Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-27MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter Commissioner Geiger arrived at 8:10 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bazil CODE AMENDMENT NO. 73-31 "NEW SIGN ORDINANCE" Mr. John Cope addressed the Commission and introduced Draft No. 9 of the New Sign Ordinance. Mr. Cope noted the changes to the current draft of Code Amendment No. 73-31 which were directed as a result of discussions between the Planning Commission, Planning Staff and Sign Committee members. He stated that the major revision involves a progressive sign height, area, setback ratio formula for freestanding signs in the Commercial District to more closely control sign vision perspectives. Mr. Cope further noted that Draft No. 9 of the "New Sign Ordinance" was distributed to the Sign Committee Members on May 9, 1975 with a resulting review session being held with the Staff on May 19, 1975, at which time there was no further input by the Committee on major issues. Mr. Cope addressed page 17 of Draft No. 9 and stated that some additional wording on open house signs and real estate flags had been added to allow for more flexibility for these types of signs. A revised schedule of amortization was brought to the attention of the Commission at the last review of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Cope concluded that all changes on Draft No. 9 were made by the consensus of the Commission at the previous meeting. Chairman Kerins noted that the last draft discussed was Draft No. 7 and questioned the whereabouts of Draft No. 8. Mr. Cope stated that another meeting between Staff and the Sign Committee members occured and subsequently Draft No. 8 was reviewed by Staff and Sign Committee members only. It was noted that the environmental process would occupy the month of June; therefore, the Public Hearing for the New Sign Ordinance would be scheduled sometime in the month of July. It was Chairman Kerins' desire to review Draft No. 9 page by page and comment accordingly. H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, May 27, 1975 Page 2 Chairman Kerins expressed concern about the deletion of the "Purpose" section of the proposed code amendment. Mr. Cope stated that this particular section will be eliminated in all future ordinance codes to eliminate problems later with restrictions which may not pertain to individuals applications. Mr. John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the "Intent" is subjective and not meaningful, and that the "Purpose" section is necessary only if the ordinance is not clear in itself. It was the desire of'the majority of the Commission to ask Staff to draft up a "Purpose" section to be inserted into the New Sign Ordinance. The difference between the definition of the freestanding sign and monument sign was discussed. Mr. Cope informed the Commission that the major distinguishing characteristic is the sign height. He stated that the monument sign has a height limit of 10 ft. and the freestanding sign can have a height up to 25 ft. In answer to Chairman Kerins question regarding the definition of one freestanding sign per site, Mr. Cope stated that "site" is defined as one or more parcels of land and the intent is based on lineal frontage whereby there would be 100 ft. of frontage per building which would allow for 100 sq. ft. of signing per site. To discourage a proliferation of signs if property is developed in phases, Mr. Cope suggested that signing could be incorporated into the standard conditions of approval of each application submitted for new development. Setback of sign from ultimate right-of-way to nearest portion of sign was discussed. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow 10 ft. of maximum sign height for 0 - 12' setback allowing a 60 sq. ft. sign; 20 ft. maximum sign height for a 13' x 20' setback, allowing a 150 sq. ft. sign; and 25 ft. maximum sign height for a 21' plus setback, allowing 200 sq. ft. of sign area. Chairman Kerins requested more distinction between roof signs and wall signs to be included into the ordinance. Commission discussed Subdivision Directional Signs. It was the consensus of the Commission to include the price of this type of sign on -site, but not to allow this type of signing off -site. Commission discussed Real Estate Signs and concurred that such signs shall be permitted at the access points of a tract. It was concluded that the maximum open house sign should be 18" x 24". In response to Commissioner Porter's concern that exterior or interior illuminated signs should be designed so that they' do not directly reflect onto adjacent property, Staff agreed to modify the wording, inserting the word "project" and deleting "reflect" in order to more clearly define the intent of this section. r� PC 5/27/75 -2- H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, May 27, 1975 Page 3 Commissioner Porter expressed concern about sign enforcement. He stated that he would like to have a clearly defined enforcement section incorporated into the New Sign Ordinance. Mr. O'Connor stated that he would research this matter and report back to the Commission. It was the desire of the Commission to retain the present IRS schedule of amortization and not to conform with the revised schedule drafted by the Staff. It was the consensus of the Commission to ask Staff for a revised draft of the New Sign Code incorporating all changes discussed at this meeting to be presented at the June 17, 1975 Planning Commission Study Session. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTALS: DISCUSSION ON FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION It was the consensus of the Commission to revise the format of transmittals to the City Council. It was noted that the "Planning Commission Action" should be the first item under the regular heading of "Applicant", "Location", and "Request". "Planning Commission Recommendation" should follow, then "Staff's Recommendations", followed by "Summary of Staff Report", etc. Commissioner Geiger expressed concern regarding the incompleteness of Findings stating that Findings are not complete without the logic behind them. He felt that Findings should be elaborated upon and reasons for findings should be given. It was noted that findings and reasons were to be incorporated in City Council Transmittals. MISCELLANEOUS: TENTATIVE TRACT 5189 - MODIFICATION TO PLOT PLAN Mr. Harlow, Planning Director, reviewed with the Planning Commission the proposed garage access, orientation, and open parking along Fernhill. Mr: Harlow explained that the actions taken by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1975 in requiring that the open parking spaces be relocated in front of the proposed structure would eliminate additional curb parking by additional curb cuts to facilitate access to such parking. The Planning Commission concurred that the previous location of open parking adjacent to Fernhill, if properly screened and landscaped, would be acceptable. PC 5/27/75 -3- H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, May 27, 1975 Page 4 it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Staff work out specific details on the design, location and screening of these parking spaces. ADJOURNMENT ON MOTION BY KERINS AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:55 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Bazil k ZIMU4W and A. Harlow Edward H. Kefrin't Secretary Chairman I