HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1993, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND MEETING DATE:
���n�i�iiilplllllllll�� IIUIII City of SAn L�I S OBISPO to- )5-9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Director of Community Development e
PREPARED BY: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission recommendation
to amend the City Sign Regulations relating to sign illumination within the City's Office (0)
zoning districts.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an ordinance to print, adopting a negative declaration of environmental impact and
amending Section 15.40.140 of the Sign Regulations to prohibit interior illumination of all signs
in the 0, Office Zoning District.
DISCUSSION
The City Council directed the Community Development Department to review and consider
possible amendments to the City's Sign Regulations concerning sign illumination in the Office
or "0" zoning districts. The request came as a result of Council's approval of an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) action to approve an interior illuminated monument
sign for a Century 21 real estate office on Broad Street. It was felt that there are inconsistencies
in the current Sign Regulations relating to 0 zones, and that perhaps additional protection of
near-by residential properties from sign illumination should be provided.
The purpose for the amendment will be to provide protection of residential properties within or
adjoining office zones from excessive light and glare. The concern is that because office zones
are often located in transition areas between commercial and residential neighborhoods, more
sensitivity is needed. In addition, office zones allow for a mixture of residential and office uses.
Land use compatibility is therefore extremely important.'
The Sign Regulations currently prohibit interior illumination of wall mounted signs. No
reference, however, is made to similar restrictions for freestanding signs. Thus, prevailing
interpretation of the regulations allow freestanding signs to have interior illumination. It is not
clear from the record establishing the current regulations whether the difference in regulation
between wall mounted and free-standing signs was intentional. Notwithstanding the reason(s) for
the previous actions, changes should be made to achieve consistency in regulation between the
two sign types.
IIIII�I�III�IIIIII�����a�I�IIIi � MEETING DATE:
city or san �:�is oBispo
0094 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Council Agenda Report - TA 61-93
June 15, 1993
Page 2
Several options to regulate freestanding signs have been examined as part of this review process.
These options are discussed in more detail in the attached Planning Commission staff report.
The preferred option involves applying the current wall sign illumination standards to
freestanding signs. The restriction would prohibit all interior illuminated signs in O zones.
Note that indirect or "exterior" illumination of signs would still be allowed.
Amendments to the Sign Regulations can be made when the changes are consistent with the
purposes of the sign provisions as contained in Section 15.40.020 of the Municipal Code.
Among those purposes, the sign regulations are intended to "Protect and enhance the character
an natural beauty of the community and its various neighborhoods and districts." The proposed
restrictions on sign illumination will provide adequate signage for office uses within the O
districts while still protecting adjoining residential uses from excessive light and glare. The
proposed amendment is therefore consistent with the purposes of the Sign Regulations. .
The proposed amendment is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An initial study of environmental impact has been prepared which has not identified
any significant environmental impacts. A copy of the environmental document is attached for
Council review and action.
CONCURRENCES
The draft amendment was presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and
Planning Commission for review and input. The ARC was advised of the amendment on April
19, 1993 at which time they expressed support for the office zone illumination changes proposed
by staff.
On May 26, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept testimony on the
proposed amendment. There was no public testimony at the hearing. After the close of the
hearing, the Commission made the necessary findings and recommended that the City Council
adopt the proposed changes to the Sign Regulations on a 4 to 1 vote (Commissioner Senn
dissenting; Commissioners Karlesldnt and Peterson, absent).
IIII�^I�IIII,IIIIIIIIIII lulu MEETING GATE:
II V p► i cityof san Lacs OBISPO
ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Council Agenda Report - TA 61-93
June 15, 1993
Page 3
FISCAL BIPACTS
The proposed amendment will not significantly affect City revenues or expenditures.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may adopt any sign regulation that does not conflict with the purposes of the
City's Sign Regulations. In addition, the Council may continue action with specific direction
to staff.
Attachments: Draft ordinance amending the subdivision regulations.
