Loading...
05-03-1976 - Regular Meeting - MinutesU L� MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST_COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 3, 1976 The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 5:05 P.M. by Mayor Nevin Browne in the City Manager's Conference Room. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Browne; Councilmen: Chappell, Miller, Shearer, Tice The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:05 P.M. by Chairman Pro Tem Kochis in the City Manager's Conference Room. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Bacon; Commissioners: Christopher, Kochis, Jordon. Absent: Commissioner Jackson. Others Present: M. Miller, Public Services Director L. Preston, City Clerk R. Diaz, Planning Director H. Lange, Graphic Arts Delineator D. Bonaparte, Special Services B. Freemon,'Reporter, S.G.V.D.T. C. Jones, League of Women Voters M. Murphy, Resident OTHERtMATTERS RESOLUTION NO..5234 Mayor Browne presented: ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, COMMENDING CHARLES J. DUN FOR HIS S SERVICES TO THE CITY. Motion made by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion carried. Motion made by Councilman Shearer, seconded"by Councilman Miller to adopt said resolution and • that it include perma plaquing. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None - 1 - JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Two Other Matters PROCLAMATION' Mayor Browne: If there are no objections, I will proe•laim May 21-22, 1976 "HONOR • THE.DEAD BY HELPING THE LIVING." .In answer to question by Councilman Chappell, it was explained that this is actually Poppy Day for the Veterans. REVIEW OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE Mayor Browne: Going back several months, the City Council requested a meeting with the Planning Commission to review the existing Sign Ordinances•. Due to the fact that so many variances and changes over the years have proliferated some areas of the Ordinances, we felt.we should sit down and discuss some of the changes. Ray Diaz has circulated a questionnaire to the members of the City Council and the Planning Commission, and as a result, he has come up with the recommendations that we have before us tonight. At this time I would ask Mr. Diaz to give us a Staff report based upon his recommendations. You also might note that there are two additional items on one sheet, and another one on the second sheet before us tonight that were not incorporated into the original changes. • Mr. Diaz: The purpose for redoing the Sign Ordinances, in addition to what the Mayor has indicated, was to reorganize and restructure the Sign Ordinances. I think that when the City Attorney, George Wakefield, had to read the Ordinance amending the Parking Directional Sign and go through 18 different sections of the Code that had to be amended, it brought -home the problems that we have with the existing Sign Ordinance. The problem that we have is that each time we want to amend the Sign portion of the Zoning Ordinance, we have to amend each and every section. In the past, we have had occasion where not all sections had been hit, and we then have to wonder (1) weren't they covered because that was the intent, or (2) were they left out as -a result of an oversight. We went over all of the Sign Ordinances in every Zone and tried to combine them into the recommended Ordinance that you have here before you. Secondly,. we wanted to clarify statements of policy which were being carried out at the time that Sign Permits were being issued, and also place those statements of • policy within the Code so that it would be very clear as to what would be and what would not be permitted. 1 - 2 - • • • JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page Three We also looked at the problems with enforcement of certain portions of the Ordinance. There we took a two -fold stand: (1) What were the problems with enforcement, and (2),In looking at those sections where enforcement was a problem, asking ourselves, "Is enforcement a problem because the regulation is unnecessary or unreasonable, or is it a problem that we should c6ntinue to cope with and a regulation that we need?" I have asked the primary Staff individual in charge of Sign Ordinance enforcement, Dick Bonaparte, to be here this evening so that he could answer directly any questions you might have. And, I have asked Hal Lange of our Staff, who did the bulk of the work on the Sign Ordinance and who is in charge of issuing most of the Sign Permits, to be here to answer any questions. Before going into the Ordinance itself, I would like to explain the two items you have before you that were added. 10602.21a covers service stations. We qualified what we wish to have on the additional A -board signs. "Said sign shall contain the selling price of gasoline." I believe this was the intention when the.signs were given to the service stations, and it should be spelled out and required. Perhaps, we want to go a step further and say that the service stations sha.11be required to, show the price of gasoline on the signs. The second sign would be to allow automobile agencies an additional sign above that which is currently permitted, two or three square feet per running foot of street frontage, one full sign not to exceed 35 feet in height and not to exceed 50 square feet per face or 100 square feet inttotal to be placed in a permanent landscaped area no less than 24 square feet. The reason for this is that every automobile agency in the City now has a detached pole sign that is there with a variance. When we have that many variances, it is rather clear that the Code is not meeting our needs. Therefore, we feel that automobile agencies should have this particular additional sign as a matter of right, rather than going through a variance procedure. Councilman Tice: If we pass this, would that make all of the automobile agencies conforming? Mr. Diaz: Probably not. They are all slegal now because they are there by variance, but the variances that were granted were for various sizes. A few of them (the exact