Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-20; City Council; 3721; Freestanding Signs in C-2 Zone & Identity Signs.. /•*•' ' If CITY OF CARLSBAD **r . Initial : AGENDA BI1L NO. ^/«2/ Dept. Hd. DATE: July 20, 1976 City Atty \) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING -^ SUBJECT: (ZCA-79) ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C-2 ZONE AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY SIGNS Statement of the Matter By letter of January 26, 1976 from Mr. Robert C. Knauf representin-g Car Country, the City Council was requested to review the provisions for additional freestanding signs in the C-2 zone. The City Council directed the staff to review the matter with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted four hearings on the proposed staff amendments to review appropriate alternatives. The final ordinance draft reviewed by the Planning Commission consisted of a section pro- viding monument signs in addition to the already permitted freestand- ings sign, and a section permitting community identity signs in com- munities approved by Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development. How- ever, upon hearing the proposals, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: a) Freestanding Signs - That the City Council deny addtional free- standing signs in the C-2 zone. b) Community Identification Signs - That the City Council amend the existing Sign Ordinance to provide for Community Identity signs approved as part of any consideration of Master Plan, Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development, or "Q" Qualified Overlay Zone. For additional information, see attached memorandum to the City Manager dated July 1, 1976. Ex hi bi ts : Planning Commission Resolution No. 1261 Memorandum to City Manager dated July 1, 1976 Exhibit A, dated June 2, 1976 (ZCA-79) Staff report of June 9, 1976 Staff Report of June 23, 1976 Recommendation: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission, it is recommended that staff be instructed to prepare the necessary docu- ments to adopt ZCA-79 regarding Community Identity Signs as contained in Exhibit "A" (June 2, 1976) and Planning Commission Resolution #1261 If the City Council wishes to pursue additional freestanding signs, the Planning Commission recommends that staff be directed to compre- hensively review the provisions for all freestanding signs in the commercial zones. />* Agenda Bill #3721 Page 2 July 20, 1976 Council action 7-20-76 By proper motion this matter was continued to the regular meeting to be held August 17, 1976. 8-17-76 Following the public hearing the City Attorney was instructed to prepare an Ordinance for introduction in concurrence with Draft Ordinance, Exhibit "A", Items (a) through (f), with the inclusion of 100 feet from property line limitation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1261 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, WITH RESPECT TO AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING SECTION 21.41.070 TO PER- MIT ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C-2 ZONE AND SECTION 21.41.075 TO PERMIT COMMUNITY IDENTITY SIGNS FOR PROPERTY DEVELOPED UNDER A MASTER PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REVIEWING SIGN REGULATIONS FOR ALL FREE- STANDING SIGNS. CASE NO.: ZCA-79 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad did adopt Resolution of Intention No. 125 declaring its inten- tion to conduct a public hearing to consider Zone Code Amendments to permit additional freestanding signs in the C-2 Zone and to permit Community Identity Signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on May 12, 1976, May 26, 1976, June 9, 1976 and June 23, 1976 to consider the subject amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimony from those persons interested in and opposed to, if any, the proposed Zone Code Amendments; and 4 The Planning Commission recommends that Section 1 regarding freestanding signs of the attached Exhibit "A" dated June 2, 1976 be deleted for the following reasons: 1) There is no demonstrable need for these additional signs, and 25 2) If a change is to be proposed, it must be in relation- ship to the already permitted freestanding signs. The Planning Commission recommends that Section 2 regarding Community Identity Signs of the attached Exhibit "A" dated June 2, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /»*" "V V- X be approved as it i.s a program in the Planned ment projects. The Planning Commi direct staff to prepare sign regulations for al /*• .> necessary part of implementing a sign Community Zone and Planned Unit Develop- • ssion recommends that the City Council a comprehensive study reviewing the 1 freestanding signs. