Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102196 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, October 21, 1996, 6:07 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Montgomery, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBI,IC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:09 P.M. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION RUSINFSS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster None None 2. Sign Ordinance Senior Planner Dave Hogan mentioned an unofficial letter was distributed stating tonight's meeting was being held at the Community Recreation Center, so people will probably come in late. He also clarified that nonconforming signs will not be tom down immediately as was stated in the above-mentioned letter. After approval of the ordinance, staff will develop a list of nonconforming signs to be brought before the Commission which will begin the nonconforming period of seven (7) to ten (10) years. Development of this ordinance began about seven (7) months ago when the City Council appointed a Sign Committee composed of city representatives, business people and private citizens. Their purpose was to develop sign standards that effectively inform, promote business, and enhance Temecula's character and image. The current Ordinance 348 allows very few types of signs, so staff has had to do creative interpretation. Adding menu boards, directional signs and freeway oriented signs are some of the major differences between the two ordinances. Mr. Hogan reiterated that upon approval of the ordinance, staff R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 1 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1996 will review existing signs and a list of nonconforming signs will be developed and brought back to the Commission. The Sign Committee is recommending a seven (7) to ten (10) year amortization period for nonconforming signs to allow the owner to recoup his investment. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh stated copies of the proposed sign ordinance will be available Tuesday, October 22. Real estate, multi-family, multi-tenant, and nonconforming signs were discussed at the October 14, 1996 Community Meeting. The Sign Committee was encouraged to physically look at Temecula's signs and to deal with issues such as height, size, appropriate distance between signs, etc. A slide show was presented showing positive and negative signage. Mr. Naaseh explained the requirement differences between the existing and proposed ordinances. One committee concern was with the real estate signs which never seem to come down, so a large, attractive sign design is proposed. He also explained State law does not allow cities to take down nonconforming signs immediately upon adoption of a sign ordinance, the owner must be allowed to make full use of the sign's life. Commissioner Slaven asked if the real estate sign shown on page 13 relates to advertising parcels for sale or lease. Mr. Naaseh replied the sign applies to both parcels and commercial centers. Commission Soltysiak questioned the definition of a parcel in a shopping center. Mr. Naaseh answered each pad is considered a parcel. Wall-mounted signs (one square foot per lineal foot of frontage) are allowed if the parking lot is towards the back of the building and towards the freeway. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. Doug Woelke, 27513 Jimson Circle, Temecula, spoke from a consumer's viewpoint. His concern is that Temecula's prosperity lies with small business and the proposed ordinance, especially the removal of existing signs, puts an undue burden on them. He said a seven to ten-year amortization period is not enough and he is leery of only three signs for a multi-unit development. He stated small businesses need signage, not the large corporate ones and existing signs should be left alone and new signs approved according to the proposed ordinance. Bob Kirkpatrick, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation (T.V.E.D.C.) and Rancon Companies, stated as president of the T.V.E.D.C., he meets with corporate officers considering locating in Temecula and the proposed ordinance will have a negative impact on his ability to attract businesses to this community. The study should be resubmitted for additional input. As a real estate businessman, the cost for the construction and installation of the proposed signs would be horrendous. As a citizen, his thought is a nonbusiness person committee telling retail people what works well for business is presumptuous when ordinances get this detailed. Dale Quelan, 41836 Via Balderama, Temecula, Minuteman Press, stated allowing only three businesses on a pylon sign is ludicrous. Small businesses are the ones in the most need of signing. Signs on the street as well as pole signs are a necessity so people can find the business as wall-mounted signs cannot be seen from the street. Wall signs on businesses close to the freeway cannot be seen due to the large trees adjacent to the freeway. R:\PLANC0~4\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 2 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER ~1, 1996 Dan Coop, 41755 Rider Way, Temecula, Coop Properties, stated his concern was existing businesses having to remove their freeway signs. Freeway traffic would be unaware a business was there. He is against the ordinance. Jack Williams, 27313 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, Richie's Real American Diner, stated signage and location are vital ingredients for success in the restaurant business. He said his present signage is working well with minor problems, but the proposed ordinance will be detrimental to the City as revenues will go down along with jobs. His business has increased 18% due to a professional sign erected by the freeway about a year ago. He feels small businesses will be hurt the most and they are the ones that make this community tick. Mike McMillen, 27309 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, High Society Billiard Club and G & M Enterprises, stated 17.28.040, Prohibited Signs, is extremely prohibitive by the statement "All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited... ". Leaves no room for growth or creativity. There is no way future sign design can be foreseen. Freeform neon signs, like the one on his business, are not included in this ordinance. Vehicle signing is also prohibited which would eliminate the Sr. Shakespeare bus which is a clever and attractive display. It is his recommendation that the committee relook at the ordinance and open up a channel for creative expression; and grandfather existing, attractive signs. Bob Newsom, 31028 Wellington Circle, Temecula, Century 21, handed out an article entitled "Losing Respect for the Law" for the Commissioners perusal. He stated the proposed ordinance should be more flexible. Issues of concern are: 1) residential sign limitation of four sq. ft.; 2) the City should provide incentives for changes; 3) proposed ordinance should go to the Chamber of Commerce and business groups for input before it is passed. He believes the existing different signs make Temecula attractive. larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing Jack Raymond, stated the Best Buy modified pylon/projecting freeway sign was mandatory for them to locate in Murrieta. The proposed ordinance should be relooked at from the real estate community and the smaller commercial ventures with multi-tenant users viewpoints. Cynthia Arocha, 44535 Bedford Court, Temecula, the proposed ordinance would make her elevated center a ghost town as people passing cannot see the businesses on the hill. She did not think Palm Springs should have been used as a good example due to its low terrain. Tall gas signs are beneficial for motorists who run out of gas and do not know a town. Fred Grimes, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, #103, Temecula, representing several small businesses who support good signage, stated the slide show was appalling, but the signs shown are not found here. All properly permitted, well constructed signs should remain for as long as they have useful life, which is usually longer than seven to ten years. He wrote the letter referred to by Mr. Hogan and the sentence reads "signs in some cases will have to be torn down at some time"; not immediately torn down. He asked the Commission to reconvene the Sign Committee and to get a different perspective, appoint one or two retailers and one or two real estate developers. R:\PLANCOl~q\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 3 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER Commissioner Miller suggested it might be more helpful for those people interested in having the ordinance rewritten, to critique it and give their written comments to staff. Mr. Grimes responded, "dialogue is needed as the same people involved in the proposed ordinance will review the comments." Chairman Fahey asked Mr. Grimes if he had read the current ordinance which is difficult to enforce. Mr. Grimes stated he has and Ordinance 348 does need work, but when people are told to tear down a sign, the impact is difficult. Mark F. sbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, #103, Temecula, stated it is impossible to top trees along the freeway. He also commented on the following: 1. The slide show seemed unfair and a scare tactic; 2. The main thing businesses are looking at when they come to a town is the signage; 3. Strong architectural standards with attractive signs is expected; 4. There are no 45' pole signs in Temecula; generally a 25' sign is erected; 5. Grandfathering is critical; 6. Tenants located behind large businesses need to be seen. Commissioner Slaven asked Mr. Esbensen for suggestions regarding Caltrans' restrictive tree pruning process. Mr. Esbensen responded the City and center representatives should go to Caltrans together as trees between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road block views of the businesses. Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 7:25 P.M. Chairman Fahey reconvened the meeting at 7:35 P.M. Chairman Fahey set forth the following sugg~fions for staff which would be helpful for the Commission to make a decision: Examples of signs in the City that meet Ordinance 348 standards, but would not be in compliance with the proposed ordinance. A list of types of existing signs not in conformance with Ordinance 348 or the proposed ordinance. 