f\b sign, as defined in this chapter, shall be rroving, nor shat I I ight be intennittent or flashing, with the exception of tirre and taTperature signs, barber poles and electronic rressage board signs subject to the provisions of Section 19.00.000. Signs are also prohibited with the exception of those I isted as pennitted in the above paragraph lIIhich: A. Intennittently reflect 'lights franeither an artificial source or fran the sun; or B. Have an illuninationlllhich is intennittent, flashing, scintillating or of varying intensity; or C. Have any visible portion in rrotion, either constantly or at intervals, lIIhich rrotion rrey be caused by either artificial or natural sources; or ~ - J() Ord i nance I'b. 2529 Page 3 natural sources; or D. Ut i I ize Vlhi r I igi gs or any s imi lar i t8TlVlhich uses wind as its source of paller. 19.00.&X> Electronic Nbssage Board Regulations. Elect ronic rressage board signs rrey be alle.o.eEl author i zed.2[l.JI~....l:lY~ basis bv the Redevelmrrent Aoencv in any CD, CC or IL zoned araas located within TOJIIl Centre I, TOJIIl Centre II and Olay Valley R>ad redevelopTent areas, subject to conditions deared appropriate by the RedevelopTent Agency upon ree<mrendation by the D:lsign ReviBIVO:mnittee as part of an approved sign progran. Said conditions shall include, but are not necessar i Iy I imi ted to, the follOlVing: A. The location of said sign shall be at least one-half (1/2) mi Ie in any di rect ion fran any other laNfully permitted electronic rressage board sign; B. The operator of said sign shall devote a minim.m of thi rty percent (3CP/0) of each hour of the tirre the sign is in operation during norrrel business hours of the establ istrrent to rressages conveying non-commercial announCaTents or other rressages of benefit to the cmni ty in accordance wi th a detai led operat ional progran subject to reviBIV and approval by the Ccnmmity D:lveloplllnt D:lpartrrent; C. Said signs shal I not result in an increase in the allD^Bble sign area for the type of sign in the zone, except in the C-o zoned areas, in Vlhich case, additional sign area for said signs up to a rrexim.m of fifty square feet, rrey be alIOJ\ed; D. Said signs shal I be located on rrejor or col lector streets. E. Fboftop and rronurent (ground) electronic rressage board signs are expressly prohibited; Fa i lure to carply wi th any condi t ion of approval shall be cons idered grounds for revocation of the approved sign progran. SECTION I II: This ordinance shal I take effect and be in ful I force and effect on the thirtieth day fran and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Pobert A. Le iter Director of Planning Bruce M 800ga r Ci ty Attorney &'-/1 .~ TInS PAGE BLANK . ~ -);.. ,~. . .., Fi d gEl'1l_A1 - I.j I !'Iii -,;l(;lf ~ "" 7 ,-: J I ,,m , iii' ' .. 10U ~". .... fl!Il: ',,,==~Il% , rn" ~"'. ue m, ","" iiii , 1- _ T ~. ,. . , :j"1l f.:: ~ I~t- . '" C' .~,~ -,,''I " '. = ~'~E"" . =w, -, <1; ; ."" "'~' _ '" i ~ E!l!lF<' ",UI ~ ',' : '~RI , .0:: ~ ce~~- 6'. 5 I ~ ~ , ' ,''0 _ ,,",,":Ill: ~~ --.. _ ~ ",~r~..~' ' , ' ... 2l~, ~,~ I .--' ',' ~'11--"'" E':";)' ~. ",0- - ~: i!f :-~ "~, 1\ :.'. I.., C,' "" " ~ ' "T' "'i' "" :- ~ j' ,. '.0;5]' =~, ;~:' '=- ~,-"- c _.c 1 "",.; 'l}lH .~. ~ I .~.. . ~'" .LilT; <l'i I 'I _ I ,.~: __ ," --.... - ",' 'fi,I<l!,~ . ~d~ ,,>.~ ,. ~ ,,-". ,-'--'4".,-:, . ",:n;; ..... OWN " co ,,~ ;1 .- . l~.;~_ "f.,- Y''' ~ " CEN~,11 .,,~ . '{ ._ _~ _ ~ ';:- ,.. ;?~, - "~. iT _;~ . _ .._' ...... =~;;r;>. . 0'[;'; 1" '" i ,_ I.,.a. $\ ..., ',' "';;'0 --".,..1 (i ..' .' "1'..3E ~ --'-' :c.~~-~ !j-1- '" 'iI!!!- I' ~.., _so --"--"'" .'/.,.... TOWN-' - = ,~- ,,- ,- ." . --" . - . . '. ~RE ~ I,_'~':. ."~PRb;;~ Inre: "~~ -t:.. ,,., "";" "*"' l"::"":: I :.~Y w~ TION~; ~-1f - '" ~ ~-- ~., . _ . . .. n" --- -. "" .. . ~- ~ . ~ _ ".._ n_ 1='"'' -" _" " . '" '" r ~ ," .._, -= ---., -.. n" sr'" . '" r;: R= ::.:.: _u ::::: ..:' . .::::: :.-: . . 1 ~-- :J I ,.._ - C --- .-- i'i' ' .iT-.'= " '.. _" ~ ';CO - .:- .:. - - -;;= ",,'0':; . - - '.:, ~ :. i.t~" So ;~~ ~~" t '::'c-'~'~ :_ ',....,.:: ~. r J-if _ . "l '.; T , , --- ,1"" . '" . . -'--- """', '.' a ,......! ..; u ]Ii... :;:':.: ":':.1-.. ~ :f.I,;.J1.i':~'" : __ '1 0 0 ~ .' "-'-~ " " .~ ' ~. . . ~I eo "I':~ u j .... . L; ...,;o-tJ L "';: ~~ ....,..;;;;,.,,....,..1 '.. It! ! -,' " .... " . -~:. ..... t . ~"{lt. \- - ,.. .' J r ;: LJ F ,~ ( -, .~ I J ] LOCATOR ~~Ic. ~I~I-J ~ . ~ vt)IN~ (!. ~"1" 1.j.J' ~ \ ~ -I . " -, ~ ~ -- - . ...... - ...~ "'...- ...... .~. .:.........':"':'., ,- ."