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at .a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Planning following vote, to wit: Commission held on June 23, 1976, by the AYES: Commissioners Nelson, Jose, Watson, Fikes, Larson, and L'Heureux. NOES: Commissi deletion ABSTAIN: None - ABSENT: Commissi ATTEST: f(jXtSL. / X^uJ^L oners Watson and Fikes voted "no" on the of Section- 1 of Exhibit "A", 6/2/76. oner Dominguez. S^^ll^XVMX^Stephen\ M. L ' Heureux , jChairman /.Donald A. Agatep, Secretary <•-2- MEMORANDUM July 1 , 1976 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: ZCA-79, Freestanding signs in C-2 Zone and Community Identity Signs The Planning Commission studied alternatives to permit additional freestanding signs in the C-2 Zone. A proposed draft ordinance prepared by the Planning Department would allow additional freestanding signs in the C-2 zone if certain criteria are met, i.e. size of sign (monument), distance between signs, approval of CUP, etc. (Note: Freestanding signs are defined as any sign not attached to a building, i.e. pole signs, monument signs, etc.) In addition, the draft contains a section permitting Community Identity Signs in communities approved by Master Plan, Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development. This section would permit entrance and directional signs within a community upon the approval of the Planning Commission/City Council. After considering these two proposals contained in ZCA-79, the Planning Commission by a 4-2 vote recommended to the City Council to deny the additional freestanding sign portion, because they felt any changes in freestanding signs would have an impact on all freestanding signs in all commercial zones. Therefore, any amendment of this nature must consider all freestanding signs in all commercial zones. The Planning Commission did not do this comprehensive study because the City Council only directed study of addtional signs as requested in letter by Mr. Knauf (Car Country), therefore, the legal notice was limited to such a change. The Planning Commission did, however, recommend that the Community Identity Section be approved because these signs are needed and there are adequate provisions to insure reasonable sign programs. In summary, the Planning Commission approved ZCA-79 as it pertains to Community Identity Signs only, and suggested the City Council direct staff to study the possibility of a comprehensive revision to all freestanding signs in all commercial zones. Donald A. Agatep Planning Director DAA:mdp MEMORANDUM June 9, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO.: ZCA-79 Request: Zone Code Amendment to provide for additional free- standing signs in the C-2 Zone and to provide for community identity signs —City Council initiated. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare necessary documents approving ZCA-79 as contained in Exhibit A dated May 20, 1976* REASONS: 1) The Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan because the allowable signs are low profile and not detrimental to surrounding property. 2) The Ordinance Amendment will not adversely affect the environment because the low-profile signs will blend into the surroundings. 3) The Ordinance Amendment is desirable since: a) There appears to be a need for additional freestanding signs for certain uses in certain circumstances. b) It will give necessary flexibility for sign programs while insuring appropriate City review. BACKGROUND: On March 16, 1976, the City Council received a request from the attorneys for "Car Country" to permit addi- tional freestanding signs. The request was for a separate sign for each auto franchise for every 100 feet of frontage on any road whereas the present Ordinance permits only one freestanding sign to a height of 35 feet. The City Council directed Staff to study the request to determine whether or not it could be accommodated consistent with the overall intent of the City's Sign Ordinance and good planning practice, and to submit the results to the Planning Commission for hearings. The Attorneys for "Car Country" asked in their letter of January 26, 1976 that an Amendment to the Sign Ordinance be made that: "...would permit a freestanding (pole) sign or monument sign for each franchise of a business per 100 feet of frontage on any road". The letter further qualified the suggested wording to mean that the minimum distance between freestanding signs is to be 100 feet. The "Car Country: lots have frontages of 539', 634', 587', 69T, 475', 378', 31T, 481 ' and 1080'. (Generally, the larger the frontage, the greater the number of franchises). Therefore, these lots could have from 4 to 11 freestanding signs each depending on the frontage, and at 100-foot intervals would be very close together for traffic-oriented signs. At a 100-foot distance the signs would look distracting and defeat the purpose of easy reading. They would also take away from the attractiveness of the area especially if they were tall pole signs. Not only is the number of s'tgns disproportionate but the term "franchise" is unworkable. For example, "franchise" could be "Delco Auto Parts" or "Firestone Tires", not to mention the innumerable franchises certain other retailers carry. An Ordinance that would permit only auto franchise advertising and no other is unsupportable. Staff suggests that if addi- tional freestanding signs are to be permitted that they not be tied to a "franchise" but that they must be constructed and placed within specified limitations. After all, when considering zone codes it is not what a sign advertises (generally speaking), but how it relates to the total development. Mr. Knauf does suggest monument signs as an alternative to pole signs, along with the 100 feet of frontage requirement between signs. These two aspects (monument signs and distance between signs) can be used to develop a workable sign regulation that will give Car Country the flexibility to advertise franchises, yet can protect visibility, adjacent properties and general health and safety of the City. In addition to Mr. Knauf's request for franchise signs and the City Council's