Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1974/06/19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 19, 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, Starr and ex-officio member Anewalt. Absent, with previous notification, Commissioner Floto. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Deputy City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. Acting Chairman Chandler led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to revision of sign provisions Director of Planning Peterson noted that the text for revisions to the ordinance have been under consideration and review by the Commission and the Chamber of Commerce and Broadway Association. He suggested that the Commission first decide whether they wish to discuss these revisions section by section, or first discuss the four items of concern listed in the document recently submitted by the Broad- way Association. The first three of these items deal with a grandfather clause versus abatement procedure, maximum height and area allowed for signs in various zones, and whether the staff should have discretionary review powers in the approval of signs. If these questions are first resolved, depending on the action taken, the Commission may then wish to go ahead and consider either the staff proposed draft of the sign ordinance or the Broadway Association's proposed ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Beam advised that based on a meeting attended this afternoon by representatives of the Broadway Association, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Lee and himself, he felt it is advisable to first discuss the four issues raised by the Broadway Association since they feel these are the overriding issues that will determine the provisions of the sign ordinance. Acing Chairman Chandler declared the public hearing reopened. Merritt Hodson, 280 K Street, representing Chula Vista Taxpayers Association and also President of the Broadway Association, reported those two organizations are in full agreement concerning their draft of the sign ordinance and the need to resolve these four main points. The Chairman asked that the staff address the first issue, that of adopting a grandfather clause or abatement procedure. Director of Planning Peterson expressed the opinion that the abatement procedure is the preferable procedure since it is a legally defensible arrangement providing the abatement period is reasonable and he felt a reasonable period could be determined. He pointed out that the problem with the grandfather clause is that the existing businesses would enjoy for almost an indefinite period a signing privilege that new businesses coming in would not have, particularly in a strip commercial zone where the signing element is critical. He felt that in the long run the abatement procedure is more fair than the grandfather procedure. -2- 6/19/74 - Current Zoning Supervisor Lee pointed out the grandfather provision proposed by the Chamber of Commerce is a modified grandfather clause which provides that when a business changes hands or remodeling of the structure has taken place, then the sign would be brought into conformance with the ordinance provisions. A survey has determined that along the length of Broadway during the last five years a total of 18 businesses which have remodeled their structures at a valuation of $5,000 or more; that constitutes about 7~% of the businesses. Figures are not presently available on the number of businesses which have changed ownership but that can be obtained. 46 businesses, or 19~%, have remodeled at a cost of $1,000 to $5,000. Jerry Prior, 689 H Street, restaurant owner and member of the Broadway Association, expressed their position as not being opposed to a sign ordinance; they acknowledge the need for control of the visual environment, but feel that such control should not discriminate against the business community. They are concerned with the nature of the administration of the ordinance. He indicated that their logic in supporting a grandfather clause is that if the sign was legally erected, it should not subsequently be required to be removed because of a change in legislation. He agreed there should be controls over the future, but the people who have established the nucleous of the economics of the community should not be penalized. Niek Slijk, Manager of Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that the sign ordinance is created for the beautification of the community and a few individuals should not be required to carry the burden of the cost of this beautification. He felt businessmen should be paid by the City for the signs which must be removed due to new ordinance restrictions. He contended that the businessmen heretoday have created the business climate and newcomers are attracted because of the business climate. He also felt that the modified grandfather clause which would require conformance of signs in the event of remodeling would eventually eliminate most of the nonconforming signs since progressive businessmen would remodel within a few years to keep up with competition. Deputy City Attorney Beam expressed concern as to whether the grandfather clause could be written so as to require conformance to new standards when the business changed ownership, since zoning regulations apply to the land rather than to the individual owner. The clause proposed by the Broadway Association would make the existing signs a personal right that is not transferable with the transfer of the business interest. He pointed out that the requirement of structural soundness and safety and the requirement for a legal permit for the initial installation are normal requirements of any grandfather clause. He noted that the two different points of view under consideration here are the procedure for abatement of non- conforming signs within a specified period of time which must be reasonable in the eyes of the law, or the provision for grandfathering which normally allows repairs to be made of such nature that extends the useful life of the nonconforming structure and which applies to the land and not to the owner of the sign. Jerry Jackson, representing the Sign Users Council of California, 311 North Norman- die Avenue, Los Angeles, pointed out that economics and safety, as well as aesthet- ics, must be considered in the adoption of sign regulations. He felt the sign ordinance adopted should be one which would encourage the present merchants to continue with confidence in the local government and also encourage outside mer- chants, not yet here, to come into the community with an equal opportunity to be successful. He contended that a grandfather clause is the only way to protect the investment which merchants have made in their signs, noting that this applies to small businesses with less expensive signs as well as larger ones; and requiring abatement on the basis of dollar value discriminates against the smaller sign owners. -3- 6/19/74 Mr. Jackson cited numerous cities in the Southern California area which had adopted restrictiVe sign ordinances and then found it necessary to give up the program when faced with abatement problems. Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that the existing adopted sign ordin- ance of Chula Vista has an amortization schedule which is very liberal as compared to some of the other cities. Richard Callahan, 77 Broadway, objected to abatement since the legality of that procedure has not been adequately tested in the courts. Deputy City Attorney Beam reported in most recent cases where the abatement period contemplated by the ordinance quals the IRS period for amortization, the abatement period has been upheld by the courts. He felt an ordinance can be written with a fair and equitable abatement procedure that would be legal. Niek Slijk contended that although abatement may be legal, it is unfair and discriminatory against the smaller business which cannot afford the expensive sign which would be permitted to remain for a longer period. Current Zoning Supervisor Lee reported that a recent survey of signs on Broadway reveals that about 55% of the businesses in that area would not be affected if the proposed sign ordinance is adopted. Of those which are affected, it would frequently be a case of having to choose between the existing wall sign, projecting sign or pole sign, or in some instances where a business has two or three wall signs, one would have to be removed. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the Commission must consider the needs of the people in the City as well as the needs of the business community, and it has been her finding that people want something done about the proliferation of signs on Broadway in particular. She felt that some of the signs on Broadway which are far out of line with the ordinance provisions have been there for a long time and would continue to remain for a long time if removal is not required through abatement. She indicated 20 years is too long to wait for normal attri- tion to remove such signs. Niek Slijk alleged that if the people of Chula Vista want relief from visual pollution through the removal of signs, then they should pay for it, just as they would pay for parks or other public improvements, since it is not fair to expect a small segment to bear the economic burden of something which benefits the whole city. Jeanette Krueger, 3859 Avenida Palo Verde, representing South Bay Cities League of Women Voters, reported that a survey of the members of that group bore out the feeling that Broadway is too cluttered with signs, making it difficult to find any particular store; their suggestion was for larger or more easily visible numbers on the doors or store fronts in order to locate a business by the address. She contended that the grandfather clause often means that a poor sign, and therefore a poor investment, is allowed to remain simply because it is there. She also pointed out it is the small businessman who gets lost when his sign is over- whelmed by larger signs up and down the street. She felt that an ordinance that required strict maintenance would be difficult to enforce due to the lack of manpower to do the job. -4- 6/19/74 Merritt Hodson felt the City should be concerned with the economic impact and the possible loss of tax dollars. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed strong support for a sign ordinance to regulate the size and number of signs; he also felt the City should assist the merchants through some subsidization during the changeover from existing signs to signs that would conform to new ordinance restrictions. There being no further discussion on amortization vs. grandfathering, the Planning Commission turned to the matter of discretionary power of the staff in the admin- istration of the sign ordinance. Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that while the proposed ordinance does provide for review by the Zoning Administrator the criteria to be considered is spelled out in the ordinance. He pointed out that the Broadway Association's objection to this review refers to the section relating to a planned signing program, which is an optional program with the businessman. In the basic ordinance, the discretion of the staff is quite limited. He felt that design review is especially important, though, in the case of a shop- ping center where coordinated signs would result in a better overall appearance. Such review could be delegated to staff, to the Planning Commission, or to a separate design review board. Mr. Peterson felt that staff review is the most efficient and expedient, which is a benefit to the businessman. Jerry Prior expressed the opinion that the discretionary powers in the existing ordinance are too broad. He felt the proposed ordinance still provides for this review. He recommended that the basic rules of size, height and number of signs should be specified so that a new businessman knows in advance what is permitted. He suggested that discretionary powers should not be vested in one or two individ- uals. It was pointed out that the businessman has the right of appeal to the Planning Commission if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the proposed new ordinance spells out the standards the Zoning Administrator will go by, and asked which of those Mr. Prior objects to. Mr. Prior replied, "All of them." He contended that the way the ordinance is written the Zoning Administrator has the power to have an arbitrary opinion on every element of signing, from color, to size, to shape. He then cited the conditions for approval granted to the Zoning Administrator under the section relating to Planned Signing Program. It was again explained that the Planned Signing Program is an optional program which the developer or businessman may elect if he wishes to. Mr. Peterson suggested that possibly the approval of such a program, if it involved signing for a major development, should be delegated to the Planning Commission instead of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Prior felt that particularly with reference to color, the Planning Department should not have discretion. -5- 6/19/74 Commissioner Starr commented that you cannot legislate good taste, that is an individual thing, but an ordinance dealing with a public street must place some restriction on individuality. He noted that the Zoning Administrator is given parameters to follow in considering signs and perhaps these need to be looked at, but he felt there must be some guidelines to avoid chaos. Commissioner Wilson asked how many communities have established a design review commiteee. Jerry Jackson reported that this has been done in a number of communites and that problems have resulted, primarily since the members of the committee may not be the best qualified to judge the various aspects that make a sign desirable or undesirable. Niek Slijk pointed out that since Chula Vista is actively seeking new business and industry, it is necessary to have a complete sign ordinance to advise poten- tial firms what is permitted, so that a building and sign can be designed with confidence that it will be allowed in Chula Vista. He felt that height and size should be regulated but regulations or control beyond that restrict the expression of the sign industry. Jerry Prior voiced objection to the l0 guidelines enumerated for design review under the Special Provisions Applying to Signs. He felt that fluorescent paints and garish, clashing colors are a matter of individual taste; also that the limitation of logos, emblems or crests to 50% of the background area, as well as the prohibition of sign copy extending beyond the edges of the background area, are unnecessary restrictions. Mr. Prior quoted from a book written by Dr. James Clouse on the subject of sign design, pointing out that a sign must appeal to many different tastes in order to be successful. Jerry Jackson reviewed the background and credentials of Dr. Clouse who wrote the book, "Legal Rights and Aesthetic Considerations," which is the writing referred to in the Broadway Association report. Two years ago Dr. Clouse came to San Diego and assisted that city in the writing of their sign code. He noted that several major cities throughout the country have sought Dr. Clouse's advice and suggested that reference to the book could be beneficial. When questioned about the San Diego sign ordinance, Mr. Jackson acknowledged that they are having some problems and they are sending out some 7 or 8 thousand letters relative to the enforcement of the sign code. The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Rice suggested that as a compromise between a grandfather clause and abatement procedure, a graduating scale by which existing signs might exceed the regulations of the ordinance and remain without abatement might be adopted. This scale would be a percentage of the adopted regulations and would apply to height, size, projection, etc. The most restrictive zone would be allowed the least overage, and the least restrictive zone would be allowed to exceed by a greater percentage. Signs which exceeded the all,owable tolerance would be subject to abatement under the adopted schedule. -6- 6/19/74 Jerry Prior concurred that this idea has merit but their acceptance would depend on the standards to which it is applied, whether it would be the existing ordin- ance, the proposed revisions, or the Broadway Association's suggested standards. Acting Chairman Chandler requested that the Commissioners give some direction to the staff on the items discussed tonight as they may apply to the revised ordinance. Commissioner Rice advised that he is against the grandfather clause in its entirety as he felt this would perpetuate the good and the bad as it may exist at this time. He would, however, condone grandfathering on a limited scale of overage as he suggested earlier. Commissioner Wilson expressed support of grandfathering with the provision that a business that changes hands would conform to the new ordinance provisions. He felt the amortization schedule might not mean much to a large concern, but for a small businessman to be required to replace his sign might be a definite hardship. Commissioner Rudolph indicated that a grandfather clause that would allow some of the signs now on Broadway to remain for years and years would not be acceptable. She suggested perhaps a longer abatement period or the possibility of bringing some of the nonconforming signs into conformance without too much expense rather than replacing the sign entirely. Commissioner Starr reported that he felt the Broadway Association is requesting a grandfather clause in order to retain the existing signs and then suggesting that large signs be allowed by ordinance in order to compete with the existing signs. This is merely perpetuating what is now existing. He felt a solution might lie in a modification of the abatement schedule. Deputy City Attorney Beam expressed doubt as to whether the compromise suggested by Mr. Rice is available to the City as far as existing legal standards are con- c~ 'ed. Ite also questioned granting the grandfather rights to the present owners rather than relating those rights to the property. He pointed out that zoning regulations are not personal covenants but are applied to the land; they are not subject to curtailment in the change of ownership, unless the land use changes. Acting Chairman Chandler felt that a combination of grandfathering and abatement if an acceptable combination can be arrived at which would serve the interests of the business community and city residents. With regard to discretionary powers, Commissioner Rice felt this is a very diffi- cult point. He felt further effort should be made on the guidelines and defining more explicitly what would be permitted. Commissioner Wilson also felt that discretionary powers which allow personal taste to be the basis of approval or disapproval is not acceptable in the ordinance. Commissioner Rudolph agreed that the standards should be spelled out as clearly as possible, thus lessening the discretion permitted in sign approval. Commissioner Starr acknowledged that enforcement or control of anything as intangible as taste is very difficult, but he felt there must be some type of control or the provision of some parameters for aesthetics. He felt the planning official is the best qualified for this task since he is a professional, whereas Commissioners come from varied backgrounds. He pointed out that signing is only a part of a successful business operation and he felt the Planning Department should have some discretion in sign control. -7- 6/19/74 Acting Chairman[~ndler agreed that there must be a certain amount of control but felt that the wording of the ordinance could be refined so that it would be assistance rather than control. Director of Planning Peterson indicated that with this direction an attempt would be made to rew~rd portions of the proposed ordinance which could then be presented for Commissioner consideration at a continued public hearing on July 17. Herb Kuhlken, General l~nager of Fuller Ford, stated that controversy over sign provisions was created by the abatement proceedings when the notices of the abate- ment schedule were sent out. Those notices applied to the ordinance allowing 50' height and 225 square foot area and those standards should not be changed. He felt the proposed grandfather clause ties in with the 50' height and 225 sq. ft. size, and ties in with allowing new businesses to have signs at those standards in order to compete with existing signs. Commissioner Rice expressed the opinion those standards would apply to freestand- ing signs that were freeway oriented. Commissioner Wilson asked how many signs in the city which are not freeway oriented are in excess of 35' high. Director of Planning Peterson advised that of all the freestanding signs in the city which conform to the existing ordinance, 94% are 35' or less in height. MSUC (Wilson-Rice) The public hearing in consideration of the provisions of the sign ordinance be continued to a special meeting to be held on July 17, 1974. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary