Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1977City Council Minutes June 13, 1977 Page 2 ::I 1. The City...Council continued,.their..consideration of the proposed 1977/78 City Budget, continuing,,with,Section IV. Section IV - Community Services Departments A - Public Services Department (Page IV -21) On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that one additional groundskeeper, truck and other necessary equipment be added to Budget Account No. 50- 11 -57. Motion carried, Councilman Dunin voting no. On motion of Councilman Petterson, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that the Administrative Officer investigate cost /benefits of contracting for sweeping of parking lots, tennis courts with alternatives in bidding specifications. Motion carried, all ayes. 2. At 1:40 p.m. the City Council adjourned to Executive Session. 3. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Petterson, the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m., to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 1977. Motion carried. APPROVED: July 19, 1977 Fitzpatrick, City Clerk MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. 1 COUNCIL..CHAMBERS;-CITY HALL Roll Call PRESENT: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, Terry Sanville; Glen Matteson A. Councilman Gurnee reported on behalf of the sub-committee (Gurnee, Dunin) interviewing-appointees to-the-Housing Authority, that the City Council appoint Mildred Roske to fill the vacancy now existing on the Commission. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Jorgensen, that the City Council appoint Mildred Roske to the Housing Authority for the term of Leon Osteyee who resigned. Motion carried. 1. City Council members reported on activities of standing Council 1 Committees: A. Area Planning Council Councilman Jorgensen B. C.C.C.J.C. Councilman Petterson C. Solid Waste Committee Councilman Dunin D. Water Advisory Board Mayor Schwartz E. Whale Rock Commission Mayor'Schwartz F. Zone 9 Advisory Committee Councilman Gurnee City Council Minutes Page 2 2. At this time the City Council held a public hearing on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of the new sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo. The City Clerk presented a letter received from the Design Review Board sub- mitting for the Council's consideration additional changes which they felt would improve the proposed sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo. It was their recommendation that based on recent experience, that the City Council would prefer to adopt standards more in keeping with desired community character and made the following recommendations: 1) Section 9702.2.J should read "Temporary window signs, covering not more than twenty percent (20 %) of the window area or more than the permitted sign area, whichever is less." 2) Section 9702.4.B should read "Roof signs, when they are an integral part of a building design proposal." 3) Section 9704.2.B(2) should read "One wall sign not exceeding five percent (5%) of the building face or twenty -five (25) square feet, whichever is less, for each frontage..." 4) Sections 9704.3.B(2), C(1)-and D(1) should be changed to indicate that one wall sign will be permitted for each frontage or building face having a public entrance. (As it presently reads, each business is allowed only one wall sign, regardless of building and site configuration.) 5) Section 9704.3.D should be changed to read "...Total area of all signs shall not exceed one - hundred (100) square feet,..." 6) Section 9704.3.d(2) should read "One free - standing sign not to exceed fifteen (15);feet in height and seventy -two (72) square feet in area." ' 7) Sections 9704.3.R(2)(a) and (b) should be changed to indicate a maximum area for wall signs of seven.percent (7%) of the building face and a total area for all -signs of 130 square feet. 8) Section 9704.3.E(2)(b) should read "One free - standing sign not to exceed twenty -five (25) feet in height or seventy -two (72) square feet in area." (Delete reference to not demonstrating reason for exceeding standard.) 9) Section 9704.3.D, permitting billboards, should be eliminated, and billboards should be added to the list of prohibited - signs, Section 9702.3. 10) Section 9704.3.G should be changed to indicate the ARC rather than the DRB will approve signs in Mission Plaza. 11) Section 9704.4.D Unless otherwise approved by the ARC, wall signs in all zones should not exceed 12 feet in height. Other sections should be changed accordingly. Communication from the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, Connie Hendricks, Executive Director, informed the City Council that the Environmental Center was quite concerned about preserving the charm and character of San Luis Obispo and felt that the revised sign ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission needed further refinements and concurred with the recommendation of the Design Review Board as previously listed. Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, presented for the Council's consideration the recommendation of the Planning Commission and asked that the sign regulations be adopted by the City Council. The Planning.Commission stated that this proposal involved many months of work by staff, the Design Review Board, the Architectural Review Commission, public and business interest groups., and that after several hours of- public hearing, the proposal was approved for Council consideration. The Planning Commission stated.that, while no one person or group would be completely in agreement with all the provisions of the new City Council Minutes Page 3 regulation, they represented extensive study and numerous compromises and they believe that they had general support of these groups and they would be a significant improvement over the existing 1967 ordinance. These new regulations had been tailored to the regulatory procedures and philosophy that had been evolving in San Luis Obispo. The Planning Commission stated that certain types of signs which were clearly required for public information or which typically did not create esthetic problems subject to number and size limits would be permitted without obtaining a sign permit. Other types of signs which were clearly threats to health and safety or which by nature created esthetic problems, such as signs which simulated or interfered with traffic control devices or signs attached to merchandise stored outdoors, would be prohibited throughout the City. Another group of sign types, which usually created esthetic problems but which under unique conditions, and a part of total site design, might be acceptable, such as animated signs and roof signs, would require ARC approval in any zone. Further, within each zone, certain types, numbers, and sizes of signs would be allowed. These standards would apply to an applicant who proposed - installation of an individual sign, when ARC review would not be required. They would also serve as a guideline to applicants and the ARC. When a sign was proposed to exceed these standards, the burden of proof would be on the applicant to justify his request; when smaller signing was required, the burden of proof .would be on the City. An applicant with an individual sign proposal could request ARC review if he desired more or larger or taller signing than the zone district standards allowed. Signing as part of new construction and major.remodeling would be reviewed by the ARC, which could impose more restrictive requirements or allow the basic standards to be exceeded. Signs which did not conform with the 1967 ordinance and which continued to be non - conforming would be abated according to the schedule in that ordinance (upon proper notice, abatement could begin immediately, since the amortization periods in that ordinance will have been expired). Signs which became non- conforming under the new regulations would be abated according to a liberal amortization schedule based on the value of the sign. In either case, the owner of a..non - conforming sign would have the same opportunity as someone proposing a new sign to submit it for ARC review in order to exceed, upon demonstration of reasons, the prescribed standards. Terry Sanville stated that the Planning Commission urged the City Council to adopt the regulations as presented. Glen Matteson, Planning Assistant, then presented the City Council a slide show of signs in the City, both exemplary types and those in poor taste. Mayor Schwartz.declared the public hearing open. Vic Montgomery appeared before the City Council stating that he supported the Design Review Board's comments, feeling that they were more in keeping with the character of San Luis Obispo. Dave Garth, Executive Secretary, Chamber of Commerce, explained the input placed in this ordinance by business people. He continued that the City business interests felt that the 1967 City sign ordinance was satisfactory although not enforced by the City. He felt what had been recommended by the Planning Commission was a compromise, not what business interests really wanted, but what they felt they could live with. 1 Jane Lily, Design Review Board Chairperson, felt that the proposed ordinance, if it included the ll new points recommended by the Design Review Board, would make the Planning Commission's recommendations sign ordinance more pala- table to those who were supportive of a more restrictive ordinance. She concluded that the proposed ordinance was strictly a Chamber of Commerce /business interest ordinance and not what she felt the people of San Luis Obispo really wished. City Council Minutes Page 4 Don Smith supported the 11 points presented by the Design Review Board for amending the ordinance, as he felt this would make for a much better sign ordinance for the City. Melanie Billig, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that their organization supported the 11 points of the Design Review Board, and that if included in the ordinance would be more palatable and a good step forward for the City and its citizens. James Lopes questioned the method of developing the proposed sign ordinance by going to individual pressure groups, business interests, sign companies, Chamber of Commerce, etc., and then saying what was being.considered was a compromise of the community. He felt that the regulation under consideration was very weak and would not do much to improve the sign situation in San Luis Obispo. He would support more restrictive rules on signs, smaller signs, etc. Al Ingersoll stated that he spent many hours, over 100 hours, working with staff in an attempt to come up with a.reasonable sign ordinance for the City. He felt the result before the Council at this time was a compromise by both City, business, environmentalists, etc. Anna Alexander stated that she was-in support of a strong sign regulation for the City to make for an attractive community. She would support signs that would identify the business, but would not support signs that would be used strictly for advertising. She also supported the recommendation of the Design Review Board to amend the proposed sign ordinance. Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Jorgensen stated that he was disappointed at the direction the meeting had taken on the matter of- signs. He felt that the proposed sign ordinance was a step backward as the ordinance did nothing to improve the sign environment in the City. He personally supported the Design Review Board version of the ordinance over the Planning Commission's version. He stated that he was opposed to permitting rotating, moving, flashing, roof signs, billboards, etc., in the City as would be allowed under the proposed regulation. He also objected to the definition of sign area, height, etc. Councilman Petterson stated that he would support the proposed ordinance, felt that the regulations were a compromise between the business interests and those who were opposed to business in general and signs in particular. He would support the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Gurnee stated that he would support comments of Councilman Jorgensen, but personally felt that signs should be for identification only and not for advertising purposes. He felt the City should and could control signs. He would support the Design Review Board approach to a more restrictive sign regulation. He, too, would support elimination of outdoor advertising billboards, and further felt that no ordinance was any good if not enforced which was the case with the 1967 sign ordinance and other City regulations. He also hoped that rather than estimate size, height, etc., for signs, that the Council would adopt a theme for signs in the City which would be easier for both City and sign users and business interests to understand. He suggested that the Council refer the draft sign ordinance to the City Attorney to rewrite and include all 11 points of the Design Review Board. Councilman Dunin reviewed the history of the development of the ordinance before the Council that evening. He felt that the points presented by the Design Review Board had never been considered or reviewed by business inter- ' ests and the sign industry, and he could not support the ordinance as amended by.the Design Review Board, but he would support the sign ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by them unanimously. The City Council then reviewed with the staff the reasons for the Planning Commission to recommend the sign ordinance to the Council in its present state. Mayor Schwartz felt that the Council, to accomplish anything, should review the proposed sign ordinance, section by section, including the recommendations of the Design Review Board. City Council Minutes Page 5 On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Petterson, that the City Council accept the.Planning Commission's recommendation with a review by the special interest groups within 12 months. Motion lost, Councilmen Gurnee, Jorgensen and Mayor-Schwartz voting no. Mayor Schwartz declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. City Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all Councilmen present. The City Council then reviewed in detail the recommendations of the Design Review Board, 11 amendments to the proposed ordinance of the Planning Commission. (See 11 conditions listed previously)' 1. Rejected by City Council on a 4 to 1 vote. 2. Rejected by City Council on a 3 to 2 vote. 3. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote. 4. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Rejected by City Council on a 3 to 2 vote. 6. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote. 7. Accepted by City Council the 7% portion of the recommendation on a 4 to 1 vote and rejected the total area of signs for 130 square feet. 8. Accepted by-City_Council.on a 5 to 0 vote. 9. Eliminate all billboards unless City Attorney finds reason that City cannot enforce this section. Accepted by Council on a 5 to 0 vote. 10. Accepted by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote. 11. Rejected by City Council on a 5 to 0 vote. The City Council then reviewed the entire recommended ordinance as amended by the Design Review Board recommended as just completed. The City Council proceeded on a page -by -page basis making amendments and changes as they went along. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Dunin, that the ordin- ance as amended by the City Council be referred to the City Attorney to include changes: 1) As recommended by the Design Review Board and accepted by the Council; 2) To ban billboards if legally possible; 3) Request the staff to prepare an enforcement program including staffing and cost to enforce the sign regulation. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Gurnee, Jorgensen, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None 3. The City Council then received a preliminary review of the Planning Commission's actions to date for rezoning property in the Laguna and Edna/ Airport areas of the City in order to bring the zoning map into consistency with the General Plan. Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, reviewed with the City Council the progress of-.the Planning Commission's actions_to..date at the zoning hearings which would bring the City's zoning ordinance into conformance with the General Plan recently adopted by the City Council, particularly in the Laguna Lake,