The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-12-01; Planning Commission; ; PS 93-21 WEST BLUFF PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENTSTAFI:· .-'LANNER: DAVID RICK Sf AFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PS 93-21 WESf BLUFF PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT -Request for an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny a sign program amendment for the existing West Bluff Plaza Shopping Center located on the northeast comer of Alga Road and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3579, UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY PS 93-21, based upon the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to amend the sign program for the West Bluff Plaza Shopping Center located on the northeast comer of Alga Road and El Camino Real. The proposed amendment would allow 30 square feet of double-faced, multi-tenant signage to be added to an existing freestanding monument sign located adjacent to El Camino Real. The signs would be added between the monument's two supporting columns. As shown in Exhibit "A", the freestanding sign was approved by the original sign program to display only the words "West Bluff Plaza". The 20 foot high freestanding sign is made of stucco with a simulated tile roof and a plexi-glass sign face. All of the signs would be interior illuminated and double-sided. The proposed amendment also included adding three major tenant signs to the existing plexi-glass sign face (See Exhibit "B"). On October 5, 1993, the Planning Director approved the additional three major tenant signs, but denied the proposed 30 square feet of multi-tenant signs. The multi-tenant signage was denied because of its aesthetic value, its inconsistency with other shopping center freestanding monument signs, and its noncompliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The sign program, approved by the Planning Director in 1979 as part of the original approval of the shopping center, established specific sign criteria to create attractive, uniform signage throughout the Center. In reviewing sign program applications, the Planning Director is given the discretion to restrict signage to the extent that is necessary to establish the desired signage in the Center. PS 93-21 -WEST BLUFF .LAZ,A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMEt" DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE2 This sign program, as most sign programs, is more restrictive than the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41 of the Zoning Ordinance). The City Sign Ordinance would allow a total of 1,450 square feet of signage on the property. Under the proposed sign program amendment, however, the maximum total square footage that could be achieved in the Center is 1,317 square feet. In addition, the sign program currently restricts signage beyond code requirements to the following specifications: • an interior illuminated wall sign (2 ft. X 14 ft.) for each first floor tenant; • a directory wall sign at the stairwell leading to the second story offices; • 1 0" X 2'5" hanging arcade signs for street level tenants located in the two southern most buildings; and • one freestanding sign not to exceed more than 100 square feet. The following table summarizes the existing, allowed and proposed signage: I I Existing Total Shopping Center Signage 1,287 sq ft* Freestanding Sign 53 sq ft/20' high Tenant Wall Sign 28 sq ft* Hanging Signs 2 sq ft* * maximum signage that could exist under current sign program ** maximum signage allowed per the Sign Ordinance *** required per the El Gamino Real Corridor Development Standards. III. ANALYSIS I Allowed I Proposed 1,450 sq ft** 1,317 sq ft 100 s~ft*/7' high** 83 sq ft/20' high 28 sq ft .. 28 sq ft 2 sq ft* 2 sq ft I The proposed multi-tenant signage was denied because of its aesthetic value, its inconsistency with other freestanding monument signs, and its noncompliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Aesthetic Value The addition of numerous small multi-tenant signs to the freestanding monument would create visual clutter and would be difficult for motorists to read. In addition, the existing sign program already permits an adequate display of signage. Each tenant's wall sign has sufficient visibility to El Camino Real traffic. PS 93-21 -WEST BLUFF t ,.A2A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMEl\ ~ DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 3 Inconsistency with other Freestanding Monument Signs Historically, the City's policy regarding shopping center signage has been to allow tenant identification primarily with wall signs rather than monument signs. With the exception of a few outdated signs, the City has approved monument signs which display no more than 4 tenant signs and are no higher than 6 feet above grade. Ideally, a monument sign will be limited to identifying the shopping center name and address number only. The Poinsettia Village Shopping Center monument sign located on the southeast comer of Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane is an example of such a sign. To allow West Bluff Plaza to deviate from this policy would create a new precedent for signs in shopping centers. Noncompliance with El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards The existing freestanding sign is exempt from the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, adopted by the City Council in 1984. The Development Standards