Loading...
11/18/1993GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1993 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on November 18, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jim Sims, Vice -Chairman PLEDGE: Ray Munson, Commissioner CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 6:49 P.M. The Community Development Director requested that Part B of Item 3 be continued to the next meeting. She also stated the minutes could be continued to allow time for the Commission to review them. She informed the Commission that the Bike Trails proposal submitted by staff was not accepted. Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned that she had seen on the news that there has been an outbreak of vehicle break-ins and thefts in San Bernardino and Riverside County Park and Ride facilities. The Community Development Director stated that this is one of the reasons these facilities are being proposed in the urban core of cities and not must along the freeway. The Community Development Director stated that there is an applicant interested in putting in a farmer's market at the old GTI Market. Commissioner Munson asked if Grand Terrace has its own zip code yet. Commissioner Huss said this issue is in its final stages. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1993 MOTION PCM-93-67 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1993 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-67 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue the November 4, 1993 minutes to December 2, 1993. Commissioner Addington seconded. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Sims absent. ITEM #2 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-O l/E-93-12 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITYWIDE REVISIONS TO THE PROHIBITED SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 18, SECTION 18.80.160 AND RELATED POLICIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Community Development Director presented the staff report. She said under current Development Regulations in the Barton Road Specific Plan, any tenant will be able to come to the Commission for approval on any type of sign which does not strictly adhere to regulations. However, she couldn't get the approval of the City Attorney yet. She said what she is proposing would not be a variance process or public hearing, just an extension of this 2 section of the ordinance which they already have. Commissioner Addington asked what was meant by, "Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term goals for the area?" The Community Development Director said something may look very good at this moment, but ten years down the line, it will have a tremendous negative impact. She said usually this kind of sentence is done for environmental reviews. Commissioner Addington said the Community Development Director is stating special findings are required to be made in the negative prior to project approval, and asked if this is one of them. The Community Development Director said yes, stating that if someone has a sign which looks good right now but she considers will be negative in the long run, the commissioners have the right to deny that sign. Chairman Buchanan said the question is whether the project is achieving short-term goals to the detriment of long-term goals, and if the answer is yes, then the sign can't be approved. The Community Development Director said the wording follows the environmental reviews and the State findings which are worded this way, but she could change the wording. Chairman Buchanan said there might be an advantage to that, particularly when dealing with a sign ordinance as opposed to the more conceptual, environmental assessments, as they are dealing with things that need to be clearly understood and implemented by people with no particular planning expertise. He said they may want to try and draft the finding requirements in a more "user-friendly" language -- something more accessible or understandable by people with no particular training in planning issues. The Community Development Director completed the presentation of the staff report. Commissioner Addington asked on Attachment 1, M - Portable Signs, asking why the gas stations get four signs and the others don't. The Community Development Director said she didn't address gas stations as they are very different from retail and have their own needs. She said other sign ordinances from other cities keep gas station regulations separate. She 3 said they need to have several special signs on a permanent basis, whereas O other businesses have those signs through monument signs and window signs. She mentioned that gas stations are controlled by State law, and for example, the City does not have the right to deny a price sign. Commissioner Addington said he was having trouble with the math regarding permits for portable signs not to exceed 45 days out of a 90 day period to a maximum of 120 days per year. The Community Development Director said within 90 days, a portable sign can be up for 45 consecutive days, but those 45 days can be repeated almost three times -- 45 days, 45 days and 30 days to add up to 120 for the year. She said they can also have a banner up three times a year and off-street vehicle signs three times a year, so the whole year can be covered. Commissioner Addington asked about light bulb strings and exposed tubing, wondering if this meant neon signs and holiday decorations were being prohibited. The Community Development Director said holiday decorations are exempt as they are not considered signs. She said this just refers to when someone leaves a business and takes a sign down, they can not leave the exposed tubing for safety reasons. She said neon signs are permitted. Commissioner Addington asked the difference between a monument sign and a marquis sign. The Community Development Director said for example, at the Towne & Country Center, you can walk underneath the promenade next to the stores, and marquis signs would be perpendicular to the store front so that you can read them as you are walking. She said very few businesses use