number I do not have off -hand) probably exceed the 50 square feet per face. 3 - • JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Four Review of the Sign Ordinance We would still have the variance and waiver procedure, but that was not covered in the Ordinance before you. I feel that it should be brought up for discussion. The other item that you have attached is with regard to window signs. There is one thing that I have found throughout the City that is probably, in my estimation, the quickest way to degrade a shopping center than anything, that is over extension of window signs. When you have paper signs plastered all over the window, this tends to degrade from a commercial area, again, in my estimation. Withingthe proposed Sign Ordinance we have indicated that window signs should be limited to 33 percent of the window, and that no differentiation should be made between permanent and temporary window signs. The reason for that is that it is almost impossible to enforce and determine what is temporary and what is permanent. Right now, an applicant is allowed 20 percent temporary window sign and 12 percent permanent window sign. So, we have added the two and rounded it off to 33 percent,.to eliminate the differentiation between the two. I believe that 33 percent is excessive. You have before you the window sign requirements within the City of Beverly Hills; it goes the other way. It allows up to 25 percent of the window to have signs, but when you read the limitations, it becomes very difficult to get to the 25 percent. Perhaps something in between. I would like to see the window signs limited to a maximum of 25 percent without differentiation. I don't know whether the other items are practical from our standpoint because quite a few of our businesses are highway related. In.other words, they depend on traffic going by. Whereas in the Beverly Hills situation, the central business district is pedestrian traffic. So, limiting the size of the letters to 3/4 inch in height is impractical for our use. I put this document before you to give you some basis - this is what we have now; this is what we could have; we could have something in between; we are satisfied with what we have now. We are attempting, also, to discourage price signs. Councilman Chappell: When I saw the 3? it was excessive; is one.heck of a set aside for a big -paper sign. Maybe we tell us what he has observed and what his am I getting ahead of this? percent, I thought it seems to me that lot of space to be could have a sign man problems are. Or, • Mr. Diaz: Well, I would like to go into the final item. - 4 - JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION. Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page Five The other item is the issuance of variances and how it should be done. The current adopted Sign • Ordinance calls for d6Board of Sign Adjustments to be established. That Board would have five members appointed by the Council. It would review signs and could grant up to 20'percent modifica- tion of the existing Sign Code. This Board was never established. The problem thatSS,taff has with variances is that you do have the four showings that have to be met. The main one is that,"There is something unique or unusual about your property that does not allow you the same rights as another individual." This becomes very difficult to show. Perhaps the Council and the Commission would like to place in some sort of waiver with a maximum limitation so that an individual who could not go with the proposed Ordinance could be granted approval for his sign without having to show the four showings for a variance. Of the sign variances that have been applied for, some 76 percent of them have been approved. They have been mainly for additional signs. (The Council, Commission and Staff reviewed the statistics of approved variances over the years.) Councilman Chappell: Does Staff feel that we have a big problem now? • Mr. Diaz.: Well, the other thing is that the showingp that have to be made by an applicant.for a variance have also changed since 1969 by State Code. So, if it is our intent to alleviate any undue hardship, the variance procedure may not be the way to go. Staff would like some direction at this point - whether we should try to come up with a different method, a waiver situation, or that we should continue the variance procedure. (Mr. Diaz briefly reviewed the list of significant changes as sent to each of the Councilmen and Commissioners prior to this meeting.) The key problems, to summarize, that we wanted to solve here: (1) We would like to see some direction from this meeting to restructure the existing Ordinance to make it easier to read and to amend. (2) We would like to see some direction re the problems with window signs - enforceability and • percentage. .(3) We would like to determine whether or not we should continue the variance procedure, or have a waiver procedure set up, or remove the Sign Ordinance from the Municipal Code and have no variance procedure at all. That, basically, summarizes the Staff report on the proposed Ordinance. JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page 'Six Councilman Shearer: Did you take a look at the variances that have been requested and mostly • approved over the last five to six .years, with these changes, how many of those would have been allowed without a variance? Mr. Diaz: I don't believe that we did. Most of the variances that were granted were for signs and additional signage. So, the variances that were granted have not been put to Code here, with the exception of automobile agencies. Councilman Shearer: So, with the exception of the window signs, the size and amount of signage is really not being addressed. Mr. Diaz: It is with the building identification sign. That can be used to give additional signage to a major tenant above the first floor that would not normally be granted signage. Councilman Shearer: would have still been a • Mr. Diaz: Councilman Chappell: Mr. Diaz: Inthe past I recollect the Alpha Beta sign, the Mandy Williams sign. Neither one of those... Both of