HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2005-02-23
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for February 23, 2005
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - Gary Roberts
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Christy Teague, AICP, Senior Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
o
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (562) 431-2527.
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday afternoons, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
Page 1 of 5
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 23, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All proceedinas are recorded.
Page 2 of 5
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for February 23, 2005
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or
public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission
regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or
discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2005.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. January 2005 Building and Safety Department Statistical Report.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit 00-11 (Indefinite Extension)
137 Main Street (Old Town Cafe)
Continued from February 9, 2005
Applicant/Owner: Angel Lopez/Robert O'Rear
Page 3 of 5
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 23, 2005
Request:
To approve an Indefinite Extension of Conditional Use
Permit 00-11for an existing restaurant, permitting the
ability to serve beer and wine for on-sale consumption.
Recommendation: Continue to meeting of March 9, 2005.
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-2
3900 Lampson Avenue (Seal Beach Tennis Center)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Eric Stephens/City of Seal Beach
To approve a permit to sell beer and wine for on-site
consumption within an enclosed clubhouse located at
the rear of the tennis center. The sale of beer and wine
is proposed to be similar as the previously approved
Old Ranch Tennis Club. With the new ownership, a
new application is necessary from California Alcohol &
Beverage Control.
Recommendation: Continue to meeting of March 9, 2005.
VIII. STUDY SESSION
5. Main Street Specific Plan Sign Standards
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 5
.
Mar9
Mar 23
Apr6
Apr20
May4
May 18
Jun 8
Jun 22
. July6
July 20
Aug3
Aug 17
Sep 7
Sep 21
Oct 5
Oct 19
Nov9
Nov 23
Dee 7
Dee 21
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of February 23, 2005
2005 AQenda Forecast
CUP 00-11 (Indefinite Extension) - Old Town Cafe
CUP 02-5 (Revocation) - Togo's/Baskin Robbins
CUP 02-6 (Indefinite Extension) - Quizno's
CUP 05-1 - 10 Marina Drive (JD's Restaurant)
CUP 05-2 - Old Ranch Tennis Club
VAR 05-2 - B2 Surfside
Page 5 of 5
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of February 23,2005
Chairperson Ladner called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 2005. The meeting was held in the
City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Ladner, Commissioners Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp.
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Christy Teague, AICP, Senior Planner
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Absent: None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Commissioner Deaton asked that Item No.1, the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of February 9,2005, be removed, as she would abstain from voting on this item
since she was absent on that meeting date.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Ladner opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Page 1 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9,2005.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the vote as it appears at the bottom of Page 11 of the
minutes is incorrect and should reflect a vote of 3 - 1 - 1. Commissioner Shanks
interjected that the vote as listed on Pages 11 and 12 should reflect that he had voted in
favor of Item Nos. 6 and 7. He noted that he had only voted against Item No.5, the
Indefinite Extension of Conditional Use Permit 01-14 for Daphne's Greek Cafe.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of February 9,2005 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Ladner, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Deaton
SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. January 2005 Building and Safety Department Statistical Report.
Ms. Teague stated that at the January 19, 2005, Planning Commission meeting the
Commissioners had reviewed the monthly report for December 2004 and had requested
that this report appear as a regular agenda item. She recommended that for future
meetings this report be placed on the Consent Calendar.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to Receive and File January 2005 Building
and Safety Department Statistical Report and that future reports appear on the Consent
Calendar.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit 00-11 (Indefinite Extension)
137 Main Street (Old Town Cafe)
Page 2 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
Continued from February 9, 2005
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Angel Lopez/Robert O'Rear
To approve an Indefinite Extension of Conditional Use
Permit 00-11 for an existing restaurant, permitting the ability
to serve beer and wine for on-sale consumption.
Recommendation:
Continue to meeting of March 9, 2005.
Staff Report
Ms. Teague reported that the public notices for this item and for Item No.4, Conditional
Use Permit 05-2, were properly mailed, but notice was not published in the Sun
Newspaper within the 10-day requirement; therefore, Staff is requesting that these two
items be continued to the March 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Shanks to continue this item to Planning
Commission meeting of March 9, 2005.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-2
3900 Lampson Avenue (Seal Beach Tennis Center)
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Eric Stephens/City of Seal Beach
To approve a permit to sell beer and wine for on-site
consumption within an enclosed clubhouse located at the
rear of the tennis center. The sale of beer and wine is
proposed to be similar as the previously approved Old
Ranch Tennis Club. With the new ownership, a new
application is necessary from California Alcohol & Beverage
Control.
Recommendation:
Continue to meeting of March 9, 2005.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Shanks to continue this item to Planning
Commission meeting of March 9, 2005.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Page 3 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
STUDY SESSION
5. Main Street Specific Plan Sign Standards
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the Staff Reports on this issue have attempted to address a number of areas
that the Planning Commission (PC) had requested Staff investigate, on ways to deal
with the issue of signage along the Main Street area. He indicated that he would like to
walk through each of these areas of concern so that Staff might receive clear direction
on the proposed changes the PC would like to see included in the ordinance language.
Mr. Whittenberg began with the development of standards for freestanding signs for
business not built up to the sidewalk. He referred to the proposed basic design
standards for monument and courtyard signs on Pages 3 and 4 of the Staff Report. He
explained that a monument sign would be ground-mounted and is usually no more than
4-6 feet high with no exposed pole supporting the sign. A courtyard sign would be a
pole-mounted sign located either on the public sidewalk area or within a courtyard of a
multiple-tenant building that is adjacent to Main Street. He noted that a courtyard sign
provides signage for business complexes or a business that is set back off the street.
He indicated that currently City Code does not address these types of signs, and Staff
feels that these proposed standards would be fairly compatible with the current signage
along Main Street. He then proceeded to review the criteria for monument and
courtyard signs.
With regard to monument signs, Commissioner Deaton inquired about the sign for
Baytown Realty, located at 321 Main Street, and noted that if the sign were located
behind the sidewalk, it would not be located on public property. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that for this property and for some other properties along Main Street, the
sidewalk does not end at the property line. He stated that in most cases the sidewalk
does go right to the property line, but for the Baytown building and the building north of
it, the sidewalk does not end at the property line. He noted that the buildings on both of
these lots are set back quite a ways from the street, while most of the other buildings
along Main Street are built right up to the front property line. He stated that for the
Baytown lot, the actual property line sits 6-8 inches behind the sidewalk. Commissioner
Deaton confirmed that for the Baytown lot, the sign would have to be 9 feet back from
the sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the sign must be set back 3 feet from the
front property line. He noted that the measurement from the curb to the property line is
usually 10 feet, and this would include all of the public sidewalk area. Commissioner
Deaton asked the Director of Development Services what his estimate would be for the
relocation of the sign in order to comply with these standards. Mr. Whittenberg
estimated that the Baytown building is set back approximately 45 feet from the street
with parking spaces in front of the building. He explained that Baytown might have to
re-stripe the parking lot to put in a compact parking space in order to accommodate the
Page 4 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
monument sign in front of one parking space, as when the sign is re-Iocated it would
probably encroach into the parking space. Commissioner Deaton asked how far back
from the sidewalk the sign would be when relocated. Mr. Whittenberg stated it would
probably be 3.5 feet back from the sidewalk. He also noted that Staff has taken the
measurements of the monument sign, and it is higher than the 5-foot high standard
proposed for monument signs, but it should not be a concern of the PC, as the
Commission should consider what a reasonable sized sign would be for pre-existing
signs and for any future requests for monument signs on properties that are set back a
substantial distance from the sidewalk area. Commissioner Deaton asked how large
the Baytown sign is. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it is 6 feet high from the ground to the
top of the sign, and the sign itself measures 48 inches by 66 inches. He indicated that
the PC would make a final determination on whether a sign of this height would be
permissible if moved back 3 feet from the property line, or whether another maximum
height would be more appropriate, and whether Baytown should comply with this
standard.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the PC should be discussing standards for information
that is placed on a sign, or whether there are other sections of the City Code that
address this. He noted that a 40 square foot sign could contain a lot of information that
might create "clutter." Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the PC could require that
monument sign be approved under the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. He
cautioned that there are many legal issues involved related to trying to restrict sign
content. Mr. Abbe added that generally, you can make distinctions between commercial
speech and non-commercial speech, but beyond this it is very difficult to impose any
type of content restrictions, which are almost universally struck down by the court. He
explained that if a Code Enforcement Officer would have to look at and read a sign to
determine whether or not it complies with the ordinance, except to determine whether it
is commercial or non-commercial, would be a content-based restriction and would be
struck down. Commissioner Roberts asked if regulating the size of lettering could
mitigate this. Mr. Abbe stated that restrictions on the size of the sign and the letters
could be imposed. Commissioner Deaton asked if telephone numbers must be allowed
on signs. She indicated that when sitting on a former Planning Commission in another
city, telephone numbers were not allowed because it was a safety hazard. Mr. Abbe
stated that he would have to research this, but, if challenged, virtually all sign
ordinances in the state of California would be found to be unconstitutional. Mr.
