Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/03/26 '" d .. " eClare un:1er penalty 19f perjury that I am er~:;:;:Oj:,~? _~y tt:G City 0'1 Cllula Vista in the (>.,.,,::~.~, ,'-",',' "',)A ''''''! ('..1"".... ~.- ... t' t I "" ""- -', ..,..... ,...~. ,............ c1l1',..; na ~cstGd '~::c un tho Beilet;n BOClrd at Thursday, March 26, 19~;?::_,:::~,i:~ )er',,<c~;3 Bu:J:.E~:3 End at City -Mall on Counc~ ~onfe:ence ~o?m 4:00p.m. l.....,"ii;_7'~U_ S:~:N::Dg,~ /" AdmmlstranonBuildmg Rel!tilar MeetinlU'Worksession of the City of C ula Vista City Council CALL TO ORDER 1. ROU. CALL: Councilmembers Grasser Horton -' Malcolm -' Moore -' Rindone -' and Mayor Nader _' BUSINESS 2. REPORT DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO TIm CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS SIGN PROCESSING, ELECTRONIC READER BOARD SIGNS, AND COMBINATION SIGN MURAIS - On 1128/92, Council directed the City Attorney and Planning Department staff to prepare draft amendments to the City's sign ordinance to address: 1) modifying the process for review of sign permits by the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Committee; 2) allowing electronic message board signs in commercial zones; and 3) allowing combination sign-murals which may exceed the size restrictions for conventional signs. The Council also requested that the draft amendments be distributed to several groups and organizations for initial review and comment. (City Attorney and Director of Planning) Continued from the 2/18192 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opponunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking acdon on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, pkase complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. OTHER BUSINESS 3. CIlY MANAGER'S REPORTrs) a. Scheduling of meetings. 4. MAYOR'S REPORTrs) 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 7,1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. !H!t2BAHll!U TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council John D. Goss, City Manage~ Robert A'_,Leiter, Director of Planning ,!lit March 18, 1992 Council Workshop on Draft Amendments to the City's Sign Ordinance to Address Sign Processing, Electronic Reader Board Signs, and Combination Sign-Murals The City Council has scheduled a workshop on draft amendments to the City's Sign Ordinance for March 26, 1992, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. On January 28, 1992, the Council directed the City Attorney and Planning Department staff to prepare draft amendments to the City's sign ordinance to address the following: 1. Accelerating the process for review of sign permits by the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Committee; 2. Allowing electronic message board signs in commercial zones; 3. Allowing combination sign-murals which may exceed the size restrictions for conventional signs. The Council also requested that the amendments be distributed to the following groups and organizations for initial review and comment, and returned to Council for further consideration at their meeting on February 18, 1992: Planning Commission Economic Development Commission Design Review Committee Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Downtown Business Association Broadway Business Association The draft amendments (attached hereto) were prepared and distributed for comment without staff analysis or recommendation. At the meeting of February 18, 1992, Council raised several concerns with respect to the proposals and scheduled a workshop for March 26, 1992. At Council direction, the amendments were redistributed for comment prior to the workshop. The only comments received to date have been from the Planning Commission and Design Review Commit tee. Following is a summary of the concerns raised by Council, comments from the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee (PC/DRC), and observations from staff. Any further comments received subsequent to this memo will be reported at the workshop. Each of the groups and organizations listed above were invited to attend the workshop as well. ,;2J) Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 March 18, 1992 1. Accelerated Sian Processina This amendment would require the Zoning Administrator (or the Oesign 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) 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. Council: Concern was expressed with the tight time frames to review and approve sign permits, and with the provision for automatic approval if those time frames are not met. PC/DRC: Members of the Commission and Committee also expressed dissatisfaction with the concept of automatic approvals. Some ORC members also questioned the potential impact on the length of their agenda due to the "next available meeting" provision, particularly when coupled with the requirement, in the case of a denial, to formulate and agree during the meeting on specific changes necessary in order to approve the permit. Staff: Staff believes the time frames can be met without placing an undue burden on the staff or the ORC. 