those, rather, variance under even this Ordinance. Right. That is correct. When this is all over with, will some- one coming in wanting to build a new building get just one little packet of paper? Right. Councilman Chappell: That is a tremendous improvement to start with. He will get it at the time he comes in and will not have to worry about coming.in sometime later and finding out that he has a real problem and didn't realize it.because he didn't get a packet of information. Mr. Diaz: As soon as the Ordinance is adopted, we propose to send,or advise that we have available copies of the Sign Ordinance to those sign companies who have done a vast amount of business in the City. • Councilman Chappell: I do not see any big hang-ups with using the variance procedure as a part of our program. If we have narrowed down the last three or four years to two a year, I think that those were reasonable requests. We only turned - 6 - LJ JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Seven Review of the Sign Ordinance down one, I think, in that time. So, that procedure, in my mind, is still adequate. I don't like 33 percent window signs. .It, to me, is excessive as I look over our community. I think we should keep it to a smaller amount. But,'I would like to hear Mr. Bonaparte's expression on this. Mayor Browne: I would like to add one thing. In relation to the window signs, I know that there has been some subterfuge on that where they will hang signs behind the window, not affixed•to the window,, to get by the Window Sign Ordinance. in the Ordinance on that? Have you taken any provisions Mr. Diaz: There, the way that we interpret it is that the sign is actually showing outside; even if it is six inches back, it is still counted as a window -sign. Mr. Bonaparte: Yes. Somebody said a number of years back that if it was back some 18 or 24 inches, it was legally not considered a window sign. But, .any sign that can be seen readily through the window, that is what it is there for. Back six inches would be considered a window sign. Mayor Browne: You better have a condition 'setback, from the window surface. Councilman Chappell: What kind of problems have you run. into Mr. Bonaparte, and'what kinds of problems do you forsee if we limit the window sign coverage to 25 percent? Mr. Bonaparte:, We have one business that uses about 80 percent, if they can (Millionnaire Mattress Factory). Since the proposed change to 33 percent, I have been looking at windows and doing some imagining. I think it all depends upon what window you are talking about. As far as I am concerned, 33 percent is not excessive, based:on the way you determine what a sign is. .If they are individual letters, then the outerrextension over the whole business is considered part of that. So, if you have an 8 x 10 foot glass front on your store, and you do a third of that in letters, it could look very nice, I think. If you have a•store like Millionnaire Mattress that is all glass across the front and one side, if you do a third of that, one third of his is three times what you have,,. -,in your entirety and it can look excessive. 7 - • CJ JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL .,May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page,Eigtt Review of the Sign Ordinance Mayor Browne: If you had gold leaf letters on the window for identity or advertising, individual letters, it would be the outside perimeter of that that would be the size determination, would it not? Mr. Bonaparte: Well, the truth of the matter is that most of the people put those on as an after -thought. They get their identifying sign, and then put gold leaf in the window and do not even want to get a sign for that. I assume that by going to a larger percent for window signs, there would be no permits for window signs; is that correct? Mr. Diaz: Right. Mr. Bonaparte:'. That.would be a big step. I don't think it.is.a big money maker for the City. It is hard to 'control because the temporary signs are supposed to be changed in their entirety every 30 days. There is just no way you can keep.track of it unless you go to every store every 30 days. It looks a little different if they just change one word. How can you argue with them? This would make it a little more realistic. But, I, personally, do.not think it is excessive. Councilman Shearer: Should there be a condition to cover the type of _thing Mr..Bonaparte mentioned - not only a maximum percentage but also a maximum set up so that a store that is all windows versus a store with limited windows will be under some type of control? Mr. Bonaparte: Then you would not have a situation like Millionnaire Mattress. Mayor Browne: Are you talking about putting the name permanently on the window? Mr. Bonaparte: If they want to put their name permanently on the window, they are allowed 12 percent coverage. They are also allowed 3 square feet for every 'lineal foot of frontage for a sign. Mayor Browne: Chairman Bacon: I think it has to be tightened up. I think what -Councilman Shearer suggested is a good idea - taking the store that is almost all glass and having some sort of 8 - JOINtI MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 'Nine --!,- Review of•the Sign. Ordinance limit based on square footage as opposed to the store which simply has a display window and the rest of the building is •, concrete which he is not able to utilize for temporary signs at all. Maybe some,coinbination so that you do not get the excessive look. Councilman Chappell:. How many people would be out of conformity with using the figure of 25 percent? Mr. Bonaparte: Right now, probably not verytrimany. Councilman Chappell: Two or three, 15 or 40 - no way of knowing? Mr. Bonaparte: I'd say one of those. I don't know; I really have no idea.. It only takes one to make it look ridiculous. Most of the people do not go overboard, but a few of them do. People do seem to go all out when they are closing out their business. Commissioner Kochis: There is one in the new shopping center, a delicatessen, I believe, that is just covered with paper signs in the window. Councilman