Legislative Draft Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff Report of May 26, 1993
Planning Commission minutes of May 26, 1993
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
ORDINANCE NO. (1993 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE SIGN REGULATIONS RELATING TO SIGN
ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE CITY'S OFFICE (0) ZONING DISTRICTS
(TA 61-93)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on application No. TA
61-93 on.May 26, 1993 and recommended approval of the amendment; and
WBEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, June 15, 1993, and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
purposes of the Sign Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WIEREAS, the City Council has considered the potential environmental impacts of the
new regulations, evaluated in initial study ER 61-93;
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council determines that there will be no significant environmental
impacts as a result of amending the regulations, and hereby approves a negative declaration of
environmental impact.
SECTION 2. The Sign Regulations are hereby amended by the change to Sections
15.40.140 which is fully contained in the attached Exhibit A, included in this ordinance by
reference.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
0 "/
Ordinance No. . (1993 Series) -
Sign Regulations Amendment
Page 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1993, on motion of ,
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:-
Mayor Peg.Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane Gladwell
APPROVED:
tto e
Legislative Draft Ordinance
H ltl g t ng indicates new text. StAkeett indicates deleted text.
15.40.140 Office zone.
The following signs are permitted within the office (0) zone district:
A. Signs for residential uses as provided in Section 15.40.130;
B. Total area of all signs for professional office uses shall not exceed fifty square feet
per business or tenant, including:
1. One freestanding sign at each premises not to exceed twenty-four square feet in
...............................................................................................................
area or eight feet in height and not including ntenot ilurnrnated signs;
2. One wall sign for each business or tenant, not to exceed five percent of the
building face or twenty-five square feet, whichever is less, for each frontage and not including
interior illuminated signs;
3. One directory sign at each premises, not interior illuminated and not exceeding
one square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit. J
O EXHIBIT A
15.40.140 Office zone.
The following signs are permitted within the office (0) zone district:
A. Signs for residential uses as provided in Section 15.40.130;
B. Total area of all signs for professional office uses shall not exceed fifty square feet
per business or tenant, including:
1. One freestanding sign at each premises not to exceed twenty-four square feet in
area or eight feet in height and not including interior illuminated signs;
2. One wall sign for each business or tenant, not to exceed five percent of the
building face or twenty-five square feet, whichever is less, for each frontage and not including
interior illuminated signs;
3. One directory sign at each premises, not interior illuminated and not exceeding
one square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit.
0
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM a f
BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: May 26, 1993
% Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: TA 61-93
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide
SUBJECT: Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Regulations regarding sign
illumination within the City's Office (0) zoning districts
RECOMMENDATION
1 . Concur with staff's finding that the proposed amendment will not result in a significant
impact to the environment; and
2. Adopt the findings contained in this staff report and. recommend that the City Council
adopt the proposed changes to the Sign Regulations.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Situation
The Community Development Department has been directed by the City Council to consider
- . amendments to the City's sign regulations concerning sign illumination in the Office or"0"
zoning districts. The request came as a result of Council's consideration of an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) action to approve an interior illuminated sign for
Century 21 sign on Broad Street. It was felt that there were inconsistencies in the current
Sign Regulations relating to 0 zones and that perhaps additional protection of near-by
residential properties from sign illumination should be provided. The Council provided this
direction with the understanding that the effort will be limited only to a sign illumination
issue. Any additional changes to the sign regulations should be reserved for a
comprehensive amendment that could be added as a future ordinance update program if
deemed necessary.
The purpose for the amendment will be to provide protection of residential properties within
or adjoining office zones from excessive light and glare. The concern is that because office
zones are often located in transition areas between commercial and residential
neighborhoods, more sensitivity is needed. In addition, office zones allow for a mixture of
residential and office uses. Land use compatibility is therefore extremely important.
The Sign Regulations currently prohibit interior illumination of wall mounted signs. No
reference however is made to similar restrictions for freestanding signs. Staff is unsure
whether this was an oversight in the adoption of the Sign Regulations or purposely excluded.
Notwithstanding the reason(s), staff recommends that consistent treatment of signs be
given.
r-,
Staff looked at several options to regulate freestanding signs. The first.option would involve
applying the current wall sign illumination standards to freestanding signs. The restriction
Page 1 Q
Staff Report -TA 61-93
May 26, 1993
i
would prohibit all interior illuminated signs in O zones. Note that indirect or "exterior"
illumination of signs would still be allowed. This option is staff's recommended approach.
The second option would involve requiring all illuminated signs "visible from a residential
zone" to first obtain architectural review approval. This option is less desirable in that it
would involve interpretation as to what is "visible." A sign that is not visible from the street
may be visible from someone's second story window. In addition, office zones contain a
mixture of residential and office uses. The residential properties within the "0" zones would
need to be considered as well.
The third option is similar to the second except that it would apply only to interior illuminated
signs. Exterior (indirect) illumination would not require ARC review.
The fourth option would require architectural review for any illuminated sign within an office
zone. This option would allow a closer review of illumination impacts on adjoining
properties. However, given the changes of use that could occur within the office zone, it
may not offer the best protection (i.e. an illuminated sign adjacent to an office building
would be acceptable until that office building is converted to a residence).
The fifth option is similar to the fourth except that it would apply only to interior illuminated --�
signs. Again, this language would not apply to exterior illuminated signs.
The sixth option would involve eliminating illuminated signs altogether (interior illuminated
and exterior illumination) in the office zones. Note that this option would also apply to wall
signs.
The final option would be to allow a lower level of illumination in "O" zones. While this
option would provide some level of protection, it could present difficulties for the City in the
future. First, once a sign is verified at a certain illumination, it would be difficult to control
tenants that may add additional or brighter lights. Staff is not equipped with a illumination
meter that would allow verification of compliance. In addition, illumination is somewhat
subjective. What would be considered acceptable to one, may be considered too bright for
someone else. This option could present difficulties in establishing an "appropriate"
illumination level.
Staff's recommended language changes, as well as the above described language options
(except option seven) are attached for Commission review and discussion. The ordinance
language is in legislative draft form so that the Commission can see what language is
proposed for addition and deletion.
1
Page 2
a-s
Staff Report -TA 61-93
May 26, 1993
City Policy and General Plan Consistency
Amendments to the Sign Regulations can be made when the changes are consistent with
the purposes of the sign provisions as contained in Section 15.40.020 of the Municipal
Code. Among those purposes, the sign regulations are intended to "Protect and enhance the
character an natural beauty of the community and its various neighborhoods and districts."
The proposed restrictions on sign illumination will provide adequate signage for office uses
within the O districts while still protecting adjoining residential uses from excessive light and
glare. The proposed amendment is therefore consistent with the purposes of the Sign
Regulations.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendment is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An initial study of environmental impact has been prepared which has not identified
any significant environmental impacts. A copy of the environmental document it attached
for Commission review.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed ordinance amendment will not result in significant environmental impacts
as indicated in the attached draft negative declaration.
2. The proposed amendment will provide protection of sensitive uses in and around Office
districts from excessive light and glare and therefore will further the purposes of the Sign
Regulations calling for protection and enhancement of the "character of the community and
its various neighborhoods and districts."
ALTERNATIVES
1 . In addition to the above listed text options, the Planning Commission may recommend
to the Council any sign illumination regulation consistent with the purposes of the City
Sign Regulations.
2. The Commission may also continue action with specific direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Staff Recommended Amendment to the Sign Regulations
2. Optional Text Language
3. Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration (ER 61-93)
Page 3
I I
Legislative Draft Ordinance—
t ft i� httr " indicates new text. StFileeewt indicates deleted text.
15.40.1400ffice zone.