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 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. Although problems are not anticipated, the situation should be monitored in order to ensure that the ORC is not overburdened. Staff concurs that it may not be prudent to have an automatic approval provision without a safety valve to protect against the unique circumstance, such as a misplaced permit. Thus, while it would be the intention of staff to meet or beat the time frames in the vast majority of cases -- most permits would be approved over-the-counter -- it is suggested that a provision be added which would allow the staff an additional period of time (perhaps 48 or 72 hours) to render a decision upon notification by the applicant that the original deadline had elapsed. This could be incorporated into a revised amendment. J'~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 March IS, 1992 2. Electronic Reader Soard SiQns This amendment would allow for the consideration of electronic reader board signs by conditional use permit in all commercial zones (except the C-N Neighborhood commercial zone) provided at least 30% of the reader board operation is devoted to non-commercial messages, and provided that reader board signs are located no closer than 500 ft. to one another. Council: Concern was expressed with the potential allowance for too many electronic reader board signs in the City. PC/DRC: Some members of both the Commission and Committee expressed the oplnlon that electronic reader board signs are generally unattractive and distracting. The effect on traffic safety was mentioned. Concern was also expressed with defining and administering/monitoring the non-commercial message aspect. Staff: Staff shares all of these concerns. The apprehension about an over proliferation of reader board signs is a recognition that at some level or concentration they become an undesireable element. The face of such signs are inherently not very attractive because they typically consist of dots of light on a dark background. Because the copy moves or changes, they draw attention of the eye and are distracting of other elements of the environment, although it is unknown whether or not they have an adverse impact on traffic safety. The issue of over-proliferation and concentration could be addressed by increasing the separation requirement from 500 ft. to 1/4 mile (the distance between principal intersections in western Chula Vista) or more; the 500 ft. standard was arbitrarily chosen for Council's consideration. Alternatively, they could be limited to only the most heavily traveled streets such as "H" Street and Otay Valley Road, based on the "public service" aspect of the non-commercial message component, this could be coupled with a separation requirement of as much as one or two miles, or more. The amendment could also be expanded to include specific design criteria and guidelines unique to reader boards to ameliorate the aesthetic issues, such as limits on the size of the sign face and lettering, light intensity, method of changing of messages, example - traveling messages vs. changing messages, and appropriate methods for incorporating electronic reader boards onto walls and into freestanding signs. Design issues could alternatively be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the conditional use permit process. ~,3 Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 4 March 18, 1992 It would appear difficult to address the concern with the definition and administration of the non-commercial message by way of language in the amendment because of the wide variety of messages and approaches that could have a public service aspect, although the staff could attempt to do so. The most reasonable approach may be to react to proposals as they are submitted through the conditional use permit process. If the Council should decide to pursue this amendment, it would be appropriate to receive input from the Safety Commission on the traffic safety issue. It should be noted that the proposed auto center on Otay Valley Road has submitted sign criteria which includes an on-site electronic reader board sign. The property is in the I-l limited Industrial lone, and, therefore, would not qualify unless the draft amendment is expanded to include the I-l lone. 3. Sian-Murals This amendment would allow a combination sign-mural (a sign with both a commercial message