Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-09-151 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Haney, Parker, Greene and Keen. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton and Associate Planner Helen Elder. MINUTE APPROVAL Chair Lubin advised that approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 1998 will be continued to the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Chair Lubin suggested taking Item 3 before Item 2 and discuss the Rodeo Heights EIR and its continuation. There were no objections to rearranging the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -001; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 97 -005; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2236 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 97 -549; APPLICANT: JOHN SCARDINO ET AL (RODEO HEIGHTS); LOCATION: WEST OF RODEO DRIVE AND SOUTH OF GRACE BIBLE CHURCH. (NO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON THIS ITEM) . Due to a possible conflict of interest Commissioner Greene stepped down and is now absent. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton advised that Mr. John Scardino has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, as well as several other actions. He stated that late Friday afternoon staff received a request from Mr. Scardino to continue this item. Mr. Scardino indicated in his letter that a meeting to receive public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report was not necessary at this time. In his letter he stated that the CEQA requirements do not mandate a public hearing to accept comments. Mr. Hamilton stated that in the City's implementing procedures, that decision is left up to the Director. He stated it is his feeling, based on the nature of this particular project and the public controversy that might surround it, that a public hearing is appropriate. He stated, however, Mr. Scardino nor the representatives that prepared the EIR are here this evening, and it was staff's determination that a hearing on this item to accept public comment is appropriate. The hearing is not to discuss the project or the merits of the project, but to accept the public's comments so they can be responded to in the Final EIR. He advised that the public comment period on this project will be extended to allow that opportunity, and the latest that would be is October 23` A determination will be made as to how long to extend the public comment period based on the Commission's calendar. He stated if there is anyone in the audience at this time that would like to comment on the EIR, he suggested they be allowed to do so, however, the Commission will not be in a position to respond to those comments. They will be noted and responded to in writing in the Final EIR, which is required by CEQA. After staff's comments, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing for comments concerning the Draft EIR. However, as previously indicated, the Commission will not take any action or respond to any comments. He noted that there will be a full public hearing on this item that will be scheduled in October and the public comment period will be extended as indicated by staff. Ross Congable, 255 Rodeo Drive. stated he had received a notice that this item had been withdrawn and questioned why it appeared on the agenda. Chair Lubin advised, as indicated, there will be a full public hearing on this in October. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 September 15, 1998 C. Z. Brown, 350 Old Ranch Road, stated he and other Royal Oaks property owners met with Mr. McHaney and pointed out some of their concerns with the area. The basic concerns were the 33 houses that would not be comparable to the surrounding houses. With regard to the five custom lots, they wondered why they used custom lots instead of the smaller cluster homes. It was also discussed that Grace Lane would relieve traffic from Rodeo, and there was some concern in that regard. He stated in looking at the project alone, it is not significant, but if you look at the cumulative total of what is happening up on James Way with that development and the potential annexation, it all comes down and impacts on West Branch Street. Also, considering the five lanes coming off of Wal -Mart to Brisco Road, it is felt there is going to be a serious impact at West Branch Street, and with Grace Lane intersecting with Rodeo Drive at the southerly end, if there is no turn-in lane, that could be an accident prone intersection. A turn-out lane might be considered coming out of Grace Lane. In considering the property above this particular project, Mr. Brown stated it is his understanding that project's road will come down and intersect with Grace Lane, which will cause additional traffic. Mr. Brown suggested considering exiting out of the top of the ridge onto Rodeo, rather than bringing it into Grace Lane. Mr. Brown stated, basically, it was his feeling that the group of residents were somewhat in accord if the project has to go, however, they were wondering how it was changed from one parcel to building 33 units with 5 custom lots when they thought it was greenbelt. He commented the residents seriously question whether traffic on Rodeo is going to be relieved. He further stated that the Traffic Commission considered this matter last night and, in his opinion, they did a thorough review and it was indicated there will be more study. Tony Ferrara, 759 Via Bandolero, stated he would like to expand on some of Mr. Brown's comments with regard to the Traffic Commission's review. He advised the Traffic Commission looked at in terms of the confluence and cumulative effect of traffic on West Branch from the buildout above James Way, the many projects that are ongoing, the Cantrell project, and considered the cumulative effect of the anticipated traffic that would proceed down James Way toward West Branch Street. It was felt that needed to be considered when looking at the density of this area that was considered previously to be greenbelt. Hearing no further comments regarding this item, Chair Lubin continued the public hearing to a future date to be decided in October. Commissioner Greene is now present. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 96-118 (97 -124) AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE 98 -210, SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIVE CITIES CENTER; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY Associate Planner Helen Elder advised that this item has been before the Planning Commission previously for discussion in May, as well as the public hearing in June. It has been postponed since then due to a number of continued items that have been before the Planning Commission over the last couple of months. The Architectural Advisory Committee also reviewed the project in May. Since the June Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has made changes based on the Commission's comments and have reduced the size of the wall- mounted signs. Also, the applicant decided to enact the previously approved sign permits for the gateway towers and the monument signs which were approved by the City Council in July of 1996. A copy of those plans have been transmitted to the Planning Commission. She advised that this item has been reviewed with the City Attorney who has determined that the applicant does have these entitlements. All of the background information related to the previous approval by the City Council, including a copy of the resolutions and minutes, have been transmitted to the Commission. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 September 15, 1998 Ms. Elder advised that the applicant has shown the approved design for the gateway towers, which are also the center's identification signs, and the optional monument signs in comparison, and they are titled the "Alternative Design". They show the revised copy for the Five Cities Center and the tenant identification monument sign shown horizontally rather than vertically. Ms. Elder stated that, based on discussions with the City Attorney and the Conditions of Approval from the 1996 approval by the City Council, and in particular Condition of Approval #132, requiring that the major entry signs on West Branch Street be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, it would be appropriate for the Commission to discuss the design details and consider making recommendations to the City Council for approval of the alternative design of the major signs or for any other recommendations for modifications the Commission may choose to make. Ms. Elder also pointed out that since this item was last discussed, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow for more signs and larger signs than the Sign Ordinance would allow. The applicant pointed out that the distance of the buildings from the street and the arrangement of the buildings are justifications for the variance, which are also referenced in the proposed findings. Regarding the Lucky /Save -on sign, Ms. Elder stated an error was pointed out that the total calculation on the square footage on that sign may not be accurate and the architect will review that calculation. She further stated that the contents of the Planned Sign Program that is before the Commission for consideration of a recommendation to the City Council includes the sign plans (including the previously approved plans). Also included is the approved design of the Planned Sign Program from 1996 for the gateway towers and the optional monument signs, the alternative design shown for those signs, the text of the Planned Sign Program, the Conditions of Approval, and the Findings for Approval of the project, as well as the findings for the Variance. In response to Commissioner Haney's question regarding Case 97 -124, Ms. Elder clarified that this is one Planned Sign Program that would be approved for the center. The Planned Sign Program before the Commission includes the approved signs for the gateway towers and the monument signs, the revisions and the wall signs that are proposed this evening and the text that is being proposed. She stated that regardless of the numbers, it still is an amendment to one Planned Sign Program, which includes the signs that have already been . approved, as well as the modifications being proposed tonight. Commissioner Haney asked which documents were considered when staff made the determination regarding the "prior approvals" referring to 96 -118? Ms. Elder stated staff did not make any determinations regarding what the applicant does or does not have as previous entitlements. Those determinations were made by the City Attorney, and she had discussed the documents in detail with him. She noted that the City Attorney did go back and review the complete record of the Planning Commission and City Council approvals, the resolutions of approvals, the staff reports, and all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Haney reviewed Ordinance No. 3157 that was a part of the conceptual Sign Program approval. He stated it is his belief, even based upon the document that was presented to the Commission this evening, that what the Commission was working with at the time of approval of 96 -118 was some conceptual ideas only, which were reflected on the plans as being conceptual. He referred to Page 3 of the Planned Sign Program approval, stating that "The proposed signs as conditioned are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan. Additional review of signage by staff and the Architectural Advisory Committee is required prior to approval." He noted that approval is reserved for the Planning Commission, with any appeals to the City Council. "Said review will be pursuant to project' s specific design guidelines, which are required by the PD approval." Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 September 15, 1998 Commissioner Haney stated what we have here, even in the City Council's own acknowledgment, as well as material that was forwarded by the Planning Commission, are the proposed signs rather than the approved signs. Whatever the resolution related to at that point in time, was subject to a number of conditions, and he identified those conditions on the attachment as follows: Condition #14 made it specifically subject to the Development Code Sign Ordinance that was in effect at that time. Condition #132 indicates that the major entry signs at West Branch shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. He stated, to his knowledge, the Planning Commission has not taken action on that item. He further stated that Condition #16 is particularly important because it relates to a provision that required revised design guidelines from the applicant. The design guidelines that were in place at that particular time were not approved; there were a lot of tentative pieces to the project approval, of which the design guidelines and the conceptual sign program were all of a tentative nature. Commissioner Haney also called attention to the second page of Attachment B, which was not a part of documents distributed by staff. It points out that the Conditions of Approval require design guidelines for the entire project. This was an additional finding by the City Council: "Signs will be reviewed for consistency with those guidelines." The phrase following that "..the proposed entry signs. Therefore, what we have is an approval in form, but subject to so many conditions and subject to so much subsequent review, which has not occurred up to this point. He stated he doesn't believe there is a program here which constitutes an approved program. He pointed out that from the hearings in May all the way through the September 1" time period, everyone has been operating under the provision that the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to review these entry signs. He stated, in his opinion, we need to work on the Planned Sign Program in its entirety and not just piece meal. He stated, with that, he would differ from Ms. Elder regarding the level of approval that exists relative to this program. With reference to the above comments, Associate Planner Helen Elder pointed out that the Planning Commission does not approve the Planned Sign Program; the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council because of the PD Ordinance. She stated also that the Design Guidelines are part of a document which is the text of the Planned Sign Program for the center. With regard to Condition #132, the major entry signs, the discussions held with the City Attorney would be that the Commission could discuss the design and design details of those signs which were already approved by the City Council, which are the gateway towers or the center identification signs, and the optional monument signs. It would be appropriate for the Commission to discuss design details and items such as materials, colors, size of lettering, etc., however, based on the City Attorney's opinion, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to get into discussions as to whether or not the applicant does or does not have those entitlements, and