Shearer: I doubt that I could tell the difference • between 25 and 33 percent unless I measured it. Mr. Diaz: Well, perhaps, with the information that we have here, Staff knows the direction that the Council and the Commission want to follow - a realistic tightening of the signs... Chairman Bacon: I agree; I like the 25 percent over the 33 percent. Councilman Tice: Is there a possibility of going with the 33 or 25 percent up to a certain size window, and restricting beyond that so they do not plaster signs all around the building? Mr.Diaz: That is the thing we would work on. Councilman Tice: Yes, because -on -some windows even 25 percent would look bad. • Mayor Browne: Is there anything else that you are findinga problem with, Mr. Bonaparte? �t JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3,, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4Ten-.1 Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Bonaparte: Yes, there are a couple of other things which I feel represent the crux of my • problems. The window problem is a great part of it. The things we have discussed would be the right direction to go, I think.. The other thing is the service stations. Every one of them that I can think of is continually begging for another sign. The two that they are allowed were put there with the intent that they would put pricing on them. But every service station in West Covina, and I guess everywhere else, depends on something else to make their living. They do not pump gas to make a living. They promote tires, etc. For example, each month Mobile sends out a special sign that they want their dealers to put up. So, all of the service station people are upset over the -signs. I have looked at the stations in other cities that I have been in, and I do not see where three signs look terrible. I think this might be the time for review. In the last three or four5ears, since the energy -crunch, there are at least three grades of gas. So, a lot of the guys would like another sign to list the special gas prices on. They will not all fit on the signs they have. Mayor Browne: gas. Usually those are That is one thing that I was going to bring up. Other cities require the posting of prices of all grades of on a separate pole. Then this advertising sign that you are speaking of, normally it depends on the size of the station. They limit it to two, but if you are on a corner and pretty well face on each side, they allow three and four. Mr. Bonaparte: On a big station it doesn't look bad at all. Mayor Browne: That's right. But, getting back to the price factor, I don't think the prices should be on the A -board signs. I think they should be fixed on a read -a -board type or pole fixture sign, and by requirement of the City. There have been so many complaints where they will have one price up, say low lead gasoline for 54 cents, and then the other gas is not proportionate to that price. It is a misleading advertising factor. • Mr. Miller: There is another problem related to that. Those stations that have two bays - one self -serve and the other service, and the price that is posted indicates self -serve, i.e. the Union Station. Someone driving into the other area will find it will cost him two or three cents a gallon more. - 10 - • JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page _'Eleven Review of the Sign Ordinance Mayor Browne: I would think that would have to be clearly defined: Mr. Miller: That would be three different grades,, plus two different service prices. Councilman Chappell: It wasn't too many years ago that the gas stations came in to request price signs. They were granted the signs, and now, if you notice, they don't use them entirely. We should have an ordinance that they all post their prices. Mayor Browne: That would be for both self-service and full service. Councilman Chappell: Yes. Councilman Miller: I agree with posting the prices, and with the additional signage as necessary to advertise the different products that they have to sell. But, what is confusing to me at this point is, you have the free standing sign and two A -board signs, and now you can find at some service stations two additional signs stuck between the gas pumps on the islands. They are a circular, fan -out type. Where does this type of sign fit in? • Mr. Bonaparte: That is a good question. When I came into this department, I was told those were legitimate signs. Then, the next person I talked to said, 11No, those are signs and are not permitted." But, they are there; all of the Mobile Stations have them. Councilman Miller: And, they are used to advertise sales. So, I encourage seeing if we can broaden the use of signs for the service stations. Mr. Bonaparte: We have kind of steered away from this. The entire Service Station Ordinance was under consideration for a period of two.years or so and we had a mor,,torium on rental aspects - rental of trailers, etc. We still enforce the signs,,so to speak, but, I tell you, you walk into a service station and you need to have a flak vest on. Each service station man tours the City and knows what each other service station man is doing. While you talk to one about taking down a sign, the • other man is putting his up; every day it changes. Mr. Diaz: I might'suggest that instead of the adjustment which I submitted to you, that we add, "Prices of all grades of gasoline shall be posted for all modes of service, not to exceed 12 square feet face and a sign for each street." JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page ;Twe;l;ve Review of the Sign Ordinance Councilman Shearer: On one hand we say no prices on permanent signs, and now we are • talking about singling out one business in our community. I do like to see the price, no question. But, what is the basis for government stepping in and saying, "Gas Stations, you have to post the price so that it can be read from the street." Yet, we don't say the same to the drive-in dairy,;about the price of milk, or McDonalds, or any place else As far as I know, the only business in .town that has to post a price is the gasoline station. Chairman