The following signs are permitted within the office (0) zone district:
A. Signs for residential uses as provided in Section 15.40.130;
B. Total area of all signs for professional office uses shall not exceed fifty square feet per
business or tenant, including:
1 . One freestanding sign at each premises not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area
or eight feet in height ati nat:rncttttng �nteriartiumfnated sFgns,
2. One wall sign for each business or tenant, not to exceed five percent of the building
face or twenty-five .square feet, whichever is less, for each frontage and not including
interior illuminated signs;
3. One directory sign at each premises, not interior illuminated and not exceeding one
square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit.
-1
i
Page 5
Other Sign wumination Amendment Processing Option
1 . Add Section 15.40.080 A6 as follows:
Ipuminatecf signs v►s►bE roRt a resident►aE {R} zone d►stnct
2. Add Section 15.40.080 A6 as follows:
thtecioc llctiated signs v►stb�e from a restctential ( } zane district
3. Add Section 15.40.080 A6 as follows:
f. ItEmer�axed Scgns an off,ce � k zone..d►strt<:
4. Add Section 15.40.080 A6 as follows:
Interioc,'ticrrn►neted srgns ►ri an uffcCe (0) rove Kai.
5. Amend Section 15.40.140 81-3 as follows:
1 . One freestanding sign at each premises not to exceed twenty-four square feet in arss
or eight feet in height b nQt<�nclu>fEng #Itutn►nated 's�gnS
2. One wall sign per business or tenant, not to exceed five percent of the building fU
or twenty-five square feet, whichever is less, for each frontage and not including +metier
illuminated signs.
3. One directory sign at each premises, not intefief-illuminated and not exceeding one
square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit.
Page 6 /
<C
DRAFT
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
May 26, 1993
PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Brett Cross, Charles Senn, and
Presiding Chairwoman Dodie Williams.
ABSENT: Commrs. Fred Peterson and Barry Karleskint.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Ron Whisenand,
Development Review Manager; John Mandaville, Long Range Planning
Manager; Cindy Clemens,Assistant City Attorney; Michael McClusky, Public
Works Director; Whitney Mclllvaine, Assistant Planner; John Moss, Utility
Manager; and Diane Wright, Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There were no public comments.
MINUTES: The minutes of April 14, 1993, were approved as submitted.
Item 1. Text: Amendment TA 61-93. A request to amend the Sign Regulations to
provide standards for sign illumination adjacent to residential zones; City of
San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Ron Whisenand presented the staff report and explained that the City Council directed
staff to review the issue of sign illumination within the City's Office zoning districts. He
explained current regulations prohibit internally illuminated wall signs but do not prohibit
internally illuminated free-standing signs. He recommended that the language be
changed to prohibit internally illuminated wall signs for consistency and protection of
residential properties. He recommended that the Commission find the amendment would
not result in a significant impact on the environment and recommend to the City Council
adoption of the proposed changes.
Chairwoman Williams opened the public hearing.
No one chose to speak.
Chairwoman Williams closed the public hearing.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to concur with staff's findings that the proposed amendment
will not result in any significant impact on the environment and recommend that the City
Council adopt the proposed changes to the Sign Regulations.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
��3
Commr. Senn asked if there were currently any internally illuminated free-standing signs
Gin the office district.
Ron Whisenand said Tas-Comm on Broad Street had an internally illuminated sign, and
believed that there possibly were others.
He explained the signs would become non-conforming and could not be replaced if
removed, and that sign copy could be changed but the sign could not be expanded or
significantly changed. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Ron Whisenand
explained a new business could move in and the sign copy could be changed.
Arnold Jonas said that.the City does not regulate sign copy.
In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Ron Whisenand said staff knew of only one
complaint about a specific sign.
VOTING: AYES- Commrs. Whittlesey; Hoffman, Cross, and Williams.
NOES - Commr. Senn.
ABSENT - Commrs. Peterson and Karleskint.