whether the applicant does or does not have the entitlements to erect those signs as they are shown on the approved site plan. Commissioner Parker stated she had talked to her attorney and inquired about the legality of relying on information from an attorney who was not present at the meeting. Ms. Elder stated she is not expressing her opinion, and has the expressed permission of the City Attorney to summarize the discussions they had. She further stated that the City Attorney does feel it is legal for him to express his opinion through her based on meetings and discussions they have had for the purposes of this meeting tonight. Chair Lubin stated, according to staff, it is alright for the Commission to review signage for the majority of the project, however, the Commission should not be reviewing the entrance signs in terms of form, but could review them in terms of content. Ms. Elder indicated that was correct. The previous Planned Sign Program that was approved by the City Council was only a portion of a total Planned Sign Program; it did not address the wall signs. Before the Commission tonight are all of the items for the wall signs, including the calculations and the types of materials to be used for the wall signs; those were not part of the existing entitlements. 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 September 15, 1998 Chair Lubin expressed his disappointment that Tim Carmel was not present to give the Commission his reasoning and his thought process in the issues. He stated also, the way he perceives this is that the Commission can move forward to take care of the wall signs, the monuments for content, etc., and if the Commission chooses, it could make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the monument and the entrance signs, recognizing that it is the Commission's discretion to make any recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Haney stated, in looking at the language again, it is very clear to him that it says the "proposed signs"; it does not say the "approved signs ". Also, in looking at the conceptual map that was drawn, or the gateway towers (submitted in January of 1996), those gateway towers and their positioning reflect an entry that is different from where it is now. Many of the components of this site plan, whether they be the palm trees that are reflected there, some of the elevations and some of the other design elements, have been changed significantly. Because of the clear language of the resolution that talks about proposed signs, and because of the specific requirement for additional review of signage by the staff, by the Architectural Advisory Committee prior to approval, it seems very clear that this is still within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to review. Ms. Elder referred to the approved site plan, stating it does show where the gateway towers and the optional monument signs were approved as part of the approvals by the City Council in 1996, which basically shows two gateway towers at the entrance driveway and monument signs on West Branch Street adjacent to the retention basin, a monument sign on West Branch Street by the school, and also monument signs at the entrance to both driveways on each side of Rancho Parkway. Commissioner Haney further commented what he was referring to is the item that was distributed in the packets, dated in January, specifically pointing out the gateway towers, which shows a significant elevation change. His contention is that in their formal resolution it is proposed signs as conditioned, and also in their additional findings, which is part of "B", we are looking at the proposed signs again. He stated it is very clear from the language that we don't have the "approvals" at this point. Commissioner Greene stated that Condition #132 was added to the Conditions of Approval during Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 1996. According to the same minutes, it appears that Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin were present and participants in those discussions. He stated he would be interested in what thought processes went through the minds of the Commissioners who were present during the June 20, 1996 meeting as it related to the addition of that particular section. It appears that a certain interpretation is being placed on the language in Condition #132, which is at odds with the common sense meaning of the terms that are present in the Conditions of Approval. Additionally, Commissioner Greene stated he has reviewed the minutes provided by staff, and he did not see any discussion by the Planning Commission relating to the Planned Sign Program, other than a discussion which occurred on April 16, 1996 regarding the Planned Sign Program, and that discussion was relatively brief. Chair Lubin stated when he read portions of the minutes relating to that, it came to him that it was fairly clear that at that time the Commission was not involved in any approval of the Planned Sign Program or any portions of it. He quoted from the May 21, 1996 Planning Commission meeting minutes, Page 8, 4t bullet under Commissioner Lubin's comments under "Signs" as follows: "...agreed that signs should be downsized, but will reserve additional comments until specific designs are presented." He further stated other Commissioners (Soto, Tappan and Carr) indicated they had no specific comments at this time. Commissioner Beck stated "Will comment when specifics are provided. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 September 15, 1998 Chair Lubin stated it appeared to him as he went through the packet that there was no indication in his mind or in the minutes that the Commission was approving any portion of the signs or the Sign Program. Commissioner Keen read the portion of the minutes that included his comments. He stated with reference to Condition #132, there was a lot of discussion about the signs on West Branch Street. He recalled that the problem with the signs on that side of the center was that they were huge and they were cut down to no more than 20 feet. With regard to the rest of the monument signs, Commissioner Keen stated it was his feeling that was more conceptual, and the Commission felt the other entry ways needed some kind of identification. He stated it was his feeling that Condition #132 only referred to the West Branch Street sign. He further stated, as he recalled, as far as design, the signs had to be the same architecture and the same texture as the buildings. Chair Lubin agreed with Commissioner Keen's comments, however, he stated he also felt the Commission left the meeting with an unfinished process that would be coming back for approval. He didn't feel the Commission took a conceptual design and said its OK if you downsize it to 20 feet. Commissioner Haney stated Chair Lubin's comments would be consistent because the design guidelines were not in place at that time. Condition #16 is very clear in saying there needed to be revised design guidelines, even at the July 9 City Council meeting. Chair Lubin stated it is difficult to move forward on a legal basis with no legal counsel here to advise the Commission, other than the discussions staff had with the City Attorney. However, he stated it appears to him that the Commission could review the process and the signs that are being presented, and make comments and recommendations to the City Council as to the Commission's thoughts concerning all of the signs whether it is in the Commission's purview or not, and the City Council can make that decision. Commissioner