The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1973-03-01; City Council; 1055; Amendment to Title 21 of Municipal Coder- l '\ THE CITY OF CARLS8AD, CALIFORNIA """' , :;o d:.C4-) Dat~~March 1, 1973 : A·genda Bi 11 No. /1; .J:£;, ~':> Referred .To: 10 Subject: CITY COUNCIL Submitted By: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 of t~e CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPT.21.40 (SIGNS) PLANNING COMMISSION Initiated by Planning Commission. · Statement of the Matter This matter was considered at the regular meeting held on February 13, 1973 and was approved as follows: 1. Recommend Amendment to City Council of Sections 21.40.070 (Extension of time) and21.40.080 (Modification re:Motels and Hotels) 2. Recommend to City Council comprehensive review of Sign Ordinance. Exhibit 1. Staff Report -Proposed Revision to Sign Ord. -Feb;rl, 2. Report -City Attorney -Feb. 9, 1973 · 3. Petition from Downtown Merchants 4. Resolution No. 839 -Plan. Comm. / 5. Memorandum from Planning Der,t .. -February 26, 1973 6. Resume of Actio~Jn;~ ;commendations of Sign Commit-tee 7 . 0 rd in an c e No • · ;-f ~ · R.ui..~ .3o 7,t, _Staff Recommendat I ans ' Staff recommends approval of Amendment to Title 21 of C.M.C. (Signs) as outlined in Exhibits.1 and 4. 1973 7 Date: March 1, 1973 AB No. City Manager's Recommendation concur with recommendations of City Attorney and Planning Director. Recommend proposed Amendment to Municipal code. council Action 3-6-73 Following the public hearing, Res. 3076 announcing findings regarding signs was adopted. Ord. 9348 re signs was given a first reading. 3-20-73 Ordinance No. 9348 was given a second reading by title only and adopted. -2- r- MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR DUNNE and CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SIGN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission at its February 13th meeting was presented with a staff report recommending ac~ion to be taken on the proposed Sign Ordinance Revision. The Ad-Hoc Sign Ordinance Committee recommended changes to the existing ordinance (9228). However, the staff, with supportive report from the Cit¥ Attorney, recommended to the Planning Commission two amendments: 1.) that the amortization period be extended 18 months (making certain signs non-conforming as of October 15, 1973); and 2.) motels and hotels in the R-3 Zone be given the same consider- ation as motels and hotels within Commercial Zones. The Staff and the City Attorney (reports attached) both feel that a comprehensive sign review/re-draft is essential and necessary. The Planning Commission adopted the staff and City Attorney's re- commendations and are forwarding same to the City Council for appro- priate action. DONALD A. AGATEP, Planning Director 7 r- L TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 13, 1973 SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISION TO SIGN ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 9224) The Sign Ordinance Committee submitted a report to the Planning Commission in September of 1972 that consisted of recommended revisions to the existing Ordinance. The Planning Commission has never formally acted upon the re- vision, and in the interim, the proposed revision was reviewed by an Ad-Hoc Sign Committee consisting of Councilman Lewis Chase, Mr. Joe Parisi, Mr. Sol Forman, Dr. Ron Packard (Chairman of Sign Committee) and a member of the Planning Staff. The Ad-Hoc Committee recommended that the proposed revisions be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to formal action of the Commission. The City Attorney, by memo to the Planning Director dated February 9, 1973 (attached) describes several points which warrant Planning Commission con- sideration. The most significant consideration is one regarding the completeness and enforcabi 1 ity of Chapter 21 .40 of the Municipal Code, "Signs". Additionally, the City currently has an Off-Site ''Sign Code" in Chapter 18.20 of the Municipal Code. The City Attorney is of the opinion that both ordinances should be in- corporated into a comprehensive unit and unify the requirements of both Off- Site signing and On-Site signing. The Planning Department concurs with this assessment. Therefore, based upon the City Attorney's analysis, the Plan11ing Department recommends that the Planning Commission make the following revisions to Ordinance No. 9224. SECTION 21.40.080 be revised to read: Time limit for conformance of existing sign. As of the effective date of this ordinance codified in this chapter, any sign which does not conform to all of the requirements of this chapter may no longer be structurally or electrically altered, increased in area or relocated unless it is made to comply with all of the provisions of this chapter, provided however that it may be maintained, repaired, and painted without