Loading...
PC Minutes 2000-05-02ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Greene called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ABSENT Commissioner Costello X Commissioner Keen X Commissioner London X Acting Chair Parker X Chair Greene APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Commissioner London, seconded by Vice -Chair Parker and by a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of April 4, 2000 were approved as written. ITEM 1. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Perry Judd, Lucia Mar Unified School District, stated that he was in attendance at this meeting at the request of the Board of Trustees for Lucia Mar to correct a rumor that was circulating with regards to Tract 2207. Contrary to what was stated at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the district board would not have any opposition if there were access to this project via Orchard Street. I. B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS II. A. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00 -002; LOCATION — WESLEY AND WEST BRANCH STREETS; APPLICANT — JOE DELUCIA Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, explained the Planned Sign Program to the Planning Commission. She stated that in staff's review, the proposed Planned Sign Program met the intent of the Village Design Guidelines, and complies with most of the Development Code Requirements. The proposal is not in compliance with the Development Code with regard to window signs, and tenant signs located off -site of the lease space. The Development Code limits permanent window signs to store hours, business address, and emergency information. The applicant is requesting signage across the bottom portion of display windows as part of the total sign area allocated for each tenant. These signs are called "ribbon signs ", and are intended to further advertise the type of business or type of wares of the business. As proposed, these signs would be made of vinyl letters and limited to 1 .2 square feet in size. There is no reference to ribbon sign colors. Signs located off -site of the lease property are proposed for specific tenant spaces because of their restricted visibility from the street. For example, buildings "A2" and "A3" are hidden behind the more prominent buildings "C" and "D ", and therefore alternative signage is proposed on the art monument pedestal located at the front entrance to the Center on ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 2 Branch Street, and on the upper corner of building "D ". The tenant space of Blakesley and Blakesley, located in the back and lower level of building "C ", also has no street visibility. The applicant in this case is proposing signage on the entrance towers located between buildings "C" and "D" and no signage on the tenant space itself. Finally, Prudential Realty, located to the back of building "B ", has requested an extra sign on the face of the flowerbed adjacent to the stairs between buildings "B" and "C ". Staff requests that the Commission consider these requests and make any revisions to the proposed Planned Sign Program or conditions of approval as appropriate. The Planning Commission discussed the Planned Sign Program and had the following concerns and issues: • It appeared that the signs on the front of the building were not lighted, but some of the 2 story signs were. It did not appear to be a uniform system and it would not be aesthetically pleasing. • The Planned Sign Program is over the allotted amount by 8 signs, or a total of 43 signs. • A clear explanation of where the Hunter Realty signs would be placed needs to be shown on the sign plans. • Can more signs be placed on Building B in the future, or is there room for only one? • How should the art monument be handled, what kind of art would be placed there and who should be allowed to choose it? Chair Greene opened the Public Comment period. John Adams, sign contractor for the Village Centre, introduced himself and stated he was available to answer questions or receive comments. Mr. Adams answered the Planning Commission's questions and discussed the Planned Sign Program with them. Joe DeLucia, 139 Longview, SLO, discussed the Planned Sign Program and the rotating art program that he was proposing. Mr. DeLucia stated, with regards to the lighting of the signs, both the SAC and the ARC had asked that each building have separate identity. They did not want a "generic" look to the signs all the way through the project. They did not want to force any tenant to have lighting if they did not want it or could not afford it. Vice -Chair Parker questioned Mr. DeLucia about how the rotating artwork would be chosen? Mr. DeLucia explained to the Commission some of the ideas he had about how this would work. He stated that they were asking the Commission to give them the discretion on how this would be done. Commissioner London stated that he still felt that it would be inconsistent if one tenant is allowed one thing and another tenant another with regards to the signs. Also, he stated that he had no problem with the ribbon signs. Commissioner Keen stated that he did not have a problem with the overall picture of the sign program however, he does have a problem with not settling all the issues now and putting them into the Planned Sign Program. He felt that if the Planning Commission did ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 3 specify exactly what should be in the conditions there would be no control over the program, which is what a Planned Sign Program is for. Further, Mr. Keen stated that if the developer did not put the lighting for the signs in now, then it would be very unlikely, and very expensive, to put the lighting in later. He felt that the developer should furnish the lighting for the signs to make it consistent for all tenants. Mr. Keen also stated that the "model" sign in the picture showed two lights, however if the sign were bigger that the example given, it wouldn't be enough Tight and it would look funny. So, he felt there should be some kind of