and an artistic aspect) to exceed the otherwise permitted sign area if the Zoning Administrator deems that it has artistic value. Council: Council expressed concern with the definition of sign-murals and suggested that it be better outlined and less open to interpretation. PC/DRC: The ORC shared the concern of Council with the definition of sign-mural and what constitutes "artistic value". The Commission expressed positive experiences, implementation. varying opinions. Some liked the idea based but were concerned with regulation on and Staff: This draft amendment is the one of most concern to staff because of the difficulty in implementation and the potential for abuse. After much thought, we could not devise a better definition for the mural component than that which has "artistic merit". The question is who should make this judgment. Perhaps it should be the Cultural Arts Commission rather than the Zoning Administrator. The definition could perhaps be refined to specify that the artistic aspect of a sign-mural cannot in any way convey a commercial message which relates to the business on the site, i.e., no representations of toys on a toy store or food on a grocery store. This may be difficult to formulate into a workable standard or guideline, but the staff could attempt to do so if that is Council's desire. ~,1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 5 March 18, 1992 Another difficulty in implementation is that in order to make a judgment on the artistic merit of a proposal, it would likely be necessary to have a very accurate and detailed representation of the sign-mural. It could not be judged in "concept" based upon dimensions and letter and color samples as is often done with traditional signs. Also, there would need to be some way to ensure that the sign-mural would be rendered in a manner which exactly duplicates the representation in detail and artistic quality. In order words, it is foreseen that sign-murals could often be rendered in a less than artistic manner which could not be judged until after the fact. Finally, we believe the potential for abuse of this concept may be great because it could be seen as a relatively inexpensive way to significantly increase the sign area available to any particular property. Conclusion These comments and observations are offered for Council's consideration and further direction. If Council should decide to proceed with one or more of the draft amendments, staff should be given direction with respect to the content of the amendment(s}, and further directed to prepare a report and recommendation for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Counc il . SIGNS c:2 v~ I a."~ '. DRAFT AMENDMENTS February 18, 1992 .. ,;......~ ~- 19.60 Signs , 19.60.030 Application-Contents required-Determination authority-Appeals. All signs requiring a sign permit shall be submitted for approval by the zoning administrator, prior to installation. 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 desii" review committee on appeal. shall determine whether approval shall be granted for any sign based on its conformance with the regulations and design standards set forth herein. Where an annlication is denied by the zoninl! ~~:~:s:t~~ ~~ the desien review committee on ~",".ll1. the lIPnlicant shall be informed in .' '. _ ~ies neCessary in order to annrove the annlication. If the annlicant chooses ;~ ~~";nd th~ ~~lication to reflect said chanl!es. the zonini administrator shall irant the permit. The zonine administrator shall render a decision on a siin permit within seven d~s of the date of lIPplication or the rermit shall be deemed awroved. The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the llaaning eemmissisR in llfesrdaRee vAtIl the lflYlisiSRS af 8eetisR 19.14.9:S9. desiin review committee within ten workinl! days after the decision is rendered. In the absence of such appeal, the determination by the zoning administrator shall be final. ~ ~s~';:~~= committee shall render a decision on the l\P,pea! at the next available desien ~'e ..' ;~ti~e or the siin permit shall be deemed IIpnroved. An lIoneal =~~ a~~s~~s~~ nri~; to ~ desii~ review ~mmittee meetine shall be sch~uled for that . . I ;;;tlt~ deslin revIew commIttee ~ be further annP.llled In llt'l'L,mance with the provisions of Section 19.14.583. (Sipa196O) J. -7 .-. 19.04.229 Sian. Combinatiqp Sian-Mural. ~ombination Sian-Mural is a sian which has both a commercial messa. e or content. reaardless of the use of alnhanumeric ;~~i~~ ~~d an artistic comnonent or asnect. and is affixed to t a buildina. fence or other wall bv naint. lamination. :~u~:;~~. or other similar nrocess. and is located on the same o on which is beina conducted the commercial activity to which the commercial .easaae relates. 