permit or fee, for a period based on the following scale: -1- 7 ' Sign Ordinance Revision _P_a=g_e_2_. _____ =,~ NUMBER OF YEARS IN EXISTENCE Seven to eight years or more Five to six years Three to four years Two years One year NUMBER OF YEARS TO CONFORM 4 years, six months 5 6 7 8 years, years, years, years,. six months six months six months six months and thereafter, the owner thereof shall cause the sign to be removed or so altered as to conform fully with the requirements of this ordinance. A sign permit shall be requir·ed for any such alteration or relocation (Ord. 9224 ~ I (pa rt), I 969: Ord. 9060 ~2607). The Planning Department recommends during the intervening period (Feb. 12, 1973 to Oct. 15, 1973), the staff prepare a comprehensive sign ordinance to include provisions for both On-Site and Off-Site signing, and present this rev1s1on to the sign committee prior to formal presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. An additional recommendation to the Planning Commission concerns existing provisions for motel uses withi.n the R-3 zoning district. The present sign ordinance will permit a motel 1-1/2 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage within C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. However, in the R-3 zoning district, motels bu-ilt are only allowed 20 square feet of signing. In order to allow motels which are currently built or currently being constructed, the Department recommends that signing for motels in R-3 as well as in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts be made compatible. It is also the Planning Staff's recommendation that motels be considered only by Conditional Use Permit within the R-3, C-1 and C-2 zones. This action should be initiated by the Planning Commission as soon as is practical. Therefore, the Planning Department would recommend an additional amendment to Ordinance 9224 to read as follows: SECTION 21.40.070 -Table ZONE OF LOT R-1, R-2, R-W, P-C with densities corresponding to R-A through R-2 R-3, R-P, R-T, P-C with densities less restrictive than R-2,(except hotels and motels}. All other (including motels and hotels) -2- TOTAL AREA OF ALL SIGNS two square feet twenty square feet one and five-tenths square feet per lineal foot of building frontage located on the lot; 7 J. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Director FROM: City Attorney DATE: February 9, 1973 SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Sign Ordinance You have forwarded a copy of a set of 9 ~ev1s1ons to Chapter 21.40 of the Municipal Code proposed by the Sign Ordinance Study Committee, asking for my comments on their legality and enforceability. It was necessary in reviewing the proposals to also review the current provisions of Chapter 21.40 and the relationship of both of those measures to Municipal Code Chapter 18.20, entitled "Sign Code." My review was extended several times in response to requests received from several concerned citizens and an industry group. The industry group received a delay of almost a week to allow their attorneys an opportunity to provide input. The industry group did not keep their appointment or otherwise follow through on the contact. The citizen input however was helpful. The Sign Code deals with a series of technical and procedural aspects of sign regulation. The thrust of the Chapter is directed at off-site signs. .The Chapter is well drafted and complete, and in most cases would be legally enforceable. The appeals provisions, however, should be changed to provide an appeal from a determination of nonconformance or an order to remove in addition to the existing procedure for appealing the denial of a sign permit. The California Supreme Court has approved the enforced removal of off-site outdoor advertising structures, provided a reasonable amortization period has expired. The three-year period specified in the Sign Code may or may not be reasonable when applied to a particular sign. A citizen sign-owner should be allowed to appeal a determination of nonconformance, and to preient evidence to the City Council regarding the reasonableness of the period, and obtain in appropriate cases an additional period of time in which to recover his investment in the sign before removal· is ordered. Chapter 21.40 entitled "Signs" is not so easily analyzed. There is some duplication with 18.20 and the former purports to require compliance with the latter. Generally 21.40 regulates the size, height, location and other similar characteristics of on-site signs. It seems to me that the effectiveness of the City 1 s sign regulations could be improved by a complete review by your staff of both chapters with the aim of rationalizing their provisions into a coherent whole. 