Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/1989.b VICE MAYOR REFERRAL (PROPOSED ORDINANCES ONLY) DATE OF REFERRAL: February 15, 1989 REFERRED TO: Urban Development Committee (Jack Hardisty) ITEM: (Proposed) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Amending Sections 17.60.030 29., 17.60.110 G.1., 17.60.110 K.1., 17.60.110 0.1 and 17.60.260 F.6. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and Adding Sections 17.60.245 and 17.60.265 to the Bakersfield Municipal Code Relating to~ Signs. BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: Yes STATUS: ~/ To Council Committee on / Committee Report sent to Council ~ Ordinance Adopted ~Z/~ ? '(d~te) Proposed Ordinance Cancelled (date) Other JP cc: Stanley Grady City Clerk Mary Ellen Gonzales Refer.8 MEMORANDUM February 6, 1989 TO: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: STANLEY GRADY, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE In accordance with the new ordinance review policy, I am hereby transmitting the attached Administrative Report and backup material for the subject ordinance. Please advise me of the date and Council Committee to which this item will be referred to for review. I am available to meet with you and Councilwoman Smith con- cerning this matter at your convenience. SG:iw sg.i . ' QADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Meeting Date: Agenda Section New Bus i n e s s Agenda Item: TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Approved FROM: Development Services-Planning Department Head DATE: City Manager S UBJE SECTIONS 17.60.030 29., 17.60.110 G.1., 17.60.110 K.1., 17.60.110 O.1 17.60.260 F.6. OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.60.245 AND 17.60.265 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS. RECOMMENDATION: First reading. BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 17.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code related to subdivision directional signs, flags and banners for tract sales offices and model homes, non-conforming signs, defines what constitutes a "parcel of property" and adds a section regarding skyline building identification wall signs. The sections proposed to be amended are as follows: 17.60.030 (29) clarifying the definition of "Parcel of Property". 17.60.010 (G-i) increasing the maximum height of sub- division directional signs from 8 feet to 12 feet. 17.010 (K-i) - increasing the maximum height of off- premises subdivision directional signs from 8 feet to 12 feet. 17.60.110 (O-l.a. & 1.b.) setting forth conditions for permitting additional flags and banners for tract sales offices and model homes without the approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and, setting forth conditions for permitting flags and banners for con- dominium projects having less than twenty units and for those having more than twenty units. ADM INISTRATIVE' REPORT Page 2 February 15, 1989 17.60.260 (F-6) clarifying the changes that can and cannot be made to a non-conforming signs. The proposed ordinance adds the following Section: 17.60.245 setting forth standards for skyline building signs in C-O, C-l, C-2, M-1 and M-2 Zones. The public hearing draft of the ordinance contained amendments and additions related to outdoor advertising signs. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 19, 1989, the Commission voted to remove those sections and refer them back to the Zoning Ordinance Committee for further study. The Zoning Ordinance Committee discussed the proposed Sign Ordinance changes on November 29, 1988, and December 14, 1988. The commit- tee also considered a request by Oceanic California, Inc. to allow subdivi- sion directional signs in the public right-of-way. The committee decided not to include that amendment in this ordinance because it could not iden- tify the public benefit that would be derived by such action. A Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on January 6, 1989. NB. iw COMMITTEE REPORT TO: CHAIRMAN COHN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Sign Ordinance The sign ordinance committee met on November 29, 1988 and December 14, 1988 to discuss the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance. The proposed revisions to the sign ordinance were referred to this committee so that further consideration could be given to the provisions of State Planning Law requiring a sign inventory in connection with amendments to a City's sign ordinance, and to give consideration to including Oceanic Inc.'s pro- posal to amend the Ordinance to allow directional signs in the public right-of-way and to allow them at distances greater than one mile from an advertised subdivision. It was felt that it would be better to consider any additional amendments to the sign ordinance at this time. The main discussion in the meeting was regarding the signage program pro- posed by Oceanic to allow the placement of~directional signs in the public right-of-way. The sign ordinance as it exists today does not allow the placement of any signs in the public right-of-way. The committee viewed Oceanic's sign program as a marketing tool for its large sections of land but had difficulty in identifying benefit to any other developer or the public. It