The motion passed.
city of San tws OBISp0
1;I�iil!IIiiG�iai!I';!;il!► i'i'i
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
led
SITE LOCATION C1 W:�Ac APPLICATION NO. LER G 3
1 —/ T /
PROJECT DESCRIPTION t dl r �� Cs _ci.a l Jnn +ed
S.A�s �, .:� lG(..,,, oa:e. Cod �d ,:,�
APPLICANT -� o{ x.. W. s
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Y NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY RhosIJ LJL: c i �++o-� - DATE ,04��111113 -
CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR' ACTI N: DATE '*►T?�D�93
a
R4Ct�..r,
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... Noma c -
B. POPULATION DISTRIB_UTION AND GROWTH.......................................... . Ndn e
C. LAND USE ........................................................................... No If
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. A16-tC
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ //o-te
F. UTILITIES............................................................_........... y6A e
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... . /Ven e
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS S TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..................... ALA e
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ N6AP
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .......,........................•.................... NI` 6 n e
KPLANT LIFE........................................................................ Non C
LANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... t'dote
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .................................................... /`, bye
N. AESTHETIC ....._................................._.............._..........._...... A/a#IC
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ............................................................
P. OTHER ................._......................._............................_.....
Ns c
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
-SEE ATTACHED REPORT
Environmental Review - ER 61-93
April 20, 1993
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project involves a minor amendment to the City's sign ordinance
regulating in illumination within the City's office (0) zoning
district. The sign ordinance currently prohibits "direct"
(interior) illumination for wall signs within the O zone. There is
presentlyno illumination restriction however relating to
freestanding signs. The draft amendment proposes to treat
illumination of freestanding and wall signs in a. similar fashion.
This amendment will affect signs within the office (0) zones City
wide. No specific areas will be targeted by the new changes.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
As stated above, the amendment will apply to all O zones City wide.
The changes are being proposed in order to meet the purposes of the
City's sign and zoning regulations. specifically, the amendments
will provide controls for sign illumination within the O zones.
Since O districts are often located in transition between
residential and commercial neighborhoods, the sign regulations need
to be sensitive to the mixture of residential and commercial uses
in the area. For this reason, the sign regulations currently
restrict "direct" illumination of wall signs in the O zones. The
proposed amendment will provide a similar restriction to
freestanding signs.
It is important to note that other ordinance options exist that
will accomplish the same or similar goals. These options include
restriction of all sign illumination (both direct and indirect) in
the O , zones or providing illumination in the O zones with
Architectural Review Commission or Administrative Hearing Officer
review. These alternatives are also consistent with the purposes
of the sign and zoning regulations in that they protect adjoining
land uses from potential light and glare impacts.
SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed amendment will further the goals of the
City and will therefore not be considered significant.
N. AESTHETIC
The proposed amendment will provide illumination controls within
the City's office (0) zoning. districts. The current sign
illumination of freestanding signs in
regulations allow for direct
Environmental Review - ER 61-93
April 20, 1993.
page 3
the O zones. Office zones typically contain a mixture of
residential and office uses. In addition, O zones typically buffer
neighborhoods. Therefore,
residential and commercial neig 'direct
additional illumination controls within the 0 z ia�nt be desired.
Options under consideration or eliminating
illumination',' (i.e. interior illumination)
illumination ••altogether (i.e. "direct and indirect") .
The recommended text language eliminates direct illumination of
freestanding signs• s ntl This restriction
thed be consistent O zones for walllsignse
restriction that pre Ytable
Indirect illumination woul= still esidentialadwellings but is considere
less obtrusive for nearby
gn
SIGNIFICANCE• The proposed modifications significant impacts- 11 ensure. that lto
illumination•will not result in potentially
operties in or adjacent to the City's Office (0)
residential pr
zoning districts.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION roved for the
Staff recommen� dinance amedative eclaration be approved
nt
proposed sign
i