Haney stated he is prepared to make a motion for a resolution that would clarify the issues that were spoken about this evening. He proposed a resolution to clarify the ambiguities relating to levels of review and approval required for Planned Sign Program 96 -118, 97 -124 and Variance 98 -210 as follows: WHEREAS, there are differences of opinion relating to levels of review and approval required for the Planned Sign Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is empowered by this Code Section 9.01.050B to clarify ambiguities, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the relevant documents, Resolution No. 3157, Page 3 of the Planned Sign Program Findings, Attachment A Conditions 14, 16, and 132; Attachment B of the Planned Sign Program, minutes of prior Commission hearings of April /June, 1996, through June 20, 1996, and the Sign Ordinances both of which were in effect on June 13, 1991, as well as those that were amended in 1997, and WHEREAS, we have conducted a discussion regarding this issue and made the following findings: 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 September 15, 1998 That the Planned Sign Program provisions of both Planned Sign Programs are intended to have the Planned Sign Program reviewed as a total program, not as individual components because of their inner - relationships. Condition #132 specifically calls for Planning Commission approval of major entry signs subsequent to the conceptual approval granted on July 9, 1996. The approvals granted on July 9, 1996 were conceptual only, subject to the conditions and findings noted above. Ordinance 3157 provided for further review of the proposed signs by staff, the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission prior to approval. Attachment B, Additional Findings, the Planned Sign Program, clearly indicated they were proposed entry signs to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, and those guidelines were not yet adopted as pointed out with Condition #16 on July 9 of that year and thus could not have been reviewed for consistency. These Design Guidelines were subsequently modified in a very major way with the redesign of the project in 1997. To fulfill the requirements of Ordinance 3157, additional review and approval as noted above is required. It is appropriate in keeping with the intent of the prior resolution and Sign Ordinance and all aspects of the Planned Sign Program 96 -118 with amendments, be reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. Chair Lubin asked for comments from the applicants. Ty Green.1853 Ouail Court. stated he is the attorney for the applicant. He stated what he sees here is taking a portion of the record, talking to two people about their recollection, and on that basis trying to adopt a resolution that says "we are going to tell the City Council what they really meant when they did it." He commented they have been through this a long time and have had several hearings in front of this Commission where the same thing has happened before, when what his client bought was approvals from the City. There was an approved Sign Program that was bought from the City. He stated it was discussed with everyone involved as to what the Sign Program meant; there are some approved signs. The City Attorney has rendered an opinion as to what the approvals were, and now the applicants are faced with "well, we are not sure that's really what happened and we are going to go back and look at it all again." Mr. Green stated he protests strongly to that; they have played by the rules and they are here tonight to have the Sign Program approved and amended, and a Variance approved. He suggested following the City Attorney's advice and make the recommendations that the Planning Commission is required to make to the City Council. The Commission could indicate to the Council that they disagree with the City Attorney's advice. Tony Ferrara spoke representing the CCRD. He stated it is understood that the applicant states he is desirous of reverting back to the original project approval, and in looking at the July 9th Conditions of Approval, he came up with two pertinent conditions. He stated he had assumed that Condition 14, "The signage shall be subject to the requirements of the Development Code" would be enforced throughout the review process. He also focused on Condition 16 "Review guidelines to be approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee ". He stated he interpreted that the Commission, pursuant to Condition 132, was fully empowered to render a professional opinion and recommendation based on their review of a Planned Sign Program whenever it might be. In listening to how this has unfolded this evening, he commented that, based on the comments made at the time, there was no time constraint on it and, therefore, his general observation is if it wasn't done then, there is nothing to stop the Commission from doing it now. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 September 15, 1998 Mr. Ferrara further stated, in his opinion, there were these conditions that go back to July 9, 1996, which the applicant states he would like to go back now and be considered in that time frame. He reviewed specific comments made by the Architectural Advisory Committee in May of this year. He also referred to the staff report by Lezley Buford dated May 5, 1998, stating there were several issues described as potential conflicts with the Development Code. Also with regard to the Variance application, Ms. Buford's staff report dated June 16 stated that the applicant was advised that the issue would be addressed in the staff report, which indicated that the design of the monument signs would remain subject to the approval of the Planning Commission per Condition 132 of the project approval. He commented that back in May and June of this year, staff was supporting the direction that everyone thought the Commission was going in, and that was the Commission did have the authority under Condition 132 to do the kind of review that the Commission is discussing this evening and believes is appropriate. He also referred to this evening's staff report and the findings. In looking at the general conditions and the proposed findings for approval on the Variance and, in his opinion, they look extremely self - serving on the part of the applicant. Mr. Ferrara referred to General Condition #4, stating this conditions troubles him and the CCRD. The condition states that "The development must occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the 9 -1 -98 meeting. He questioned how staff plans on determining substantial conformance, or is it the staff's decision or is it the Planning Commission's decision? Who is going to make a determination of substantial conformance? He commented that if this indicates that this issue coming back to the Community Development Director in the form of a finding of substantial conformance, then this goes against the commitment that was made to CCRD by the City Manager with regard to this project. In conclusion, Mr. Ferrara stated his only fear here is that staff has bought this and there won't be a way to turn it around without pursuing it legally and, in his opinion, the absence of Tim Carmel at this meeting was contrived and he doesn't believe he was the sole author of the legal position that was related by staff. Kirk Scott stated he would be interested to know what Ty Green threatened Tim Carmel with to make him change his mind from September 1' to September 15t 180 degrees. Associate Planner Helen Elder clarified that the findings for a Variance are always required to be submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Keen stated he is not prepared to vote on the resolution at the this time, however, as far as the rest of it, the Commission could proceed with evaluation of the Planned Sign Program. Commissioner Parker stated in reading the numerous reports and after listening to those present at the time of the original findings of the sign plans, she comes up with a sense of ambiguity. She further stated her feelings that it was the intent at that time to follow the Sign Program to continue as that; a Sign Program, not one to be done in piece -meal. This seems to suggest that the sign plan should be addressed in its entirety to the architectural community, as well as the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission for public comment. She stated she would be glad to address both portions of the sign program, however, since the Commission has not been presented with a current sign program, it is very confusing and, therefore, it is obvious we cannot go ahead on that tonight. She suggested beginning with the building signs and finish at the next meeting, or postpone this until the entire plan is submitted to the Commission for approval at an open hearing, and until direction is given by the City Attorney. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 September 15, 1998 Commissioner Greene stated, based upon the presentations he has heard this evening, and after review of the minutes of the 1996 meeting, it seems to him that the staff's interpretation is in error. The Commission never approved the Planned Sign Program as depicted in the Faud Consultant's work and, therefore, when the City Council enacted the Planned Sign Program, as well as approving all of the other resolutions related to the shopping center and enacted Condition 132, they were directing the Planning Commission to do exactly what the Commission was doing in May and June of this year, which was reviewing the entire Planned Sign Program. He further stated that he does not believe, given the information provided in the staff reports and through the testimony and comments that have occurred this evening, that the Planning Commission should yield that authority and discretion at this point in time. Commissioner Greene commented it is his opinion that the Planning Commission is required to approve the Sign Program in its entirety, and that includes the gateway towers and major signage along West Branch. He concluded that Condition #132, taken in accordance with all of the other information, gives the Planning Commission the authority to decide whether the signs that have been presented by the applicant meet the guidelines and standards of the City's Sign Regulations and the dictates of the General Plan. He proposed giving the applicant the option of whether or not the Commission should take into consideration the gateway towers and the project identification signage, which is before the Commission this evening in the form of the documents that staff has provided entitled "Alternative Design", or whether they would prefer we delay consideration of those issues, since these are obviously tentative renderings. He further stated he doesn't have a problem with going ahead and looking at the wall signs, but in view of the fact the Commission is not going to make a complete recommendation the Council, in his opinion, it would be ill- advised for the Commission to do anything other than to take testimony, make comments and continue the matter for an additional hearing so that the resolution the Commission recommends to the City Council is comprehensive. Commissioner Haney stated he also believes. the Commission has authority, responsibility and a job to do in reviewing the total sign program. The very clear language that was adopted in the City Council's resolution speaks to that, as well as numerous documents that he quoted in the resolution he proposed for adoption. He commented he believes that to be a valid resolution and that the elements to it are appropriate, and it is within the Commission's purview to make those determinations and to clarify ambiguities. He added that the City Attorney may offer an opinion and advice, however, it is the City Council and the Planning Commission acting as their designated representatives who are responsible for making the executive decision. He further stated he believes that ultimately the responsibility lies with the Planning Commission for a good Planned Sign Program and it has to be considered in its entirety and not piece -meal based on something done in 1996 and 1998. Chair Lubin stated he is uncomfortable with the confusion, the ambiguities and the lack of on- site legal advice, and it appears we are right back where we were a year and a half ago when this project was ultimately approved by the City Council. He commented the Commission has inadequate information, and when he read the minutes of both the May 21" meeting and the June 20 meeting, it appeared to him the intent was to look at the Planned Sign Program and all of the signs within the project so that it fits together. He suggested either looking at the building signs now and then continue this to the next meeting, and then look at the monument signs with legal advice on -site, or continue the entire process to the next meeting and look at the whole project in totality with legal advice on -site. He requested that a position paper be provided from the City Attorney on how he arrived at his conclusion, including his justifications and reasoning for his decision. He formally requested that the City Attorney present the position paper to the Commission in person. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 September 15, 1998 Commissioner Haney commented that it makes a great difference to him, thinking about the overall signage program, whether or not there are major tenant signs on West Branch and the size of the accompanying signs within the center itself. For example, if there are no tenant identification signs on West Branch, that may very well bespeak of a slightly larger sign that he would otherwise be comfortable with on the buildings. Similarly, if we are talking about some level of tenant identification sign on West Branch, like the optional locations, then he would be passionate about trying to minimize or keep the signs within the limits of the code. Therefore, while the Commission can discuss the building signs, he will be unable to come to a conclusion unless he can conclude on the whole part. That is why it is extremely important that the Planned Sign Program provisions are intended to address a total program, and not individual components. After further comments by the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Haney, motion carried with one "no" vote, that the Commission consider the entire Planned Sign Program at this time. Chair Lubin opened the public hearing portion of the meeting for testimony and comments. Michael Heinrich. 