were designed "to maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway area". To meet this goal, special standards for signs along El Camino Real were created. Standards applicable to this property require that freestanding monument signs not exceed seven feet above street grade nor exceed 12 feet in length. The freestanding monument sign preexisted prior to the adoption of the Development Standards. According to the Development Standards, existing developed areas along El Camino Real are exempt from the Development Standards unless a change in signing or intensification of development occurs. Because the proposal consists of an increase in sign area, the proposed amendment is an "intensification of development" and considered "a change in signing". Based on this criteria, the proposed increase in signage is not exempt from the development standards. Therefore, the sign would be subject to a seven foot height restriction. The applicant is not proposing to lower the 20 foot high sign. Section 21.40.115 of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards do, however, allow deviations from these sign standards if the Planning Commission determines that the standards are infeasible. In approving such deviations, the Planning Commission must make all the following findings: a) compliance with a particular standard is infeasible for a particular project. This finding cannot be made as removing the existing sign and replacing it with a seven foot high sign is feasible. No physical barriers or obstacles would prevent installation of a seven foot high monument sign or removal of the 20 foot high monument sign. b) that the scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained if the standard is not fulfilled. This finding can be made as the standards will still be enforced for each project subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. PS 93-21 -WEST BLUFF l-i...AZA SfGN PROGRAM AMENDMEI\i ~ DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE4 c) that the project will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety. This finding can be made as the existing sign and the proposed amendment would not obstruct safe vision of traffic for motorists exiting the project site. d) that the project is designed so as to meet the intent of the scenic preservation overlay zone. This finding cannot be made as the views and scenic qualities along El Camino Real would depreciate with the increase in signs. Because findings "a" and "d" cannot be made, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the standards are feasible, and that the sign shall comply with the seven foot height restriction. Changing a sign copy within the existing sign area is not considered an "intensification of development" or a "change in signing" because no additional square footage is proposed. Therefore, the amendment allowing three major tenant identification signs to be added to the existing sign face was approved without the need to bring the freestanding sign into compliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed sign program amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. V. SUMMARY Based upon the sign's undesirable characteristics, its inconsistency with other shopping center freestanding monument signs, and its noncompliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3579 upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny PS 93-21. In accordance to Section 21.54.140(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commissions' decision shall be final. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3579 2. Location Map. 3. Correspondence, various dates. 4. Exhibits "A", "B", and "C", dated December 1, 1993. DR:lh:vd November 2, 1993 ALGA r RD. JI City of Carlsbad WEST BLUFF PLAZA PS 93-21 _,,_! II IV•8 •' .. •1,,.-... ,,;..!-. .,,. .... -"". • I I ~ .i I \ \ s:. e ~~ '{ I ~ ~' 'il ~ 0 t~ ~ ~ - <;; VI ~ l- ; . t ,: ) 's 1- - ~~ ~ f ~ p t., : i , p )< ~ \.l l ~ -.J '1 .- I J J 3:: ~r ,: r - ~~ Ji '. ~ i" . , .. \IJ Il l l ir \! ) :$ - < 0 -- - 9 ~ - , LO • Cl) ... - 3 r, I 2! l: \ 0 w Ill > w 0.: • .. . __ _, , I I I .. . . . . ·, I I I I I I I I I • , .. LI · •• • 1 ! -- - - - - _. . . . , __ _ _ _ _ i (i t · tt ~ ~; , ·2 :ft ~1 1 : _ . pi /, ; . In t I •~ v , ■AD D - :; i · , Y, ~,· AGENDA City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Planning Commission DAVID RICK ,,,,,..,,0 _ Wednesday, December l, 1993 6:00 p.m. (AGENDA ONLY) (fl)T Noncii···ro···,,_iti •• Pusric•=············'·········''·''··-=.=.=.·.· ...... • .. =. ·=·==·=·=:=·:=t?=t?'?=·::..:.,=,:•=:.:.:.=•·.:.:::,·,.;,:.:,:·,.:.::;:=.·=/·::,::)(J@){){()f\·· •:(= =•·{ 1. It_is the Planning Commission's policy to adjourn the meeting no later than 10 p.m. 2. Meetings are divided into categories shown below. 3. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. 