Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/07/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 17, 1974 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rice, Rudolph, Wilson, Floto and Starr. Also present: Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Assistant Planner Liuag, and Secretary Mapes. Acting Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rudolph-Wilson) The minutes of the meeting of June 26, 1974 be approved as mailed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Acting Chairman Chandler announced that since the City Council had on the previous night reappointed two Commissioners whose terms were to expire on June 30, he would entertain nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. Commissioner Wilson nominated George Chandler for the office~of Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Rice, who also moved that nominations be closed. Mr. Chandler was unanimously elected to serve as Chairman. Commissioner Wilson nominated Dorothy Rudolph for the office of Vice- Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Floto. No further nominations were made and Commissioner Wilson moved that nominations be closed. Mrs. Rudolph was unanimously elected to serve as Vice-Chairman. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to revision of sign provisions Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that Director of Planning Peterson had been requested to attend a Council Conference tonight and had directed him to represent the Department at this meeting. He noted that the question of grandfathering versus amortization of nonconforming signs and the review of the design of signs by staff or another agency were discussed at the meeting of June 19, 1974, and direction was given to the staff to reword the ordinance as it relates to design review. The Planning Commission also asked for a determination of legality of some issues by the City Attorney's office. It was therefore suggested that discussion and testimony at this meeting deal with the provisions for height and size of signs to be allowed in the various zones under the proposed ordinance revisions. Mr. Lee advised that in the staff's opinion the height and size provisions are one of the most important elements of the ordinance, and for that reason they have reviewed the sign ordinances of various other local jurisdictions in San Diego County. This review reaffirms the opinion that the proposed regulations for the C-T zone of 35' height limitation and 150 sq. ft. area is a very defensable limita- tion. As a comparison, he noted that the City of San Diego allows signs at a 30' height and 150 sq. ft. in area on streets with a 35 mile an hour speed limit. E1 Cajon allows 100 sq. ft. of sign area for one business or 150 sq. ft. at a location occupied by more than one tenant. Their height limitation is 24'. -2- 7/17/74 Mr. Lee reported that the staff completed the survey of freestanding signs in the C-T zone to determine which ones exceed the 50' height and 225 sq. ft. area as permitted in the existing ordinance, and determined that they constitute about 12% of the total number of signs. The staff recommends that if the proposed ordinance is adopted those signs which meet the height and area regulations of the existing ordinance be permitted to remain under a modified grandfather provision, but those which exceed the height or area requirements of the existing ordinance be subject to abatement, as well as other types of signs which are nonconforming due to projection or number allowed. Mr. Lee also called attention to the revision of the design review section based on discussion at the previous meeting. Under this revision, design review is separated into two areas: shopping center locations and individual business locations. These provisions still contain guidelines to be considered in sign review. Assistant City Attorney Beam, speaking with regard to grandfathering versus amortization, reported that the courts have ruled that requirement can be made that a nonconforming use be abolished within a certain period of time. That period of time should reflect reasonable time in terms of impact on private citizens when balanced against public purpose. He pointed out that under grandfathering a use which has been abandoned for a period of time is not protected, but must be abated. In addition, grandfathering would not permit structural modifications which would lengthen the life of the sign. Mr. Beam expressed the opinion that the staff's recommendation to require the removal of nonconforming signs if a building permit is applied for to remodel or replace the sign would be valid; however, he did not agree that the provision requiring removal of a sign if a building permit having a valuation of $5,000 or more is taken out on the property would be in conformance with the law. He felt that a building permit to improve a building is not sufficient circumstance to trigger abatement of a separate freestanding sign. Wi th regard to CommissionerRicds suggestion for providing a different schedule for abatement based on the stringency of the zone, Mr. Beam felt this could not be validly considered in an amortization clause. Mr. Beam affirmed that under a grandfathering provision, one of the changes which could require a sign to be brought into conformance with regulations would be a change of the face of the sign. Mr. Beam suggested that one alternative would be to have an amortization schedule and to key that in to the periods of depreciation that are found in the business community as it relates to signs. He felt this would require further testimony and information from the sign users. Commissioner Wilson asked if the Attorney's office had researched the suggestion made by the Broadway Association that a change of ownership of a business or property would require removal of a nonconforming sign. Mr. Beam advised that in a similar case in Idaho it was ruled that a change of ownership is not a proper circumstance for abatement of a nonconforming use, since the use is applicable to the property and not to the individual owner. -3- 7/17/74 Mr. Beam further asserted that he did not believe amortization should be on a sliding scale based on the value of the sign, but should be a fixed period for all nonconforming signs. Commissioner Rudolph asked about the validity of the staff's suggestion to grand- father signs which conform to the existing ordinance but would become nonconforming if the proposed regulations are adopted. Mr. Beam expressed the opinion this could be done if the Commission establishes the differences to be seen under the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance. He felt that a valid reason for such grandfathering is an attempt to mitigate the economic burden to be felt by businesses. Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing reopened. Dick Callahan, 1239 First Avenue, advised that they feel at odds with the latest staff report since their request for grandfathering and other changes were based on the existing sign regulations and the staff is now proposing a further reduc- tion in the allowable height and size. He contended that they have as much evidence to support the need for the larger signs as the staff presented to support their recommendation. Herb Kuhlken, Fuller Ford, asserted that the original problem concerning sign regulations dealt with the abatement of signs under the existing ordinance which allows 50' height and 225 sq. ft. area. It was their desire to institute a grand- father clause that would eliminate that problem and leave the height and size regulations as they presently exist. Arden H. Berg, Community Representative for Sign Users Council of California, 311 North Normandie Avenue, Los Angeles, reported that the Council represents many financial institutions--hotels, motels, restaurant chains and petroleum firms--and that they are very knowledgea~e in the area of sign legislation. He contended that the height and size of signs should be based on research in the field of perceptual analysis applied to various conditions of traffic speed. He referred to publications by Professor Prince of the Department of Opthamology of Ohio State University and by Dr. James Claus which he asserted refuted the information contained in "Street Graphics" which has been used to the detriment of the business conmunity. Mr. Berg read testimonials relating to freeway oriented signs from such firms as Denny's Restaurants, Disneyland Hotel, Colony Kitchen, Holiday House and Standard Oil of California, which substantiated the effect on the volume of business of the visibility of sign advertising, both on premise and offsite. Mr. Berg also displayed several large photographs showing signs ranging in size from 200 sq. ft. to 620 sq. ft. and their relationship to the building and setting in which they were used. Many of the Commissioners acknowledged these appeared to be large signs. Commissioner Rice commented that the examples cited by Mr. Berg appear to be very heavily freeway oriented, and that signs appropriate for Broadway in Chula Vista are not comparable to those of 55 or 65 mile an hour freeway orientation. -4- 7/17/74 Mr. Berg acknowledged that this presentation was of freeway oriented signs, but these firms make a 10% reduction in signs when they are not freeway oriented. He supported the position that sign regulations should be as flexible as possible in order that a business might determine the size of sign best suited to its loca- tion and purpose. He felt there is no available data to support the proposed reduction in allowable sign size in Chula Vista from 225 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. and a height reduction from 50 feet to 35 feet. He felt no change should be made until there is viable evidence that other communities have benefited from having more restrictive ordinances. Mr. Berg contended that a 50 to 60 ft. height limitation would be comparable to heights established as cities grew before limitations were enacted. However, allowing that height would not mean that all sign users would utilize that dimension due to cost factors, available space, etc. Current Planning Supervisor Lee asked Mr. Berg if he is recommending that the maximum height limit be set at 50 feet and some design review body given the responsibility of determining if that height or a lower figure is most suitable for each location. Mr. Berg concurred that some review board would be required but they should be allowed to work under flexible limitations. Mr. Lee pointed out that the Broadway Association has spoken against discretionary power of the staff or a design review committee. Mr. Lee also noted that Mr. Berg had referred to the expertise of Dr. Claus and that he had been retained by the City of San Diego to write their sign ordinance. Chula Vista's proposal for 30' height and 150 sq. ft. area limitation is related to the provisions of San Diego's ordinance. Mr. Berg asserted he could not support San Diego's ordinance because it has not been proven in practice. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that in the Thoroughfare Commercial zone, free- standing signs are allowed on lots wi th 50 foot frontage, and since this results in a proliferation of signs, this should be taken into consideration in establishing the maximum size limit. Mr. Berg concurred this is a problem but he felt it should be solved by a complete sign plan dealing with location of signs rather than a 20% reduction in height limitation. Harvey Burnens, owner of Shakey's Pizza, 825 Broadway, pointed out that Dr. Claus did not write San Diego's ordinance, but he wrote a study for them giving his views, and based on that study the Planning Commission used his suggestions which they liked in the preparation of their ordinance and discarded the suggestions they did not like. Mr. Burnens expressed the opinion that the ordinances adopted by other cities really have nothing to do with Chula Vista; he felt the restrictions should relate to what best suits and serves the needs of Chula Vista. He suggested that before the Commission adopts new restrictions they should have a list of all the signs that would become nonconforming and know how many would have to be removed. The meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. -5- 7/17/74 Jerry Prior, Barbecue Pit, 689 H Street, suggested that if the staff compares the ordinances of other cities, they should also compare the results, problems, complaints, reprisals by merchants, etc., which result from those ordinances. He expressed disappointment that the communicative channels evidenced at the previous meeting had not been maintained. He asserted that the concern of the business community relates to the existing ordinance and they should not be confronted with further restrictions. He felt the existing ordinance should be maintained with respect to size and height of signs but that the administration of that ordinance should be improved. He felt that no effective change had been made in regard to discretionary powers of the staff in the review and approval of signs. He indicated that unless the Planning Commission eliminates this discretionary power, the Committee will carry the fight to the City Council and, if necessary, even into the courts. Herb Kuhlken, Fuller Ford, concurred that revisions to the existing ordinance should deal with the problem of abatement under the existing ordinance and the problem of discretionary power and if the Planning Commission agrees with sugges- tions made by the Broadway Sign Committee they should direct the staff to incor- porate those changes. If the Commission cannot do this they should refer the matter to the City Council for their direction. Commissioner Rudolph asked if it is their requrest that the grandfather clause apply to all signs presently existing in the city. Mr. Kuhlken indicated not necessarily all signs, but that the principal of grand- fathering rather than abatement should be applied to all signs that were legally erected under a permit. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the section on design review has been rewritten by the staff in accordance with the direction from the Commission for a clarification of the wording rather than for elimination of the provision of design review. He also pointed out that the proposal for 35' height and 150 sq. ft. area limitation are not recent revisions to the proposed draft but have been under consideration for the past several months. He also felt that the proposal by the staff to grandfather those signs which were between the existing limitation of 50' and 225 sq. ft. and the proposed limit of 35' and 150 sq. ft. was a valid proposal by the staff to meet the needs of the business community. Commissioner Wilson asked if the abatement notices which went out under the exist- ing ordinance took into account the factor that if signs were within 10% of the permitted maximum they would be allowed to remain. Mr. Lee advised that it did not. This provision was included in the draft of the proposed ordinance at the suggestion of the Council. Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce, suggested that if grandfathering is not approved as a means of protecting the interest which the businessman has invested, then the City should pay for the value of the sign which is required to be removed. If it is desired to improve the aesthetics of the City through the removal of signs, then the cost of such improvement should should be born by all citizens. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wilson stressed the importance of protecting the economic interest which a businessman has in a sign for his business. He contended that if a sign was put up under the existing ordinance, it should be allowed to remain. -6- 7/17/74 Mr. Beam reminded the Commission that from his research there is no way to require a nonconforming sign to be brought into conformance with a change of ownership, but modification of a sign could be cause for requiring it to be brought into conform- ance. Commissioner Rice asked the effective date of the previous ordinance for the regula- tion of signs prior to the present existing ordinance. Mr. Lee advised that sign control started in 1962 with the adoption of the "D" Design Control zone, which limited a sign in that area to 50 sq. ft. in area. Other than that, the only requirement for erecting a sign was a building permit for the structure. Regulation of signs in the commercial zones was not effective until 1970 when the existing ordinance provisions were adopted. Commissioner Floto expressed support for grandfathering and while he expressed no definite stand on height and size, he felt the 50' height and 225 sq. ft. area is not too much of a problem. He felt that even with the latest suggested revision relating to discretionary power, there would be problems in administering the ordinance. Commissioner Rudolph advised that she could not support grandfathering all signs in existence now since the sign ordinance is intended to create a city for the benefit of all citizens living here and that has to be balanced against the economic impact. She expressed agreement for grandfathering signs which came between the existing ordinance and the proposed regulations subject to the condition that a permit for remodeling or replacement of a sign would require that it be brought into conformance with the ordinance. She supported amortization of non- conforming signs because that has been shown to be a legal means of enforcinga sign ordinance. She asked about the maximum period for amortization under the existing ordinance, and it was affirmed it is 10 years. With regard to height and size, Commissioner Rudolph reported that herown obser- vation had convinced her that on Broadway or any thoroughfare in the city a sign of 35' and 150 sq. ft. is clearly visible. She pointed out that very large signs have a tendency to block neighborhing signs, and that all signs are more readily visible if none are very large. With regard to design review, she expressed the desire that everything could be spelled out in black and white. She asked if there is some criteria which could be referred to in judging signs. Mr. Lee agreed this is a problem which has no easy solution. He reported that in a recent conversation with Dr. Claus, who is presently engaged in a review of sign ordinances of