this, unfortunately, as they are very good for pedestrians. Commissioner Addington said on page 3 under "Monument Signs for Business Identification", it says a maximum sign height of 6', and he thought he read somewhere else it was to be raised to 8'. The Community Development Director said it should be 8'. Commissioner Addington said on wall or canopy maximum sign height, it is stated that it should be no higher than 20' above finish grade, and it seems to him three story buildings are higher than 20'. The Community Development Director said right now, the City does not have 4 any signs that are building identification signs, and usually they are 2% of that frontage area, and there are no provisions for building identification signs in the code at this time. She said when they receive the first one, they will have to develop that, and they almost had one from Yeager Development, but the tenant ended up renting somewhere else. She said staff is open to introducing that to the code. Commissioner Addington asked if all the 6' would be changed to 8' on Table 2 under Sign Regulations by Land Use. The Community Development Director said this is still 6' for the business directory sign, as the only one proposed to go to 8' is when it becomes a center combined with a directory sign. She said the zoning here is professional, not commercial, and the retail monument sign doesn't apply here. Commissioner Addington asked if on the last item on Attachment C, Attracting Through Traffic, if the graphic should be 8', to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. He then stated that Attracting Through Traffic is a good start to help the businesses see what they can do and he is glad they are introducing it. He said on the attachment regarding the $240 fee up front for portable signs, he assumes they are not giving a discount for doing it for six months. The Community Development Director said staff is giving them the benefit of not coming to the Planning Department every 45 days, but the price is still the same. She said they don't want to discourage those signs, but they don't want to encourage them either. Commissioner Addington said perhaps since they are using less of staffs time, they might get a discount. The Community Development Director said that is the reason they thought about doing it this way, but not just for staff. She said she spoke with the Executive Director of the Chamber, who asked about the mechanics of this, and if the applicant would have to come every 45 days. She thought this would be a good program for the business owner and staff. Commissioner Wilson said with regard to Section 18.80.110, General Standards, L, second paragraph, he believes at the last discussion regarding temporary signs and public safety concerns, and he asked if this should be worded "parked along" and not "on". He said he didn't realize they were going to try to stimulate the concept of parking the vehicles right on Barton Road. 5 The Community Development Director said this is to allow the Sub Club Depot to keep the truck there if it is painted itself three times a year. She said the truck can be there 45 days, then the banner can be there, or they could have three special signs at the same time, but then they couldn't have a sign continuously the whole year. Commissioner Wilson said he thought he read in another portion of the code that it is not desirable from a public liability standpoint to allow A -frame signs in the public right-of-way, but if they allow a vehicle to become a sign or distraction in the public right-of-way, they inherit a latent liability by doing this. He recommended rewording this portion to say "along" but not "on". He said he can't ever see where it would be appropriate for them to conjure a distraction to traffic by allowing as many as might apply for this to park vehicles along the main thoroughfare of the City just for the purpose of lining up signs. The Community Development Director said they would need to amend the ordinance and make a differentiation of a "normal' vehicle and a vehicle sign, because some people have a tiny sign on the door and it could be anybody's vehicle parked on Barton Road, and unless they stay there more than 72 hours, there is no problem. 7:42 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING DAVE YARNELL PURE DESIGN 22077 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Yarnell said if his A -frame sign is not up, that area is used as a driveway for the gas station, so either pylons need to be put up or his sign needs to stay there permanently, or part of the sidewalk needs to be cut out so it can not be driven on. The Community Development Director said a City Entry Beautification Plan has been approved and includes landscaping the right-of-way in that area, so he shouldn't have this problem then. Mr. Yarnell said the gas station signs are probably as junky as any of the signs out there. He said he doesn't think anybody can complain about his own signs and how he makes them, but the gas station signs are junky. He said one of the worst offenders of signs was the "Wine and Deli" signs, with 12 or 15 signs plastered everywhere -- nothing consistent, nothing uniform -- he is trying to tell everyone his entire story with signs. He said signs are important z to merchants and should address the primary things they do, but they have to have them. He said there have been no worse times than the last three years; last year was the very worst year he had and he has been in business 18 years. He stated there have to be adjustments and concessions, and rules are guidelines, and adjustments need to be made from there for special circumstances. He said signs have limitations as to how long they are useful anyway, and they have to be replenished and updated. He said we do not have a walking community -- everybody drives to everybody's business. Commissioner Munson asked if Mr. Yarnell had ever talked to any of the City officials about trying to remedy the situation about the cars driving up and down the sidewalk. Mr. Yarnell said no, he just put the sign out and it took care of the problem. Commissioner Addington mentioned