--"~~-=,..:... ,~ _..._- ~ ( RESOLUTION NO. PCA-92-01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPl'ER 19.04 DEFINITIONS AND CHAPl'ER 19.60 TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING OF SIGN PERMIT AND TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS WHEREAS, on January 28, 1992 the City Council directed that amendments to the City's sign regulations to address: 1) moclification of the review process for .ign permits to expedite processing; 2) allowance of electronic message board siens in commercially zoned areas; and 3) allowance of combination sign-murals which exceed the size restrictions for commercial signs. WHEREAS, the plAnning Commiuion let the time and place for a hearing on .aid amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its'publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the heariIli, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., August 12, 1992 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth AVenue, before the PIAnni1'lg Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and ... WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-44. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends the adoption of amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day August, 1992 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Ray, Fuller, Casillas, Decker, and Martin Carson Tuchscher ~~,;~ Joe . Casillas, Chairman ATTEST: Lf1...<-E;1 J:;. i ;; Nancy Ri ey, Se e WPCF~lU2 ~ ~-I,/ UNO~F&C~AtL ,~~~NUiE3 ( EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 8/12/92 ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PeA-92-0t: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURFS TO EXl"JillITE PROCESSING OF SIGN PERMITS AND TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS - City Jnltiated Senior Planner Griffin stated this item involved two separate amendment proposals, both resulting from Council direction. The first proposal was to amend the Code to require the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Committee to act on sign permits within certain limited timeframes and, if the sign permit was denied, it required that the applicant be informed in writing why the sign was denied and what would need to be done to have an approved sign. These procedures were designed to accelerate the process, making it more objective for the applicant to know how to correct an unacceptable situation. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. The second portion of the proposal was to allow electronic message board signs in certain limited redevelopment areas and only in certain zones. Using overhead projection, Mr. Griffin indicated the areas in which the message boards could be allowed and discussed the procedures and limitations. Mr. Griffin noted the Town Centre Project Area Committee had voted 7-0 recommending against adopting the amendm~ts citing reasons of aesthetics, fairness in allowing a 1/2 mile monopoly to one party, and that this amendment could lead to other requests for similar opportunities in other zones and other areas. Staff, however, recommended approval of the amendments shown in Exhibit A. Commissioner Decker asked who determines whether the messages were commercial or non- commercial. Mr. Griffm answered that it would be determined on a case-by-case basis; the Director of Community Development would be required to approve the signs, determine whether or not it was a public service message, and was the ultimate appeal authority. Commissioner Decker asked if the Community Development Director would also take complaints as to the appropriateness of the message. Mr. Griffin concurred. Assistant Planning Director Lee added that being in a redevelopment area, they have disposition and development agreements. With Council acting as the Agency, they can require that of any development. Commissioner Ray asked about the use of the sign during Don-business hours. He asked that language indicate that the public service announcement would have to be in operation 30% within each hour of operation. Mr. Griffin agreed to this change. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mateo R. CAmArlllO, President, Radio Station !CURS, 296 "H" Street, Chula Vista, said they had approached the City over a year ago with this proposal, and would like to commend the City for its accessibility. He believed the proposals were appropriate and supported stafrs recommendation. They would be the first Spanish language radio station licensed in the City of San Diego, and the format would be bilingual. ~ ~-/f ( PC Minutes August 12, 1992 Chair ('....iII". asked if Mr. Camarillo agreed to the 30% of every hour being non-commercial. Mr. Camarillo concurred. MSUC (DeckerIFuUer) 6-0 (Comml..cfoner Tuchscber absent) that based on the initial Study and the comments In the Initial Study and the Ne&atlve Declaration, rmd that this proposal will have no sipificant environmental impacts and adopt the Neptlve Declaration Issued on IS-92-44. Commissioner Ray questioned if there was any concern regarding 1/2 mile monopoly. Would the inability of someone else obtaining the same type of sign prohibit &lOwtb in the business sector? Commissioner Decker felt that even though the limit was 1/2 mile, there was the possibility that it could be modified. MS (DeckerIFuUer) to recommend that the City Counell enact an ordinance amendin& the Municipal Code as shown In Exhibit A as attached to the starr report, and as modified. Commissioner Carson stated she was originally in favor"f the amendment, but after talking with people in the community, she felt electronic message boards should be on the inside of the building instead of the outside. She would vote against. VOTE: 5-1-1 (Comml...loner Carson a&alnst; Comml"loner Tuchscber absent). ~ t-/~ , DRAFT , MXNOTES OF THE TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMXTTEE OF THE CXTY OF CHULA VXSTA August 6,,1992 8:45 AM council Conference Room ci ty Hall 1. Roll Call Members Present: Chairman Hyde, Vice Chairman Peter; Members Atlbaum, Blakely, Harper, Mason, and Ohlau staff Present: Principal community Development Specialist Pamela R. Buchan, Senior Planner Steve Griffin, Community Development Specialist Alisa Duffey Rogers 2. Approval of Minutes of the Julv 2. 1992 ... MUSC (Peter/Mason) to approve the minutes of the July 2, 1992 meeting. REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS 3. Zonina Amendment Reaardina Electronic Sians Senior Planner Griffin presented the amendments to the Municipal Code to establish procedures to expedite processing of sign permits and to allow for electronic message board signs. He explained that, according to the proposed amendment, electronic message board signs would be allowed in the Town Centre I, Town Centre II, and Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Areas in C-O, C-C, and I-L zoned areas. He also stated that 30% of the messages on the electronic signs would have to be devoted to community service annoucement. The signs would only be allowed on major or collector streets. In addition, one message board sign could be located no closer than 1/2 mile from another message board sign. Member Altbaum questioned the allowed dimensions of electronic message board. Senior Planner Griffin responded that the boards must conform to the existing sign criteria for size except in the CO zone where an additional 50 square feet would be allowed. Member Mason inquired into why the 1/2 mile restriction was proposed. Senior Planner Griffin responded that the restriction was included in order to gradually introduce the boards into the Project Areas. ~ (p -/7 ., , . , Chairman Hyde asked what are the arguments for allowing electronic message boards~ senior Planner Griffin replied that it appeared community service messages would be a public benefit. Member Altbaum questioned if these boards would be a traffic hazard. Senior Planner Griffin responded that the city Traffic Engineer did not believe a traffic hazard would be caused by these boards. Chairman Hyde stated that allowing these electronic message boards would be a quantum step backward in the City's 20 year effort to rid the City of visual blight caused by poor quality signs. He further commented that he believed these boards would be a traffic hazard. MUSC (Mason/Peter) reviewed and accepted Negative Declaration IS-92-44. However, the Committee believes that a traffic hazard would be caused by the electronic message boards because the boards would be inherently unsafe on major thoroughfares. ~ MUSC (Mason/Peter) The Committee recommends the disapproval of the proposed amendment to the zoning code for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendment is unfair because it would not allow a business to have an electronic message board if someone within a half mile radius already has a sign; 2. Aesthetics. By allowing electronic message boards, the city would be undermining its 20 year effort to rid the City of the visual blight caused by poor signage; and, 3. Approval of this sort of amendment would inevitably lead to a proliferation of requests for electronic message boards which would have an adverse effect on the visual character of the community. l~ ~ -18""