Loading...
PC Min 05/28/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 28, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1996, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman Lindstrom, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Susan A. Kearns I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Dennis Lowe Staff Present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Attorney: William Seligmann Reporting Secretary: Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission minutes of May 14, 1996, were approved. (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent) COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REOUESTS: There were no oral requests. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 2 MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. SA 96-17 Continued Hearing to consider the application of Hollywood Video for approval of a Sign Application to allow two wall signs on property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking approval for two 57 square foot wall signs that exceed the 50 square foot size allowed under the Sign Ordinance. · This application was first considered at the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1996, and was continued to this meeting to allow the applicant to work out design issues. · Contained in the staff report are a list of previous exceptions to the City's Sign Ordinance. · Staff suggests that the Commission separate this application into two issues. The first, the size of the lettering. The second, the consideration of the background. · Staff finds that the lettering size is warranted due to the building setback from the street. Previous exceptions have been allowed when a building is distant from the public street. · The proposed increase from the Ordinance is minor (57 s.f. versus 50 s.f.) · Typically, the background behind a sign is not counted as part of that sign. There is a fine line between the background serving as an architectural element or an advertising message. · Advised that the grey background depicted in some of the sample photographs is not recommended by staff for the Pruneyard sign. · Staff is recommending that the mural reflect a realistic depiction of a hillside. · Staff finds that an artistic rendering adds life and color to the building and center. · Such a mural is not cheap. One example in Los Gatos cost $35,000. Not a lot of people will jump at the idea of paying for such a mural. · Advised that the Commission can approve or deny the sign. If denied, the applicant will be limited to one 50 square feet sign. · If the Commission chooses to approve the lettering, they can refer the consideration of the mural background to staff and/or SARC. · A third option is that the Commission can elect to count the mural as part of the sign area. · Applicant needs to know to order the sign. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Alne asked staff to repeat the proposed sizing of the sign. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that if the background is counted, the Bascom Avenue frontage sign would be 153 square feet and the Campbell Avenue frontage sign would be 177 square feet. Commissioner Gibbons advised: · That she concurred with staff to separate the two issues. · Stated that she felt the lettering size can be considered reasonable. · The neon outlining the hills leads her to consider that feature a component of the sign. · By separating the two issues, the applicant can proceed with the lettering part of the sign while mural studies can go forward (without use of additional neon). Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that questions, regarding whether the use of neon is appropriate, are good questions and make a valid point. Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commission for a recommendation of action. Should the sign lettering be considered first? Commissioner Alne advised that the sign application gives Hollywood Video 325 square feet of sign area instead of 50 square feet. Chairman Lindstrom asked Commissioner Alne whether he felt the need to consider the background as part of the sign. Commissioner Alne responded that the proposed letter was acceptable and tastefully done. Chairman Lindstrom asked for a motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons. seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission moved to approve the 57 square foot lettering of the two Hollywood Video wall signs (SA 95-17). (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent) Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commission for a discussion regarding the proposed mural background and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Matthew Howarth, Applicant. A rendering has been provided however staff has requested more detail to the mural to make it more lifelike. He has no problem enhancing the details of the mural. They have used earth tone colors which were approved for the Pruneyard. The proposed use of neon serves as an accent (outlining the hills) and lighting for evening hours. During the daytime hours, the neon is not visible. The store at San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek is an example of what they are proposing. Commissioner Alne stated that he felt it is a mistake to use earth tones to mask the fiction that the mural is an architectural feature of the center. If a mural is to be used, make it as attractive as possible, using all colors necessary. It is a disservice to the building and the sign. Let them use whatever colors needed to make a tasteful mural. Chairman Lindstrom asked Mr. Howarth what the mural conception was at this time. Mr. Matthew Howarth responded that there are probably ten conceptions in the room at this time alone. The conception could change if they are able to use more colors rather than the original earth tones discussed. He is in favor of using more colors as it gives their graphic artist more freedom. He will bring more detailed drawings for staff to review. They can order their signs and come back with a design for the mural. Commissioner Jones added his view that the painted hillside is not an architectural feature but rather a part of the sign. He stated that he can't vote when he's not even sure what the Commission is voting on. It is important to select the best design possible for this center. It is difficult to allow a 300 square foot sign for one business. Commissioner Gibbons advised that she agrees with Commissioner Jones' concerns. Using neon to outline the hills makes it a part of the sign. She recommends that the use of neon be eliminated. Commissioner Kearns stated that she likes the sign as presented to SARC. Neon adds to the sign's appearance in the evening. She added that she trusts staff regarding the use of colors on the mural. SARC can review if staff feels it is necessary. She is comfortable with, and supportive of, the sign. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy admitted that she is torn. While she likes the idea of the mural she does not like neon. However, other uses of neon in the City have been well done. She feels that neon, as proposed, is part of the sign. If used in a tasteful way, neon may enhance the sign. She has concern regarding extensive use of neon in the center. Chairman Lindstrom reminded the Commission that the lettering at 57 square feet has already been approved. He stated that he feels the mural is a part of the sign. There is a fine line between the mural and the sign. Is this a precedent? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that it was a precedent and that findings to support the approval would be required. The Commissioners can decide that they don't want to allow murals as part of a sign in Campbell or they can say a mural is a good feature with careful scrutiny. Andy's Pet Shop in San Jose had a mural depicting animals on their site. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that the Sign Ordinance is old and asked, "are we sticking to old rules when trying to modernize a shopping center. Maybe the Sign Ordinance is outdated!" She continued that perhaps if a sign is tastefully done, it can be larger than allowed under the current Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Alne admitted that the Sign Ordinance is old and the Planning Commission has relaxed its use of the Ordinance. The Commission has the authority to exercise discretion. City Attorney William Seligmann advised the Commission that if they consider the background a part of the approved sign they will need to adopt findings to support the approval as follows: · The use would not be adequately identified; · The site is difficult to locate; and/or · The use is of such size or so located in reference to other uses and traffic that a larger sign is necessary. Commissioner Alne advised: · That backgrounds have been allowed in the past. · The Ordinance has not been changed in any magnitude. · In the past the use of backgrounds has been ignored. · This particular background is more pronounced than previous backgrounds. Asked whether the Commission could argue that the Sign Ordinance is not being gutted. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Pa~e 6 City Attorney William Seligmann again advised that if the background is found to be a part of the sign, findings of fact will be required. Commissioner Alne recommended that the Planning Commission ignore the background and simply approve the lettering. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether a mural could be installed without Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Alne said it could if the mural is just a part of the background and not a part of the sign. Chairman Lindstrom advised that he felt they should consider the background. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the neon be removed and that he would need to see a final rendering of the mural. The mural should simply represent a background and not provide an advertising message. Chairman Lindstrom advised that the applicant should work with staff to obtain the final approval on the mural. Mr. Steve Piasecki asked Mr. Howarth how long he would need to design the mural. Mr. Matthew Howarth responded two to four weeks. He will know better at the end of this week. Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification. Was the background to be considered a feature of the sign. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the interpretation is that staff is satisfied with the mural, the mural will be treated as a background and not fall under the jurisdiction of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Jones asked whether the Sign Ordinance was out of date and needed to be revised. Was the Commission stepping outside of the bounds of the Sign Ordinance? Suggested that something be added to the Ordinance to offer guidelines for future requests such as this. In effect, the sign approved is 300 square feet rather than 100 square feet. Chairman Lindstrom advised that he agrees that a review of the Sign Ordinance is in order. Commissioner Jones asked whether the Commission can approve exceptions. Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that they could. Commissioner Alne advised that he chooses to conclude that any lack of specificity in the Ordinance allows his discretion. Council has given that discretion to the Commission to do what their good judgement tells them to do. In good conscience, the Commission can to what they feel is appropriate. Motiom Upon motion of Commissioner Alne. seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to direct staff to review the applicant's plan for a mural background and if staff has concerns to bring the proposal back to the Commission. (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent) The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with the following comments: · SARC meets on Thursday, May 30th. Commissioner Alne advised that he will be out of town from late June through July. He will be present for the June llth meeting but not for the June 25th meeting nor either of the July meetings. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the carriage house. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this project would be brought to the Commission in June. The Rogers and Bruce Bowen have come to an agreement. The Rogers will seek a Variance because the structure is too high. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether Oil Changers denial was upheld by Council. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the decision of the Commission was upheld and Oil Changers will have to remove the canopy. Chairman Lindstrom asked if a time frame has been established. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that no time frame has been established as staff has not received response to phone calls. Planning Commission Minutes of Ma), 28, 1996 Page 8 AD!OURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITI'ED BY: ~ Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary air · }',~z APPROVED BY: -- Steven Piase~:ki, Secretary ATTEST: