Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-05-051 1 1 ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice Chair Haney presiding. Present are Commissioners Greene, Rondeau and O'Donnell. Chair Lubin is absent. Also in attendance are Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder and Contract Planner Lezley Buford. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 1998 were approved as prepared on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None NON - PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION OF PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 97 -124; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; REPRESENTATIVE: MIICE HEINRICH; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY Vice Chair Haney briefly outlined the process for tonight's discussion. He invited Mike Heinrich, the applicant's representative, to make his presentation. Mike Heinrich stated the purpose of this preliminary discussion concerns the Planned Sign Program (PSP) for the Five Cities Center that has been submitted to the City. The intent of the sign program is to support and express the Spanish /Mediterranean theme of the project, as well as to unify the various types of sign elements that are going to appear on the site. The sign program also addresses national tenants who have specific logos they like to use. The program also identifies other tenants. The intent is to make all of the different elements work together in conjunction with the theme of the center. Mr. Heinrich referred to the site plan and explained the different sign types. He reviewed the colors and material pallets for the buildings and the signs to be used for major known tenants and also the smaller yet unknown tenants that will be occupying the buildings. After Mr. Heinrich's presentation, Contract Planner Lezley Buford reviewed the staff report, dated May 5, 1998. She stated the focus of the review is to determine if the proposed signs are consistent with the provisions of the Development Code. Table 9- 13.040 -A "Sign Regulations" govern the size, height, etc. of the proposed signs. She referred to the five potential conflicts listed in the staff report that should be considered by the Commission, as well as some design issues. Vice Chair Haney advised that, in addition to the staff report, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) met and reviewed the sign plan. He requested Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder to review the draft meeting notes of that meeting, dated May 4, 1998. Ms. Elder advised that the AAC briefly discussed separating the two phases of the project in calculating the number of signs. The Committee indicated they would be opposed to this proposal. After review of the Meeting Notes and the general comments regarding the sign plan by the members, Ms. Elder advised the Committee recommended eliminating the entry monument sign on the second driveway on the Phase II side. It was also suggested to eliminate the gateway tower for Phase II, and to only list 4 instead of 5 major tenants. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 May 5, 1998 Discussion on Gateway and Monument Signs Commissioner Greene stated the Planning Commission should be guided by the General Plan and the Sign Regulations found in Chapters 9, 6 and 13 of the Development Code. Section 5 of the regulations allows one ground sign per public street frontage. The applicant is requesting two gateway tower signs and two monument signs, and are asking the City to exceed the regulations by 400%. The applicant is also requesting . to include 4 signs listing the tenants, which is directly in contradiction with the City Sign Regulations. In summary, Commissioner Greene suggested eliminating gateway tower #2 in its entirety and gateway tower #1 should remain but should only list the name of the Center and should not list any tenants whatsoever. He further stated that the optional monuments are beyond the scope of the sign regulations and he doesn't feel obligated to approve or accept the optional signs and, therefore, he chooses not to approve them. Commissioners Rondeau and O'Donnell agreed with Commissioner Greene's comments. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he also agrees that all entrances be designated for the center only and not for the tenants. He further stated he has a problem with the different kinds of lettering. Vice Chair Haney concurred with the previous comments and stated his concern for the residents across the freeway, to which the center is a prominent location. In his opinion, the signage must respect the neighborhood in which it is located similarly, Rancho Grande needs to be respected. He further stated he thinks the theater sign may present some conflicts with the gateway tower #1 and it may need to be relocated. Regarding the monument signs along Rancho Parkway, he agreed with the AAC's comments; he feels most people tend to look at the buildings rather than the monument signs when both are visible. He thinks the gateway tower should only be a Center identification sign and not include tenants. Kirk Scott, Arroyo Grande resident, stated he agrees with the AAC comments. He further stated he doesn't see the need for any marker on Rancho Parkway. Nanci Parker, Fast Cherry Avenue, stated she agrees with the Commission's comments and that the sign be changed just to identify the Five Cities Center. Ella Honeycutt, Oak Hill Road, stated she is concerned that the City doesn't become another ugly beach city, and she is glad to see that the Planning Commission is keeping things under control. John Keene, 293 No. Elm Street, stated he agrees about the elimination of signs, however, he didn't feel it is right to completely isolate the individual businesses; they need consideration for some kind of signage. Discussion on Major Tenant Signs In discussing the size of the larger signs, Contract Planner Lezley Buford pointed out that all major tenant signs shown on the plans exceed the allowable limit of 70 square feet, and the Wal- Mart and Lucky- Say-On signs exceed the number of signs and square footage allowed. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he didn't thing the square footage is an issue with these signs, particularly with the scale of the facade of the building, and he is in agreement with the comments of the AAC on Building I regarding the spacing between the top and bottom of the sign, and that the lettering should be reduced to 5 ft. in height. Commissioner Greene stated that unless the City Council is willing to enter into some kind of variance, the limits of the signage should be as stated in the sign regulations. He believes we should avoid the kind of urban blight with the kinds of lights proposed because they detract from the small town rural character of the City that we are trying to preserve. He stated he is concerned about the light pollution that will effect the people who live on Sierra Hill across the freeway. Also, he would not be in favor of any major tenant sign that significantly exceeds the 70 square foot limitation. He further stated, in his opinion, it looks cluttered and redundant to announce the tenants and also advertising, such as "bakery", "pharmacy", etc. With regard to Building I, Commissioner Greene stated he agreed with the AAC that it is not necessary to display a tenant sign on the west side. It was his recommendation that if the occupants are going to be highlighted, signs be confined to the lower right hand corner. He commented he believes the applicant needs to rework the sign square footage to Development Code regulations. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 May 5, 1998 Commissioner Rondeau and Vice Chair Haney agreed with Commissioner Greene's comments, and they felt that the 70 feet of signage limit should be adhered to. Commissioner Rondeau also shared Mr. Scott's concern regarding the effect of the lighting that will be seen from the residents across the freeway. Vice Chair Haney suggested the applicant make a presentation of both signage within the Development Code and signage as requested by the tenants. He stated the Commission might be able to find an acceptable alternative if they could see an overall plan. With regard to Building I, Vice Chair Haney stated he is sure there should not be any sign on the west facing wall of the building and he would prefer to see the signage size reduced for the major tenants. Kirk Scott made reference to an outlet center in Gilroy, stating every store was identified with cutout letters fastened on the building in a dark hunter green color, which was quite attractive. He felt this type of signage is more in keeping with the type of small town feeling we want this town to have and it conveyed a little classier look. _ Discussion on Smaller Tenants Signage Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder referred to the notes of the AAC recommending no signs on the east elevation of Building F, since it will face the residential area. On the smaller tenant spaces, it was suggested that one sign per tenant space on all smaller buildings where multiple tenants are identified would be appropriate. It was also suggested that the sign proposed for Hollywood Video, Building H, not be shown on three sides, and that there be no neon; lettering only on the south elevation. On the north elevation, reduce the size to 100 square feet and eliminate the mountains. For Buildings J and K, the Committee recommended eliminating signs on the east elevation and on the east and south sides of Building K, and use the monument sign for both building tenants. It was suggested that Buildings M be removed from the plan since no building elevations have been approved. Basically, they recommended that no signs be placed on the rear elevations of either building. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that one of his main concerns is the Hollywood Video signage. He stated there is a question whether this is a mural or a sign and, in his opinion, it is a sign and it exceeds the 70 square foot limitation. If the logo is something they need to have, it could be incorporated into the sign square footage. He agreed with comments of the AAC regarding any elevations that have signs on them facing residences. Commissioner Greene stated he didn't believe that Building F needs a sign on the east elevation. The Sign Ordinance specifically limits the tenants to one sign. Also, with regard to the minor tenants, it was his feeling that the statute is specific, allowing only one sign for each tenant. He agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell that the Hollywood Video should have only one sign. With regard to Building J, he stated he feels the building should only have signs on one side and the elevation that faces St. Patrick's should not have a sign. Building K should have the signs eliminated on the south and east side. With respect to Building L, he referred to Section 13, Page 285.D of the Development Code, allowing restaurants two signs per wall per street frontage and, therefore, they would be permitted to have two signs on the west side of Building L. Vice Chair Haney agreed with the comments made by both Commissioner O'Donnell and Commissioner Greene. The only other issue he had relates to the signage along Rancho Parkway. It was his feeling that the signage along Rancho Parkway should be minimized as much as possible since that is the major entrance to a significant residential community. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 May 5, 1998 Ms. Elder referred to the comments by the AAC with reference to Building G. They suggested it may be appropriate to keep the sign on the southeast elevation of the building to 70 square feet; reduce the number of signs to one sign and remove the three smaller signs. Commissioner Greene stated, in his opinion, this is a difficult issue because of the multi-tenant use. He referred to Section 13 of the table of the Sign Ordinance regarding fast food restaurants, restaurants, etc. and Section 8 of the Table refers to business identification. He commented there seems to be an inconsistency in general, in that fast food restaurants and restaurants in general are permitted two wall signs per street frontage, whereas regular businesses are permitted one. To really assess this proposal, he stated he would need to know what kind of tenants are being proposed. He further stated he doesn't see West Branch Street being a street frontage for Building G or any other building in this project, with the exception of the existing buildings which are the theater and the Sizzler restaurant. Commissioner Rondeau stated without more identification of what tenants are going to occupy building G, it would be difficult to make a decision at this time. Commissioner O'Donnell stated, in his opinion, there are a number of buildings in this project that have dual street frontages. Just because there is a parking lot in between doesn't necessarily mean they do not have street frontage. Discussion on Questions Raised in Staff Report Vice Chair Haney advised the next item for discussion is the first question in the staff report. The issue is whether or not the design, size, color, materials and number of signs complement the center's Spanish Traditional /Mediterranean architecture? In reviewing the colors and materials boards, Commissioner O'Donnell stated he doesn't like the bright yellows and greens shown on the pallets. He commented he believes the muted tones fit better with the Spanish style. He would not be opposed to Mr. Scott's comments of having all one style and color in the sign structure. Commissioner Greene pointed out that the project should fit into the community and a lot of effort has gone into creating the Spanish /Mediterranean style that has been adopted. He stated he would like to see the colors of the signs reworked. He further stated the colors are too bright and need to be more uniform to unify the center, and the signs should announce the business and not advertise. He suggested muted colors could be effective and could be consistent and yet distinguished enough from the colors chosen to highlight the structures themselves. Commissioner Rondeau stated that the proposed colors are far apart from the buildings and architecture and, in his opinion, they can be toned down to where they will fit in more with the colors of the buildings. He further stated he would like to see more uniformity in the signs. Vice Chair Haney stated that Commissioner Greene has outlined most of the concerns that he has. He referred to the General Plan, Code Section 612.D, requiring that sign color be compatible with building color. In general, limit the number of primary colors to no more than two, with the secondary color used for accent or shadow detail. He recommended that the applicant submit two or three pallets of color so there is some variety to choose from. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 May 5, 1998 With regard to the second question for discussion listed in the staff report as to whether Phase I and Phase II should be considered separate commercial centers with regard to the number and design of the signs, Vice Chair Haney referred to Code Section 9- 13.030, last sentence, reads "For the purpose of this chapter, a shopping center shall be considered a single parcel, regardless of whether the center of comprised of more than one legal parcel." Question three of the staff report asks "How should proposed changes to signs, such as number, size, type or location be processed? Could some changes be administratively approved or would all changes require amendments to the PSP ?" Vice Chair Haney stated that the discussion tonight gives a sense of what the Commission prefers and what the processes are if there are significant changes. He suggested that the applicant draft up something now that the Commission has expressed their opinions, and provide for flexibility to meet the future changes needed in the sign program. He commented that his goal would be to review major revisions or exceptions. As long as changes conform to the Sign Ordinance and what has been approved, he would prefer that to be administratively approved in the future. With regard to question four "Should the PSP include a "sign envelope" for each building frontage that would designate the allowed copy and logo area ?" Vice Chair Haney suggested including this as part of the PSP and the Planning Commission could consider it at the next go- around. The question dealing with illumination, and the appropriate type of illumination, Commissioner O'Donnell referred to the regulations in the Sign Ordinance, stating no exposed neon is permitted. Also, he believes back lighting is effective and is a little more muted and does not detract from the sign. Commissioners Greene and Rondeau concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell's comments. Vice Chair Haney stated the last question is in regard to the existing restaurant and theater signs and how they relate to the proposed sign program. He stated that because it is a center, it would be good for all concerned for them to be connected as much as possible. He requested the applicant come . back with a plan showing how the center, the theater and Sizzler are going to tie together. PLANNING COMIVIISSION /COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEMS AND COMMENTS. A. General Plan Update. Acting Community Development Director Helen Elder advised the General Plan Update Workshop is still scheduled for June 13 and notices will be mailed to all addresses within the City. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Draft Notes from the Architectural Advisory Committee Meeting of May 4, 1998 2. The Arroyo Linda Crossroads Specific Plan and Traffic Study. 3. General Plan Elements relating to the Sign Program. 4. Letter from Nanci Parker dated April 28, 1998 to the City of Arroyo Grande regarding the Coordinated Agricultural Support Program. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission May 5, 1998 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner. Greene, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: 11'7 / c a ., r' �` '" Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Cler AS TO CONTENT: Helen M. Elder, AICP Acting Community Development Director Del Haney, Vic air Page. 6