Mr. Yarnell's comment that businesses need to refresh their signs once in a while. He said the Community Development Director has proposed rotating signs every 45 days, asking if this addressed his concern. Mr. Yarnell said the only external sign he uses is his A -frame sign, which he had professionally done. He said this proposal is a start in the right direction, but whether or not it is going to satisfy everybody else's needs is the question. He said if he has to take his sign down every 45 days, that is what he will do, but people who never knew he sold Thomas Kincaide art know because of that art. He feels if he takes that sign away, nobody will see the signs on the window, which say "Furniture and Art Gallery", not that he sells Thomas Kincaide art. Commissioner Addington asked for suggestions. Mr. Yarnell said ideas come from brainstorming and getting together a committee not made up of employees of the City but of merchants along with some City officials. He said they need to be in the middle of helping make up the sign ordinance, otherwise they won't fit their needs. Commissioner Huss asked if he was part of the committee formed to work with staff. Mr. Yarnell said he was not on that committee. He said the Community Development Director stated that gas stations have special needs, and he stated every merchant has special needs. Commissioner Huss said the State has certain regulations for gas stations. 7 Mr. Yarnell questioned the necessity of oil signs and other signs. O The Community Development Director said the price signs can not be denied, and stations are supposed to be allowed two wall or ground signs that are special service signs, and they are only 2 sq. ft. in size, and they are also allowed to have special advertisement, window or ground, two per station at 6 sq. ft. She said the problem is enforcement, stating that if the stations followed the regulations, they would be clean and wouldn't have so many signs. Commissioner Addington stated that this review process was started by an association of the merchants and the Chamber of Commerce. He asked Mr. Yarnell if what is being proposed fulfills the needs that he has as a merchant. Mr. Yarnell said it fills some of his needs, but what would really fill his needs is to be able to leave his A -frame sign out 365 days a year. He said people drive to his store, and he has to get them to stop by telling them what he does. He said the things he does are endless, so he doesn't advertise everything. PHIL WEBER 22310 BARTON ROAD G.T. 0 Mr. Weber said the worst looking spot is the Village Foods, as there is every kind of sign imaginable, faded paper signs, etc., which don't benefit anybody. He said they have got to look at what would encourage merchants to come into this town and stay. He said this is a small community, and they won't have many Chief s and Stater Bros. who can afford to put up the nicest signs, so they can exclude the small businesses with the fees required. He stated that a small business owner has enough fees, inventory and insurance problems just to get in the door. He said with less businesses, there will be less revenue. He said there should be more encouragement for people to come into town. Commissioner Addington said he is a small business owner in the City, and he recalls Grand Terrace as having some of the lowest fees in the County. The Community Development Director said the fee ordinance had not been amended for 15 years and was amended two months ago, and Grand Terrace is still the lowest in the Inland Empire. She said in terms of banners, this fee was reduced. Mr. Weber said this is fantastic, but he asked how many businesses flocked 8 O N in because we have the lowest fees. He said having the lowest fees or no fees at all would not say, "Come on into our town". He said he is talking about making some of the smaller businesses feasible, especially initially, stating that he can't see where the fees are generating enough good to off -set the bad. He said it is nice if a certain center has a program that calls for all channel letters, but they are extremely expensive, and yet there are some very nice looking signs that look very much like channel letters. He asked how many people would want to put in such an expensive improvement on somebody else's building when they may move in a few years anyway. He said the rules should not be so set in concrete that they can't look at other things, as they need to get more merchants in town. The Community Development Director said channel letters are not required, they are recommended, however, if the landlord or owner proposes a program for a center which is approved by the City, from then on, all the tenants will need to meet that sign program, and this is the case in the Potomac center. She said it was not staff's proposal -- staff just reviewed it and approved it, stating that it could change, but right now, most of the letters are channel letters, so it is a little bit late to change. WALT STANKOWITZ LA PASTA ITALIA 12210 MICHIGAN, #7 G.T. Mr. Stankowitz said on Attachment 1, Section 18.80.110 (L), he requested that the wording, "and are only applicable for new businesses in their first year" be deleted. He said on Attachment 2, Amendments to Barton Road Specific Plan Sign Regulations, Item H, the last few lines didn't make a lot of sense. He was concerned that a lot of power was being centered on one person, and if the merchants catch that one person in the Planning Department on a bad day, he wondered if they may not get an exception to a sign. Chairman Buchanan said this section refers to the Planning Commission not the Planning Department. Mr. Stankowitz said on the Mechanics of Tenant Signs, it talks about the $240.00 up front, $200.00 returned after six months. He said for those that plan on doing this year round, this is $200.00 out of their pocket. He feels this is weak code enforcement. Chairman Buchanan said it is fairly weak but relatively effective and much cheaper for the public in the long run rather than sending City personnel out continually to try and implement things. z Mr. Stankowitz said he takes exception to