California and Arizona, Dr. Claus expressed what he felt was a need for design review by planning departments. He indicated this is essential since it permits 90% of the sign requests to be handled over the counter in the depart- ment. Mr. Lee noted that provision is made for referral to the Planning Commission or City Council if the applicant is not satisfied with the action of the staff. Commissioner Rice expressed support of the staff proposal for grandfathering signs which are between the 50' height, 225 sq. ft. area, and the proposed new limitations, but felt that other signs should be subject to abatement. He felt that the staff proposal with regard to design review is reasonable, but suggested the possibility of deleting design review for a period of possibly six months and then reviewing the results to see what the effect has been and see if there is evidence of self- control which the business community advocates. With regard to height and size, Mr. Rice felt the limitations proposed by the staff for the thoroughfare commercial zone are of a significant size to be good identification for the businesses. He felt these should not be compared to freeway oriented signs. -7- 7/17/74 Commissioner Wilson called attention to the fact that more than just freestanding signs would be affected by the proposed ordinance revisions and abatement. He pointed out that some signs would be nonconforming because both a freestanding sign and projecting sign are utilized on the same property, whereas the ordinance would permit only one or the other. He felt this would have considerable impact on some businesses. He again expressed support for a grandfather clause as the only fair way. Commissioner Start reported that in light of the hardship which has been expressed he would feel more lenient toward grandfathering. He felt that the present draft revision of the ordinance provides for adequate height and size for strip commer- cial use. With regard to design review, he felt this city should look to other municipalities who have been successful in creating an attractive environment and raising business potential. He did not feel that design control should be let go even for a six month period, which might result in the recurrence of flags and pennants which have been abated. He reported that he had personally spent some time finding out what other municipalities are doing and was amazed at how much more stringent their design review requirements were. He advised that several cities have design review boards made up, in some cases, by interior designers, graphic designers, etc. Ne felt that since there is not an abundance of that type of professionals in this area, Chula Vista would have to depend on nonprofessionals to serve on such a board. Ne also felt that the Planning Commission should not be the design review board since they are not as qualified in this regard as the professional planners hired in the Planning Department. He expressed support of the discretionary powers section as proposed by the staff. Ne suggested that some merchants have probably taken advantage of the expertise offered by the staff and have realized a better sign or better building as a result. It was suggested by Commissioner Wilson that each of the three elements discussed be considered by separate motions. This was agreeable with the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Floto, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that grandfathering be incorporated in the sign ordinance; such grandfathering to apply to all existing signs in the city today. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Wilson, Floto and Start NOES: Members Rudolph, Chandler and Rice ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner Rice, seconded by Commissioner Rudolph, that grand- fathering be allowed for those signs between the 35' height and 150 sq. ft. area limitation and the 50' height and 225 sq. ft. area, and that abatement be required for all other nonconforming signs. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Rice, Rudolph and Chandler NOES: Members Wilson, Start and Floto ABSENT: None It was agreed that this matter should be referred to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. -8- 7/17/74 MSC (Rudolph-Start) RecoF~end to the City Council the adoption of the proposed revisions to the ordinance relating to height, size and types of signs in the agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial zones. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Chandler and Rice NOES: Member Wilson ABSENT: None MSC (Start-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of an amendment to Section 33.950 with subsection F covering Design Review a~ended in accordance with the staff report for this meeting, including provision for review by the Zoning Administrator. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Members Starr, Rudolph, Chandler and Rice NOES: Members Wilson and Floto ABSENT: None Director of Planning Peterson asked if the Commission desired to have the final draft of the ordinance brought back on August 14th for adoption, or wanted it forwarded to the Council based on the recommendations adopted tonight. It was confirmed that the motions adopted indicate the Commission's recommendation and the ordinance should be forwarded to the City Council on that basis. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Niek Slijk, Chamber of Commerce, expressed a concern that the Commission refers to the business community as separate from the community as a whole. He feels the businesses are a part and parcel of the entire community and should not be considered as a separate entity. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson congratulated Commissioners Chandler and their reappointment to the Planning Commission at the previous night's Floto on Council meeting and reported that Alex Pressutti was appointed as a replacement for former Commissioner John Macevicz. He assumed Mr. Pressutti would be sworn in by the Council and take his seat on the Commission at an early date. AD~JOURNMEN~T Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary