HomeMy WebLinkAbout052997 PC Special Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 29, 1997
A special meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Thursday, May 29,
1997, 6:05 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster,
None
Also present were Assistant City Attomey Mike Estrada, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Associate Planner
Saied Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION RUSINK%q
1. Approval of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda by consensus.
2. PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance)
Chairman Fahey advised the public heating is still open.
Associate Planner Saied Naaseh updated the staff report. Mr. Naaseh corrected the last sentence on page
4 of the staff report to read "...portions of this section should be deleted.
Louis Kashmere, Texaco Gas Station owner, asked the Commission to make legal any sign on private
property which cannot be seen from public streets and sidewalks; he will voluntarily remove any sign his
customers find objectionable. He stated his station has the gas pumps located behind the building with
a landscaped front.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:22 PM.
17.28.325 - Freeway Oriented Signs in Professional Office District
Commissioner Miller asked if the first sentence would prohibit the sign on the Rancon Building. Mr.
Naaseh remarked the sentence "Wall-mounted signs shall not be permitted for multi-tenant buildings."
is being deleted, and therefore multi-tenant signs for office buildings are allowed. Mr. Naaseh stated this
section was added by the comment group to permit commercial businesses, which are allowed in office
districts by the Development Code, to have freeway oriented signs, but offices were not specifically
mentioned.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vcjw i
Planning Commission May 29, 1997
Commissioner Miller asked if there are any office districts adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Naaseh stated
he did not know, but will find out.
Chairman Fahey remarked, that the language needs to be re-worded if the intention is that commercial
uses that are allowed in an office district are allowed to have freeway-oriented signs, but freeway-oriented
office signs are not allowed.
17.28.350 - Requirements for Wall Mounted Business...2 Stories or less...
Commissioner Miller questioned the second sentence dealing with exterior entrances. Mr. Naaseh
answered the intent is to distinguish between office buildings with an interior courtyard from those with
exterior entrances to individual suites. Each suite with a parking lot entrance should be identified; in a
courtyard situation, it is not appropriate to identify each business on the building's exterior; and owners
are encouraged to only identify the office building.
Commissioner Miller inquired if there are similar restrictions in the commercial zone and Mr. Naaseh
replied there are not.
17.28.400 - Signs in Industrial District
Mr. Naaseh corrected the first paragraph, third line, to "Office buildings...standards for Office
District... Section 17.28.300."
17.28.410- Sign Types Prohibited in Industrial Districts
(a) - Commissioner Miller asked if there are industrial districts that abut the freeway. Chairman Fahey
asked staff to pull maps to make a determination. Mr. Naaseh suggested deleting 410(b) as it is
redundant.
17.28.420 - Sign Types Permitted in Industrial Districts
(b) - Commissioner Webster stated direction sign size requirements in 17.28.280(b) may be too small for
industrial sites. Mr. Naaseh agreed it may be appropriate to provide a larger -- i.e., 30 sq. ft. -- sign;
and possibly tie the sign into site size rather than permitting all tenants the larger sign. He will research
the issue and return to the Commission with a recommendation.
17.28.430 - Requirements for Freestanding Business Center...in Industrial Districts
Commissioner Miller noted he did not see any other mention of seven (7) acres or less. Mr. Naaseh
stated the sentence will be deleted.
R: \PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vgw 2
Planning[ Commism~on May ~.9, 1997
Commissioner Webster asked for a definition of a major intersection mentioned in Sections 430 and 440.
Mr. Naaseh defined a major intersection as a street or intersection of two streets which have an ultimate
General Plan or Specific Plan right-of-way of 78 feet or more. This essentially is any intersection other
than one in a local residential area. Commissioner Webster expressed his concern this definition will
create a proliferation of signs in a business park or industrial section, and suggested either changing the
definition or at the least change the definition for this section.
Commissioner Slaven suggested deleting "one additional per major intersection".
Mr. Naaseh stated within 75' of an interchange, a sign must be embellished with landscaping, and be of
special design or art work. Commercial, industrial and office building center identification signs built
into the landscaping, are one-sided, and all freestanding signs have a background consistent with the
building. He said the ordinance is structured to promote center identification; not individual tenants. The
number of center identification signs is liberal because of their design standards.
Chairman Fahey asked if tenant identification would be allowed in addition to center identification. Mr.
Naaseh replied a multi-tenant industrial building with a center identification sign would not be allowed
individual tenant signs, but another sign identifying the building would be permitted; and if it is decided
to allow multi-tenant signs, that signs would also be permitted.
Chairman Fahey questioned the difference between a business center identification and a freestanding
tenant identification sign. Mr. Naaseh replied both are allowed; one for a center which is identified as
three or more individual units. Section 440 pertains to one building or multiple buildings with one tenant.
A center, permitted to have center identification under Section 430, will not be allowed any signs under
440.
Chairman Fahey expressed problems with differentiating between a business center and a multi-tenant
industrial building. Mr. Naaseh replied a multi-tenant building is any building with more than one tenant
and a center is three or more tenants. Commissioner Slaven said there is potential for utilizing and
qualifying for both because definitions are inclusive.
Mr. Naaseh suggested eliminating the second sentence "They are also..." in 440 and then 440 would only
apply to one tenant buildings; a two tenant building would not get any sign unless the multi-tenant sign
section is added; if three tenants, it is considered a center and would get center identification signs and
if multi-tenant signs for industrial buildings are added, they would get a multi-tenant sign.
Chairman Fahey clarified a business center is for three or more tenants and it was suggested to delete "one
additional per major intersection". Chairman Fahey mentioned industrial site size can range from one to
50 acres, therefore appropriate number of signs would be different. She proposed doing a combination
where they either have multi-tenant signs or center signs. Commissioner Webster suggested returning
to Sections 430 and 440 after discussing multi-tenant signs because that result will affect these signs.
17.28.600 - Temporary Business...Commercial, Office, and Industrial Districts
Chairman Fahey asked about changes made to the existing temporary sign ordinance. Mr. Naaseh stated
the major changes are window signs and a provision added to allow banners for apartments.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vgw 3
Planning Commission May ~9, 1997
Chairman Fahey asked if advertising signs above the gas pumps as mentioned by Mr. Kashmere are
considered temporary signs. Mr. Naaseh replied the ordinance does not directly address those signs, but
self-service signs (toppers) are prohibited.
Ms. Ubnoske stated it is not the intent of staff to make any changes to this section nor was there any
public input. She stated any clarification and/or clean up would be appropriate at this time.
(b)(1)c, (b)(1)e, (2)d and the definition of a detached temporary sign - Commissioner Miller stated
language needs to be clad fled.
Mr. Naaseh mentioned the temporary sign, along with the air balloon and kiosk ordinances were
integrated into the sign ordinance to have all sign-related ordinances in one document for ease of
reference, not to make changes to approved City Council ordinances.
Ms. Ubnoske stated enforcement of the temporary sign ordinance will be a topic at the joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Estrada commented the Commission has the authority and legal right to make changes when
recommending approval to the Council. Under these circumstances, one solution is to make grammatical
and/or clarification changes. The Commission, in passing it on the Council, points out their concern with
certain issues and recommends the Council direct the Commission to look at those issues.
Commissioner Slaven suggested if there is a concern with the way the "temporary sign" portion of the sign
ordinance is written. The Commission should let the Council know it has reservations with this section
and are not implying agreement or approval.
Mr. Estrada suggested keeping the temporary sign sections in correct sequence so when code enforcement
staff, are looking for it, it is all in one document; adding a place holder; and not discussing the temporary
sign section at all.
Chairman Fahey expressed her concem with the Commission spending their time in making the temporary
ordinance more restrictive since the City Council has told staff not to enforce the existing ordinance.
Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will contact the Focus Group and explain no changes are being made to the
temporary sign ordinance at this time and there will be a future workshop to consider temporary signs.
Mr. Naaseh mentioned staff met with the Temecula Apartment Owners Association and the additions
regarding multi-family units in the temporary ordinance were at their suggestion. Ms. Ubnoske
mentioned anyone can provide input to the City Council when they hear this issue.
It was the consensus of the Commission to return Section 17.28.600 - the temporary sign ordinance --
to its original condition.
Commissioner Miller stated the Planning Commission was directed to come up with a sign ordinance and
temporary signs are a part of the total sign ordinance. Mr. Naaseh explained the existing sign ordinance
is a County ordinance and staff did not want to make changes to ordinances adopted by the City Council.
R:\PLANCO]~\MINUTE$\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 v~w 4
P]annlng Commission Ma~y 29, 1997
17.28.700 and 800
Commissioner Slaven stated these two sections are existing ordinances and any sections pulled for
discussion should be reinserted as previously approved.
It was the consensus of the Commission to return these two sections to their original condition.
17.28.900 - Enforcement, I t~gal Procedures, and Penalties
Mr. Naaseh asked the City Attorney if this is a new section since the existing sign ordinance does not
have an enforcement section, but there are sections in the Municipal Code which deal with violations of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Estrada replied this section improves upon the violation provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance and ties it directly to this ordinance.
17.28.920 - Non-Conforming Signs
Commissioner Slaven stated it was her understanding staff will complete an inventory of non-conforming
signs and bring it to the Commission for a determination of whether to grandfather or to remove those
signs. Mr. Naaseh recommended the Commission direct staff to return with an inventory which has been
analyzed for discussion of existing non-conforming signs.
Mr. Estrada stated 17.28.920 says the non-conforming signs may continue to be used and must be
maintained; amortization is not addressed.
Commissioner Miller asked whether a non-conforming multi-tenant sign for a center could be changed
due to tenants coming and going. Mr. Estrada replied an existing legal non-conforming sign under this
section could not be changed to another non-conforming sign, but name changes are allowed if the space
is there.
Chairman Fahey suggested language be clarified to state tenants may be changed on an existing, legal
non-conforming sign.
Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 8:00 PM and the meeting was reconvened at 8:08 PM.
Mr. Naaseh reported there are industrial sections bordering the freeway.
17.28.325 - Freeway Oriented Signs in Professional Office Districts
Chairman Fahey asked if a wall-mounted sign on an office building next to the freeway would be non-
conforming if built today. Mr. Naaseh replied the sign would be clearly visible from the freeway and
would not be allowed today.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow wall-mounted signs visible from the freeway in office
and industrial areas.
R: \PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vgw 5
P]ann~nqt Comm~ ss~on May ?.9, 1997
Chairman Fahey stated freestanding freeway-oriented signs are generally used to attract people
from the freeway and since it is not the intent of office and industrial businesses to attract freeway
customers, freestanding, freeway-oriented signs for both office and industrial districts are not
appropriate.
Mr. Naaseh related a problem might arise with a multi-tenant building having freeway exposure which
is allowed in the retail/commercial districts and asked for Commission direction for freeway-visible wall-
mounted signs for a multi-tenant office building.
Commissioner Slaven commented that identification of a large office building with multi-tenants would
be appropriate, but to have everyone's name all around the building would be inappropriate.
Chairman Fahey stated she does not want to prohibit a sign because the building is located near the
freeway.
Chairman Fahey stated she would like to avoid multi-tenant signs oriented toward the freeway for office
buildings. Mr. Naaseh remarked an office building is allowed two primary tenant and four secondary
tenant signs and is hearing the Commission believes it is appropriate if those signs are freeway-oriented.
It was agreed by the Commission that freestanding freeway-oriented signs for office buildings are not
allowed.
Commissioner Miller commented it has been stated up to six signs for five tenants is allowed in an office
district, but that is not how 17.28.350 is written. Mr. Naaseh remarked staff will reword language to
clarify that the same standards used for commercial buildings are allowed.
Mr. Naaseh asked if the Commission wants to allow wall-mounted freeway-oriented signs for a two (2)
story or less office building with a courtyard situation. Commissioner Slaven stated she did not think it
was appropriate for an office building.
Chairman Fahey directed staff to look at what has passed; relook at standards for multi-tenant signs in
commercial areas and develop something similar for freeway-oriented wall-mounted signs for office
buildings. The Commission agreed that was reasonable.
Chairman Fahey reiterated that wall-mounted and multi-tenant signs are allowed, but no freestanding
signs, whether or not they are freeway-oriented.
17.28.430(a) - Chairman Fahey suggested eliminating the one additional sign per major intersection since
a business center is allowed two per main entrance. Commissioner Slaven stated the freestanding sign
definition is misleading because it can be a sign on poles or set in the ground. Ms. Ubnoske replied staff
will clarify the definition.
17.28.440 - Requirements for Freestanding Tenant Identification Signs in Industrial Districts
Section (4)b - Mr. Naaseh pointed out business center identification signs are not designed to be
prominent signs; but are to be built into the landscaping.
R: \PLANCOI~I\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vgw 6
P] anni nqt Commi ss~ on Ma~, ?.9, 1 997
Chairman Fahey stated her concern is that by allowing the business center signs plus multi-tenant ones,
there will be too many signs. Mr. Naaseh suggested since a commercial area needs more signs and
industrial centers are more restrictive, each industrial center be limited to one multi-tenant sign. If a
center is small, it is not economically feasible to put in all the signs. He said another possibility would
be regardless of center size, only one multi-tenant sign, or one center sign per driveway be allowed rather
than two.
Commissioner Soltysiak remarked industrial developers do not want lots of signs.
Chairman Fahey stated staff's recommendations 1 thru 7 for multi-tenant signs in their April 21 memo
would be incorporated into Section 17.28.440. Mr. Naaseh stated he envisions it as a new section in
addition to the existing section and the Commission can add provisions that either a multi-tenant sign on
any given center or one single tenant sign will be permitted.
Commissioner Webster recommended leaving Sections 410, 430 and 440 as written.
It was the consensus of the Commission to leave Sections 430 and 440 as written, incorporating multi-
tenant signs in industrial districts based on staffs recommendation to make another section to insure sites
do not get signs under Section 440 and a multi-tenant sign.
Minimum size of center to permit freestanding freeway oriented signs (April 21, 1997 staff report) - Mr.
Naaseh recommended a minimum size of seven (7) acres for multi-tenant signs as there are three (3)
existing centers and two (2) vacant pieces that fall within 3 to 7 acres. Commissioner Slaven stated she
was not in favor of reducing parcel size.
Section a(1)(a) - Chairman Fahey stated staff suggested an option to allow businesses on less than 3 acres
to combine together to have one sign. Mr. Naamh stated to encourage fewer freeway signs, the proposed
language encourages parcels to jointly propose one multi-tenant sign and they then could be allowed a
monument sign on the street, which gives them four (4) signs.
Ms. Ubnoske stated businesses want freeway exposure and it is also important to have local street signs.
It was the consensus of the Commission to add staff's recommendation to the draft for further
consideration.
Height of freestanding freeway signs (May 19 staff report) - Commissioner Webster stated of the two
staff recommendations (1) re-landscape 1-15 corridor; 2) eliminate the flag test procedure and set a
maximum height), he agrees with setting a maximum height. He expressed but is concerned about the
south end of town where 1-15 starts going uphill and wondered if there could be a variance on a case-by-
case basis.
Mr. Naaseh reported there is variance language existing in the Ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Commission to make 30 feet the maximum height for freestanding freeway
signs.
R: \PLANCOI~q\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 v~w 7
Planning Commission May ?.9, 1997
It was moved by Chairman Fahey, seconded by Commission $1aven, to close the public hearing and to continue
the item to July 7, 1997, when staff will bring back a final draft to make certain the Commission's intent has
been captured.
Commissioner Miller requested the draft ordinance be sent to the Commission Members ten(10) working days
before July 7. Chairman Fahey requested continuance of the item if the ten (10) day advance cannot be met.
The motion was unanimously carded.
PI,ANN1NG MANAGER'S REPORT
Ms. Ubnoske reported code enforcement staff reviewed Unocal's signs and two of the frames were removed.
Remaining frames were permitted.
She also reported Blockbuster's Christmas lights will be down on Friday, May 30, 1997.
Ms. Ubnoske stated Napa Auto Parts' neon sign is not lighted yet. She will review the bright blue wall.
Commissioner Soltysiak mentioned there is also an illuminated light in the rear of the building which he did not
remember receiving approval.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Fahey stated the joint City Council/Planning Commissioner meeting has been scheduled for July 1,
1997, 7:00 PM, City Council chambers. Ms. Llbnoske asked Commissioners to let her know at the June 2
meeting if they cannot attend.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Chairman Fahey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 PM. The
motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held June 2, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCOI~q\MINUTES\1997\5-29-97.WPD 7/28/97 vgw 8