a formula that would regulate the number of lights used on the sign. Mr. Keen stated that he felt one ribbon sign somewhere near the door would be appropriate but a ribbon sign in every display window would not be. Mr. Keen inquired about the addressing about the buildings. Mr. Keen questioned where the Meridian signs would actually be placed, as it was hard to tell from the drawings. Mr. Keen asked if the monument sign, shown on Page 20 of the sign plans, should be moved from when it is show because it may cause a sight problem. Mr. Keen also asked if there was going to be some kind of a directory sign to show when the different businesses were located? Mr. Keen further stated that he had a problem with leaving the style of the signage up to the tenants. He does not like the wording on Page 21 of the sign program that allows this. He questioned the wording on Page 22 that states that "each tenant shall be allotted one extra sign along Branch Street if their shop or business is out of the view of the passing vehicles ". He does not see how this would work because there would be too many businesses wanting to have signs there. Chair Greene wanted the sign program to be clear that: ■ There is only one ribbon sign per tenant /business and not one per entrance even if a tenant /business has more than one entrance. • The type of lights installed should be determined now so that all the lighting is consistent. Therefore, everything should be set up for the installation and the Tight fixture will be available so it looks like or matches the fixtures already in place. ■ There should be a determination made about the number of lights that will be used to illuminate each sign. • The language concerning the possibility of a tenant having a sign along West Branch if their business is out of view of passing vehicles should have language that says "subject to the availability of sign space within the number of signs program ". Vice -Chair Parker liked the possibility of having some diversity in the signs for this project. She felt the "ribbon signs" add the same diversity and she had no problem with them. She stated that if the maximum sign area allowed is adhered to, she would not have an issue with one sign going over the square footage by a small amount. Commissioner Keen commented that he did not feel that Prudential needed the two signs but he would approve the project. Mr. Keen questioned why there would have to be UL ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 4 label on these signs (note ARC minutes) because these signs were not allowed to be backlit. Commissioner London had no further problem with this sign program. His main concern about the lighting had been answered. Chair Greene stated : ■ Add language to Page 21, Paragraph 1 that indicates that the number and distance of separation of lights shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. • The color of the ribbon signs should be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. • The sign on the new Page 16 is acceptable, but Page 1 of the Plot Plan should be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as well as the Planned Sign Program. ■ Add a condition that allows the Community Development Director to review and approve the any change in the Landscape Plans consistent with the addition of the extra Prudential Sign. • The applicant will submit a clean copy of the sign table reflecting the additional sign and added square footage. ■ The monument sign should be moved "back in the island" from the street. Vice -Chair Parker moved that the Planning Commission adopt: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Acting Chair Parker YES Chair Greene RESOLUTION NO. 00 -1742 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. 00 -002, APPLIED FOR BY KIMO PLANKEY AND JOSEPH DELUCIA, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST BRANCH AND WESLEY STREETS (VILLAGE CENTRE) With Exhibit A and Exhibit B with corrections and additions made by staff. Page 16 of the PSP shall be replaced with the modified Page 16 submitted at the Planning Commission meeting and an updated page 23 to reflect changes. Commissioner London seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 5 III. NON- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. APPROVAL OF STREET NAMES FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2207 Kelly Heffernon, Associate Planner, presented a brief staff report to the Planning Commission, explaining that it is designated in Section 8 -2.05 of the Municipal Code that the Planning Commission review and approve all names for new streets. Ms. Heffernon explained that the street names that were before the Commission for approval were: • Castillo Del Mar • Via Avante • Via Firenze • Via Firenze Court • Via Belmonte • Via Belmonte Court After a brief discussion, Commissioner Keen moved that the Planning Commission adopt the street names as presented for Tract 2207. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE ABSENT Commissioner Costello YES Commissioner Keen YES Commissioner London YES Acting Chair Parker YES Chair Greene IV. DISCUSSION In answer to questions by Vice -Chair Parker, Mr. McCants explained the upcoming General Plan Update meetings and stated when these meetings would be held. In answer to Mr. Keen's question concerning the proposed increased density in certain areas of the City, Mr. McCants stated he would get an answer from the consultant preparing the General Plan. V. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENT - NONE VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW - UP REPORTS Mr. McCants updated the Planning Commission on the upcoming hearings for the Arroyo Linda EIR, and the neon lighting on the Quarterdeck Restaurant. VII. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner London the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on May 16, 2000. ATTEST: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2000 PAGE 6 Kathleen Fryer, Commissi AS TO ON i ENT: Clerk Kerry M C- s Communi Development Director Laurence Greene, Chair i 1 1