Bacon: I think it is the only business in town which has this fantastic fluctuation in price that occurs all of the time. Milk, of course, is regulated by the State, and therefore you cannot change the price. McDonalds does not have different prices at the,different McDonalds, nor does Jack -in -the -Box. One Mobile station to another will have different prices. It tends to attract a person who has to make an immediate decision to pull into the station or not. It does have differences in the way it is set up as opposed to other types of businesses. Councilman Chappell: Plus, the service station people had a committee through the Chamber of • Commerce and they asked to have signs to post the different prices. Councilman Shearer: I am not saying the man can't. But, I question the City singling out that one business, and saying, "You have to post your price." Mr. Diaz: I think the City of Beverly Hills went through this about the same time you were going through it because we revised the Sign Ordinance there in 1968; we did not permit any price signs. The service station people ended up starving because people would just drive down through and keep going until they saw a price. At that time there was some competition between gas stations with regard to price, and they really wanted to display their price. Now, since the prices have been changing and changing in only clone direction, they are not doing it. Back in 1968-69 we needed to allow the stations to post their prices so that they could compete with those stations outside of the city. Now, we need to put the prices out to protect the cconsumer within the city. • Councilman Tice: Several ears ago, when we had the as y g � g shortage, wasn't there some talk on either the Federal or State level about making it mandatory to post gasoline prices? 12 - C� • • JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page-Thlrte'en Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Diaz: I think that legislation died. Councilman Shearer: The City of Los Angeles passed it. Mayor Browne: Many of the cities of Los Angeles County enacted that at the time. And, even more recently they have required posting of the prices because of the differentials in prices. The oil companies, right now, are proposing gasoline sales; they are subsidizing certain stations based upon their gallonage. They are keenly competitive, trying to get their stations to stay open 24 hours. This would indicate', truly that there is not a gasoline shortage. I think the require- ment speaks today more of what Mr. Diaz was talking about - trying to keep the business within the community, so that people will realize that they can buy gas at a certain price without having to drive into a neighboring city to buy it cheaper. Councilman Shearer: I won't belabor the.point, but I do not think it is an item for a Sign Ordinance; I think it should be permissive. I do not think it should be mandatory. We talk about driving in and getting trapped. In that light, is the next step going to be requiring restaurants to post their menus on the window? I would be less hesitant to drive out of a gas station than I would be to go into a restaurant, open -a menu, and then walk out. Chairman Bacon: Some cities require that menus be posted on the door. Councilman Shearer: To me, I think we are going too far. It is a great idea. If I was going to be competitive or better than competitive, I would want to put my gas price up. But, I do not think I would want the City to tell me to put my price up. Mayor Browne: Well, we could do it this way: if they want to post a price, then they have to post the price of all levels of gasoline, not just one. Councilman Shearer: That would be fine. Councilman Chappell: And, if they don't wish to post any price, they should take the sign down. Councilman Shearer: That is right. They should not be able to have another sign in lieu of the price board. It would be optional only for posting of gasoline prices - no prices, no sign. Commissioner Kochis: I think that would encourage them to do it. 13 JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page gF`ouk,il-, .. Mr. Diaz: Then, apparently, we have come full - circle. If we leave it the way it • is now, with the exception that if they post the price of one grade, then the price of all grades shall be posted, and additional signs., Councilman Shearer: Wait a minute, that was only my comment. I think we ought to hear from the others. • • My Diaz: In addition to the two standard A -board signs, the sign for posting prices would be allowed. Mayor Browne: That is an automatically allowable sign. Commissioner Christopher: That would accomplish what we are talking about. Councilman Tice: I go along with Councilman Shearer on this. Commissioner Kochis: I think that would settle the complaints that Mr. Bonaparte gets when he goes into a station. Mr. Diaz: The way it would be is, if they put the two price signs up, they would still have the.two.A-boards to put something else up. But, if they have the price of one gasoline posted, they have to post them all. Councilman Tice: So, you are talking about,four signs. Would that cover the people with the signs between the pumps? Mr. Bonaparte: I don't know. Those are three -sided signs. Mayor Browne: Those are a standard sign because the gas companies print the signs that come out. That would be ,your standard footage allowable, if they have two double faced signs. Mr. Bonaparte: They have the double faced signs and those besides, and those are triple faced. Everyone I have talked to swears it is part of their precise plan to.have those signs on the islands. - 14 - • JOINT MEETING �ICITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976k PLANNING COMMISSION Page rF:f:teen' Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Diaz: Signs are not part of the precise plan. Mr. Lange: How about posting the stop price and the bottom price? Councilman Shearer: Let's stop and think before we get too far. -As someone pointed out earlier we do have stations that have a self- service island and a full service island. And, if