Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/27/1993Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended on page 1 to indicate the August 23, 1993 minutes on the Consent Calendar, and on page 8, third paragraph, to read "...it appears, relative to our CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at, the South Coast Air Quality Management District auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Planned Sign Also present were Community Development Director Program James 'DeStef ano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, No. 93-3 Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and .Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT VC/Plunk requested that the minutes of September CALENDAR: 13, 1993 be amended on page 2 to replace the word "thee ',with the word "a Los Angeles County Deputy Minutes of City Attorney", and replace the word "distracting" Sept. 13, 1993 with "detracting". Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended on page 1 to indicate the August 23, 1993 minutes on the Consent Calendar, and on page 8, third paragraph, to read "...it appears, relative to our review of those signs in the public right of way, that it isn't as important to meet the sign code requirements as it is to achieve the intent of the law." C/Flamenbaum requested that the minutes be amended on page 7 to indicate "Review of Entrance Signs". Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the .minutes of September 13, 1993 as amended. " NEW BUSINESS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request, made by Diamond Sign Company, for approval Planned Sign of a Planned Sign Program for an existing retail Program shopping center, Diamond Bar Town Center, and the No. 93-3 placement of a freestanding monument sign along Diamond Bar Blvd. The Sign Ordinance states that when more than one wall sign or a monument sign is requested for a commercial center, Planning Commission review and approval is required. _The purpose and the intent of the Sign Ordinance is to p -u bring conformity into the signage of the center. Staff has reviewed the specifications for the proposed 6' X 8' monument sign and has determined that the proposed sign is not compatible with the stucco exterior materials of the buildings on site nor with other stucco monument signs adjacent to this parcel. The applicant has indicated that they September 27, 1993 Page 2 feel the material proposed for the sign is preferable from the standpoint of maintenance, and that the aesthetics would not be a drop off from the adjacent signage. Staff also has concerns related to omissions in the Planned Sign Program, as submitted. The Planned Sign program should include a section describing the monument sign specifications, i.e. lighting, installation, and construction materials, and include criteria outlining those tenants which will be allowed to appear on the monument sign. The information provided to the Commission was recently submitted by the applicant in reply to staff's request for further information. Staff has not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the information submitted to determine if all of staff's concerns were met. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff and the applicant to work together to satisfy all the requirements of the Planned Sign Program and to bring the Program back to the Commission at the October 11, 1993 meeting, or toapprovethe Program with direction to staff to work with the applicant to work out the minor details. C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the 6' X 8' monument sign is not adequate in size to.provide sufficient sign space for the amount of tenants proposed. He questioned if the sign will be - legible to motorists as they are driving by. AP/Searcy stated that the Sign Ordinance limits the sign to 6 feet and 72 square feet of sign facia. There is a sign in another center on Golden Springs that has .a free standing sign similar to the one s being proposed, but with more tenants, resembling a menu board type of sign. CDD/DeStefano explained that the City does not have any prescribed criteria that would regulate 'the minimum amount of square footage necessary for each tenant. It is up to the experience and creativity of -the Sign Company, based on the needs of the tenants and the property owners, to determine the appropriate sign criteria. It has never been this City's policy to ensure that every tenant in the center is identified by the freestanding sign. Usually the larger tenants within that Center, that tend to identify that center, are placed on the sign. AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Meyer, explained that staff is still awaiting a response to ithe letter, dated September 17, 1993, sent to ;the September 27, 1993 Page 3 Property Manager and to the Sign Company asking them to create a monument sign specification section dealing with the types of construction material, lighting, the installation, and the illumination, and to outline a criteria for those tenants that would appear on the sign. Currently, everyone at that center has signage, and the only denial would be for the monument sign. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public testimony. Kim Kasell, 3057 Yukon Ave., Costa Mesa, owner of Diamond Sign Company, explained that the 72 square foot sign was utilized because they believed that was the specifications outlined in the Sign Ordinance. The purpose of the sign is to identify the 15 tenants occupying the back of the center so motorists driving into the center are made aware of their existence. She presented a sample of the aluminum post that will be utilized for the sign. The material used, with the powder coating, will ensure the longevity of the sign. A cement base can -be used to match the other signs, however, it would probably look at lot more attractive with planting underneath. Kim Kasell then explained that a sign criteria was not originally submitted for the center because they had thought that the City, upon incorporation, had taken over the sign criteria from the County. A sign criteria will be submitted as soon as possible. However, because there is a 4 week lag in ordering the monument sign, there is a desire to have the monument sign approved as soon as possible. Kim Kasell, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that the letters on the sign would have to be about all high in order to be visible to motorists traveling 45 mph, which would create a huge sign. The lettering for the name of the center will be 8" high. However, the intent of putting the tenants name on the sign is to identify them after the motorists have entered the center,'not as they are driving by. C/Grothe expressed his dislike of menu board type of signs. The purpose of signage is to draw tenants into the shopping center using the anchor stores, which in turn attracts business to the smaller stores in the center. The sign should match the style and the aesthetics of the rest of the signs on the shopping center, which are backed with box signs. September 27, 1993 Page 4 VC/Plunk suggested that it would be better to have less tenants on the sign, or to split the sign front and back, enlargening the letters to 8" so that the sign is legible to motorists while driving at 45 mph. Kim Kasell stated that, for aesthetic reasons,;a sign with 8" lettering would not be preferable. The intent of the sign is to identify the stores in the back of the center once the motorist has entered the shopping center. Chair/Meyer inquired if staff feels that the application can be made to meet the sign code. AP/Searcy stated that it would have been preferable had the Property Management Company been present at this meeting to participate in the deliberations. However, it is staff's opinion that a finish product can be presented to the Commission at the next meeting, following a meeting with staff and the applicant to work out the minor details. He pointed out to the applicant that the Sign Cade allows the applicant to have a sign face of 72 square feet per side of sign. Motion was made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe to continue the matter to the next meeting. C/Grothe suggested that the Commission give some direction to staff and the applicant regarding the sign. He made the following comments: the building material, which is not compatible with any signs in the neighborhood, is unacceptable; there Jr" are too many tenants on the sign; and get away from the menu board type of sign, and place three or four major logos to draw customers to the shopping center instead. C/Flamenbaum concurred with C/Grothe that the sign is incompatible with the existing center. It should be made to be similar in its appearance to that which is on the rest of the property. Perhaps a variance is needed to allow the monument sign to be increased, utilizing 4" or 5" lettering, to make it more useful to the tenants. i C/Li, in support of the continuance, requested a more complete report at the next meeting enabling the Commission to make a decision. VC/Plunk made the following comments: the sign should be taller so that it does not block -...A ..... ....a_ 144 —,46W1l4nwm-nn . 4 , _— September 27, 1993 Page 5 visibility for motorists; there should be less tenants on the sign or the sign should be increased in size so that the lettering is tall enough to be visible from the street; and the base should match the adjacent sign, or have the block match the wall. Kim Kasell stated that she will go back to the Management Company and attempt to start over if needed. The material for the sign was chosen for it's durability and it's pleasing aesthetic appearance. However, we will comply with the Commission's desire to make the sign as compatible as .possible. The Commission voted upon the Motion as made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe to continue Planned Sign Program No. 93-3 to the October 11, 1993 meeting, with direction to staff to meet with the applicant to work out the details. The Motion CARRIED 4-1. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Grothe, Li, and Chair/Meyer. VC/Plunk. None. None. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the City unveiled it's City On Line program at the September 21, 1993 City Council meeting. The program is designed to enhance the delivery and accessibility of public services to the community. CDD/DeStefano reviewed the Project Matrix, as submitted to the Commission, making appropriate corrections. CDD/DeStefano then made the following comments: there is a hearing on General Plan issues scheduled September 28, 1993; the City Council extended the Interim Ordinance No. 5 for another year, restricting agricultural uses; the City Council authorized staff to prepare an RFP for a consultant to develop and implement a strategic plan for the economic development needs of the City; and the Property Maintenance Ordinance discussed by the Commission during a study session was inadvertently noticed improperly, thus, any individual who expressed a desire to have spoken'on that issue will be placed on the City's mailing list for that item so that they are informed for the upcoming public hearing. September 27, 2993 Page 6 VC/Plunk, noting the loft attendance of an audience, stated that the auditorium is too big for the needs of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/ti