Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-1997 PC MinutesMINUTES Planning Commission May 5, 1997 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoo, Assistant City Attorney, Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 4/21/97. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes of 4/21 I'97, Pages 1-13, Items 1 through 3. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Carlton, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to approve the remainder of the Minutes of 4/21/97. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Smith MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-97 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend City sign regulations to allow comprehensive sign programs for large commercial developments (of 25 acres or more) containing criteria that differ from the standards contained within the City sign code. Staff recommends that these comprehensive sign programs be made subject to approval by the Planning Commission. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City has approve two regional commercial entertainment centers over the past year. A couple of the projects have indicated a desire to develop their own sign programs based upon the size of their prolects. A lot of the regional centers that have been developed over the last 3 to 5 years are reflective of special sign programs such as "City Walk" at Universal Studios, One Rodeo Place (Beverly Hills) and more local examples found within the interior plazas at Main Place or the Irvine Spectrum. The existing code is rather generic for all locations and zones and the City does not account for large regional projects. Deviations are typically processed with variances requiring findings of specal circumstances on a case-by- case basis. The current code is not flexible enough to accommodate deviations of the larger scale projects. Staff has proposed a way of doing this which would provide more flexibility within the City's review process, while eliminating the need for a variance. Staff suggested to expand the code to cover major commercial centers that exceed 25 acres in size. A conditional use permit is proposed, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The basic question in front of the Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1997 it a good idea to allow a more flexible sign ordinance for larger, more regional based commercial centers?" Commissioner Smith wanted to know if staff knew the sites in Orange that this change would apply to? Mr. Jones replied staff knew of three sites: The City Mills Center (80 some acres), the Century Stadium Theaters at the northwest corner of Katella and Main (26 acres) and the Orange Mall site (60 acres). Commissioner Pruett referred to Page 2 of the staff report regarding the proposed language for the Major Commercial Centers. Could this also be interpreted that other commercial centers that share parking in their combined area being 25 acres would also fall into this category? Mr. Jones explained staff's intent was that it all be under a single property. The. City Mills Center, which is under single ownership, exceeds the 25 acres. They do have some reciprocal agreements with some of the adjoining office buildings. However, the way it is currently stated, it is not limited to a single property owner. That would need to be clarified. Commissioner Pruett recalled when they reviewed the Wal Mart project, the Orange Mall was divided into parcels. Some of the parcels are owned by different property owners, such as Sears. There is more than one owner at that site. Mr. Jones said that was correct. However, the Mall itself owns more than 25 acres of the 60+ acres he referenced. Chairman Bosch stated that was not uncommon. He was aware of some power centers in San Diego County, where they have 8 or 10 of the Sears, Sportsmart, T.J. Max, Mervyn's etc. each on separate properties with a Lot A for shared parking, access and egress. It is not a common ownership, but there is shared parking in a single development. Is there a vehicle through this process vs. specific sign ordinance revisions for the special sign standards that apply in the Old Towne District? He was looking at the Old Towne commercial area where there was shared parking in terms of the public faalities. A specal district might be perceived where a similar program might be worthwhile, or it might occur elsewhere when an appropriate definition of a district or unit to which this would apply that may have multiple ownerships would be very good for the City in helping to control the influx of signage and also set a standard that would assist the neighbors and commercial operators to both meet their ends. He had concerns about how one controls the concept of a basis of differing from the limitations contained in the code relative to community values. Commissioner Pruett asked if they were speaking of a single development? Is it not like a Specific Plan or something like that? An area that has some plan... Chairman Bosch finished by saying a special definition that describes it as a unit or as a major regional commercial center. He heard Commissioner Pruett ask, "Is this definition specific enough to both give the freedom to other special districts that are not a single commercial ownership, or at the same time, is it exclusive enough that gives the City control to assure that the purpose and intent of the ordinance is met, even though the standards may apply differently to a particular property? How is that defined? Or, do they leave it to the judgment of the decision makers at the time, in the future, as projects are brought forward? Mr. Jones clarified staff envisioned the situation of the Orange Mall would require that the owner/operator who had more than 25 acres would initiate a program that would be more of a comprehensive approach. It could not be initiated by Sears since they don't own 25 acres. The controlling factor there would be the owner/operator of more than 25 acres. The owner would then look at the entire shopping center to make it a unified center. The Old Towne area falls into a different situation and might require a different solution. The Old Town Design Standards are very specific to the Old Towne area and they have their own sign programs. Chairman Bosch said that was a good point and stressed it makes it even more important they carefully define what major regional commercial centers and shared common parking means in this context. Commissioner Carlton asked what the rationale was for setting 25 acres as the minimum vs. 20 acres? 