they each have three grades of gasoline, you have six prices on a sign. And, we say each sign must have all six. Is that really what we want? I am not sure; I just raised that as a question?.. Besides the price, each price will require a description - low lead, regular, etc. Mayor Browne: What most of the stations have down in the area that I am familiar with is, instead of having one.huge, large sign, they split it in half - self-service on one side and full service on the other. I't is a T-type sign and the numerals are reduced considerably to price all six prices in the same space that the original sign was allowed. Councilman Shearer: With new signs, I think that can be done well. But, take the existing • signs, 3 x 4 feet, if a person wants to post prices we are telling him that he has to post all six prices and the sign was bad enough with three. Chairman Bacon: Could we allow him to post three prices on one side of the'sign and three on the other side of the sign? Mayor Browne: If you check with Mobile, Shell and .Exxon, they are changing their whole marketing procedure now that there are so many self-service stations. They are even furnishing the changeable numbers and letters for signs. I am sure that they have a standard set because they are going up all over the Los Angeles area. Councilman Shearer: I guess that if we don't say it has to all be posted on.every sign, it could be self-service on one side of the sign and full service on the other side of the sign. Commissioner Christopher: It would then depend on what side of • the street you were on whether the prices you were interested in were posted. 15 4F JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page<Sxteen' Review,of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Diaz: I think we have what you are looking for and the Staff can sit down and work with it. Councilman Chappell: It is going to take some study. Mayor Browne: I think if you check with the oil companies, you will find that they have changed their whole pricing and marketing procedure in this relationship. Councilman Tice: I think we have agreed that whatever is done, it should be an optional type of thing. Councilman Miller: I think Councilman Shearer has a good point. If we can come up with a method that would force them into either all or nothing, that is reasonable. Mayor Browne: Here again, we would be compatible with other cities. I am sure that the oil companies would not have embarked on this change of price .signs unless they were because they have to have those things made up by the thousands. We would just be doing the same thing that the other communities allow, and • not placing an obstruction or "hiridran.ce,;'',, on those stations within our community. Councilman Tice: We have heard pretty much from the Council, but what are the feelings of the Planning Commission in this area? Commisg.ioner Kochis: Well, I have expressed mine. I agree with Councilman Shearer. I think that by offering them extra signs for price posting only, that would be one way.to encourage them to post prices. Chairman Bacon: I agree. Commissioner Jordon: Yes, I agree; it should be optional. Commissioner Christopher: I am one to one. I can see what Mr. Lange said too; post the hlighest and the lowest. • Councilman Shearer: I have some questions on some other parts, if the Staff feels they have enough information on gas stations. - 16 '- JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page °Sevent_eeh Mr. Bonaparte,: I have one other problem spot - the legal nonconforming signs. Those, • to me, have been the biggest failure in my limited career because we handle them through attrition. A new owner has to meet the new sign standards, although some- one next door is permitted to have the old signs. I guess that is the only way to do it. Would it be _dsast"rous" to pick a cutnaf-ff ` date? Mr. Diaz: A cutoff date does not work. Mayor Browne: In 1968-69 we went through that controversy, and all heck broke loose in the. City.. Chairman Bacon: Arcadia just went through that, and they were relatively successful in it. I had a client that objected to it, so I called the City Attorney to get his view on it. He cited me about four cases which have been decided now. If you give a sufficient period of time, something which would allow the value of the sign to be reasonably amortized, the Superior Court will uphold the City's position. Those cases have all been decided since about 1968. Back at that time there was a big question about whether it would be lawful to impose a • cutoff date, but I don't believe that is a question today. Mayor Browne: Going back to that point in time, I think there were some signs in the City where the owner had a considerable investment - up to $5,000 or $6,000, and the signs had only been up for a year. Well, they have to have an amortization period to write those signs off. That was the big flak then. Chairman Bacon:4 Those statutes that were adopted were figured on the year that the sign was put up, so as to amortize the signs on an individual basis as opposed to an absolute basis for all signs. That way they overcame the amortization complaints. They took IRS charts to determine the amortization periods. Councilman Chappell: We have redevelopment areas. We are in the process of redeveloping down the line. To start messing with those signs would really not be fair. That is, basically, why we pulled off of it in the last few years. Most of the areasthat have nonconforming signs are in redevelopment. If we start • going in and making people take down old signs and put up new ones at this point, we are not really doing the job, in my'mind, that we are supposed to be doing here. - 17 - JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page EEzglteeri° ,,: We are doing it when a business changes hands. I think that is right because slowly but surely, with • very few exceptions as you look into the future, those tenants are moving out.and new ones moving in. I think.that is the .only fair way you can go. Councilman Shearer: I agree -with Councilman Chappell. I would not want to