direction to draft such amendment, Staff is proposing a new section that will permit community identity signs. These signs will be in addition to signs permitted for each building or lot. Community identity signs will be placed at entrances to the communities; e.i.: La Costa, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, Car Country, etc., or direct traffic to special areas of interest within a community, such as golf course, park, spa, etc. This amendment is appropriate at this time since the Specific Plan for Car Country provides for such signs even though the Zone Ordinance does not give the autho- rity. In short the amendment will bring the Zone Code in con- formance with the Specific Plan and give guideance on the types and sizesof signs. -2- Based on this, Staff proposed that the Ordinance Amendment do the following: 1) Permit monument signs in addition to the already permitted freestanding sign; 2) Limit the size of monument signs and limit the number — based on street frontage; 3) Require C.U.P. for approval provided certain findings are made; 4) Provide a means for sign programs for an entire complex (Community Identity Signs); i.e.: Car Country. This will permit identity sign at the entrance and directions within the complex. The program is to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council at hearings. At the May 26th meeting, the Planning Commission suggested some changes to Exhibit A for clarification. Staff made these changes as included in Exhibit A, dated June 2, 1976. The item was then continued to June 9, 1976 so the Staff could provide information regarding the use of a Specific Plan for such signs. Staff then reviewed this matter with the City Attorney and it was agreed that specific plans cannot be used to over- ride zoning requirements; therefore, signs over what the zoning allows cannot be allowed by specific plan. If the Planning Commission still does not wish to allow these monument signs in all C-2 zones, but would like to provide for them in the Car Country commercial area, the only other alternative would be to create a new commercial zone for auto dealerships that would provide for additional signs. There are other options that the Commission may wish Staff to pursue. If that is the desire, Staff would recommend that this Zone Code Amendment be continued and Staff be given direction on other approaches to provide for additional signs within the zoning regulations. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is attached as Exhibit : A, dated May 20, 1976. For your added information Exhibit B is attached which indicates graphically the location limitation of free- standing signs as provided for in the Ordinance Amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A, dtd. 6/2/76, ZCA-79 Exhibi t B — Graphic BPrcpl (6/2/76) -3- loo T.OO '.OR. TVP. 1 a... -AULEV 1 i TO t m \ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM June 23, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR CASE NO.: ZCA-79 -MONUMENT SIGNS Request: Continued hearing on a Zone Code Amendment to provide for additional freestanding signs in the C-2 Zone and to provide for community identity signs —City Council initiated. The item was on the Planning Commission agendas of May 12, May 26, and June 9, 1976, and was continued so a full Commission would hear the item and Planning Commission questions would be answered. At the last meeting the Commission requested more information. The following is an attempt to answer the Planning Commission concerns: (1) HOW DOES THE ORDINANCE AFFECT FREESTANDING SIGN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A COMMON PROPERTY LINE? The Ordinance as proposed requires a distance of fifteen feet to an interior property line for additional freestanding signs. Therefore, if the adjoining property had a pole sign at the property line, the minimum distance between signs would be fifteen feet; if it was a monument sign in compliance with this Ordinance, the minimum distance would be thirty feet. This distance is too close for most signs for good visibi- lity and effectiveness, however — (a) This is not a comprehensive sign ordinance amendment; therefore, other permitted signs could be at the property 1ine; (b) Further required distances from monument sign to interior property line would reduce the number of permitted sians; (c) The monument siqn program must be approved bv Conditional Use Permit and there must be a findinq that the relation- ship to adjoining property is proper. This question was originally discussed at the Mav 26. 1976 meetina and the Planning Commission made changes to the Draft Ordinance that apparently were satisfactory at that time. These changes are the insertion of the word "same" on line 19 so distances would be calculated only on the property in question, and the insertion of "relationship to adjoining property" on line 27 to provide the ability for the Planning Commission review of signs on an adjacent property. (2) AS PART OF THE SAME QUESTION, IT WAS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO RESTRICT MONUMENT SIGNS TO A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET BETWEEN SIGNS ON ADJOINING LOTS. The way to do this is to require a minimum distance of 100 feet from a property line. However, this will reduce the number of allowable monument sians on most orooerties and prohibit monument siqns altogether on property with less than 200 feet of