7 I r- Planning Dir~tor Feb. 9, 197~ Page 2 The changes to Chapter 21.40 proposed by the Sign Committee do not, on the whole, involve the basic structure of the Chapter. They generally deal with the details of regulation and do not raise serious legal questions. Before discussing the proposep changes, I would like to propose some revisions to the basic structure of the Chapter which I would recommend for your consideration. Section 21.40.020 provides that "All signs and sign structures shall conform to all provisions of Chapter 18.20, as amended." This sec- tion does not effectively incorporate all the provisions of that Chapter, many of which are necessary to a complete and enforceable ordinance, such as the permit procedures. Some of the provisions should not be incorporated as they relate to different types of signs in different factual situations. The two chapters should b- reviewed in detail and combined into a comprehensive .ordinance. In order to accommodate such a review by the Planning Staff, a short amendment to Chapter 21.40 would be necessary providing for an additional period of time for removal of nonconforming signs. At this time there are a number of signs for which the removal · period has expired. The City has apparently been failing to en- force its Ordinance, pending the Sign Committee studies. This situation should not be ~llowed to continue. A City may amend its ordinances, of course, but it is not good practice to do so in an indirect and improper manner by failing to enforce them. In the event the policy decision is made not to undertake a com- plete review of both chapters, it is my recommendation that several provisions be added to Chapter 21.42. A detailed notice and appeal procedure, as discussed above, should be incorporated in the ordinance. Consideration should also be given to includ- ing a variance procedure similar to the one in Chapter 18.20. The exceptions listed in Section 18.20.140 should be reviewed regard- ing their applicability to on-site signs. A short section properly incorporating the permit and fee procedures in Chapter 18.20 should be added. The following comments are offered on the Sign Committee recommend- ations: 1. Change to include business located on a frontage road or some portion thereof, as well as at the apex of a freeway. in the definition of freeway-oriented business, is sound. It is hard to justify treating a service station on the corner differently from one right next door. 2. Through 6. No comment. Policy matters involving technical standards. 7. (a) At the present time nonconforming signs falling within the "seven to eight years or more" ~ategory, as defined in Section 21 .40.080, are overdue for removal. Subject to the appeals pro- cedure and unless some change in period is granted, enforcement 7 .l I r Planning Director Feb. 9, 1973 ,,,.,, Page 3 should begin promptly and the 120-day period in Subsection (a) seems unnecessary. 7. (b) The provision requ1r1ng removal when the business changes hands cannot be favorably recommended. There is no doubt that the right of a business owner to advertise his business in a reasonable manner, subject to regulation on the business premis- es is a property right. His investment in the sign is also a property right. A sign installed in a legal manner now made non- conforming also carries a property right.. The City may require removal of the nonconforming sign upon expiration of a reasonable period of amortization. The proposal would infringe on this property right. A businessman could have a substantial right remaining in his sign and desire to sell his business. Requiring· that he sell that business without the sign would require that he accept a lesser price and would indirectly do what we cannot do directly, that is, require removal of the sign without either a full write-off period or the payment of compensation. . 8. No legal objection to including a requirement for per- iodic review, but provisions of this type are of doubtful effect- iveness and serve no useful prupose. The Planning Department is responsible for review of all zoning ordinances on a continuing basis in any case. 9. · This provision is extremely open-ended and should be carefully reviewed. Some businesses have sales or events every week all year around. A restaurant could advertise a different special dinner every day. The result could be a real dilution o~ the apparent intent of the balance of the ordinance by a fifty per cent increase in area and a temporary appearance. The de- cision is a policy matter but if it is included I would recommend more precise drafting. Consideration should be given to insuring that sign regulations apply in a uniform and fair way so as to insure that similar business in the same zone receive equal signage. This require- ment is basic to a legally enforceable ordinance. I must assume that your staff has considered the various possible applications of both the ordinance and the proposed changes to the City 1 s land uses