19.04.235 Sian. Electronic .Bssaae board. E;:~t~onic messaae board sian means a sian whose messaae is disDla___ _~ liahts. or liaht emittina diodes. and is electronic- allv chanaeable. 19.60.170 Flashing, animated or moving signs prohibited-Except ions-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~ eftd barber poles and electronic messaae board sians. as same may be herein nermitted. Signs are also prohibited with the excention of those listed as nermitted in the above naraaranh 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. D. Utilize whirligigs or any similar item which uses wind as its source of power. (Ord. 1575 51 (part), 1974; Ord. 1356 51 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 51 (part), 1969; prior code S33.950(E) (3). 19.60.600 Combination Sian-Mural. Ai T~e zonina Administrator. or his desianee. shall determ'ne f; ~ian or a nictorial renresentation is a ~~~l;:;~F~~ :~~~-~~r;i. The decision of the Zonina Administrator ;ith~ h; ~~~;i b ; t~ the Desian Review committe~ in accordance t ~~~cedures for anneal of sian dec1sions. B. A Combination Sian-Mural shall comDlv with all rules. ~~~I~~iO~: :~d ~~~~; ~~~~d~~d~ ~~~~;~n~ to wall sians. and the a i -m s n 1ft ca1culatina the maximum .;J../cf " f aiven buildina excent the Zonina ~~i;~e sian are~ or-a the total nermitted sian area of a 9t;;~ b;i~~~~am~~ t~~r:~~~na Administrator shall deem that the c~~in;ti~~ Sian-:~ral ~a~ artis~~~ ~~~~~aw~~~n~:~~:~~~ :~~~l be ~~~~~:~~~!~~~th; De:~~sR~ei~w Committee in accordance with the ~~;;;i ~~ocedures for anneal of sian decisions. 19.60.610 Electronic Mess.ae Board Reaulation. . cation for an electronic messaae o~ ~e ~o~~1i;~~tt~~~ ~~:tl~rom any other lawfullY nermitted :~:~~ ~~i~ ;; ~; ; b~;rd sian. the Zonina Administrator may issue .~K.&~~~'7- -ls~;~'t f the use of an electronic messaae board a ~~n~~t;~ea~ ;;;;~ialo~one excent the Commercial-Neiahborhood :~~~ ~~ ~..~ ~~ ~~~ditions as said Zonina Administrator shall deem ;~~;o~;~~t;Ub~t which conditions shall i~clude. but shall not n;~;~~~rilv be limited to. the followina. t of said sian dedicates at least 30' of the A~ Th: ~~~~:-~~e disnlaved on the sian to convevina non- ~~:; ~~~;1-;~ ~~~ t or other messaaes. of benefit to th ~~;;-~'t~~_~~c~~e~ :ianificant nortion of the comm~nitv. ;~~ ;di~~u~~.~U~h rules and reaulations ~s maY. from t1me to tim~~-be-DromUlaated bv the Zonina Admin1strator. CIOR\5ip&3 J-..-q. SUBJECT: MARCH 4, 1992 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PERMIT PROCESSING STREAMLINING SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING GROUP A: DESIGNREVIEW/SIGNS MICHAEL STEINER POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO CITY SIGN ORDINANCE DATE: TO: FROM: Since February 14,1992 working groups A & B have discussed amongst themselves and staff the proposed ordinance changes as they appear in your informational packet. Because of the brief time line since the initial proposal, (January 28, 1992), and staff's response, (February 12, 1992), this report was unable to be included in your information packet. The report is divided into three sections; the three sections: 1) Sign application, appeal, and notification time line, 2) Sign, Combination Sign-Mural, and 3) Sign, Electronic message board. 1) Section 19.60.030: Application-Contents required-Determination authority- Appeals. Proposal calls for thefollowing modifications: 1st) It provides that the applicant be notified in writing of necessary changes needed in order for the wning administrator to approve the application. 2nd) It mandates that the zoning administrator shall render a decision within seven day of the date of application or the permit will be approved. 3rd) It amends the ordinance in that an appeal would be appealed to the design review committee rather than the planning commission. 4th) This appeal would occur within ten working days 5th) The design review committee shall render a decision on the appeal at the next available meeting or the sign permit shall be deemed approved. 6th) If an appeal is received at least ten days prior to a design review committee meeting then it shall be scheduled for that meeting. Report: This proposal meets with approval from our working groups. It achieves the goal of quantifying the denial by putting necessary changes requested into written form. It provides for mandatory timelines which if not kept by the wning administrator or design review committee will automatically result in the approval of the permit. We would also agree to a request by staff that an additional time of three working days be granted to the Planning Director to render a decision on an)' permit request that inadvertently was not acted upon in a timely manner by the zomng administrator. 