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1997 Mr. Jones replied staff looked at the larger parcels in the City including .the. ones that had specific requests. There are not too many parcels left in the City that fall between 10 and 20 or 25 acres. In the industrial area, the next closest one he could think of was 18 acres (northeast corner of Taft and Main). Another is between 10-12 acres (the Stadium drive-in site). Commissioner Pruett looked at the evaluation in the staff report. It talks about the Environmental Quality Act and on-premise signs are considered to be acxessory structures when constructed with commercial developments. He was concerned their discussion may be confused with billboards. He considered the billboards to be massive structures in themselves. What impact is that going to have? Will it create some clouding in terms of where and how that is managed vs. the signage? Mr. Soo-Hoo shared that same concern. According to the present sign ordinance, proposals for off- premise signs would be regulated similarly to other developments within the given zone. In this case, if a conventional billboard company were to assemble 25 acres, he supposed they could come in and apply for a conditional use permit as well. They will be treated just as other commercial developments are treated. He didn't foresee that because there aren't very many 25 acre or greater parcels in town. The public hearing was opened. Public comments Ruben Andrews, 1750 Kettner Blvd., San Diego, was the consultant for the Century Stadium Promenade project, and spoke in favor of the sign program for the larger projects. His firm, Graphic Solutions, has put together more comprehensive sign plans in the City of San Diego than any other firm. The City of San Diego established a process similar to the proposed process in Orange about 15 years ago, with no minimum limitation on the size of the site. They have found the process to be very beneficial to both the neighborhood and commercial interests. Through the process they have been able to balance the signage to respect adjacent residential uses in some cases. With the larger projects with entertainment components, there is a need for signage to create part of the sense of place for the projects. The public hearing was dosed. Chairman Bosch said the Commission must decide whether or not to amend the Sign Ordinance with regard to allowing special sign programs, which may be reviewed and approved by a variety of methods, above and beyond simply following the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Jones stated staff wanted to know if this were a good idea. Was a conditional use permit the right tool for the process? Site criteria would need to be applied to the evaluation criteria. Chairman Bosch noted for the record they received a copy of a letter from Norman Phillips, addressed to the Mayor and City Council expressing concern about exempting some provisions of the Sign Ordinance for major properties, and how it would avoid being a discriminatory outcome enacted. Commissioner Carlton asked what the process would be if someone had 10 or 15 acres and they wanted to do something different than what the present Sign Ordinance states? Would that be a conditional use permit or variance? Mr. Jones responded it would be a variance. Commissioner Carlton did not think the 25 acres was minimum enough. It needed to be a smaller minimum. Commissioner Smith liked the 25 acre limit. There is a Sign Ordinance in place for parcels smaller than that. There are fewer projects that are 25 acres and over. This particular process is more difficult to get a sign through. The other ones are just governed by ordinance. People must comply with the design standards to meet the criteria of the ordinance, without having to come in for full review or CUP process. If the acreage were smaller, it would be much more difficult in some circumstances for people to get signage. She liked the CUP process with the action at the Planning Commission level. There are some suggestions that perhaps it would go to the DRB with no CUP required. What criteria would the DRB use for determining the appropriateness? The Commission reviews the projects beforehand and are familiar with the land use, design and all the different elements that had gone into the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1997 Commissioner Pruett did not have a problem with the 25 acres. But, he would be concerned if the acreage were less. That's the constraining issue as it relates to billboards. The more definitive they can make that in terms of qualifying a project would be good. He would like to try and deal with the issue or get more of a definition as to what is meant by major regional commercial centers with shared parking. They talked about the concept of single property owners. He didn't have a problem with that. Or, are they talking about a single development with shared parking? That needs to be defined. They have spoken about the intent of the single property owner, but it is not stated that way. Commissioner Romero favored the change from a variance to a conditional use permit. Looking from a broad point of view at the three current projects, the areas are quite large. The surrounding areas are largely commercial-retail, except for the Orange Mall where there are adJ'oining residential neighborhoods. The billboard would not be placed in the local area of the neighborhoods. It would be placed in an area where there is a lot of traffic and be visible to motorists. Looking at the three properties, he liked the 25 acre minimum. It will reduce the number of potential applicants. If the acreage were reduced, billboards might be a concern. Chairman Bosch stated the billboard issue is a key concern for him. He didn't equate signs with billboards; they are an entirely different animal. The billboards still carry the same problems wherever they are in terms of its size and massiveness; the structural quality of it. He would like a greater comfort level on how to assure it is not left up to a particular development as they look at community values and the intent of the Sign Ordinance. He would like to see more flexibility for people, but they can't write a separate code for different sizes of property or different types of uses in a commercial zone. He was looking at some level of guidance to assure they are reviewing proposals with proper contextual relationships to adjacent properties and the community values in the current sign regulations, and greater freedom for individuals and businesses to work within that without being completely constrained. Commissioner Romero said they had the Planning staff and Design Review Board. Wouldn't they review the sign proposals when they were submitted and limit them as to the type of signage that is allowed? Billboards could be controlled by both the Planning Department and DRB before they came to the Planning Commission for a CUP. Chairman Bosch thought the purpose of the commercial building designer, particularly with regard to national- chains and trademarks, is that the entire facility is a sign. Every