Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-1994 Planning Commission Minutes~. .G~~ D • J ~a~ ~ ' ~~,~„r~ ~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 c®urrcr~. ~:r~s~:R~: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker City of Saratoga Planning Commission Work Session June 14, 1994 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Murakami, Jacobs, Raplan, .Caldwell, CDD Curtis Items of. Discussion: 1. Review of Temporary Merchant Signs with the Chamber of Commerce. Director Curtis gave the background of the proposed sign ordinance amendments as presented by the Chamber of Commerce. The City Council had directed that Staff and the Planning Commission proceed *~;ith consideration of Temporary Merchant Signs and not wait until ::he rest of .the ordinance changes were studied as part of the Work •?rogram . Carl .Orr, President of the Chamber of Commerce, distributed a revised Temporary Merchant Ordinance: The revisions were made to the proposed sign ordinance language presented at the June 8 public hearing. The revision reduced the display period for A=Frame signs from 6 months to 4 months; the extension period was reduced from 3 months to 45 days; and the overall sign height was reduced from 8. ft: to 6 ft. Com. Caldwell asked about applying the suggested signing City-wide; she questioned if the proposed .signs would be allowed in the Village. Mr. Orr stated it was not his intention to suggest A-frame signs as proposed to be allowed in the Village as the need is not as great ~c.here.as in other locations in the City. He suggested other '.ocations where expanded signing was needed included Azule, argonaut, Gateway .and Quito Centers. He presented a photo display showing Saratoga signs compared to San Jose signs, north of I~rospect . Printed on recycled paper. ~ • Planning Commission Work session June 14, 1994 Com. Caldwell stated general concerns with a permit process, building materials and color. There was general discussion regarding the "visual quality" of Saratoga and what impact new signs would have on that quality. Com. Jacobs spoke to the overall philosophy of signs throughout the City; trees, sign limitations, design review, etc. is what makes Saratoga special. If you try to compete with San Jose, Saratoga will start looking like San Jose. He stated that it may be appropriate to allow larger permanent signs, but he has a problem with 40 sq.ft. A-frame signs. Chairman Asfour reiterated Com. Jacobs concerns that by allowing large temporary signs, even on a trial basis, may jeopardize amendments to permanent signs because of negative public response when they see the effect of the temporary signs. Mr. Orr stated that if the A-frame signs were a problem, that section could be deleted from the proposal. The Chamber was pecifically interested in providing temporary signing for grand openings, special sales and promotions. There was general discussion regarding what would be appropriate for a trial period and whether only certain sections of the City should be used to "study" the effects of temporary signs. It was the general feeling that it would be difficult to allow temporary signs for certain businesses or centers and not others. Following discussion, Staff was requested to readvertise a public hearing to consider possible code amendments to the existing Saratoga sign provisions to include: • Advertise for a July 13 public hearing; • 40 sq.ft. banners for special sales, promotions and grand openings; • Exclude the Village and gas stations from the temporary signs and trial period; • 6 month trial period following adoption of the ordinance; • Banners may be displayed for a total of 42 days during the 6 month trial period; • The current permit process would be used to allow the temporary banners; • No other changes proposed by the Chamber would be considered at this time. Director Curtis stated that this discussion and suggested direction to staff should not be considered a decision by the Planning Commission. Staff will probably use a press release or special ad as part of the public notice procedure to inform the general public as much as possible. • • Planning Commission Work Session June 14, 1994 2. Housing Element Update Director Curtis gave a brief presentation as to what has occurred during the past 6 months regarding Housing Element reform. SB 1839 just passed the Senate floor and will be considered by the Assembly in late June. SB 1839 provides reform in the "sharing" of fair share allocations with other cities, etc. and has been supported by various groups including the California League of Cities. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission would be considering the Housing Element again in the fall. Com Caldwell questioned when the next joint session with the Planning Commission and City Council was scheduled. She felt it would be appropriate to place the Housing Element on the agenda for general discussion with the "new Council" regarding the City's housing policies. 3. Circulation Element Progress Report Director Curtis made a brief presentation on the Circulation Element and reviewed the schedule for Planning Commission review of the drafts of the various sections. There was general discussion as to the content of the element with a consensus that a separate section should be devoted to Route 85 and its impact of the transportation and circulation systems in the City. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.