to insure fulfillment of this requirement. I have a draft prepared of the Notice and Appeal procedure which I strongly recommend be included in the revisions to be presented to the Commission and Council. I understand this matter is set for public hearing on February 13. If you decide that a more detailed review is necessary, it will be possible to restrict the hearing to the revision of the enforcement provision to allow'the addition of sufficient time for completion of the review and pro~eed to forward your recommend- ations to the Council. In the event you decide to proceed to pass on the changes and not do a complete review, the hearing could be held on the various technical recommendations and then continued until the next meeting to allow sufficient time to put the Com- mission's decision on the proposals and the Notice and Appeals 7 I ' Planning Director Feb. 9, 1~7~. Page 4 procedures in ordinance form, and to draft and include the other necessary changed detailed above. Either course of action is legally possible and will result in an ordinance with a rea3onable probability in favor of validity. A further problem presented by the changes which must be noted is that we must assume that some undetermined number of signs present- ly conforming will be rendered nonconforming. It will be necessary for staff to identify and photograph these signs and identify and notify the owners in order to begin the= amortization period against those signs. One final point must be noted in regard to the enforceability of on-site sign ordinances in general. The enforcement is different from that brought against billboards and such. The courts have clearly recognized a property right for a businessman to keep his on-site sign. The City has an equally valid right to improve the appearance of the community. When two equally valid but conflict- ing rights come into,conflict, it is never possible to predict the outcome of the conflict with any great degree of certainty. We must expect that a certain number of nonconforming sign-owners will contest the ordinance regardless of its terms. We have the ability to resist these contests and can predict a fair probability of success, but the area of the law is new and develop- ing, and there can be no guarantees. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney VFB,Jr./ml 7 I . . RESUME OF ACTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SIGN COMMITTEE 1. Redefine Freeway Service Facility: (a) A lot or parcel located at the apex of freeway inter- change quadrant or a facility located on the frontage road of the freeway, which contains one or more of the following uses; restaurant, motel or hotel, autJmotive service station, or shopping center. 2. Public information signs as approved by the Planning Commission are excluded from the restrictions of this ordinance. 3. Signs intended to be viewed from the freeway and which identify freeway oriented businesses shall have a height computed from tte base point equal to the level of the closest main traveled freeway road bed. Height for freeway signs: which ev(~r is highest One business-One sign 35 ft. or 20 ft. above road bed Two business-One Sign 40 ft. II 25 ft. II II II Three II -One Sign 45 Ft. II 30 ft. 11 n 11 4. Except for Freeway Service Facilities: No pole sign shall be more than 20 feet above grade and no portion of sign is to be less than 10 feet above grade. II 11 II 5. Roof signs may be no more than 3 feet by 6 inches above the highest point of the roof and no more than 20 feet above grade. Roof signs allowed in commercial zones only. »~ Projection signs may not be more than 3 feet from the wall of a building, but never more than 18 inches extending over public right of way. Projection signs should not project any further from the roof line than it does from the side of the building. May not have a roof sign and separate projection sign as well. 7. Signs not conforming to the ordinance will be required to conform in accordance to the following: (a) Seven or more years in existan8e shall conform to the ordinance (as adopt&d).within 120 days of adoption of the amend8d ordinance. (b) When ownership of the business or nature of the business changes, non conforming signs have 30 days in which to conform. 7 I I I J. I r- i f l. ~age 2 Cont'd. 8. The Sign Ordinance is to be re\"ie<·:ed every 5 (five) years 9. Temporary On-Site signs advertising special sales of rnerchu.n- dise, or special occasions, may be erected in commercial zones. The total area of such signs shall be in addition to, but not exceed one-half ( 1/2) of the permitted sign area as indicated in Section 21.40.070, Table I of the Ordinance. Such temporary signs may be erected for a period not to exceed 72 hours. 7 I ' 1 Jee 1?