get into a situation where we had any kind of an amortization period, even if it was based on when the sign went in. I think you would have difficulty trying to trace back when some signs were put up. I would prefer to leave it as it is, that the sign be changed when,the business changes hands. That is like everything else that we have that has to be brought up to Code. It is a consideration that the new tenant should take into consideration when he offers his price for the business, or the building. Mayor Browne: They can all be handled on an individual basis. Lam sure that we have all r-. received calls from people objecting to this. But, when you talk to them, they usually realize what.we are trying to do and goialong with it. Mr. Bonaparte: Well, usually, yes. • Councilman Shearer:; I believe Mr. Diaz talked about the variance versus some sort of administra- tive.review. I would like to give'my feelings on that. I would not object if some sort of a system or procedure were set up for granting of the exception of a variance that would eliminate this business of the four items having to be met. I have had difficulty at times when I felt that perhaps there was a legitimate reason, but it was not one of these four, or not all four were met. It might have been something that I really wanted to do, but I had to stretch in my rand to make it even Half -way legal. I would not want to see us appoint a separate five member board. Perhaps the Council could sit as that review board. We would still be the ones to get the final flak or otherwise, but we would not have to prove these four items to everybody's satisfaction. So, I personally would be in favor of that,to eliminate every itemrom.being a variance,.`situation. Mayor Browne: Would you want guidelines spelled out on that? JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Niriete.ene-e- Review of the Sign Ordinance Councilman Shearer: Yes, I think there should be a maximum amount. I think Mr. Diaz mentioned • 20 percent, and, I think it shouldn't be 20 percent of every item either.,- 20 percent of height, 20 percent of width, etc. It should be, maybe, one item 20 percent, or two items. Mayor Browne: But, you would have to have guidelines of the overall determination of the maximum 20 percent.. Councilman Shearer: Oh yes. And, Staff would have to know very positively whether the item would come under the variance procedure or a slight modification, or this procedure. Mayor Browne: Within house, too, they would have to have their own guidelines set so that no matter who was working the counter, they would come up with the same answer as any other person would. These are the things that we are trying to overcome because there are different interpretations of these things. Councilman Shearer: Yes, we would have to be very specific to avoid that. • Chairman Bacon:. You would want to have some sort of criteria there, that something unusual has to be shown, or you will end up with a side door - you will get whatever you want plus 20 percent because there are no grounds for denying it. Councilman Shearer: That might be a problem. Chairman Bacon: You see, you have to have somewhere between vaiance and this manner. What about something where Staff has the power to act on slight modifications, whereby it is because of particular circumstances, something like that. It would be a Slight Modification Committee similar to the one that we have for other items now. Their action could be appealed to the City Council, but you would not have the same criteria as you have for variances. Mayor Browne: There are some factors where only five percent is involved. That could very • easily be determined by Staff in a type of Slight Modification Committee. Are there three members that meet on the Slight Modification Committee that we have? 0 JOINTT,:MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the.Sign Ordinance May.3, 1976 Page -Twenty` ,. Mr. Diaz: Yes, the Public Services Director, the Planning Director and the Building Director. The showings that have to be made before a Slight Modification Committee are still variances, so we would have to alter. Chairman Bacon: I am not saying so much what they have to show. I am opposed to the fact that for a slight modification, they have to go through the whole variance procedure. I think we should have something to allow for that sort of thing. Mayor Browne: Yes, that.'is costly and time consumming for both the applicant and the City. Mr. Diaz: I think we could work out two or three alternatives, utilizing the Council, utilizing the -Slight Modification, whatever. Mayor Browne: Ok. You can proceed in that direction then. Councilman Shearer: Under "Painted Signs," it indicates, '.'Painted signs on the.walls of buildings are prohibited in.all zones." I assume that is aesthetics. Mr. Diaz:.Yes. Councilman Shearer: In this case, I recall the Tune -Up Shop, Texaco Station down Vine and Glendora. As I.remember it, it was painted and it had like stripes going out from the sign in different colors'. It is definite where the sign is, and -then the flashes go out from it. Is that legal? I mean, could I put.my,.-sign out legally, and then paint my building around the sign in these flashy colors? Is that part of the sign when obviously it is trying to direct your attention to the sign? Mr. Bonaparte:' I don't know. The signs are legal, but.as far as painting the bu'lding... Mr. Diaz: We do not control the painting of buildings. Councilman Shearer: But, where does the sign stop when all of these stripes are around it? . - - 20 - i JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page^,Twen'ty-one Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Diaz: The stripes are not attached to the sign, though. • Councilman Shearer: No. It is how the building is painted. Mr. Diaz: If we were to approach the individual,' ' he would say that the sign is legal", and obviously the stripes are not attached to the sign. I am not trying to be a smart alec,,but this is the answer that we would get. Councilman Shearer: Maybe there is nothing we can do, just hope for the