what the Director had to say about O how they want to help businesses, but not too much. Chairman Buchanan said what the Director said was they are relaxing some of their regulations, but they are not trying to encourage the continual use of temporary signs. He said all of this from a planning standpoint is not good practice; from an economic development viewpoint, there are positive aspects, and staff is trying to take a neutral approach. Mr. Stankowitz said he finds it to be punitive. He said he has had to go out and spend money on up to four different types of sign advertising in order to fit within these guidelines, then he has to get them permitted and come up with $240.00. Commissioner Huss said this is only if he chooses to do all three different types of signs. Mr. Stankowitz said he has to have a sign up constantly, and if he doesn't, nobody comes in. He said he averages one new customer per day from that sign, and when they forget to put it up, they realize midday they haven't had any business. He said the sign is his life blood, and he doesn't have a choice but to do this program; his only other choice is to go out of business or move out of this town. Commissioner Addington said he doesn't like the two options of going out of business or moving out of town. He asked what he would suggest would help out. Mr. Stankowitz said putting something on the greenbelts of the property will not get him any more attention, and making a sign that conforms to the colors of the building so it doesn't stand out won't either. He said he needs something on the street. He said he doesn't mind a $10 permit fee, but he would like to get away from having to rotate the sign every 45 days or putting up a totally new sign. The Community Development Director said because Michigan is not on the Barton Road Specific Plan, she has treated Michigan and Mt. Vernon and other major corridors differently. She said only allowing these signs for the first year does not apply to this merchant, and if he has a sign that is painted, but not on top of the truck, he could have it there permanently according to her proposal. Commissioner Addington asked if this would be permanently within the grassy 10 O area between the curb and sidewalk. Chairman Buchanan said an A -frame sign can not be within the public right- of-way, but perhaps he could have a truck with "Fresh Pasta" and an arrow painted on the tailgate parked on the street. Mr. Stankowitz said he could live with this. Commissioner Munson asked what the difference would be between having a magnetic sign versus a painted vehicle sign. The Community Development Director said part of the study she is doing with Quiel Bros. Signs includes such a sign. Commissioner Addington asked if Item L of Attachment 1 could be reworded to include magnetic signs. The Community Development Director said she first needs to develop some specific design guidelines for painted signs with the sign company. She said she could add that this applies to the Barton Road Specific Plan area to make it more clear. FLOYD HANSEN 22737 BARTON ROAD G.T. Dr. Hansen said he is in a professional area rather than commercial, and in reading these guidelines for monument signs, his sign was blown down by the wind and he needs to replace it. He asked which guidelines he should go by. The Community Development Director said even though the Barton Road Specific Plan requires retail in a lot of areas, there are areas where there are non -conforming uses, however, staff thought that if there is a center which has retail and offices, then staff will allow them to have a monument sign for the retail business with 8" letters which can be read from far away, and office tenants, which do not need as much advertising, would follow the directory sign regulations, so they could have two of a different nature. She said staff could not review Mr. Hansen's sign here -- staff would need to see a program for the center and if the center does not have an upgraded sign program, unfortunately, the landlord or one of the tenants would need to submit one. She said when there are a lot of tenants in a center, there needs to be some continuity -- the signs need to have at least three elements of commonality between them, otherwise the message of the center is lost. 11 Chairman Buchanan said if Mr. Hansen has questions specific to his particular project, he would be better served by making an appointment to meet with the Director. The Community Development Director said he doesn't have any retail tenants there, so he would just follow Administrative Professional guidelines. Dr. Hansen said in the report, with regard to monument signs, a 4' landscaped area for each sq. ft. of sign area is required, and he felt this could be a lot of landscaped area. The Community Development Director said this is part of the Specific Plan and is old legislation. She said some of the old centers did not have that front landscaped area and so they would have some hardship, so this could be adjusted in their discussion. Dr. Hansen said some of the ugliest signs in the City are some of the extraneous signs in the gas stations, and even the ones mandated by the State relative to the pricing of gasoline could be done a little bit nicer. The Community Development Director said with regard to the landscaping required, for example, this is something staff would bring to the Planning Commission through the flexibility section of the ordinance. LORETTA AND JIM BENSON 22310 BARTON ROAD G.T. Ms. Benson said she would have loved to have been on the committee with the Chamber but did not have that privilege. She said Walt tried to get on it, too, but also was not allowed to. She said they feel the same way about the gas stations, stating she doesn't think they need four signs any more than the rest of the merchants need one. She said she doesn't mind rotating signs - - she is willing to do that. With regard to 18.80.030 of Attachment 1, she is not familiar with what is public use, asking if there is a 20 foot easement for utilities and the center keeps up 10' of it, if they couldn't put a sign on that 10'. The Community Development