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