~1 rir'.i Rcr,l tor · Poinsettia Clcnncrs Ocen.n M~nor Motel Sins' Shell Station EbbTide Lodce Motel Scn.nd i::-. Motel. L~mont's Rattnn Shop 7~-Eleven Carlsbad Health Foods ~·lard en I s Appliance Parts & Service Sonny's Automotive Mn.nuel's TV Linlc' s Cabinet Shop Lica Intarsie Ametek-Stro.za Bauer Lumber Co. D. C. Cycle Flowers by Barbara CarlsbadTV & Appliance Frosty Hut Dari-Freeze Setta '\f:-i.sh Red Carpet Poinsettia Barber Shop El Camino Pharmacy TG & Y Eig Bear Market Bakers Tacos Vol's Texaco Harry's Restaurant BAP of Carlebad Trinngle Transfer Golden Tee Cocktails Mi1cc I s Coffee. Shop Ewald Realty Carlsbad'Auto Jolly SeaHorse,Liquor Carlsbad Car Wash Burke' s Garage G:' rc:b B'l.rbors fihirley Kut & Kurl Clock Shop strin,c;cr' s Nick 1 c Shoe Repair !-Ill ton's Bar Lo.u I s Union Service Foodland Market Casino B & M Gems Grumpy' s Carlsbad Beauty Supply Carlsbad Liquor Twin Inns :Metro Rent It Service Surfside B~rbershop Novak's Restaurant Oceanside Federal Savings S & M Floor Coverings Surf Motel r-- i PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM UNFAIR SIGN LEGISLATION FOR DOWNTO\:JN MERCHANTS Whereas a new building c~n m~ke provisions for signs to conform to existing or proposed sign ordinances, structures already built to the set-back l~nes have no place to go for an effective sign but tJP(on the roof) or OUT (projecting). This fact was recognized by the City when it issued the original permits for these signs. Therefore, we the undersigned rer.uest that any sign ordinance adopted by the City of Carlsbad contain a grandfather clause to legalize the position of all signs which were given building per- mits prior to enactment of the existing ordinance, I l .... ,,,./4 7~•-;,_ l a .~/N/ I I •; :-, Ii:::, I s· (1-d---J:!-.l;;efV~ / , 7z;(iw ; 0 I. : : ~~ .. __ 0rz 5':/-" /J ,-, lt't>z r'A ilffTT1-lff.J"i-/d 11 10-: _: ~I \ 9. -(_ ,1,, . . ll. /~7..l}.:t.._ 10., .,.L.,;::V,;..t,.,.:::;:;:;.-f,;:,:;..L.~;;.,.i.:;;;;:;;.:;;... __ -1,.1.-"'""'~=~;,_,..;~=~-=.,;;_.~....;;:::-~:--...?.-i2h~ llo _--;......;._.;;..;,...,-,-~...,..:.,"--"'.___---,.,._.;.,;;;;.:;..;...,;.~........,._.._-___..""""'-...;.:.i..,,,;,.;,;.;...;;.:...,........_.....-/ O-o/-·7;z_ , 12. , :;. ~;?'/UC'./~-~t! cr--t,l(I 1-: .. , 0,½~(1-':;I' . . /0/CJ/9:z. I 13.c-',/(,, /;:/t~,,,1,',·<:..01~l.j/ '.+(_,,1; /., /4 !r:rt J\ ~pUC~ ~TA[~}f/7,-:2--·i 14• ~-:-;~~,,,.-7~-;, ? . ./ udA 1N1Ai;~1t: u;,i:<·s CABINET SflC'·, · f 15. i( V l;~"'"' cf 0::,Jd ►i. hb;J «-/P19' /n--i 16. f1/u/r_.,/,:J15/;1-a{-!( »o.111A!if1,t.,,,n./L{,/1Ar1 10/9-7v ., ~7o ... tf)1-c-,._ r 1 ,,,L_ .: s-s;t't, i:-, ~,(Ii_ /:YM;✓ I 18 .\JJ ., cA ./ lf/,1/1 z--. t'. 19 •. f). " . · .. {. ~-'L,, I 0--.,.:.J,./..,-~~,,_,.. /ci/J/:7.;.L i; 20/)'.~4£~,__,__,_ ~~o/ {-4:5:, ( (,/ /<J~/o-71.,,--' 7 _j ·-' - PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM UNFAIR SIGN LEGISLATION FOR DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS Whereas a new building can m~ke provisions for signs to conform to existing or proposed sign ordinances, structure3 already built to the set-back lines have no place to go for an effective sign but UP(on the roof) or OUT (projecting). This fact was recognized by the City when it issued the original permits for these signs. Therefore, we the undersigned request that any sign ordinance adopted by the City of Carlsbad contain a grandfather clause to · legalize the position of all signs which were given building per- mits prior to enactment of the existing ordinance. )NA~ /) , 1 • /;. ~/ r: :--..:.·--G-<' .,::( ~.-:<-<-:-,•<-c•) 2. / ! ~ ,/it~ /( (' (, ('(,,Q(, 3. .;-?· ·7'' 1•-.. ,,t ....... \. r:t. f',,./J ,, •. Lo 1 11. ' DATE • rr7// f · /v..1--•-. . /o-t:., , 2- 1 I /{)* (,~ 7-z, ... 7,:' .. -,. . .I. t;j-· /,,, /: . /, 7 /~I] /4 -/.7 :)./' I --/, ·-· ► /C ·/C· ?'y 1-:3. 14. 15. 16. __,_,,.._.,....,..._ ____ ..;-,; ...... --------------..--,-~-------------'--' ......... 'y . 19. 20. z:----# 7 ,. 1· r- L . PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM UNFAIR SIGN LEGISLATION FOR DOWNTOWN MEHCHANTS Whereas a new building c8.n mqkG provisions for signs to conform to existing or proposed sign ordinances, structures already built to the set-back lines have no tilace to r;o for ·- an effective sign but UP(on the roof) or OUT (projecting). This fact was recognized by the City when it issued the original permits for these signs. Therefore, we the undersigned request that any sign ordinance adopted by the City of Carlsbad oontain a gr~ndfather clause to legalize the position of all signs which were given building per- mits prior to enactment of the existing ordinance. FIRX DATE ,. 2. 3. 5. ~~~~~~~~~ --a 7 0 ,, _!_,{,,~IJ✓;:;~: (?· ,1/{l,1/ ~~(>1. ':: /fj:,,•r_1i:.1., ,Y,1:,1,1.-M...) /(J -/()-:;_17__,. /. ~JJ;? i/·1, ''/?' : / 8. 1<"' '// i" -/Y,.7 \/ !. /1/'/f l.~ Ot I(: '\. / . ',;,-;.·; / / . . . / . · 9 • /'o/ ([le' ~ ~ 10. _/1..-..1 t -i? L-- / c -/ () -7v I!' -c'.'--7 '2._, /0-·1C·7?....,- 10 -lv/7.!.- J.,..