HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1967/11/02 - Regular1
•
1
1
•
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 2, 1967
1. Chairman Beckman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Garvin, Lawson, Millham,
Beckman.
Absent: Commissioner:.: Oakley
Also Present: GeorgeDragicevich, Mike Burnham
3. Comments re Proposed Sign Ordinance:
Mr. Jack Lloyd of Heath Co., Los Angeles, brought up some comments
and suggestions in reference to the proposed sign regulations. Points
of interest were as follows:
(a) "Area of Sign" (page 1, para. 2) should be more specific in
indicating how to compute the area of a sign (whether to com-
pute all signs on one structure, or just the major sign, both
sides if double faced, etc.)..
(b) Brightness of signs (page 2, para. 8), based on foot lamberts
would be difficult, if not impossible, to control and- entorce!
Instead 'of this regulation Mr. Lloyd. suggested elimination of
flashing or revolving signs, or some required distance (200 ft.
to 300 ft.) from R -zoned properties.
(c) Rotating signs of 6 -8 RPM would be acceptable (page 4, para.8).
(d) Suggested to reword item 10 of page 4, to read: "No sign shall
be permitted that causes excessive and objectionable glare
upon adjacent residential property."
(e) The copy area of free standing signs should be related to the
property frontage. The suggested ratio: 3 sq. ft. of sign
area for each . 1 i nea l foot of the front (page 6, para. 2) . Free-
standing signs are suggested to have a minimum height of 8 ft.
Free - standing signs are generally permitted to project 5 ft.
dyer public property, having the same requirements as project-
ing signs.
(f) Wall signs should be related to the face of the '.building . rather r
than to the lineal frontage. The suggested area of sign: 20-
30% of the face of the building.
(g) The main objections to the roof signs are the sign structures.
Roof sign definition is proposed to include:- "....and completely
supported by roof of that building" (page 3, para. 22). Roof
signs should be regulated by height above the roof of the build-
ing.
(h) Mr. Lloyd suggested that a provision in the ordinance should be
made to permit non - bearing message appendages to the signs not
to exceed 5% of the main panel.
(i) Painted sign (size) should be controlled just as other signs.
With proper illumination and lettering there is actually no
difference between.a wall sign and a painted sign.
(j) Para. 2, page 8, referring to. Construction and Maintenance, is
obsolete in terms of present technology and proposed to be taken
out.
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION - NOV. 2, 1967 Page two.
(k) Abatement of non- confocmi.ng signs deserve another analysis
and re- appraisal, particularly the time period of "all
other signs ".
The Chairman and the Commissioners agreed to discuss further Mr.
Lloyd's valuable comments in their final analysis of the proposed
sign ordinance.
The Commissioners discussed the problem of lighting intensity. Chair-
man Beckman said that on this matter the Commission should be ad-
vised by an illumination engineer.
4. Zoning Classification of Car Wash Establishments
The Commissioners reviewed the statf repott on zone classifications
in surrounding cities and decided to continue with this matter on
the next regular meeting to be held .November 14, 1967.
5. Sites of Sign Inspection
No decision was made as to when to take a field trip and check size
and lighting intensity of selected signs in the City and surround-
ing areas. Commissioner Garvin questioned the necessity of having
such a trip, since he was not sure whether lighting intensity stand-
ards should be part of the sign ordinance. This question should-be
resolved in study sessions to come.
ADJOURNMENT
the meeting adjourned at 10 :15 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of
November 14, 1967.
ATTEST:
S eta ry
Chair n