Whittenberg referred to Page 9 of the Staff Report and explained that this begins a
listing of how other cities within California have handled sign issues. Commissioner
Deaton stated that under the proposed standards. for monument signs there is no
minimum frontage listed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that including a minimum standard
should be discussed further and included as one of the sign standards. Commissioner
Deaton asked if Staff had any idea of the number of businesses having monument
signs. She noted that these would have to be businesses that are set back from the
street 15 feet or more, but most of the businesses along Main Street are adjacent to the
sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only ones he can think of are Baytown Realty
and the attorney's office to the north of Baytown, with any others being located in a
courtyard setting. Commissioner Deaton pointed out that for multi-tenant buildings, she
Page 5 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
could foresee the need for partitioning signs to allow a sign for each of the tenants. She
asked if there were a way of restricting the signage to one tenant only. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that this would be difficult to do with multiple-tenant buildings. He explained that
generally the property would be allowed so many square feet of sign space and the
owner would have to determine how the signage is to be divided and designated. He
emphasized that this is why Staff recommends the MPR process, as this would allow
the PC to see the signs and approve them before they are put in place. Commissioner
Deaton expressed her concern with safety issues with drivers attempting to read or
copy telephone numbers from signs while driving and having difficulty locating a
business if lettering is too small or if signs are too cluttered with information. Mr.
Whittenberg commented that in most cases people already know where the businesses
are located. Commissioner Deaton countered that out of town visitors would not have
the same familiarity with the town, and having clear, non-cluttered signs would make it
easier to locate a specific business. The Commission was in agreement with Staff that
the MPR process would provide the means for reviewing proposed signs for Main Street
businesses. Commissioner Deaton stated that she concurred with Commissioner
Roberts's suggestions for looking at the proportion of sign lettering, to ensure that signs
are easily visible and to prevent clutter. Chairperson Ladner suggested that a sans serif
type font for lettering might better lend itself to ease of reading. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that Staff could provide information on methods for providing clarity in the style and type
of text. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like this concept carried into the all
of the other signage concepts under review.
Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded to the discussion on courtyard signs by stating that
these signs are used for businesses that do not front Main Street, but have an interior
courtyard within the building development. He cited the property across the street from
Baytown Realty as an example of this type of design, and noted that this property has a
pole-mounted sign that identifies the tenants. He stated that there is another location
on Main Street with the businesses located along an alley-like pedestrian walkway with
a sign that was permitted many years ago, but that today is not legally permitted under
the current Main Street sign standards. He indicated that this sign is legal
nonconforming and can remain since it was legal when originally constructed under the
pre-existing sign standards. He noted that this sign is 86 inches tall with the sign area
measuring 1.5 - 2 feet. He stated that Staff is recommending that the Code be
amended to allow this type of sign in situations where business tenants do not have
sign visibility to Main Street. The Director of Development Services then referred to
Page 3-4 of the Staff Report and reviewed the standards for courtyard signs. He
indicated that if the Commission is in general agreement with the basic standard as
presented, Staff would proceed with the formal text language to return to the PC for
review at a future public hearing. Commissioner Deaton asked if businesses with pole
signs could use planter boxes to meet the landscape requirement. Mr. Whittenberg
explained that using planter boxes could lead to the problem of the boxes being taken
and also present problems with water drainage from the planter boxes onto the city
sidewalks. He suggested that the landscaped area not be required around small pole
signs.
Page 6 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
Commissioner Shanks asked about the A-Frame signs that are placed on the sidewalk.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the sign standards do not permit these signs on public
property. Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any intention of doing anything
about this. Mr. Whittenberg said that there is no intention of allowing A-frame signs on
public property. Commissioner Shanks asked if they could be disallowed on cut ins on
the business property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could decide to prohibit
them. Commissioner Deaton stated that although many of these signs are initially
placed on private property, they eventually make their way out to the public sidewalk.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that many cities prohibit these signs outright, and others will
allow them on a temporary basis, while others allow these signs for menu boards for
daily specials for restaurants, but will usually designate a specific design for the boards.
He noted that this could lead to conflict with other business owners who may feel that
they should be allowed the same privilege. Commissioner Deaton stated that she
believes these signs can contribute to the Old Town feel, but they can be a safety
hazard when placed in the public right-of-way. She commented that some of these
signs could be really "crummy looking." Chairperson Ladner asked how many of these
signs are currently out on Main Street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are a few of
these signs on Main Street; some very nicely painted and others that are simply hand
scrawled writing on paper pasted to a piece of plywood and are not very attractive.
Chairperson Ladner noted that if there are so few, why not prohibit them altogether. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this is essentially what the Code states; however, the signs are
still permissible on private property. Commissioner Roberts suggested that Staff
investigate to see how other cities have handled this issue.
Commissioner Shanks referred to the issue of lighting and asked what the difference
was between luminance and intensity. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he had attempted to
get a clear response to this from a number of sign company professionals and none
could provide a good answer. He said that he was not successful in attempting to
schedule representatives from a sign company to present samples of illuminated signs
t.o the PC. He then referred to Page 4 of the Staff Report to the Maximum Night-Time
Intensity and Illuminance tables acquired from the City of Huntington Beach and
indicated that Staff is not able to adequately demonstrate how bright lumens or foot
candles would be at the designated levels of intensity of illuminance shown on the
tables. Commissioner Roberts asked whether the City has an intensity meter. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that it does not. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that further discussion
on the issue of lighting be delayed until he can have a lighting professional present to
provide this information and respond to questions from the Commission. Commissioner
Roberts stated that he is concerned with the number of illuminated signs at one
property. He noted that having more than one light source of the same intensity level
creates twice the amount of light. Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that businesses on Main
Street are very narrow (25 feet wide) and the signs for them are very close together,
making this a very difficult issue to address. Commissioner Roberts asked if the PC
should be concerned with a continuous light source sign or would it be all right to have
blinking lights. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City ordinance prohibits flashing or
blinking signs. Commissioner Deaton asked about signs that change color. Mr.
Whittenberg said that this would be considered to be flashing or blinking. He noted that
Page 7 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
Main Street is a pedestrian-oriented area; so lighted signs should be continuously lit.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he would be uncomfortable in making any
recommendations without a demonstration of what the light intensity values are.
Commissioner Deaton asked how wide the Main Street Square businesses are. Mr.
Whittenberg said that the businesses along Main Street are approximately 20-25 feet
wide, and the ones along Central Avenue are 25-30 feet wide, but their sign area is
based upon the width of their building at one square foot of sign area for each foot of
building frontage, with a minimum of a 25-square foot sign. Commissioner Deaton
stated that the signs for this building are really running together with no unifying theme.
She asked why these internally illuminated signs are so much brighter than the other
lighted signs on Main Street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was probably because
these signs are new and the colors have not yet begun to fade. Commissioner Deaton
stated that this was probably also due to the fact that there are so many of them in a
row. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the brightness and colors for this type of sign would
usually mute with time and exposure to the elements. He then recommended that the
discussion on illumination and neon lights be deferred until a lighting professional is
available to make a presentation before the PC. Commissioner Deaton stated that this
was fine as long as this issue be revisited as soon as possible, as many of the business
owners along Main Street are concerned that the sign standards may be inequitable.
Chairperson Ladner asked what the minimum width is for businesses along Main Street.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that there really is no minimum. He explained that many of
these buildings were constructed in the 1930's and a few businesses only measure 12.5
linear feet of frontage on the street, which is probably the minimum. He noted that
Walt's Wharf is probably the widest building on Main Street measuring approximately
75-80 feet in width.
Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Page 5 of the Staff Report and the proposal for
requiring a Planned Sign Program (PSP) for multi-tenant properties or single-use
properties of a certain minimum street frontage or square footage threshold. He
indicated that for a major rehabilitation on properties with 4 or more tenants wishing to
redo their signage or the fa<;:ade of the building, they would have to apply for approval of
a PSP. Commissioner Deaton asked if this would apply to new tenants coming into the
Main Street Square spaces. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would apply if this
requirement were in place at that point. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would
prefer that the requirement be based upon number of tenants and linear footage of less
than 25 feet. She noted that using the 4 tenant requirement could still lead to problems,
as a small building that is divided up into 3 smaller parcels would then have too many
signs too close together. The same would apply to two-story buildings having 2
businesses downstairs and one upstairs. She explained that under the proposed
requirement, these buildings would not require a PSP, as they would be under the 4-
tenant requirement. She stated that requiring a PSP would provide for better
coordination of signage for businesses along Main Street.
Commissioner Roberts stated that the PC might be getting too restrictive with regard to
sign requirements for Main Street, but he said he would prefer limiting the number of
Page 8 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
businesses allowed per building to two and adding the requirement for a PSP for any
subdivision of a building into two or more businesses.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she did not see this as restrictive, but requiring a PSP
would prevent having a "hodge podge" of signs as buildings get subdivided. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that when business have been in town for a long time, like Walt's
Wharf, Ace Hardware, or Bank of America, the public gets used to seeing them and
when something happens that creates a change in the building, as with John's Food
King, it can create issues like this. He explained that Staff is attempting to come up with
the best way to deal with these issues. He said that the PSP could be used for multiple
tenant properties of 4 or more tenants, but the PC might still wish to require a MPR for
subdivisions of existing buildings to less than 4 tenants. He indicated that the PSP
process is much more involved than a MPR, as it is similar to the process for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requiring a $750 application fee and mailing of public
notices to all resident/occupants within 300 feet. Commissioner Deaton stated that she
was not aware that the PSP would be so involved, and as such, the PC would have to
look more closely at whether or not this should be required. She indicated that the
biggest problem with Main Street Square was the issue of the illuminated signs and the
signage not remaining consistent with an Old Town concept. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that Staff has received a number of calls from the public stating that they believe the
Main Street Square "looks absolutely great now." Commissioner Deaton stated that
although it is a beautiful building, it is not in keeping with Old Town and the historic
signs. Mr. Whittenberg explained that currently there is nothing in the City's sign
ordinances that deals with requiring specific sign styles. Commissioner Deaton stated
that this was not what she was advocating. Mr. Whittenberg noted that it would be
difficult to define a specific style for signage, and to address this to everyone's
satisfaction. Commissioner Deaton stated that the main concern was with the lumens
and intensity of lighted signs. The Director of Development Services stated that Staff
would prepare language for multiple-tenant properties of 4 or more tenants, and for the
MPR process for existing buildings with less than 4 tenants that are subdivided. He
then recommended that the Commission recess for 5 minutes.
The meeting was recessed at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Mr. Whittenberg referred to Pages 5-6 of the Staff Report regarding standards on sign
area for permanent and temporary window signs. He clarified that permanent signs
identifying the business or product cannot exceed 20 percent of the window area,
cannot be displayed above the second floor, and must be limited to individual letters
that are painted or stenciled on. With regard to the text content, the Director of
Development Services deferred to the City Attorney who added that regulating text and
content could be accomplished through size limitation or letter size requirements. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that some of the sample sign ordinances provided include specific
standards for letter or object size. He commented that window signs are not really
designed to be easily read by motorists, but by pedestrians. He noted that any sign
Page 9 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
within 3 feet of a storefront would be counted as a permanent window sign and would
be included as part of the 20 percent limit for window coverage, and window signs
would be in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed for wall and projecting signs.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the 20 percent would include signs showing store hours
and "in case of emergency" notices. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would, but the
emergency contact information could be excluded.
Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that temporary window signs in combination with
the permanent window signs could not exceed 30 percent of the window area, except at
Christmastime when 50 percent coverage will be allowed. He noted that temporary
signs could only be used 3 times a year, for 30 days at a time, with approval of a
Temporary Sign Permit. Commissioner Deaton inquired about canvas banners. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that if they have a Banner Permit, this would be, allowed.