-I /l ✓ J'V /D-/{)-72 , ' 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ... •.' ' 7 J I PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM UNFAIR SIGN LEGISLATION FOR DOWNTOWN MEHCHANTS Whereas a new builoing can m·1ke provisions for signs to conform to existing or proposed sign ordinances, structures already built to the set-back lines have no place to go for an effective sign but UP(on the roof) or OUT (projecting). This fact was recognized by the City when it i~sued the original permits for these signs. Therefore, we the undersigned renuest that any si~n ordinance adopted by the City of Carlsbad contain a grandfather clause to legalize the position of all signs which were given building per- mits prior to enactment of the existing ordinance. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14., 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I.◄. A 7 .. . . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing on March 6, 1973, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California to consider an Amendment to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Sections 21.40.070 and 21.40.080, (Extension of Time; and Modification Re: Motels and Hotels with respect to sign provisions). All persons desiring to comment on this proposed A~endment are cordially invited to attend the Public Hearing. CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL PUBLISH: February 23, 1973 7 ' 1 2 3 4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 3076 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND DECISION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 21.40.070 and 21.40.080 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SIGNS. 5 \✓HEREAS, on the 13th day of February, 1973, the Carlsbad City Planning 6 Commission adopted Resolution No. 839 which is herewith referred to and 7 made a part hereof; and 8 WHEREAS, on the 6th day of March, 1973, a duly advertised Public 9 Hearing was held to consider the proposed amendments to Sections 21.40.070 10 and 21.40.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 11 WHEREAS, the City Council received all recommendations and heard all 12 persons interested in or opposed to the proposed amendments; 13 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad does hereby 14 find and adopt as the findings of the City Council, the recommendations of 15 the Planning Commission as set forth in the above referenced Resolution of 16 the Planning Commission. 17 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED by the City Council that the approval of the 18 proposed amendments is necessary to carry out the general purpose of 19 Ordinance No. 9060, as amended. 20 IT IS HEREBY DECLARED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad that 21 said City Council intends to adopt an Ordinance to effectuate the proposed 22 amendment. 23 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 on the 6th day of March , 1973, by the following vote, to wit; AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Cnin. Dunne, McComas, Lewis, Chase and Frazee. None. None. AVID M. DUNNE, Mayor ~A~c:P~ City erk (SEAL) 7 l 2 3 4 5 RESOLUTION NO. (.3iJ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTIHG FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 OF THE MUNlCIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 21.40 RE: SIGNS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad did 6 adopt Resolution of Intention No. 85 declaring its intention to 7 recommend to the City Council an Amendment to Chapter 21 40 of the 8 Municipal Code; and 9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed 10 Public Hearing to consider the subject amendment; and ll WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimony from 12 those persons interested in and opoosed to the proposed Zone Code 13 Amendment; and 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did find the following facts 15 and reasons to be present which in their opinion are necessary to 16 carry out the general purpose of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal 17 Code: !8 1. The herein described Zone Code Amendment will be bene- 19 ficia1 to the public health, safety and general welfare; 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of 21 the City of Carlsbad that it does hereby recommend approval to the 22 City Council that Section 21.40.070 -Table 1 be ~mended to read as 23. fo 11 ows: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 TABLE 1 ZONl:. OF LOT R-1, R-2, R-W, P-C with densities corresponding to R-A through R-2 R-3, R-P, R-T, P-C with densities less restrictive than R-2,(except Hotels and Motels). All other (including Hotels and Motels) TOTAL AREA OF All SIGNS two square feet twenty square feet one and five-tenths square feet per lineal foot of building frontag located on the lot; 7 J. ~--'''--- ------------,,---------------------------1-----.. -•-._..., r- L ... 