Director said for that center, the right-of-way is at the sidewalk, so if she puts something on the grass, it is not public right- of-way. Chairman Buchanan said a lot of this has to do with liability issues -- the City doesn't want to get sued because somebody tripped over a merchant's sign on Ee 12 the sidewalk. Ms. Benson asked with regard to 18.80.110 (L), the second paragraph, if the "applicable design guidelines" were spelled out somewhere. Chairman Buchanan said not yet, that this is what the Director is working with the sign company personnel to develop. Ms. Benson said she has a problem with the statement, "size and colors to be proportional and compatible with the building", since their center blends into the scene and can't be seen. She said they talked to the management committee today, and they said the center was built and painted to the City's specifications and they can not change the color of the center or the monument sign without the City's approval or a variance, and there is nothing they can do about it. She said now they are being forced to perhaps make their sign compatible with the color and asked for a little more flexibility on that. Chairman Buchanan said he wouldn't interpret "compatible" as meaning "the same as", but more as "not in unpleasant contrast to". The Community Development Director said the colors were not proposed by the City, they were proposed by the architect and the company, then the City Qapproved it. She said if the colors of the building need to change, they need to come back to the Planning Department and Commission. She said "compatible" does not mean "the same", so they can have a color that is a strong contrast but fits very well, and actually it should be contrasting so it can be seen from the street. She said if there is a problem with the proposed sign and the Planning Department disagrees with something, the applicant can always come to the Planning Commission. Ms. Benson asked if signs are not allowed on the public right-of-way due to liability problems, what is the difference with the real estate signs being there? The Community Development Director said this is a policy decision of the City Council. She said this is the only liability the City is willing to take. Commissioner Wilson said if we are allowing a condition that would create a public hazard, then we are making a mistake. Ms. Benson asked if they would be allowed to have their banner that says, "Breakfast" on the lawn. 13 Mr. Benson said they still have people come in that tell them if it had not O been for their vehicle sign, they would not have come in. The Community Development Director said, with regard to the banner, if there is a permit, it can be approved. JOHN ELIOT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 22790 RAVEN G.T. Mr. Eliot said the intention of the committee was to deal with the problem businesses were having with advertising through signage and the restrictions of the existing ordinance. He said what really started it off was the letter that went out to Sub Club Depot, and the Chamber of Commerce stepped forward and asked for a moratorium in order to take those 90 days to try and work out some alternative direction in the sign ordinance. He said the committee was made up of board members within the Chamber of Commerce, and at the time it was selected, some felt there were specific areas of commentary that they couldn't address particularly well, specifically truck signs, and there was a mixture of thought about how this should be dealt with. He said nobody wanted to get sidetracked into a specific area of signage without being able to deal with the whole sign ordinance and the prohibited section, and the reason the committee dealt in general with the overall sign ordinance prohibited section and not with specific businesses was because they didn't want to get lost in the specific. He said the people with specific needs are here to talk to the Commissioners, since they and the City Council have control over what is going to happen with regard to signage. He said it wasn't that the Chamber excluded them -- they just brought them in here differently, and he has been very active in bringing them here. He said the changes have been started and he thinks everyone realizes now that the changes are very necessary for the survival of the town. 8:45 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. - BREAK Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission for discussion and action. He said the proposed language in Subsection H could be more user-friendly. The Community Development Director said she could try to reword that. She said she hasn't yet received City Attorney approval on this, and what she is doing here is basically a variance but not through a variance process, so she isn't sure if it is legal. 14 O Chairman Buchanan said it is not a variance if it is provided for in the code The Community Development Director said it is allowing any non -conforming sign to come to the Commission. She said her original intention was to have this here to allow the creative signs to be able to come to staff, but the way she ended up writing it is to allow every non -conforming sign to come here. She said the other portion of this was to in some way allow a tenant to apply for a truck sign, for example, and the Planning Commission could approve it if they felt comfortable with the findings. She wondered if the wording should be for creative solutions or non -conforming signs, and if it was just for creative signs, she doesn't think the City Attorney would have a problem as that would be completely different than a variance. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was a sign ordinance equivalent to a specific plan type of process, where someone could come in with a sign plan that did not necessarily conform to all of the requirements of the sign ordinance, but make a presentation as a package that it met all the goals and objectives of the ordinance. He said what he is hearing from the testimony here is that the property owners of these centers are either so financially strapped or so short-sighted that they are not working to keep tenants in their buildings by providing them with visibility and good sign opportunities. The Community Development Director said staff has had a very hard time getting landlords to come to City Hall and get a sign program approved. Chairman Buchanan said it seems to him that the problem with the vacancies is not because of the fee the City charges or the restrictions on signs that the ordinance puts out; it is that the landlords and tenants are not working cooperatively. The Community Development Director said the owner of Towne & Country was an exception, as he came in and got a sign program, and all the tenants agree with the sign program and there are no complaints from that center. Chairman Buchanan said apparently the owner of Towne & Country hasn't been able to make it financially, and his center has a lower vacancy occurrence than most of the other centers in the City. The Community Development Director said the value of the center is so high that the lease doesn't make it anymore for him to pay the loan. She said she understands she needs to change the findings, but she needs to explain what she would like to do to the City Attorney. She stated she doesn't feel comfortable with the way she has worded this as it allows every little sign to come to the Commission, so it would increase everyone's work tremendously, 15 on the other hand, she would like to allow certain special signs to be able to come to the Commission. She said she is not sure how to make the differentiation. Commissioner Wilson said most jurisdictions define special circumstances, and in this case it would be dealt with in an economic sense. fie said it also discourages the concept that if you don't have special circumstances you are not going to get it. The Community Development Director asked for an example of a special circumstance. Commissioner Wilson said an example would be a public improvement that might create a hardship. Chairman Buchanan gave the example of roadwork being done and a business wanted to put up temporary signs showing people how to get to their business. The Community Development Director said this is what she was saying in terms of anything that the ordinance doesn't cover at this point. She said this would not give them the option for Sub Club Depot, for example, to come in and apply for something. Chairman Buchanan said personally, he would make the finding that the cumulative impacts of automobile mounted signs would outweigh any benefit in the individual circumstance. He said they could get into a lot of trouble if they contemplate the language of an ordinance based on an individual circumstance. He said he is not trying to tailor this creative, short-term approach to anybody's particular problem. The Community Development Director said if they don't need to tailor it to those types of signs, then they can mention creative signs that are not currently addressed by the ordinance. She said for example, the tenant that wanted a building identification sign, this is not in the ordinance, but it could be approved as it is creative. Chairman Buchanan asked why this would be different than the automobile mounted sign, because the ordinance says it can't be over a certain height. The Community Development Director said the ordinance is prohibitive in terms of height, but it does not address building identification signs. She said the first portion already allows signs that are not completely consistent with the code to come here, for example, with regard to the dentist's office, if there is too much landscaping required, staff will bring it to the Commission. She 16 O said they could word it in a way that restricts the extra allowance to the creative signs that are not part of the ordinance right now, stating she thought it would be much easier to get this approved by legal counsel since it is not a variance process. Chairman Buchanan thought it would be a good example to include some of the circumstance language Commissioner Wilson was talking about. He said maybe it really doesn't need to be addressed. He asked if the City was undertaking some public work project and had the front of somebody's business all torn up, if the business owner said they needed to put up some signs in the public right-of-way to direct people to parking and access, how would staff handle that? The Community Development Director said she would bring it to the Commission since she doesn't have the power to decide that. She said she would probably bring it through a variance process because it would require sign in the public right-of-way that are not allowed, and it would be a justifiable variance because there is a hardship associated with it. Chairman Buchanan said by the time the business owner gets through the variance process, the public work project would be done and he would be out of business. The Community Development Director said that is why that action is here and it doesn't require a variance. Chairman Buchanan said if things are prohibited, they are prohibited; but if things are either not addressed or not clearly defined, then they already have the flexibility built into the code, and this added section really doesn't do anything. The Community Development Director said at the last meeting she felt the Commission wanted her to emphasize that flexible portion, so by making an amendment to it, it gives people a better understanding of what that section can do. She said instead of saying, "allow Planning Commission approval of non -conforming signs", they can say, "of signs that are non currently addressed by the ordinance", or, "signs that are proposed because of special circumstances". Chairman Buchanan said he isn't even sure what the definition of a prohibited sign is; if they have a sign that says, "shall not exceed 8' in height", is a 9' sign prohibited or not strictly in conformance. The Community Development Director said those are considered standards, 17 just like when they say the State of California doesn't have a use variance, and if somebody wants to have a different use, they have to amend the code 0 because it is not a standard, so she