good taste of the majority of business people. Commissioner Jordon: Don't we'have some type of regulation for that, compatibility or something: Mr. Diaz:, You do in the redevelopment area. • Councilman Shearer: Maybe it is an item that if you leave it alone, it will go away, and if you talk about it, it will get worse. Councilman Shearer:. What is the concept behind the minimum square footage in the table under section 10602.01 (Front Signs)? Mr. Diaz: This is the way it is written in the current Ordinance. Minimum is the minimum permitted, irregardless of size, i.e, if you have a frontage of ten square feet in the R-C Zone, you would normally be allowed a maximum of 30 square feet or a minimum ... Councilman Shearer: Ok. I misunderstood that. Now, "section 10602.18 - Banners and Pennants. If I read this correctly, banners and pennants would only be allowed upon the opening of a business. I thought we had something about automobile agencies. Mr. Lange: Right now it is half and half, but the later Ordinances were written under just the opening. Councilman Shearer: Yes, but what is being proposed here is what? - Mr. Lange: It agrees with the later Ordinances that were written, R-C. S-C, etc. Whereas the older Ordinances, M-1, C-2 and C-3 had them for special events. Both of them were without words. - 21 - .V mow' r� U JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Review of the Sign Ordinance May 3, 1976 Page Twenty-two Councilman Shearer: In the proposed Ordinance, though, it is limited to the opening of a business. Mr. Diaz: Yes. Councilman Shearer: As I recall, it was a Plymouth Dealership, a change of owners or a new model sale or something, that requested banners or pennants and the Council said, "ok." Mr. Miller: You have Toyota and Datsun doing that now anyway. (After discussion, it was determined that the little flags, banners or pennants attached to the top of a pole are of a different consideration than those looped around a business attached to a string.)The Ordinance pertains to those banners or pennants attached to a string.) Councilman Chappell: I would like to leave it the way we had it the last time we made the decision. It made everybody happy; it wasn't overdone; it hasn't been spoiled; it hasn't been taken advantage of. I think we should just leave it like that. Councilman Tice: I think we should leave it this way. I have not seen abuse of it in the City. Councilman Shearer: I think we should, at this time, clarify this and be specific. If we are going to recognize the right for anything, now is the time to put it in. Chairman Bacon: Can we arrive at some compromise on this such as to where you would allow some flags or pennants for dealerships, but not get to the point of overall coverage - thousands of flapping pennants? an Ordinance which obtaining a waiver. Mayor Browne: Or, the other thing would be to have prohibits them, and then it goes back to you would have control on You could eliminate the purpose of advertising the original opening of a business, and make it open. Then it on a 30 day period. - 22 - �J • JOINT MEETING -CITY COUNCIL May 3, 197.6 PLANNING COMMISSION Page.Twenty- three Review of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Diaz: Apparently, the pennants that we have in the City now are satisfactory. Councilman Chappell: That is what we authorized. We did not authorize those little blue flags that hang 50 or 60 on a string. We authorized some sort of a little flag thing on top of a pole and that was all we'authorized,for automobile dealers. Mr. Miller: What you are saying, then, is that the pennants that are strung are illegal; the pennant or little flag on the top of a pole is legal. Councilman Chappell: That is right. Commissioner Jordon: And, the kind that hang from a string are allowed for an opening for 30 days only. Mayor Browne: Right. (Everyone concurred with that.) Mayor Browne: Does that complete what you need from its? - Mr. Diaz: I think it has given us the direction to go. Commissioner Kochis: I notice that we are using a different yardstick for measuring square footage in the PAR Zone. We are using square footage of site area instead of running square footage. Of course, that breaks up the table, and I wonder if it is going to be expanded in the future. Why did we do that? Mr. Diaz: The PAR Zone was really a separate animal created solely out of the Merced - Orange Plan. We are talking there about industrial park type development, and the Sign Ordinance for it is based -out of necessity. Itthas to be different because of the type of development that we anticipate in there. Not all buildings in an industrial park would have direct street frontage, etc. So, we would propose leaving the PAR Zone as we have it here because it all works together. Councilman Shearer: At various times over the past years, there has been talk about making a differential between businesses that are highway -oriented and those that are not. Has that been addressed at all, or do we not want to bring it up? M M JOINT MEETING --CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Twenty- o.u•r`_ .Review of .the'Sign Ordinance Mr..Diaz: That has not been addressed. I do not feel'--that-the Ordinance that you have • here really penalizes businesses that are highway or freeway oriented. Most of the time cities say, "Businesses so many feet away from the freeway..." then they are given more signs, higher bonuses, etc. For'the most part, the businesses that we have along the freeway now are covered in•redevelopment project areas. We are trying to be more -restrictive in the quality of sign that we have. I do not think we need to -differentiate here between the two. A T% T/NTTT T.TAXTTTTM - PLANNING COMMISSION Motion made by Commissioner Kochis, seconded by Commissioner Jordon to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 P.M. until May 5, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded by Councilman Chappell to adjourn the meeting at�7:00 P.M. until May 5, 1976, 7:;4'5 A.M. at Cocos Restaurant. Motion carried. • APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • 24 -