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does 2 recommend that Section 21.40.080 of the Municipal Code be amended 3 to read as follows: -4 SECTION 21.40.080 Time Limit for Conformance of Existing Sign. 5 As of the effective date of this ordinance codified in this chapter, any sign which does not conform to all of the requirements of this 6 chapter may no longer be structurally or electrically altered, in- creased in area or relocated unless it is made to comply with all 7 of the provisions of this chapter, provided however that it may be maintained, repaired, and painted without permit or fee, for a 8 period based on the following scale: 9 10 ll 12 13 NUMBER OF YEARS IN EXISTENCE Seven to eight years Five to six years Three to four years Two years One year or more NUMBER OF YEARS TO CONFORM 4 years, six months 5 years, six months 6 years, six months 7 years, six months 8 years, six months and thereafter, the owner thereof shall cause the sign to be re- 14 moved or so altered as to conform fully with the requirements of this ordinance. A sign permit shall be required for any such 15 alteration or relocation (Ord. 9224 §1 {part), 1969: Ord. 9060 §2507). 16 17 PASSED,APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the lS CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMrISSION held. on the __ 1_3_t_h __ day of 19 20 21 22 23 24 February , 1973, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Forman, Palmateer, Norman and Little NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jose and Dewhurst EDMOND W. DOMINGUEZ, Chairman 25 ATTEST: 26 2? DONALD A. AGATEP, Secretary 28 29 30 31 I 32 I I II . . . 7 ' . . . -' . ' . . . - r- ,. . l 2 3 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 9348 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALI FORNI A, AMENDING TITLE 21 , SECTIONS 21.40.070 and 21.40.080, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SIGNS. 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal 5 Code, the City Planning Commission did on February 13, 1973 hold a duly 6 noticed public hearing to consider amendments to Title 21. Sections 21.40.070 7 and 21.40.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and; 8 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has made certain findings and has 9 recommended that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad enact said amendments 10 into law, and; ll WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has, by Resolution 12 No.3076 adopted said findings as their own and expressed their intent to 13 amend the law in accordance therewith; 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, as follows: 15 1. SECTION 21.40.070 Table l is amended to read as follows: 16 TABLE 1. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 xx ZONE OF LOT R-1, R-2, R-W, P-C with densities corresponding to R-A through R-2. R-3, R-P, R-T, P-C with densities less restrictive than R-2, (except Hotels and Motels). All other (including Hotels and Motels). TOTAL AREA OF ALL SIGNS two square feet. twenty square feet. one and five-tenths square feet per lineal foot of building frontage located on the lot; 2. SECTION 21.40.080 is amended to read as follows: xx SECTION 21.40.080 -Time Limit for Conformance of Existing Sign. As of the effective date of this Ordinance codified in this chapter, any sign which does not conform to all of the re- quirements of this chapter may no longer be structurally or electrically altered, increased in area or relocated unless it is made to comply with all of the provisions of this chapter, provided however, that it may be maintained, repaired and painted without permit or fee, for a period based on the following scale: -1- -· 7 L J. I L l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 NUMBER OF YEARS IN EXISTENCE Seven to eight years or more Five to six years Three to four years Two years One year NUMBER OF YEARS TO CONFORM 4 years, six months 5 years, six months 6 years, six months 7 years, six months 8 years, six months and thereafter, the owner thereof shall cause the s·ign to be removed or so altered as to conform fully with the requirements of this ordinance. A sigg permit shall be required f~r any such alteration or relocation (Ord. 9224 s 1 {part), 1969: Ord. 9060 s 2607). EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal fifteen(l5) days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California held on the 6th day of _..;..;M.,;..a.;..r_ch..;..;_ __ _ 1973, and thereafter PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular m-eting of the City Council held on the 20th day of __ M_a_rc_h.;..._ __ , 1973, by the following vote, to wit; AYES: Councilmen Dunne, Mccomas, Lewis and Frazee. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilman Chase. ATTEST: 27 (SEAL) 28 29 30 31 32 I