4. · All persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aids in order to effectively participate may contact the Planning Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to arrange for reasonable accommodations. CONSENT AGENDA: If you desire to talk about Consent Items a written "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Minutes Clerk prior to the time the Consent Agenda is called. The items listed under Consent Agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion as. listed. There will be no se,parate discussion on these items prior to the time the Commission votes, unless an item is removed.r PUBLIC COMMENT: If you desire to speak about an item not listed on the agenda, a ''Time Reservation Request" form should be filed with the Minutes Clerk. A total of 15 minutes is provided for the Public Comment portion of the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. In conformance with the Brown Act, no action can occur on items presented during Public Comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS: It is not necessary to file a written request to speak on items listed on this agenda as Public Hearings. ALL OTIIER CATEGORIES: For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Minutes Clerk before the item is announced. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF AIJ.EGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES: November 17, 1993 ABSENT: ACTION: VOTE: COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA Please limit your comments to three minutes. (A total of five speakers may be heard.) PLANNING COMMISSION At :.JDA DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) CUP 272xl -CHURCH OF NEW HOPE -Request for approval of a five-year extension of a CUP for a church at 5731-D Palmer Way in an industrial office development. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 2) MP l 77(G)/GPA 93-06/LCPA 92-01/CT 92- 03/HDP 92-04 -A VIARA PHASE HI -Request for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust neighborhood sizes, product types, and development standards, a General Plan Amendment to add designations to the existing Combination District, and a Master Tentative Map and Hillside Development Permit to create and rough grade the neighborhoods, including 133 single family lots, and major streets within the third phase of the Aviara Master Plan, along future Ambrosia Lane and north of existing Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Zone · 19. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING: 3) PS 93-21 WEST BLUFF PLAZA SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT -Request for an appeal of the Planning Directors decision to deny a sign program amendment for the existing West Bluff Plaza Shopping Center located on the northeast comer of Alga Road and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Staff Recommendation: UPHOID DENIAL RESO: ACTION: VOTE: RESO: ACTION: VOTE: RESO: ACTION: VOTE: 3568 3573. 3574. 3575 3576. 3577. 3578 . r 3579 PLANNING COMMISSION A-... iNDA DECEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 3 4) CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-0IN 93-02 -SEA GABLES -Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance to develop a 15-unit, 16-lot residential condominium project on property at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Staff Recommendation: DENIAL ADDED ITEMS AND REPORT Staff Planning Commission City Attorney ADJOURNMENT RESO: ACTION: VOTE: 3582. 3583, 3584, 3585.3586 TIME:---· __________ _ PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE For those in the audience who are not familiar with the operation of a Planning Commission, the following is a summary of the procedure: On matters concerning applications for Specific Plans, Planned Unit Developments, Master Plans, Street Name Changes, Condominium Permits and Tentative Subdivision Maps over SO units, the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council. These items are automatically forwarded to the City Council with a report from the Planning Commission. On matters concerning amendments to the General Plan and Zone Codes, or applications for Zone Change, Precise Development Plan and Site Development Plans, the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council if the Planning Commission recommends approval. But, if the Planning Commission wishes to deny the application, they act as final decision makers. Therefore, if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the item is automatically forwarded to the City Council. If it is denied by the. Planning Commission, the application must be appealed if it is to go forward to the Citr. Council. On matters concerning applications for Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments, Site Development Plans, Condominium Permits and Tentative Subdivision Maps for SO units or less, the Planning Commission is delegated the authority to take final action, unless those items are appealed to the City Council. Applicants or protestants of record should contact the Planning Director for further information on the right of appeal. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall within ten (10) calendar days of the decision. The cost of filing an appeal is $120.00 for single family homes and $490.00 for all other matters. For each item on the agenda, the planning staff will present a report to the Planning Commission. On items for public hearing, the audience will be asked for comment. Those wishing to speak are asked to come forward, speak into the microphone, and give their name and address for the taped record. A ~e limit of five minutes is allotted to each speaker. After testimony is completed, the applicant is allowed a rebuttal. The Planning Commission is anxious to hear all persons wishing to give testimony. However, it is requested that each new speaker add new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers have made. Persons not desiring to speak, but wishing to be recorded as proponents or protestors of record, may do so by:wbmitting their name and address to the minutes clerk. BH:km 8/92