considers the prohibited section similar to this; height, color and distance she considers them as standards. She said if they restrict it to creative solutions, not addressed signs, etc., she is sure it can be approved, but if they want to keep it the way it is and legal counsel says it is basically a variance, she asked what she should do then. She said the way it is written right now allows the mounted truck sign to come in and be considered by the Planning Commission. She wanted to amend the portion that allows every sign to come in and make something that is more under special circumstances so not all of them would be allowed to come. Chairman Buchanan said it is a question of interpretation, too, because as written, it says, "may approve a sign which does not strictly adhere to the provisions", and the Director is saying that means signs outside of the parameters, but doesn't apply to prohibited signs. He said the proposed language simply says that the Commission can approve non -conforming signs, and he supposes that can be interpreted the same way -- things that are out of conformance but are not in the prohibited section. The Community Development Director said her intention was different but it could be interpreted that way. Chairman Buchanan said his inclination would be to delete the second paragraph and express as part of a resolution or ultimate motion that City Council may want to consider expanding or emphasizing the flexibility under particular circumstances or creative sign approaches, and that gives staff two weeks to work with the City Attorney on additional language. He said they don't want every person to bring their sign in front of this body for approval no matter what it looks like or how close it is. He said he was toying with the idea of suggesting a process whereby it could come to the Commission or Site and Architectural Review Board for consideration and approval if the Director makes certain findings, but if she refuses to make those findings, he asked if the applicant has the right to appeal that decision to the Commission, stating that if so, they are back at the same point. He said if someone was in a situation where they need a prohibited sign to make their business survive a temporary circumstance, he guarantees that staff and the City Manager would find a way to accommodate them, even if it is not their sign but the City's. The Community Development Director asked if they should allow a mounted truck sign to apply for this process without having a variance. She said she doesn't feel from a land use perspective that they have a hardship for her to recommend approval, however, the Commission has the right to approve it if 18 O they make the findings. Chairman Buchanan said if they talk about that particular sign, his feeling is no, as he has no desire to see that sign back here. He said since that particular sign is not before them for consideration, he doesn't want to do something inappropriate in terms of deliberating and acting on a particular use that may eventually end up before this body. Commissioner Munson said this is the third time the Chamber has studied the Sign Ordinance, and they will live with what the Commission is going to do. He said he thinks staff has done a nice job in making this easier to understand. MOTION PCM-93-68 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-01/E-93-12 Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve Z-93-02, BRSPA-93-01 and E-93-12. Commissioner Wilson seconded. Commissioner Addington said this is not complete, as the Director is still discussing with Quiel Bros. regarding signage guidelines. The Community Development Director said these are design guidelines and don't need to be included in the ordinance; they can be adopted by resolution and they become a policy. Commissioner Addington asked about "Attracting Through Traffic". The Community Development Director said this is a flyer she would like to put at the counter or send to the businesses in the community so they know what the ordinance is all about. Commissioner Addington asked if the ordinance submitted was complete. The Community Development Director said yes, with the exception of Section H that she would like to revise. Commissioner Addington said the Director had said she wanted the City Attorney to review this and asked if he needs to review it before they vote. Commissioner Van Gelder said they could vote by including it in the motion. Chairman Buchanan said they are only making a recommendation to the City 19 Council, and if they were actually adopting or not adopting this ordinance and the City Attorney hadn't seen it, he wouldn't want to vote on it. Commissioner Addington asked if they could amend the motion that Section 11 is rewritten in a more positive manner. Chairman Buchanan said the other approach they could take is to act on the motion pending, and if passed, they could make a followup motion to include any specific recommendations or commentary they would like to add for the City Council's benefit. Commissioner Van Gelder said she is very pleased with staff's work. MOTION VOTE PCM-93-68 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Sims absent. Commissioner Van Gelder excused herself from the rest of the meeting. MOTION PCM-93-69 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-O 1/E-93-12 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-69 Chairman Buchanan made a motion that staff revise an alternative language for Subsection H, working with the City Attorney for appropriate language to provide for temporary deviation from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance for creative sign programs or solutions to exceptional or unusual circumstances. Commissioner Huss seconded. The Community Development Director said her recommendation, before amending the gas station regulations, is to get City Council's support to enforce it. Chairman Buchanan said he wasn't going to bring this up himself. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Van Gelder absent. IN 20 O Commissioner Addington asked why the gas station signs can't be enforced now. The Community Development Director said every time she sends a Notice of Violation, something happens. She said all she can do is send Courtesy Notices, and 70% of the cases are resolved, but she can't pursue the few that aren't resolved. Commissioner Addington asked if this was because it was a small, local community. The Community Development Director said the City is trying to respect the community feeling and to deal with people on a friendly basis. Commissioner Addington asked how a motion from this body would affect that. The Community Development Director said it would show the City Council that part of the problem is that the City is not enforcing the code as strong as it could be. Commissioner Huss asked if the gas stations are using the maximum signs. The Community Development Director said they are supposed to have 2 - 6 sq. ft. signs and 2 - 2 sq. ft. ground signs. She said each one has at least 6 if not more. Commissioner Huss asked if everyone is more lenient on gas stations. The Community Development Director said it is the whole approach to code enforcement as a courtesy process. Chairman Buchanan said he recalls the last time there was a sign ordinance moratorium, it was with the understanding that at the end of it the ordinance would be vigorously enforced, and he thought City Council had expressed support for that approach. Commissioner Huss said she hoped after all of this was said and done that they were going to do code enforcement. MOTION PCM-93-70 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-01/E-93-12 21 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to make a recommendation that upon ultimate disposition of the proposed Sign Ordinance revisions, that the City O Council directs staff and expresses support for vigorous enforcement of the Sign Ordinance as it then stands. Commissioner Huss seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-93-70 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Huss said if staff wants applicants to apply for temporary signs for a six month period, the deposit portion of the fee should be reduced to $100. The Community Development Director said a lot of the applicants feel they should have permanent, special signs, and even though they are called temporary, they become permanent, and the only way staff is allowing this is by rotating. She said this helps the applicant by not needing to come to the Planning Department every 45 days. MOTION PCM-93-71 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-01/E-93-12 X Commissioner Huss made a motion to reduce the deposit portion for the six month rotation plan to $100, collecting $140 up front and giving the applicant $100 back when they complete their process. Commissioner Addington asked if this was part of the ordinance. The Community Development Director said this is the mechanism for it, but if they need to change the current fees, they will need to include it somewhere because right now, temporary signs are $60 with $10 refundable, so she would need to amend the fee resolution and bring it to the City Council another time as it has not been noticed for the next meeting. Chairman Buchanan said the motion at this point in time is a direction to staff to prepare the fee resolution amendment. Commissioner Huss agreed. Chairman Buchanan seconded. 22 Commissioner Munson said he saw no reason to change, as he heard two people in the audience say they could live with it. Chairman Buchanan said if you want a $50 deposit from someone while they have a sign up, at any one time, they are still only going to have that one sign up, and if they came back in, the most the City would ever have from them is $60, whereas here, there is a $200 deposit and they will still only have one sign up, which saves staff time and effort. He said it makes more sense to charge a $40 fee for the 4 - 45 day periods and a $50 deposit. The Community Development Director said they can organize it differently, for example having 3 signs for the first 45 days and on the third 45 days have 2 signs. Commissioner Huss and Chairman Buchanan said they had some reservations about multiple signs up at one time. Chairman Buchanan didn't think they need to make a change to the fee ordinance because all they have to do is interpret as meaning a $50 deposit for any sign that is up, and collect the $90 for 4 signs. Commissioner Huss withdrew her motion. Chairman Buchanan concurred. MOTION PCM-93-72 Z-93-02/BRSPA-93-01/E-93-12 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-72 Commissioner Wilson made a motion that only one temporary sign be allowed at a time. Commissioner Munson seconded. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Van Gelder absent. ITEM #3 Z-93-03/BRSPA-93-02/E-93-13 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITYWIDE A. ZONING AMENDMENTS TO INCORPORATE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED RESOLUTIONS INTO ZONING CODE 23 B. ZONING AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY WORDING ON VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CODE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CODE MOTION PCM-93-73 Z-93-03/BRSPA-93-02/E-93-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-73 Chairman Buchanan made to continue Section B to the December 2, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. seconded. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Van Gelder absent. The Associate Planner presented the staff report for Section A. 10:14 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING 10:14 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-93-74 Z-93-03/BRSPA-93-02/E-93-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-74 Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve Z-93-03, BRSPA-93-02 and E-93-13, Section A. Commissioner Huss seconded. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Van Gelder absent. 10:15 P.M. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 2, 1993. 24 O Respectfully submitted, Approved by, (Z' pqt'� E��� Patrizia Materassi Dan Buchanan Community Development Director Chairman, Planning Commission 11-30-93:ma c:\wp51\planning\minutes\11-18-93.m 25