Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-02-15-77-Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1977 The City Council of the City of Downey held an adjourned regular meeting at 5:30 p.m., February 15, 1977, in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall, Mayor Hazel N. Scotto presiding. PRESENT: Council Members: William L. Greene Richard M. Jennings, Mayor Pro Tempore Kenneth J. Miller Theodore H. Jackman Hazel N. Scotto, Mayor ALSO PRESENT: Charles W. Thompson, City Manager Ervin Spindel, Director of Community Development William A. Coggin, City Planner Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer Mayor Scotto explained the purpose of the meeting is for a study session on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding signs, and any other business to come before the City Council. Part 9146, Signs (revised January 31, 1977) A discussion was held regarding Section 9146.14, Sub -sections (5)(a)l, 2, and 3, Marquee Signs. Councilman Jennings said the maximum sign area should be 40 percent, not 25 percent. Mr. William Cole, Downey Chamber of Commerce, said merchants have questioned the City's regulations on the amount of copy on a sign. Mr. Goggin spoke regarding a comparison study of sign ordinances from other cities, including El Cajon. Councilman Jackman recommended 50 percent sign area. Mr. Larry Hoag said many people have not established businesses in Downey be- cause of the restrictions. Mr. Coggin explained when the Zoning Ordinance is adopted, there will not be zone exceptions for variances because each zone of the City will have specified requirements to be adhered to. He said the ordinance requirements will also enhance the appearance of the City. Mr. Goggin pointed out that the same require- men-s will apply to the City as well as private businesses. Discussion ensued. Mr. Spindel requested the Council make a determination as to whether marquee signs should not project more than one-half the street parkway width, as proposed in sub -section (5)(a)3, or as written in the existing code which would be a maximum of ten feet and no more than three feet from the face of the curb. Councilman Jennings preferred one-half the street parkway width. Sub -section (6)(a) was changed to 40 percent instead of 25 percent. Mr. Goggin requested the following changes: Sub -section (7)(c), line 16, after the words "a street or parking area" insert "adjacent to the public right-of-way"; sub -section (7)(e)2, after the word "sign" on line 10, add "listing the businesses within the building and having tYe same square footage as permitted in (7)(e)l above, with a maximum height of sixteen (16) feet'.'. Mr. Goggin then reviewed sub-sections(8), Projecting Signs, and (9), Roof Signs. Mayor Scotto concurred with sub -section (8)(b) of three feet Mr. Goggin responded to questions of Mr. Hoag regarding roof and projecting signs. Council Minutes 2/15/77 (adj.) -1- Mr Goggin requested sub -section (10)(c)l be changed to read: "On corner lots where the side yard or rear yard is adjacent to commercial zoned property in the same block a sign not exceeding one-half (2) the front building facade sign may be installed". A change was noted in Section 9146.00' Prohibited Signs, sub -paragraph (7), wherein the wording shall read, "Signs painted on the side and rear walls of buildings, fences, walls, roofs, or other surfaces not permitted in this Chapter" Discussion followed regarding Section 9146.16, Standards Applicable to Certain Uses. Referring to sub -section (2)(a), Councilman Jennings raised the question regarding drive-in business signs and the fronting on each street. A discussion was held regarding service station signs, sub -section (5)(a). Mr. Cole commented on Stonewood signs located on the various sites of the square. A problem exists regarding depreciation of signs in accordance with the IRS ruling. Another question exists on the definition of "what is a shopping center?" No distinction is noticeable within the new ordinance. Also, a question exists, "Is Florence/Lakewood Boulevard a shopping center?" Mr. Goggin said he would redo this portion of the ordinance. Section 9146.18, Lighting and Design: Sub -section (4)(b), line 17, use of "ten watt bulbs" was approved. Councilman Jennings inquired why the height of signs has not been limited to the height of the building. Mr. Goggin replied the existing signs were placed under the County administra- tion, at which time no height limit restrictions existed. On Section 9146.20, General Provisions, sub -section (2)(b), Mr. Hoag raised the question on maintenance of signs. Mr. Goggin said he will re -word this section. Discussion then continued regarding outside billboard signs with designs. Such signs shall have the name of the maker indicated thereon. Mayor Scotto declared a recess at 8:07 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:18 p.m. with all Council Members present. A discussion was held regarding flags and banners for grand openings. Such displays are limited to 14 days. Council Members commented regarding sub -section (17) whenever there is an uncertainty due to ambiguity of an ordinance regulation. Councilman Jennings suggested sub -section (17) be deleted from the ordinance The Council reviewed sub -section (15)(b). No changes. Also there were no changes in sub -section (15)(f). In discussing Section 9146.22, Sign Standards by zone - types, area and setbacks, a question was raised regarding sub -section (2)(a) and enforcement of the code pertaining to one wall sign on apartment houses. Mr. Spindel replied that when a complaint is received it can be enforced. Mr. Hoag questioned how the City can exercise enforcement of the code. Mr. Goggin said he will change the wording in the ordinance so as to establish a format for identifying an apartment house sign. Mr. Goggin explained the current enforcement procedure for the sign ordinance. He cited setback regulations for the minimum signs such as over at the Downey Community Hospital. Mr. Goggin also reviewed with the Council further changes made in the ordinance reflecting hand-written ink notations. Sub -section (9)(d)la was removed. Section 9126, C-3 Central business district zone reference to the Stonewood shopping center. Mr. Cole said there is no Council Minutes 2/15/77 (adj.) -2- Mr. Goggin replied that Stonewood will become C-3. This is a use specifica- tion for future zoning. Outdoor advertising to be in commercial zone. Councilman Miller commented the C-3 zone would include Stonewood on the same basis as for the downtown area. Discussion followed, wherein it was concluded to keep the present C-3 intact Every existing sign will remain. Proposed signs should be reviewed prior to establishing for C-3 use. There will be a possible restriction on outdoor signs in the M-1 and M-2 zones only. Councilman Jennings suggested permitting signs only in the C-3 zone for outdoor advertising. He recommended M-1, M-2, and new C-3 zone signs be limited to small size, 12' by 25', including restrictions regarding landscaping, etc., and that signs be on a six -year amortization basis. The Council also indicated a preference for no outdoor signs within 200 feet of intersections. Mr. Goggin preferred to review this point of the ordinance and return with recommendation. Councilman Jackman moved for adjournment. Mr. Cole raised the question regarding morality of signs in standards on billboards. The Council directed Mr. Goggin to consult with the City Attorney on this subject. The Council set 5:30 p.m., February 23, 1977, for the next study session on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Design Review Board and enforcement. The Council also asked the City Manager to contact Assemblyman Bruce Young to arrange a breakfast meeting between the Council and Mr. Young for 6:30 a.m., February 25th. There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer Haze���4/ o, Mayor Council Minutes 2/15/77 (adj.) -3-