5725 Spahn Avenue, Lakewood. Musil Govan Azzalino, stated he represents the architects for the project. They have reviewed the comments from the Architectural Advisory Committee meeting and the prior Planning Commission meeting held in May, and have taken the suggestions of the AAC and Planning Commission, as well as reviewed the General Plan and the Sign Ordinance. The Sign Program and the sign design proposed creates a cohesive sign package and takes into account the major tenant signage and the particular individual sign criteria and incorporates it with the center identification monument signs and the small tenant signs. He explained that some variances are needed from the code because of the position of the buildings and how they are situated in front of other buildings, it is their feeling that larger signs are needed for major tenants. Mr. Heinrich stated they are prepared to go through each building and discuss the changes that were made and the reasons for the changes. Building C - Lucky /Sav -on Signage Mr. Heinrich began the discussion with Building C, which is the Lucky /Sav -on building. He advised there was an error in the area summary showing a 98 square foot sign which would only cover the Lucky sign. The Lucky Save -on sign would total about 310 square feet. Dorian Fortney, Representing Lucky Stores. 6052 North Sixteenth Street. Phoenix. stated it is important to identify the major features within the store. He noted that the code addresses "signs per use ", and there are many uses offered within the store. The desire for secondary signs on the Lucky store, the smaller signs, are to identify some of those uses that is felt are most critical; the One -Hour Photo, the Deli, the Bakery. Also, there are sub - tenants in the store such as the Bank of America, which has its own corporate identity. He commented that the evolution of stores has brought a great evolution of signage as well, which is seen not just in Arroyo Grande, not just in California, but throughout the United States, and typically these features and sub - tenants are identified in the stores. Another point to mention is visibility. It appears that a 5' x 14' sign is quite visible, however, in this case we are looking at a corporate identification (Lucky Save -on) which is difficult to ascertain from a distance if it is not of a special size. In comparison to the entire center, it is felt this is rather modest, and we are not looking for something unusual, however, we are looking for a size that is appropriate to maintain an identity from 600 to 800 feet away. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 September 15, 1998 With regard to the secondary signs on the building;. Mr, advised these are necessary to identify the entrance the customer should come to. He noted that this store is a combination of a grocery store and a drug store and has two entrances, and it is felt it is very important to identify the entrances to the drug store and the grocery store. He stated overall what they are looking for is visibility from a distance, identity for the various corporate entities, uses within the store, and clear direction for the convenience of the customers. Associate Planner Helen Elder presented a color and materials board for the Lucky Sav -on sign, and a color and materials board for the shopping center architectural features. Commissioner Greene advised that the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the Lucky Sav -on signage in its entirety and asked if Mr. Fortney was aware of what was recommended. Mr. Fortney stated he was not involved in the project at that time. Commissioner Greene advised that the AAC recommended that some signs be removed, recommended that the word "Food" be removed, and some other signs that would reduce the clutter. Mr. Fortney stated that what they have attempted to do was group the signage as much as possible, mainly at the entrances thus eliminating a cluttered appearance and concentrating in one area. Also, as part of the Variance application, which is new, is the issue that the food and drug are necessary features for customer identification at the appropriate entrances. Hollywood Video Signage Dennis Stout, 871 North Maplewood Street. Orange, stated he is with Federal Sign Co. representing Hollywood Video. He reviewed Hollywood Video's typical building treatment which includes a mountain profile extended around the entire building with neon borders and spotlights. They have considerably altered their standard approach to comply with the City's direction and have reduced their signage down to about a 70 square foot sign to comply. He advised that Hollywood Video has done some research on their existing stores, and have found that the stores not utilizing the traditional building treatment are not performing up to their standards. Therefore, it is extremely important to them to utilize their modified approach here on the two street elevations, in addition to the front of their store which faces the interior of the parking lot to insure adequate identification. Commissioner Greene pointed out that the AAC and several of the Commissioners were critical of the Hollywood Video sign because of its neon. Associate Planner Elder clarified that the use of neon tubing for an architectural detail is allowed in a general commercial district per the Sign Ordinance Section 913.030 c. Commissioner Greene asked if the recommendation of Hollywood Video is that Building H have three wall signs; on the north, south and west elevations, and if it is their position that the people traveling north on Rancho Parkway would not be able to see the sign on the south elevation? He asked for their rationale as to why they feel a sign on the west side of the building is essential. Mr. Stout stated that, hopefully, the people coming up West Branch might be able to see it. Commissioner Keen stated, in his opinion, the Hollywood Video sign is not in character with the shopping center or what we are trying to accomplish, and until just recently, neon was completely outlawed in the City. In response to Commissioner Haney's question as to whether Hollywood Video has any other sign programs that do not incorporate the neon element, Mr. Stout stated there are certain cities that do prohibit neon, however, they have had their mountain treatment clear across the facia with the letters on it, which was a trade -off they were comfortable with making because they still had their identity. Commissioner Haney stated he agreed with Commissioner Keen and even though the City has recently began looking at neon, on a case by case basis, we need to be very careful about the approvals there. He also agreed with Commissioner Greene's comments that signs on three sides of a small store seems to be more than is necessary. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12 September 15, 1998 Commissioner Parker stated she is glad to see the sign scaled down. She commented that in looking over the sign plan and the Hollywood Video building, she doesn't have a problem adding an additional sign, however, she does have a problem adding a third sign that would not help that much, and adding three signs instead of the one, seems to be pushing it a little bit. She further stated she feels that people turning in there will see the sign adequately enough on the south side no matter which direction they are coming from. Chair Lubin stated he really appreciates the sign coming in at 70 square feet, and he also appreciates the efforts made in reducing the sign and fitting in with the program. He further stated he takes deference with the interpretation of the neon. The neon says "...the architectural treatment of the building"; it doesn't say the sign itself. He commented he doesn't have a problem with two signs because he can see where they makes sense, and he could see some advantage from a business standpoint on the third sign getting the West Branch or freeway traffic to see that because there is some indication to that possibility. He suggested eliminating the neon and coming back with some way of highlighting