Loading...
10-13-04 Minutes - GPCTOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, OCTOBER 13, 2004 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm by Chair Phil Micciche. ATTENDANCE Members present: Josh Bacigalupi, Barry Bakken, Mike Burke, Diane McNutt, Phil Micciche, Mark Sgarlato, Morris Trevithick, Mark Weiner Members absent: None Staff present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Randy Tsuda, Assistant Community Development Director; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Ray Davis commented on Planned Developments and his belief that these applications always include a proposal to rezone to a higher density. The Town in approving these applications is not adhering to the General Plan. There should be some integrity to the process on the part of the General Plan Committee. ITEM 1 COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Bud Lortz introduced the item explaining that the Town’s Sign Ordinance is a good ordinance, but there are some items that need clarification. The intent is to take past practice and historical knowledge of the Town and augment the sign ordinance with these standards. Suzanne Davis pointed out that the sign criteria is organized by sign type. If there are comments on the layout or organization, please advise staff. Differences between ground and freestanding signs were explained. Steve Glickman said that signs for auto dealers should have some allowance for required provisions from parent company. On page 46, signage guidelines, clarify that signs are not limited to these example type styles. He did not see a reference to emergency signs, and asked if should special case situations be referenced. Josh Bacigalupi commented on neon signs; limited use is acceptable, but flashing neon signs should not be permitted (there is one in the downtown). Bud Lortz clarified that flashing signs are not allowed. Mike Burke said the concept of vehicle mounted signs should be included in prohibited signs. He suggested that off premise signs could be addressed through a use permit process versus being prohibited. The guideline stating there is a maximum of two fonts (p. 46) may be too restrictive. For example Peets Coffee has a P that is technically a logo, but if it is counted as a font, there are three different fonts on that sign and it looks fine. Barry Bakken asked if there is an allowance for special events or campaigns. Bud Lortz said the Town Code allows for banners and signs for special events. Barry Bakken commented on remote shopping centers such as the Rinconada Center, and asked whether tenants can have their names on the ground sign. Bud Lortz explained that there are three types of monument signs. One has every tenant listed. If there are too many business names, people can’t read it while driving by, and aesthetically, these signs aren’t always very attractive. Another type of sign includes main businesses such as Long’s or Thrifty. The sign type usually seen in Town provides only the name of the center (for example, Cornerstone and King’s Court). If the Committee feels that there should be an allowance for some tenant or business names on a ground sign, a recommendation should be made to the Town Council. Committee comments on this issue: Barry Bakken would like to allow tenant names on ground or freestanding signs. Steve Glickman said that including many tenant names can make it look more like a strip mall and is appears to be lower quality. Josh Bacigalupi suggested use of a hierarchial letter size for businesses based their size. Mike Burke likes center name or anchor tenant signs (single focus). Morris Trevithick said freestanding signs should allow tenant names with hierarchical approach (perhaps a viewing platform type of approach to determine the most visible location. Mark Sgarlato & Mark Weiner agree with current execution of the current ordinance Diane McNutt said she is open to allowing major tenant names on the sign, but too many names looks junky. Phil Micciche concurs with not having a laundry list on ground signs. Mark Sgarlato asked about seasonal signs such as window painting. Bud Lortz noted that Town banners changed seasonally. A business is allowed to put window signs up that don’t cover more than 25% of the window. Seasonal displays are allowed. Mark Sgarlato asked about treatment of electronic signs. Bud Lortz said that electronic signs are not allowed. Window signs that advertise are acceptable as long as they aren’t flashing. Mark Weiner said that 6.2.5 (p. 49) says “generally” and it should be more definitive. What is the process for an exception? 6.3.2.c. signs should be architecturally compatible and this size seems to large. Should there be a color restriction such as requiring it to be compatible with the building? 6.9 (p. 57) - freestanding signs - specify that they are allowed for auto dealers only or clarify where they are allowed. All graphics are auto dealers and perhaps another example should be included. Steve Glickman suggested that it state that freestanding signs are only allowed for (a) auto General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of October 13, 2004 Page 3 of 4 dealers and (b) under master sign program for center. Diane McNutt suggested that on page 45, existing sign programs, a statement be added that owners should be encouraged to redo signs when a sign program is adopted. The photo with animal heads should not be used on page 49. Directional signs should conform to the code. Steve Glickman said when a national chain is approved, consideration should be given to requirements of parent company when reviewing signs. Mike Burke said he really likes the quality of the document. Other Committee members agreement. ITEM 2 UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Suzanne Davis provided information on BMP regulations, Commercial Design Guidelines and Residential Design Guidelines. The BMP guidelines will be discussed by the Community Services Commission on October 21, 2004, and will be coming back to the GPC on November 10, 2004 for development of a recommendation to Council. The administrative draft of the Commercial Design Guidelines is expected at the end of October. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) met with Larry Cannon in September and provided input on the historic section to be included in the document. A follow-up meeting with the HPC will be held on November 16, 2004. The draft document will be reviewed by the GPC on December 8, 2004. The public hearing draft will then be released, tentatively in late December. A follow-up meeting with the auto dealers will be held in January 2005. The scope of work for the residential design guidelines is slated for review by the GPC in December. The December 8 meeting is needed entirely for the Commercial Design Guidelines. It was suggested that a special meeting be held, possibly on December 15, or that the scope of work be reviewed by the Committee in January. The Committee will be asked todecide on this at the November 10 meeting. Steve Glickman commented on residential additions that result in a house being too large and/or not compatible with the neighborhood. People often say they have outgrown their home, and there may be situations where it is more appropriate for them to purchase a different home as opposed to expanding the one they have. Phil Micciche said he has a tendency to not allow exceptions. Steve Glickman said he would like to have at least a general policy or overall Town philosophy. It may belong in the General Plan, but we need to have the conversation. Other Committee members agreed that this should be discussed under the residential design guidelines. Bud Lortz said that after discussing it, we can take it to the Council for input. Diane McNutt said we need to keep the emotions aways from the land use decisions. ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of October 13, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Mike Burke made a motion to approve the minutes of August 11 and August 25, 2004 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Morris Trevithick and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm by Chair Phil Micciche. The next meeting of the General Plan Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 5:30 pm. Prepared By: ___________________________ Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GENPLAN\GPC\2004minutes\GPC-10-13-2004.wpd