Was felt that the village sign concept could be accomplished to some degree under the existing sign ordinance without the placement of signs in the public right-of-way. Furthermore through discussion it became apparent that the village sign concept was difficult to write in ordinance form so that it would be fair to all developers. It was also difficult to derive any public benefit from allowing outdoor advertising signs in the public right-of-way. With that in mind it was suggested that there are other outdoor advertising instruments available that are legal under the sign ordinance that could accomplish some of the desired identification needs represented in Oceanic's sign program. The personalized'nature of the Oceanic sign program for marketing purposes is not purely identification or directional and has the potential for cre- ating conflict with other regulations contained in the sign ordinance that cannot be easily resolved. If the village concept was written in such a way that Oceanic's si'gn program would be allowed what would happen where Oceanic's boundary is in common with another large land owner? Who would. get to put their sign in the public right-of-way first? These kinds of questions cannot be easily addressed in an ordinance. Committee Report - Proposed Amendments to the Sign Ordinance Page 2 Therefore it is recommended that the Planning Commission proceed with the adoption of the sign ordinance as originally presented to the Planning Commission relating to skyline building signs and clarifying language for better enforcement of the sign ordinance. The committee is not recommend- ing that the proposed amendments by Oceanic become a part of the ~urrent amendments. The committee recognizes Oceanic's right to try and change the ordinance but doesn't feel that the change should be initiated by the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, COMM~SI~ ~F~LAZJO ~airman 4: CRSO ORDINANCE NO. NEW SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING SECTIONS 17.60.030 29., 17.60.110 G.i., 17.60.110 K.i., 17.60.110 O.1. AND 17.60.260 F.6. OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICI- PAL CODE AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.60.245 AND 17.601265 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the CitY of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 17.60.030 29° of the Bakersfield Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.030 Definitions. 29. "Parcel of property" means any separate legal lot or parcel of land; provided that when a shopping center has been divided into separate parcels, it shall continue to be considered as one parcel for purposes of this chapter; and further provided that where two or more contiguous parcels of property are utilized for a single business or enterprise, sharing common off-street parking facilities and access, such parcels shall be considered one parcel for purposes of this chapter. ~- SECTION 2. Section 17.60.110 G.1. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.110 Permitted in R-S, R-S-lA, R-S-2½A, R-S-5A, R-S-10A· and R-1 districts. The following signs are permitted in the R-S, R-S-lA, R-S-2½A, R-S-5A, R-S-10A and R-1 districts. G. Two subdivision directional signs for each new subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. No such sign shall exceed eight square feet in area or twelve feet in height. SECTION 3. Section 17.60.110 K.1. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.110 Permitted in R-S, R-S-lA, R-S-2½A, R-S-5A, R-S-10A and R-1 districts. K. Four off-premises subdivision directional signs for each new subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. No such sign shall exceed eight square feet in area or twelve feet in height. SECTION 4. Section 17.60.110 0.1. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.110 Permitted in R-S, R-S-lA, R-S-2½A, R-S-5A, R-S-10A and R-1 districts. O. Flags and banners for tract sales offices and model homes shall be permitted subject to the following: 1. a. A maximum of three flag poles shall be permit- ted on each lot on which is situated a tract sales office or model home. Only one such lot is permitted for any tract, however, if such lots~ front on a residential street which does not intersect with a collector or arterial street at the nearest intersection to such tract sales offices or model homes, then two additional lots will be permitted three flag poles each, if their side or rear lot lines abut a collector or arterial street. b. Condominium projects of less than twenty units shall be permitted six flag poles; projects with twenty or more units shall be permitted nine flag poles. Additional flag poles may be approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Such flag poles shall be located within the project. SECTION 5. Section 17.60.260 F.6.'of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.60.260 Nonconforminq sign~. - 2 - F. 6. Any change in the signage, excluding minor repairs and precise repainting, but not later than the expiration of the period of time applicable to a particular sign or signs as set forth in subsection G. below; such period commences to run upon the effective date of the ordinance first enacting this chapter, upon the completion date of annexation, or upon the effective date of an amendment to this chapter, whichever makes the sign nonconforming, or the date upon which the sign otherwise becomes nonconforming. SECTION 6. Section 17.60.245 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 17.60.245 Skyline building identification wall signs. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a permit may be issued for a wall sign providing long distance visual identification of a building or its primary tenant in a C-0, C-l, C-2, M-1 or M-2 zone, subject to the following condi- tions: A. No such sign may be installed on more than two elevations of any building; B. All such signs shall be located on the top story or between the top story and the top of the building; C. All such signs shall be comprised solely of individual letters or logos installed a minimum of three (3) inches and a maximum of twelve (12) inches from the surface of the wall on which they are located. Illumination may be provided by indirect reverse lighting or internal illumination with lighting behind a substance approved by the Building Director. Floodlighting of the sign shall not be allowed; D. No such sign shall have a horizontal dimension exceeding one hundred (100) feet or sixty (60) percent of the horizontal dimension of the building measured at the elevation at which the sign is to be placed, whichever is smaller; E. No sign shall be placed within two (2) times the height of the first letter or log from the vertical edge of the building; F. The property owner shall designate in writing the primary tenant of the building, if such tenant is to be identified by such a sign; - 3 - G. Subject to the following exceptions, no sign shall have letters which exceed the height shown in Table A, below: TABLE A Height of Maximum Height Building of Letters (Feet) (Inches) 30 24 40 24 50 24 60 34 70 44 80 54 90 64 100 74 120 or greater 84 Capital letter, when used in conjunction with lower case letters may be 1.5 times such height; a logo, used individually or as part of a sign, may be two (2) times such height; H. All such signs shall be limited to a single line of letters and/or logo; I. No such sign shall be permitted in addition to a free-standing identification sign except for monument signs other- wise permitted by this chapter; · J. All other wall signs permitted by this chapter which are to be placed on a building displaying a sign permitted by this section may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the area which would otherwise be permitted by this chapter, and each such sign shall be so placed on the building that the highest point of the sign does.not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from grade; K. No comprehensive sign plan for wall signs may be less restrictive than permitted by the requirements of this section. - 4 - SECTION 7. Section 17.60.265 is hereby added to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 17.60.265 Inventory of illegal or abandoned advertising displays. The building director or his designee shall inventory illegal or abandoned advertising displays within the city. Such inventory shall commence within six months of the adoption of this ordinance. Within eight months of the adoption of this ordinance, the building director shall commence abatement of the identified pre-existing illegal and abandoned on-premises advertising displays. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the City charter provisions and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. -o0o - 5 - I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of 'the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on following vote: , by the CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield AJS/LCM/meg 00RD 4 HIGHRISE1 2/03/89 - 6 - Minutes, P1/C, ~I'/~9 Page 8 8. PUBLIC H~ARING - NAMIN'G~I~PRIVATE STREET - LOUDON STREET" (continued) this street naming, d~School District who requested Mr. John Karnes represente Motion was made by Commissioner-~'Rosenli~Commissioner Milazzo, Commission approved the street name "Loudon St~ " t~ as requested and advertised and recommended adoption of same to~ity Council. A ten-minute recess was taken. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SIGN ORDINANCE Assisant Planning Director Grady gave the staff report indicating that when the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance were brought to the Commission, they dealt with some clarifying language along with a placement of signs on high rise buildings, it had a table which pro- posed some lettering sizes and setback sizes, but at that time there was also some discussion about amending the sign ordinance to allow signs in the public right of way. The committee discussed that issue and .it was felt that it should not become a part of this amendment and the committee had some difficulty coming up with language to make it a separate amendment to the sign ordinance and suggested that Oceanic, Inc., proceed on their own accord rather than having the zoning ordi- nance committee raise that issue. Public hearing was opened. Chairman Cohn informed audience and Commission that testimony would be taken first on the high rise portion of the ~rdinance. Mr. Tom