the blue mountain interior -wise so that there is no neon on top of the sign. Commissioner Keen referred to the detail on the full size drawing noting there is a strip of fluorescent lighting which would wash the wall and apparently go up toward the top, and he wondered if that has a strip, why couldn't the mountains be in a clear plexiglass strip and let that fluorescent tubing shine through and they could have their mountain? Mr. Stout stated it has typically not their habit to illuminate the mountains internally and, basically, they like to highlight or silhouette them. He stated he would pass Commissioner Keen's suggestion on to Hollywood Video. Commissioner Keen referred to the sign on the back side of the building, stating it is his perception that the building sets lower than Rancho Parkway, and, in his opinion, putting the sign on the back of the building if it is down in a hole, will not be effective. Commissioner Haney commented that one of the objectives here is to maintain a residential corridor with major residential developments behind the shopping center, and to minimize the signage as much as possible along Rancho Parkway. With that intention stated, and once the area neighborhoods are aware of the Hollywood Video location, he is still of the opinion that we should be close to our Sign Ordinance, which is one sign per business, and he would like to see that sign oriented toward the front of the parking lot on the front of the building. He stated it is important to him to respect the residential developments in the area. Mr. Heinrich advised that all of the small tenant signage shown in the current Planned Sign Program are within the 70 square foot limit, and the sign design conforms with the Planned Sign Program. The applicants are not asking for changes to the smaller tenant signs. The variance only relates to the major tenants. He reviewed the changes that were made from the last presentation. Major A - Mr. Heinrich advised that the prior proposal had a sign that was 5' high and 30' long, and that has been reduced in size to 4' high and 27' long in order to have it fit more appropriately .in scale with the elevation, and reduced the square footage from 150 to 108 square feet. He noted there is no tenant yet for this building so this is only a guideline for a future tenant. Arroyo Grande Planning Conunission September 15, 1998 Page 13 In answer to Commissioner Parker's question as to ,why a variance is needed for Building A -2 for 108 square feet, Mr. Heinrich stated the variance is required because of the 70 square foot limit, and we are asking for more sign area. He advised that, in general, the same rationale is used for all of the major tenants along the back row of buildings, due to the fact that they are so far from the street that identification of the building would be difficult without an additional sign area. Also, once people enter the site at various entry points, they have to make a decision on where to turn to park for the buildings and where to go within the site. He commented that is their rationale for all of the major tenants in the back of the project. Mr. Heinrich presented a transparency showing a 70 square foot sign on a building elevation as opposed to one of the larger signs. He noted that because of the large walls, a 70 square foot sign looks out of scale. Commissioner Haney commented that the facades were designed for certain sized signs at the beginning, so that was the anticipation without regard necessarily to sign codes. Building D Mr. Heinrich reviewed the variance request for Building D. He stated there have not been any changes to this from the last submittal because this elevation has a particularly large entry wall area as compared to Building A -2, which was restricted by its arch. Commissioner Keen stated in looking at the elevation and then looking at Lucky Sav -on, and if it is all in scale Office Max looks out of proportion. He stated there are no setbacks on the side from the area it is trying to cover and the letters are a lot larger and, in his opinion, it is not proportional to the sign right next to it which is the Lucky Sav -on. Chair Lubin called direct comparison to A -2. You are proposing 4' x 27' on 68 feet for that facade. On this one you are proposing a 49 foot sign by 6 feet on a facade that is not much over 60 or 70 feet. He agreed with Commissioner Keen's comment that it looks way out of proportion with the size of the facade. Commissioner Greene commented that the Architectural Advisory Committee notes from May 4, 1998 with reference to Building D, Office Max reads: "The lettering should be indented from both sides the approximate width of the pilasters so that the lettering is better balanced. The height of the letters should also be reduced proportionately." He stated the Commission comments are in accord with the AAC meeting notes, and he recalled that the same objections were raised in May when the Planning Commission met and discussed this issue. Therefore, it appears that the concerns raised by both the AAC and the Planning Commission were not addressed. He further stated he had talked to Ms. Elder about this sign, and staff shares the Commission's concerns that the Office Max sign is dis- proportionate to the other signs which are placed on the south facing facades of these buildings. In answer to Commissioner Parker's suggestion regarding the 70 square foot sign, Mr. Heinrich stated that he can't speak to Office Max's corporate position but they may feel that they have a larger store than A -2, which has a 4 foot high sign and is 27 feet long and, therefore, if they are restricted to a 3 foot high sign, especially when they are next to Lucky Sav -on, this would be putting an extra restriction on them. Mr. Heinrich suggested making a presentation at the next meeting for Office Max that may be acceptable to the Commission. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 14 September 15, 1998 Building E. Mr. Heinrich stated a variance is requested on this building. He stated they have reduced the area proposed on this sign from 5' high and 45' long down to 4' high and 37.5 feet long. He advised there is no tenant officially identified for this building as yet. Commissioner Haney pointed out they are going beyond the Sign Code on all of the major tenant buildings, which is an issue that he has an ongoing concern about. Commissioner Keen inquired when a sign envelope is approved and the time comes for a tenant to occupy the building, if it will come back to the Commission for colors, materials, etc. He stated the Commission has no idea what it is going to look like other than location and square footage. Community Development Director Hamilton stated that one issue related to colors is that often these colors are part of a corporate logo and part of a corporate trademark. Past court action has made it pretty clear that communities cannot legislate content, including corporate logos, however, communities can regulate the time, place and manner where those signs go. If there is a registered trademark involved or corporate logo that includes colors and those types of things, the City has very limited flexibility on what can be done as far as requiring them to change. As far as who reviews the signs, Mr. Hamilton advised that the Planning Commission can make as part of their recommendation that any sign that goes into the center needs to come back for review before it goes in place. He commented he would always like to see some clear guidelines laid out and then find a way to make these