3. Information concerning life of signs and investment. A review of past project approvals where signs were an issue and we tried to be consistent regarding height of signs near the freeway and size of monument signs. Also look at multi-tenant signs in the City to determine a staff opinion on whether the ordinance should limit or specify the number of tenants shown on a sign or sign size. Staff meet with about eight (8) of the individuals who are interested in committing to three or four meetings and expressing their concerns and developing alternatives. Come back to the Commission with specifics and examples of what should be considered. Commissioner Slaven inquired about the City offering some type of financial incentive to the business community to offset sign replacement costs. Mr. Thornhill will look into the matter. R:\PLJ~NCOMM\MINUTES\1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 4 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1996 Commissioner Webster suggested financial help on a moving scale for how quickly nonconforming signs were replaced within the proposed time period. Commissioner Miller remarked it was the general consensus of the Sign Committee that the City is reasonably well signed at this time, with Dayglo painted signs in windows an exception. Commissioner Webster asked for a detailed list of businesses not in conformance and the particular ordinance section being violated, in order to make a rational decision and to consider financial incentives. Chairman Fahey stated that would be a lot of work for an ordinance that might be changed and the decision should be based on overall concepts. Community Services Director Gary Thornhill stated ultimately a list would be developed, but ground rules are needed beforehand. Commissioner Miller stated there are not many streets involved and if a Commissioner sees a questionable sign, they should ask staff about it's compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Thornhill explained the approval process for this ordinance would be to bring the comments from the business community back to the Commission. The Commission will then weigh the current recommendations along with the new ones and make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the new committee will use the EDC or Chamber of Commerce as a filter. Mr. Thornhill answered the Chamber is supposed to represent the concerns of small business. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he would also like to have the EDC represented. Commissioner Soltysiak asked the definition of a temporary sign and if there is a sunset clause. Mr. Naaseh replied temporary signs include banners, political, contractor, and real estate signs, and are temporary in nature. Mr. Hogan remarked the temporary sign regulations in the proposal are only a reformat of the existing temporary ordinance adopted two years ago. All ordinances related to signing are included in the proposed ordinance for convenience. Mr. Hogan will provide the temporary ordinance to the Commissioners. Commissioner Webster inquired about an existing commercial center with nonconforming signs who need to replace signs and who are required to get a permit. Would they also be required to do a sign program? Mr. Naaseh answered they would not be required to do a sign program, but it would be helpful if the developer would apply for a permit with the new standards so future tenants would be in compliance. Chairman Fahey asked if the sign program pertains to new development. Mr. Naaseh replied it did. Commissioner Slaven remarked that according to page 9 offsite garage sale signs are illegal. Mr. Naaseh stated the existing ordinance prohibits offsite garage sale signs. Commissioner Soltysiak mentioned sign structure height seems to change with each application on "Sign Structure Heights" exhibit. Mr. Naaseh replied the ordinance specifies the sign structure height from the sidewalk level or if no sidewalk exists, six (6) inches above the street or if placed on berming, 2 feet is added. He said exhibit needs to be cleared up to demonstrate the intent that wall height includes the base. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES~1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 5 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTORER ~1, 1996 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the Sign Ordinance off calendar. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS None PI,ANNING MANAGF. R' S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported staff is moving into the new City Hall. All Commissioners are invited to attend the grand opening at 4:30 P.M., October 30, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION D[qCUSSION Commissioner Webster inquired about the priority of the traffic light at Margarita Road and Solano Way. Mr. Thornhill will check on it and get back to the Commission. Commissioner Miller remarked there was a great deal of Commission discussion concerning maturity of landscaping at the Union Oil Station and the station was to replace with landscaping of the same degree of maturity. It does not appear plants larger than one (1) gallon have been planted. Mr. Thomhill will check on it. Commissioner Miller asked if future Planning Commission meetings would be held in the new City Hall. Mr. Thomhill replied Planning Commission meetings will be held at City Hall beginning with the December 1996 meeting. Chairman Fahey expressed appreciation to the Rancho California Water District for allowing the Planning Commission to meet at their facilities. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held November 4, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PLANCOI~Iq\MINUTE$\1996\102196.PC 11/20/96 klb 6