frontage. Furthermore, there is no regulation in the present ordinance for location of the one permitted pole sign. As stated in (1) above, the problem of sign relationship of adjoining property can only be effectively solved by amending the Ordinance regarding all freestanding signs. If this is the wish of the Planning Commission, Staff ; suggests the following changes: "(5) In C-l and C-2 Zones and at retail commercial use in C-M Zone, one freestanding sign may be placed on each street frontage of a lot, provided that the lot has a minimum street frontage of 200 feet on the street where the sign is situated, the sign is not 'Situated within IQD feet of an interior property 'Tine, and the si an" area of the freestandina sign is included within the aggregate sign area allowed for the lot according to the provisions of Table 1 above and that the height of the freestanding sign does not exceed the height of the building or thirty-five feet, which- ever is less. "In the C-2 Zone, additional freestandina signs are permitted on each street frontage of a lot provided the following conditions are met: "(a) The additional freestanding signs are Monument Signs —not greater than 8 feet in height and 8 feet in length; "(b) The signs shall not be erected within 200 feet of another freestanding sign on the same property; "(c) The signs shall be so oriented that the primary view is from surface streets; "(d) The aggregate sign area for the entire lot does not exceed the sign area allowed for the lot according to the provisions of Table 1; "(e) No portion of such sign shall extend over the public right-of-way, or be within 100 feet to any interior property line^or 15 feet to any driveway nv i n t av*c or t i r»n • anH interior property n or intersection; and -2- "(f) A Conditional Use Permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, based on the finding that the Monument Signs are appropriate for the use of the property, the design of the development, and relationship to ad- joining property. Signs approved by Specific Plan, Master Plan or Planned Unit Development need not be approved by a Conditional Use Permit." (3) HOW CAN NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS BE GRANTED A FREESTANDING SIGN FOR EACH AUTO FRANCHISE? Staff reviewed this question with the City Attorney. The conclusion is that there is the possllitity of a legal problem with permitting sign display to such franchises —instead of basing such approval on development standards. There has to be some rationale to a requirement and there does not appear to be a rational reason for franchise signs being granted to auto dealers and not to dealers in other types of franchises. Staff does not recommend any change that would permit signs to franchises. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to consider this method, Staff suggests that all conditions as listed in the Draft Ordinance be included in any fran- chise sign Ordinance. There may be other alternatives to this Ordinance Amendment. If the Planning Commission has suggestions, please be prepared to submit such at the hearing or review with Staff prior to the hearing. One alternative not previously discussed is to recommend that the Ordinance Amendment not be adopted at this time, but be considered when the sign regulations are comprehensively reviewed. This would be a policy decision and Staff is not making a recommendation on this possibility, but we do wish to point out that Section 2 of Exhibit 'A1 dealing with Community Identity Signs is a neces- sary part of implementing a sign program in the Planned Community Zone and Planned Unit Development projects. Therefore, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommendation is on additional freestanding signs, Staff recommends that Section 2 be approved. Ralph (Bud) Plender ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR ATTACHMENTS: Staff Rpt., 6/9/76 Exhibit A, dtd. 6/2/76 Exhibit B, Graphic BP:cpl (6/18/76) -3- "s AGENDA ITEM 3721 Dist, 7-19-76 Council, Clerk.Atty. RAYMOND F. FEIST NORMAN L. VETTER ROBERT C. KNAUF JOHN I. LOY SUZANNE W. KNAUF GIBSON E. PRATT RAYMOND F. FEIST, JR. CHARLES LEE CURRIER LAW OFFICES FEIST, VETTER., KNAUF AND LOY SIO MISSION AV ENUE, SUITE 3OO POST OFFICE BOX 24O OCEANS1DE, CALIFORNIA 92054 AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 72E-I9I4 July 16, 1976 Mr. Paul D. Bussey City Manager 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Bussey: 92008 As you know our office represents the Tri-City Auto Dealers Association. In this connection we note that a change in the existing ordinance affecting "Car Country" is scheduled as an agenda item for the Council meeting of July 20, 1976. We desire to make an appearance and speak to the matter on behalf of our clients and at a time when it appears that Mr. Knauf will be able to attend. As matters stand now, his doctors will authorize his participation a month from the July 20, 1976, meeting with a possibility of clearance for the August 3, 1976, meeting. We therefore respectfully request that the matter titled "Additional Freestanding Signs in the C-2 Zone and Community Identity Signs" be continued to August 17, 1976, with a second choice of August 3, 1976. In addition, it would appear that an easing of the work load for the July 20, 1976, meeting would be beneficial to the Council as well as the undersigned. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ' 1*EIST, VETTER, KNAUF AND LOY