aspect of it is part of the identification program. And, at what point does that transcend into a sign that is as large as the building, and convince people it is appropriate? Commissioner Pruett thought the staff report was saying: "If you've got 25 acres, you can bring anything in here that you want, and the City will look at it." There is no criteria to guide the Commission in terms of what they will look at. Criteria is not being provided to the applicant in terms of minimum standards or something that gives them the framework in which they are going to design. He believed a problem will be created with some projects where the applicant will be coming back several times trying to find the intent of the City. There needs to be some frame work in which to work from in order for the applicants to be able to have the freedom to design their signs. Commissioner Carlton wanted to know how big a standard billboard was? Mr. Soo-Hoo responded there was no standard billboard size. There are several different variations, but he didn't have the sizes before him. Commissioner Carlton noted in Section 17.36.070 61 it stated a maximum of 160 square feet for a free standing sign. A 10 x 16 sign is not a very big sign in her mind. Chairman Bosch said billboards were covered elsewhere. They are larger than that size. The one at Katella and the Freeway must be 45x40. Mr. Soo-Hoo said billboards would not be in the Zoning Code because they were approved under a settlement in order to terminate litigation. They were not approved by the Zoning Code; they were approved per a settlement. tt's something that would not conform to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Carlton said it bothered her that she didn't have enough information. There has got to be some other areas in the City that might be potential sites for an applicant to come in for something other 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1997 than the standard code. She felt they were too restrictive. The CUP is the right way to go, but she was a little concemed about the 25 acre minimum. Chairman Bosch didn't want the size to be arbitrary based on those they are aware of today. The City was looking for a citywide ordinance; they were setting a standard for the City. On what basis do they want the size? The staff's intent was a major or regional commercial center vs. neighborhood commercial sites or a commercial property. The rationale needs to be pinned down in verbiage more closely. Commissioner Carlton thought they needed to define by size what is a major or regional commercial center vs. a neighborhood center that could be half an acre. She was talking about the 10 to 15 acre sites. Commissioner Smith was not bothered by the fact there was no specific criteria because she was ready for something new in Orange. These projects bring with them professional consultants. She was looking forward to see what was going to be proposed in the way of new ideas. The context of the neighborhood and community will be taken into consideration. Those are the kind of guidelines she would like to see be put in place. Billboards need to be mentioned. Just whatever would allow people to be creative and successful with a project. Commissioner Carlton agreed with that. It would be refreshing to see some creative, innovative signage. That wasn't the problem she had with this though. It was restricting the size of the parcels to 25 acres or more. They need to be open minded as far as creativity with what is presented under a CUP, and look at it on a case-by-case basis. It is being limited to three proposals right now the way it stands. Chairman Bosch said there were some things he would like to see followed through and be included under the standards that would judge the sign program. Those are: The existing ordinances 17.36.040 - Prohibited Signs, and 17.36.050 -Prohibited and Restricted Locations. He believed it was food and reasonable to continue the restrictions and should be included in any sign program. Those will help to assure there is some kind of control. Commissioner Pruett thought there were two issues: One is, what is the threshold? (25 acres) and then the other is, what is the criteria? They need to be discussed separately. They could set forth a bureaucracy for small property owners or applicants that have less than 25 acres, who would bring projects forward and invest a lot of money in them, and then the Commission would turn them down or put them through a process that would cost a lot more money to get where it needed to go. They needed to be a little careful with that issue. The 25 acres made a lot of sense to him. The issue of the frame work in which it is to be built, he shared Commissioner Smith's desire. Creativity is needed, but he thought too the context of the community was important and needed to be discussed. It will help the Commission to make a decision. These issues need some definition. Mr. Donovan pointed out any neon or animated signs are effectively banned through the prohibited sign section of the ordinance. Those are the kinds of signs one would see at "City Walk". Chairman Bosch liked neon signs and projecting signs when they are properly controlled. He was glad he got the discussion rolling. Now, possibly some criteria can be set as to the kind of signs Orange does not want to have. Those can be excluded and applicants will know up front if that kind of sign is inappropriate. He would like for staff to go back and assist the Commission in setting criteria for the special sign program. He wants basic controls in place to pull signs together and preclude those signs the City doesn't want to see. People will still have the opportunity to present their signs as per the sign code. Commissioner Carlton asked staff to provide the Commission with a list of properties that are 10 acres in size or larger. Commissioner Smith didn't believe that was the question before the Commission. They were talking a minimum of 25 acres, yet one of the parcels is more than twice that at 60 acres, and one is more than three times that at 80 acres. To go the other way, is a different question. Commissioner Carlton was concerned about the parcels that were not part of the discussion. They may come before the Commission in the future and it will be too restrictive. She needed more information to be able to decide. 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 1997 Chairman Bosch thought it would be beneficial to get some more information on the specific elements from staff. The size of different parcels might help focus on their discussion. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-97 to the meeting of June 16, 1997 and ask staff to address the Commission's concerns and come back with something more definitive. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None sld MOTION CARRIED 6