things happen as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the applicant and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Haney commented that in the sign program criteria there is an opportunity for the Commission to express their preference with regard to how they would like to see it administered. He also commented he has had a little bit of a different experience with sign programs in sign sensitive communities that corporate logos are not always sacred. Commissioner Parker asked if it is Mr. Heinrich's feeling that the amount of square footage of a sign per building is a direct relationship to the square footage of that building? Mr. Heinrich advised that is one of the factors, however, they do look at a lot of factors. Commissioner Greene stated if the size of the store is a factor in consideration, then since Lucky Sav -on is significantly larger, their sign should be significantly bigger than Office Max. Also, since Office Max is significantly smaller, their sign should be significantly smaller than Lucky Sav -on. Another issue Commissioner Greene referred to was tenant identification and the visibility of some of the major tenants, such as D and E, for people on West Branch, if the tenant identification signs are on the gateway towers, it would appear logical to proportionately reduce the wall signs to bring them into closer conformity for the purpose of identifying tenant location and not advertising. Mr. Stout stated that the signage out front is more of a directory. Their concern over the identification of the wall signage is visibility as you are passing or going into the center to actually finding location when you get in there. We are not talking about a balance between a big sign and a little sign; its all subjective. This was designed as an integral sign program with the interpretation that the wall signs would be the major signage. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 15 September 15, 1998 Building A - Wal -Mart Mr. Heinrich advised that no changes have been made to the Wal -Mart sign area because it was felt it is appropriate for the size of the building, the length of the facade, and appropriateness for the design of the facade. A variance is requested for the proposed size and also for secondary signage. He explained that the secondary signage is on the wall of the building underneath the arcade. As in the Lucky elevation, it identifies separate services within the store, such as "Pharmacy", "1 Hour Photo ", and "Vision Center." He described the secondary sign locations on the wall under the canopy. He stated the signs are opaque and are not lit. In answer to Commissioner Parker's question relative to 70% coverage, Mr. Stout advised that the 70 % to 80 % normally refers to is individual tenant signage where you have a block of space (20' wide, 30' wide) when you look at a tenant sign being wider than that so you don't have encroachment of one sign over the other visually, more or less pocketed over each other. Chair Lubin stated in looking at the facade area, from a visual standpoint, as an example, if the Wal -Mart sign went to 400 square feet which is within the lineal footage of the entire building, it would look totally out of proportion. Therefore, you still need to look at where the sign is placed and the proportional process within that. Building I Mr. Heinrich advised that this is the last major tenant requesting a variance. He stated the sign area has been reduced since the last meeting from a sign that was 6' high and 46' long to a sign that is 5' high and 38' long. The sign is located on the south elevation. On the west elevation, it was originally drawn assuming the building would have two tenants. There were two signs giving them a street identity sign. That has been changed to show just one tenant identification sign on the west elevation, which is 4' high and 24' long. Commissioner Haney pointed out that the Architectural Advisory Committee's comments relative to Building I states: "No sign should be shown on the west elevation where the angle wall is shown because of the visibility of the sign from the residential area." Mr. Heinrich pointed out that they wanted to make sure that the sign did not occur on the angle portion of the wall. Commissioner Haney commented regarding the major residential area and one of his goals here is to maintain residential corridor access without over - commercializing the major entry, so his concern is about the signage on the west side of the building, and significantly because there are no entrances on that side of the building. He advised that one of the suggestions made at the last Planning Commission meeting was perhaps the front facade needs to be redesigned to accommodate two tenants, or use the currently proposed facade and do it in a creative way that takes advantage of using two tenants. Mr. Heinrich stated the signage shown now is assuming there would be one tenant having a sign both on the street and on the front. The sign on the front over their entrance is angled in such a way and has Building L in front of it, which would block a lot of visibility to that sign. The intent was to give them more identity from the street and from the other retail on the other side of the street. Commissioner Haney stated, given the elevations of the street as people drive by, as well as the fact that these are sitting down approximately 12 feet from the street, in his opinion, the visibility from the access to the south side is actually pretty good because the front L is lower than Building I in terms of the roof line. Mr. Heinrich commented it appears that way when looking at a straight elevation. He noted in driving past Building M and as you get to Building L, there is no angle between those two buildings so all you are really seeing is anything that is over the top, and there is a chance that it could block the signage. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page.16 September 15, 1998 Commissioner Greene advised he is concerned about buildings that have a number of tenants such as J, which has 10 signs. He stated that he and the Community Development Director discussed a program that would enable limiting signs based upon the number of tenants. He asked Mr. Heinrich to address that issue and put some effort in providing a formula. With respect to Building M, Commissioner Greene stated there are a number of signs identified, and yet on the site plan it is identified as a restaurant. He stated that is an ambiguity which needs to be cleared up; is it going to be a restaurant or is it a multiple tenant site? Commissioner Greene pointed out that the staff report does not include anything relative to the Building K east elevation, however, a sign on Building K is shown on the east side, which is the St. Patrick's side. He asked that this be addressed at the next meeting. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Five Cities Planned Sign Program was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1998 on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried. PLANNING COMMISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS. Community Development Director Hamilton advised that the earliest Rodeo Heights will be back on the agenda would probably be October 20 Commissioner Parker briefly reviewed the meeting of the Long Range Planning Committee. Chair Lubin requested that the Planning Commission meeting of November r be rescheduled. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Clerk AS TO CONTENT: J amilton, AICP mmunity Develop 'rector 1 1 1