Commissioner Deaton inquired about painting on windows. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
this would be categorized as temporary signage, and since this type of painting usually
occurs during the month of December, it would fall under the 50 percent allowance.
The Director of Development Services then reviewed the maintenance standards for
signs, as shown on Page 6. Commissioner Shanks asked if this would include backlit
signs where some of the lights have gone out. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this
would fall within the maintenance standards. He commented that with regard to neon
signs, there is a wide range of opinion on this type of sign. He stated that neon signs
are regaining popularity and in many cases can be quite attractive and beneficial to the
community. He indicated that neon signs are not prohibited, as long as they meet the
size standards. Commissioner Deaton suggested that for businesses with both an
outside sign and window signs, only one of the signs could be lit.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he does not favor neon signs, but noted that the City
of Pasadena has done of good job of regulating neon signs by limiting the tube diameter
used, which provides some control over the illumination or intensity of the lighting. He
said he agreed with Commissioner Deaton's suggestion of limiting the number of neon
signs a business can have. He also commented on businesses having Christmas lights
in their windows during the holiday season, which can also create a lot of added light.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that some businesses do put up the clear Christmas lights and
leave them up all year, which can add a certain flavor to a building while providing some
light to the community. He recommended reviewing decorative lighting separately.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she does like the clear Christmas lights in store
windows, as long as the illumination is not too bright.
Commissioner Shanks asked about controlling businesses that paint signs on vehicles
that advertise their business and then park these vehicles in front of the business or on
another main thoroughfare. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City cannot control signs on
the vehicles; only how long the vehicle is parked on a street. Mr. Abbe confirmed that
this was correct, and that the best way to control this was by limiting the parking time.
Page 10 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
Commissioner Deaton referred to the Pasadena Zoning Ordinance for the use of neon
signs, as listed on Page 16 of the Staff Report, and said that this was an interesting
concept. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one of the ordinances actually prohibits clear,
neon window signs, and this would be something that the City of Seal Beach could
incorporate into the sign ordinance. Commissioner Deaton then referred to the Balboa
Sign Overlay Program as shown at the bottom of Page 10 and asked if this were what
Staff is proposing. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner
Deaton then confirmed that color or light intensity cannot be changed, with the
exception of neon and fiber optic sign light sources. She stated that this type of lighting
would not be desirable along Main Street. She then referred to Page 7 of the Staff
Report under the Dana Point Zoning Ordinance and asked if monument signs within
Seal Beach are to be internally illuminated. Mr. Whittenberg stated that because
monument signs are usually close to the sidewalk, for safety reasons they should be
internally illuminated.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would attempt to have sign company representatives in
attendance at the next meeting on Main Street signs to discuss illumination, and Staff
would also prepare the draft language for the sign standards. He indicated that all
business and property owners along Main Street would receive notice of the proposed
changes. Commissioner Roberts asked if any of the standards are to be retroactively
enforced. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is another issue that must be discussed prior
to making a recommendation to City Council.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg extended congratulations to Commissioner Sharp who will celebrate
his 91 st birthday on Saturday, February 26th.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Sharp stated that he felt the City had a good sign ordinance until these
recent issues with Main Street Square arose. Commissioner Deaton agreed, and stated
that if this corner would clean itself up, it would save the PC a lot of grief.
Commissioner Shanks asked when the models for John Laing Homes (JLH) would be
open for viewing. Mr. Whittenberg stated that JLH has received approval from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) to begin construction of the first phase of 14
homes, and the models will not be open until some of the first phase homes are under
construction, which might be around the end of March.
Chairperson Ladner inquired about the status of the Carl's Jr. Restaurant under
construction in the Seal Beach Center. Mr. Whittenberg reported that building plans
have been approved and permits can be issued once the fees are paid. Chairperson
Page 11 of 12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2005
Ladner asked when the parking lot would be repaved. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he
could find out what the final timing on this would be.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Ladner adjourned the meeting at 9:19 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
C\~ >-.A~ AA ~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on March 23, 2005 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, February 23,2005. ~ .
Page 12 of 12