2-ID 2) Section 19.04.229 Sign, Combination Sign-Mural Section 19.60.600 Combination Sign-Mural This proposal calls for the creation of a new category of signage to be designated as "Combination Sign-Mural" This category of sign shall have both a commercial message or content and an artistic component or aspect. Furthermore it shall be affixed to the side of a building, fence or other wall by paint, lamination, emulsion, or other similar process while located on the same property on which is being conducted the commercial activity to which the commercial message relates. It is to be appealable through normal procedures of sign decisions and shall comply with all rules, and regulations relating to wall signs; except the Zoning Administrator may increase the total permitted sign area of a given building if the Administrator shall deem that this application has artistic value which warrants such consideration. Report: This proposal is unacceptable as currently written. In order to gain an a appreciate of what a Combination Sign-Mural could mean the following photographs of "signs and murals" photographed in Chula Vista and San Diego are presented for discussion. These are to be viewed and discussed. Some of the questions raised are: Does the current proposal intend to mandate both commercial and artistic elements'? If so many of the "quality" murals existing in San Diego would not be permissible. If they are to have both elements are we prepared to say what proportions there need to be of each'? Bob Didion (Sign Code Administrator of San Diego) shared that the San Diego ordinance does not require any non commercial mural to be permitted. Do we know if the proposed sign category would allow the same results'? If so is this desirable'? As proposed this would require the Zoning Administrator to "deem" whether or not the sign had "artistic value". This is quite subjective and most possibly is indefensible if challenged. The proposal needs more comprehensive thought and review of its integral components. 3) Section 19.04.235 Sign, Electronic message board. Section 19.60.610 Electronic Message Board Regulation Section 19.60.170 Flashing, animated or moving signs prohibited-Exceptions-Other prohibited signs. This proposal creates a new category of signage and in order to do so both modifies an existing ordinance section and creates two new sections. It defmes this category as a sign" whose message is displayed in lights, or light emitting diodes, andis electronically changeable. The proposal stipulates that these signs could not exist within 500 feet from another electronic message board. The permit would be on a conditional basis and limited to Commercial zones except the Commercial- Neighborhood zones. Additionally the Zoning Administrator shall "deem" if conditions warrant the issuance of the permit with the following conditions mandatory: 1) 30% of the time dedicated to non-commercial announcements, or other messages, of benefit to the community. 2) The operator of such sign would be subject to rules and regulations that may be promulgated by the Zoning Administrator. ~..II Report: This proposal is unacceptable as currently written. In order to understand the type of sign being considered there are accompanying photographs of a sign in San Diego (comer of Clairemont Mesa Blvd. and Convoy Street) which is similar to what is being proposed. These signs can be expensive so one should not expect to have numerous applicants. The city of San Diego has a total of five of these types of signs with all but the one cited above being located in either shopping centers/malls or a hotel. Whether or not the SOO feet limitation is adequate is a fair question. The 30 % of time being dedicated raises a host of issues as to a) monitoring compliance b) what groups or individuals get access to the signage c) regulation of appropriate messages etc. Liability could be an issue though San Diego reports that there is no objective correlation between the above mentioned sign and accident occurrence. Mr. Didion does indicate that they do receive a host of complaints regarding the sign at Convoy and Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (This sign was permitted accidentally and if it were to be applied for today would not be permitted according to Mr. Didion) Finally there is ambiguity with the current proposal in that a a potential applicant is subject to possible rules and regulations which would be determined at a future date. Though this leaves the staff with an option for future developments not yet realized, it seems that to indicate by it's existence the uncertainty of creating this section in the first place. Recommendation is for more in depth study of other municipalities ordinances and compilation of their experiences. ~-/z,...