and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectivel mes DeStefamo Secretary Attest: David Me Chairman 4 a wWd y 3 r '4 •, a�.. .. ,, ., � i. i it •.n �. W, ,, a++ � � � '� �' �"'� t&' r'� �' � tk +b3 rr�;,f t , -. �i It EW BUSINESS: AP/Searcy resented the staff report regarding th request, made by Diamond Sign Company, f or approva CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planned Sigi of a Planned Sign Program f or an existing retail CALL TO ORDER: chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at, the South Coast Air Quality Management District auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Program shopping center, Diamond Bar Town Center, and PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. No. 93-1 placement of a freestanding monument sign alon CONSENT VC/Plunk requested that the minutes of September CALENDAR: 13, 1993 be amended on page 2 to replace the word "the" with the word "a Los Angeles County Deputy Minutes of City Attorney", and replace,the word "distracting" Sept. 13, 1993 with "detracting". Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended on page 1 to indicate the August 23, 1993 minutes on the Consent Calendar, and on page 8, third paragraph, to read 11... it appears, relative to our review of those signs in the public right of way, that it isnft as important to meet the sign code requirements as it is to achieve the intent of the law. 11 Diamond Bar Blvd. The Sign Ordinance states tha C/Flamenbaum requested that the minutes be amended on page 7 to indicate "Review of Entrance Signs". when more than one wall sign or a monument si nl Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED .minutes of September 13, 1993 as am Dnded. requested for a commercial center, Plannin Commission review and approval is required. -Th purpose and the intent of the Sign Ordinance is t bring conformity into the signage of the center Staff has reviewed the specifications for th proposed 61 X 8f monument sign and has determine that the proposed sign is not compatible with th -stucco exterior materials of the buildings on sit nor with other stucco monument signs adjacent t this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the September 27, 1993 Page 2 feel the material proposed for the sign is preferable from the standpoint of maintenance, and that the aesthetics would not be a drop of f from the adjacent signage. Staff also has concerns related to omissions in the Planned Sign Program, as submitted. The Planned Sign program should include a section describing the monument sign specifications, i.e. lighting, installation, and construction materials, and include criteria outlining those tenants which will be allowed to appear on the monument sign. The information provided to the Commission was recently submitted by the applicant in reply to staffs request for further information. Staff has not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the information submitted to determine if all of staff's concerns were met. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff and the applicant to work together to satisfy all the requirements of the Planned Sign Program and to bring the Program back to the Commission at the October 11, 1993 meeting, or to approve the Program with direction to staff to work with the applicant to work out the minor details. C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the 61 X 81 monument sign is not adequate in size to provide sufficient sign space for the amount of tenants proposed. He questioned if the sign will ; belegible to motorists as they are driving by. AP/Searcy stated that the Sign Ordinance limits the sign to 6 feet and 72 square feet of sign facia. There is a sign in another center on Golden Springs that has a free standing sign similar to the one being proposed, but with more tenants, resembling a menu board type of sign. CDD/DeStefano explained that the City does not have any prescribed criteria that would regulate the minimum amount of square footage necessary for each tenant. It is up to the experience and creativity of - the Sign Company, based on the needs of the tenants and the property owners, to determine the appropriate sign criteria. It has never been this City's policy to ensure that every tenant in the center is identified by the freestanding sign. Usually the larger tenants within that Center, that tend to identify that center, are placed on the sign. AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Meyer, explained that stat f is still awaiting a response to the letter, dated September 17, 1993, sent to the September 27, 1993 Page 3 Property Manager and to the Sign Company asking them to create a monument sign specification section dealing with the types of construction material, lighting, the installation, and the illumination, and to outline a criteria for those tenants that would appear on the sign. Currently, everyone at that center has signage, and the only denial would be for the monument sign. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public testimony. Kim Kasell, 3057 Yukon Ave., Costa Mesa, owner of Diamond Sign Company, explained that the 72 square foot sign was utilized because they believed that was the specifications outlined in the Sign Ordinance. The purpose of the sign is to identify the 15 tenants occupying the back of the center so motorists driving into the center are made aware of their existence. She presented a sample of the aluminum post that will be utilized for the sign. The material used, with the powder coating, will ensure the longevity of the sign. A cement base can:be used to match the other signs, however, it would probably look at lot more attractive with planting underneath. Kim Kasell then explained that a sign criteria was not originally submitted for the center because they had thought that the city, upon incorporation, had taken over the sign criteria from the County. A sign criteria will be submitted as soon as possible. However, because there is a 4 week lag in ordering the monument sign, there is a desire to have the monument sign approved as soon as possible. Kim Kasell! in response to C/Flamenbaum, statO'-;d' that the letters on the sign would have to be about 811 high in order to be visible to motorists traveling 45 mph, which would create a huge sign. The lettering for the name of the center will be 811 high. However, the intent of putting the tenants name on the sign is to identify them after the motorists have entered the center, not as they are driving by. C/Grothe expressed his dislike of menu board type of signs. The purpos 'e of signage is to draw tenants into the shopping center using the anchor stores, which in turn attracts business to the smaller stores in the center. The sign shou -1d match the style and the aesthetics of the rest,of the signs on the shopping center, which are backed with box signs. September 27, 1993 Page 4 VC/Plunk suggested that it would be better to have less tenants on the sign, or to split the sign front and back, enlargening the letters to 811 so that the sign is legible to motorists while driving at 45 mph. Kim Kasell stated that, for aesthetic reaso 'ns„a sign with all lettering would not be preferable. The intent of the sign is to identify the stores in the back of the center once the motorist has entered the shopping center. Chair/Meyer inquired if staff feels that the application can be made to meet the sign code. AP/Searcy stated that it would have been preferable had the Property Management Company been present at this meeting to participate in the deliberations. However, it is staff's opinion that a finish product can be presented to the Commission at the next meeting, following a meeting with staff and the applicant to work out the minor details. He pointed out to the applicant that the Sign Code allows the applicant to have a sign face of —72 square feet per side of sign. Motion was made by Chair/Meyer and seconded — by C/Grothe to continue the matter to the next meeting. I C/Grothe suggested that the Commission give some direction to staff and the applicant regarding the sign. He made the following comments: the building material, which is not compatible with an y signs in the neighborhood, is unacceptable; there are too many tenants on the sign; and get away from the menu board type of sign, and place three or four major logos to draw customers to the shopping center instead. C/Flamenbaum concurred with C/Grothe that the sign is incompatible with the existing center. it should be made to be similar in its appearance to that which is on the rest of the property. Perhaps a variance is needed to allow the monument sign to be increased, utilizing 411 or 511 lettering, to make it more useful to the tenants. C/Li, in support of the continuance, requested a more complete report at the next meeting enabling the Commission to make a decision. VC/Plunk made the following comments: the sign should be taller so that it does not block I _ ,-, ,„---1-----11---11-6 September 27, 1993 Page 5 visibility for motorists; there should be less tenants on the sign or the sign should be increased in size so that the lettering is tall enough to be visible from the street; and the base should match the adjacent sign, or have the block match the wall. Kim Kasell stated that she will go back to the Management Company and attempt to start over if needed. The material for the sign was chosen for it's durability and it's pleasing aesthetic appearance. However, we will comply with the commission's desire to make the sign as compatible aspossible. The commission voted upon the Motion as made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe to continue Planned Sign Program No. 93-3 to the October 11, 1993 meeting, with direction to staff to meet with the applicant to work out the details. The Motion CARRIED 4-1. 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS:-Flamenbaum, Grothe, Li, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ARNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the City unveiled it's City On Line program at the September 21, 1993 City council meeting. The program is designed to enhance the delivery and accessibility of public services to the community. CDD/DeStefano reviewed the Project Matrix, as, submitted to the Commission, making appropriai-e corrections. CDD/DeStefano thenmade the followifig comments: there is a hearing on General Pl,-n issues scheduled September 28, 1993; the City Council extended the Interim Ordinance No. 5 for another year, restricting agricultural uses; the City Council authorized staff to prepare an RFP for a consultant to develop and implement a strategic plan for the economic development needs of the City; and the Property Maintenance Ordinance discussed by the Commission during a study session was inadvertently noticed improperly, thus, any individual who expressed a desire to have spoken -on that issue will be placed on the City's mailing list f or that item so that they are informed for the upcoming public hearing. September 27, 1993 Page 6 VC/Plunk, noting the low attendance of an audience, stated that the auditorium is too big for the needs of the Planning Commission. Notion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED ADJOURNKENT: UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectivel sp e— ve-L 4 - -1 mes DeStefano me eStefano ] Attest: David Me Chairman