Dinwoody spoke in favor but was opposed to the usage of a cou- ple of words in the ordinance, referring to Page 4, paragraph "C", the word non-illuminated is used and he found it difficult how a high rise hotel that is trying to attact one night tenants is going to be able to identify its presence. Building Director asked that Mr. Dinwoody come up with suggestions for different wording. Mr. Wayne McNamee owner of Center Neon Company, commended the committee on the work they have done on this ordinance. However, he objected to item "C", Page~4 and asked that the wording in the second line of the first sentence which reads, "non-illuminated and are" be stricken and changed to read, "all such signs shall be comprised solely of individ- ual letters or logos" then continue with the word "installed" and insert "with faces a minimum of three inches and a maximum of 12" from the surface", or have it read, "installed with a minimum projection of three inches and a maximum projection of 12 inches from the surface. He was also troubled with "the illumination may be provided by indirect revese lighting, commenting that it is nice but if that is the only way that it can be lighted, it will not be adequate for the purpose of which this ordinance is being drafted. Minutes, P1/C, 1/19/89 Page 9 9. PUBLIC H~ARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SIGN ORDINANCE (continued) Mr. McNamee also commented there is new material on'the market that would work well with this type of lighting. He also suggested that Item "G", 15 and 18 inch figures be changed to 24 to allow the 24 inch maximum up to the 50 foot height of the building. Item "H", objected to letters and/or logo, basically because no build- ing is the same, every building should be looked at in its own way. Item "I", eliminates any possibility of having a high rise sign if there is a free-standing sign on the property. This is an ordinance to allow high rise signs, and the long distance legibility and visibility is very critical, however it is also critical to get the identification down at street level where you can't see the sign. Item "J", if a high rise tenant is allowed to have an identification sign on an existing building, what happens to the .tenants on the ground floor? Mr. Robert Keenan, Executive Director of the Sign User's Council of California, commended the sign ordinance committee and the people that have spent the time drafting this. He supported both Mr. Dinwoody and Mr. McNamee's comments and stated his concerns with respect to inven- toring illegal or abandoned advertising displays within the city and indicated that one of the ways in which the city can save some money would be to look at local colleges for any courses that relate to envi- ronment or anything close to planning in which you could have the inventory as a class project. He then referred to Page 5, item "I" and commented there may be circum~ stances in which a freestanding sign might be more accessible to the traveling public and the viewing public than a monument sign consider- ing the height limitations there are on the monument signs. He also referred to Page 5, item "J,, and commented that any high rise building in the city that opts to take a high rise sign, this will make every tenant that has a maximum of his wall sign a non-conforming sign, and asked for modification to where the loss of 40 percent becomes part' of the loss of those that own the high rise signage and not the loss to those that are tenants. Chairman Cohn asked if there was anyone who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to "Outdoor Advertising". Mr. Jamie Strong with 3M National Advertising referred to a letter from. the 3M National Advertising regarding the off-premise outdoor advertis- ing companies and asked that the city retain the present spacing of 50 feet between on-premise freestanding signs and off-premise outdoor advertising displays. Minutes, P1/C, 1/19/89 Page 10 9. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SIGN ORDINANCE (continued) Mr. Mike Bosse representing Martin Outdoor Advertising stated their concern with the problems that would arise from limiting the time period that a local business may advertise on a billboard. They are also opposed to increasing the spacing to 100 feet. Mr. Robert Chicoine owner of the Downtown~r Inn Hotel stated that he depends on billboards for his business. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Milazzo commented that when the request was made of the committee and the Commission at large, the committee started looking at the need for a high rise ordinance in a community that has a number of high rise buildings. It was his own personal philosophy not to create an ordinance that was over and above everything else that was already on the books. The intent was to fashion an ordinance that would allow the relocation of some signage on those buildings to be elevated up to the top parapet of the building not purely additive signage in addition to what was already there. He further stated that he could understand the comments about "flexibility", but in an effort to create an ordi- nance that was not absolutely flexible and absolutely allow additional signs, the committee was attempting to fashion an ordinance that was very specific and very controlled in the way that' high rise signage was accomplished. Commissioner Milazzo further commenting on the subject of illumination indicated that the sign committee wanted to create a level of design that was somewhat less than what is absolutely the wildest imagination of the designer. He did not disagree that an illuminated letter couldn't be done very tastefully. Building Director Bidwell stated that he would not dispute both Mr. Keenan and Mr. McNamee's comments. He had no objection to the maximum height of letters being changed from 15 and 18 inches to 24 inches. Mr. McNamee commented that in the past the City of Bakersfield has not been under .the enforcement that has been required on underwriter's labeling of signs but thanks to the Building Department's efforts are now working under the Underwriter's label laboratories. The indirect lighted sign makes it very difficult to label, it can be built under the rules that are stated in the National Electric Code but it is a different situation when putting up a letter like this and trying to label it. The sign to be labeled has to be contained. They would like to have the flexibility to label letters and build them individually and it is very difficult to do on that type of sign. Mr. Bidwell commented that it was the intent that the committee would be open .to suggestions on this issue. Discussion took place regarding the ability of using back lite non- illuminated signs in addition to the reversed indirect letter sign. Minutes, P1/C, 1/19/89 Page 11 9. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SIGN ORDINANCE (continued) Commissioner Milazzo commented with respect to outdoor advertising and did not feel they were adversely limiting the outdoor advertising signage, they are just asking that a land owner determine whether he wants to put up one kind of signage or another. Mr. Jamie Strong with 3M Advertising made comment with regard to Sections 6 and 7 pointing out 17.60.160, Section 6 would be added under the "A" Section and then under the 2 Section which pertains to outdoor advertising signs, and then it would become paragraph D, and if contin- uing in the ordinance under Paragraph 4 starting with "A" Freestanding Signs, and Section F,' sixth line down that they can be within 50 feet of any other such sign, indicating that it does not regulate. Mr. Strong suggested that the item of outdoor advertising be continued for further study. Mr. Bidwell commented that the section dealing with outdoor advertising could be extracted and go on with high rise ordinance. Discussion took place with respect to continuing the outdoor advertis- ing signage. Commissioner Milazzo supported severing this off from the ordinance if there was a serious proposal to put some limits of numbers of signs within an intersection or radius. Motion was made by Commissioner Milazzo to separate the high rise ordi- nance from the outdoor advertising. Motion was made by Commissioner Milazzo to approve the high rise ordi- nance with the following modifications, and recommend adoption of same to the City Council: Section 8, Item C, all such signs shall be comprised solely of individual letters or logos installed a minimum of 3 inches and a maximum of 12 inches from the surface of the wall on which they are located. Illumination may be provided by indirect reverse lighting or internal illumination with lighting behind a substance approved by the Building Director. Also, exclude the words following logos which are non-illumi- nated and are. Floodlighting of the sign shall not be allowed. Item G, modify the maximum height of letters in inches for the 30 foot and 40 foot height buildings to be 24 inches each. Amend the six month to eighth month inventory of illegal or abandoned advertising displays. Minutes, P1/C, 1/19/89 Page 12 9. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SIGN ORDINANCE (continued) Motion was seconded by Commissioner Bjorn, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Bjorn, Gronbeck, Milazzo, Rosenlieb, Cohn NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Patrick ~ Mr. Movius gave the staff report indicating the maps have been prepared ~.- on sheets that cover 1 square mile each. Each sheet is 18" x 24" in ~area and is drawn to a 1" = 400' scale. The maps reflect all current ning districts. Pu~c hearing was opened. . There ~ng no one present wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was ~ad~e by Commissioner Milazzo, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn, Commis~n adopted the zoning maps as advertised and recommended of samello the City Council, and carried by the following roll adoption call vote: ~ AYES: Commigsioner Bjorn,. Gronbeck, Milazzo, Rosenl?_~xCohn~h~ ~ ~-.~ NOES : iss .i ck 11. COMMITTEE REPORT - REPORT ON THE WESTS't. DE CORRIDOR STUDY Mr. Grady stated that the committee re xplains the Westside Corridor Study and is recommending that the Commission approve this in concept and .direct staff to include the Circulation Element. Commissioner Bjorn waived the reading of the report. Motion was made by Commissioner Milazzo, seconded by sioner Bjorn to adopt the report and recommend same to the City Council.