Loading...
SR-401-030 (6) PCD:SF:SHK:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\meritsignappeals.doc Council Mtg: March 22, 2000 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Appeals of the Final Meritorious Sign List and Recommendation to City Council Regarding Procedure and Reduction of the Amount of Time Allowed Appellants to Speak from Ten Minutes to Three Minutes. Applicant/Appellant: th 00APP010: Bay Area Muffler, 1922 14 Street 00APP017: Lares Restaurant, 2909 Pico Boulevard 00APP024: Jon Adams Hair Design, 2730 Neilson Way 00APP036: Santa Monica Radiator Sign, 1537 Lincoln Boulevard th 00APP055: Bair’s Keystone Body Shop, 1762 14 Street 00APP056: The Galley, 2442 Main Street 00APP062: City Hall, 1685 Main Street 00APP003: Polly’s Pies, 501 Wilshire Boulevard 00APP004: Jack in the Box, 802 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP006: Lazy Daisy, 2300 Pico Boulevard 00APP007: Tune-up Masters, 1534 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP008: Brown’s Cleaners, 1223 Montana Avenue 00APP009: Aby Auto Masters, 1218 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP012: Bay Imports, 2445 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP013: Great Care Medical Group, 2221 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP014: Engler Bros. Motor Parts, 2630 Pico Boulevard 00APP015: Prestige Cleaners, 1106 Montana Avenue 00APP016: Carlton Hair/Locanda Portofino, 1108-10 Montana Avenue 00APP018: Lincoln Pipe and Plumbing Supplies, 2919 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP021: Firestone, 1817 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP022: Le Mans, 2107 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP023: Cock ‘n Bull Pub, 2947 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP026: McCabe and Camp Guitar Shop, 3101 Pico Boulevard 00APP028: Bob’s Market, 1650 Ocean Park Boulevard 00APP029: Carlson’s, 1342 Fifth Street 00APP030: Evett’s Model Shop, 1636 Ocean Park Boulevard 00APP031: Interactive Café, 215 Broadway 00APP032: Snyder-Diamond, 1399 Olympic Boulevard 00APP033: Marty’s Liquor, 1736 Ocean Park Boulevard 00APP034: Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream, 1227 Wilshire Boulevard 00APP035: Rich Sheet Metal Works, 1725 Colorado Avenue 00APP037: Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica, 1238 Lincoln Boulevard - 1 - 00APP038: R”N”R, 2819 Pico Boulevard 00APP039: Sea Shore Motel, 2637 Main Street 00APP040: Insta-Tune, 2307 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP041: Ed’s Airport Service, 3127 Ocean Park Boulevard 00APP042: Santa Monica Lock & Safe Co., 2208 Pico Boulevard 00APP043: Marquis West Restaurant, 3110 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP044: Metropolitan Cleaners, 2003 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP045: Hotel California (Ocean Avenue Properties), 1670 Ocean Avenue 00APP046: Ursula’s Costumes, 2516 Wilshire Boulevard 00APP047: Shakey’s Pizza & Ye Public House, 3033 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP048: Golden West Meats, 2012 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP049: Ski Haus, Inc., 3101 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP050: Bay Cities Appliances, 1302 Santa Monica Boulevard 00APP051: Arco, 1819 Cloverfield Boulevard th 00APP052: Tip Top Tow Service, 1654 12 Street 00APP053: Just Tires, 1610 Wilshire Boulevard 00APP054: Gilbert’s Restaurant, 2526 Pico Boulevard 00APP057: Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 1200 Wilshire Boulevard th 00APP058: Sunlight Mission Church, 1754 14 Street th 00APP059: 14 Below, 1348 14 Street 00APP060: Bills Liquor Store, 2202 Lincoln Boulevard 00APP061: Danny’s Watch & Jewelry, 1005 Wilshire Boulevard 00APP064: Hornburg Jaguar Inc., 1601 Wilshire Boulevard INTRODUCTION This report transmits the appeal statements of the 55 appellants of the final list of designated Meritorious Signs and recommends to City Council action regarding those appeals. Non-conforming signs designated as meritorious may remain when they would otherwise be required to be removed or modified by April 11, 2000 per Section 9.52.210 (d) of the Sign Code. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Sign Code, adopted in 1985, was to eliminate excessive and confusing sign displays and to preserve and improve the appearance of the City for the benefit of residents, workers and visitors. The regulations strike a balance between aesthetic values - 2 - important to the whole community with rights of sign owners. Since that balance was struck in 1985, protecting and providing visual aesthetics has become even more important; the visitor-serving industries have grown and the City has become more intensely developed. Both these facts require the City to work even harder to maintain our quality of life. It is, therefore, essential that the City continue to preserve visual aesthetics and maintain the City’s physical environment. Removal of nonconforming signs is vital to this goal of reducing visual clutter, enhancing sign and lives and promoting aesthetic values. To date, the Sign Code has successfully encouraged businesses to integrate signs that are harmonious with the buildings and sites where they are located. Moreover, business owners have begun removing nonconforming signs. Thus the Sign Ordinance has already served to improve the City’s visual appearance and enhance Santa Monica as a place to live, work, shop and do business. The citywide list of businesses with these nonconforming signs is attached as Attachment G. The Code defines such signs as “(d) Free-standing, roof, upper level, projecting and off-premises signs, including those signs which were previously animated or emitting signs, shall be removed or modified to conform to the requirements of this Chapter within fifteen years from the effective date of this Chapter [April 11, 2000].” The multi-phase effort to implement this Code section, referred to as Signs 2000, began - 3 - more than two years ago. Attachment A provides a chronology that outlines the history of the conformance effort. On February 23, 2000, all business and property owners with nonconforming signs identified in Section 9.52.210(d) of the Sign Code were sent a packet that included notification of the appeal period. A notice of the meeting was published in the Our Times section of the Los Angeles Times on March 16, 2000. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment I. In addition, a copy of the staff report was delivered to the following interested parties: ? Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce ? Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Association ? Mid-Cities Neighborhood Association ? Ocean Park Community Organization ? Friends of Sunset Park ? Pico Neighborhood Association ? Sunset Park Associated Neighbors ? North of Montana Association ? Borderline Group ? Downtown Area Residents Association ? Main Street Neighbors ? Northeast Neighbors ? South Beach Neighbors APPEALS A total of 55 businesses submitted appeals requesting inclusion on the final list of designated Meritorious Signs. The appeal statements are included as Attachment B. Staff evaluated each sign based on the criteria established in Ordinance 1956 (Attachment H). The recommended findings developed by staff are included in this report as Attachment D. Of the appealed signs, staff is recommending that City Council include eight (8) signs representing seven (7) establishments on the final list of designated Meritorious Signs and recommends that the remaining signs not be included on the list. Signs included on the list - 4 - would be considered meritorious and can, therefore, remain. All other signs would have to be removed. MERITORIOUS SIGN FINDINGS In Section 9.52.250 (c)(1) of the Ordinance 1956 established the criteria used to evaluate whether a sign is meritorious. A meritorious sign must first meet one of the following findings: Historically Significant. A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or created before 1970 and is either representative of significant sign-making techniques or styles of a historic era in Santa Monica’s history (Resort/Commuter Suburb Era, Early Motor Era, and Post War Era) or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of Santa Monica’s history; or Artistically Significant. A sign is artistically significant if the sign was erected or created between 1970 and 1985 and is of contemporary design, uses innovative materials with technical excellence and represents entities or establishments that are an important part of Santa Monica’s history. If a sign meets one of these two findings, at least one of the following findings under Section 9.52.250 (c)(2) must also be made: (A) The sign is visually significant in one of the following regards (i) The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has visually aged. (ii) The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the period when it was constructed using materials in an exemplary way. (iii) The sign is architecturally integrated into the structure. (B) The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name or logo of the building or business. (C) The sign is located on buildings or properties with buildings that have been designated as historic landmarks or have been listed in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. If the character-defining features of a meritorious sign are altered, the sign will be deleted - 5 - from the meritorious list and will be required to be removed or where applicable, modified to comply with the Sign Code. HEARING PROCEDURE Ordinance 1956 established City Council or its designee as the appeal hearing body, but did not address hearing procedure. The appeal of the final list of designated Meritorious Signs differs from other appeals heard by Council. In this case there are no applicants, only appellants. In addition, all appeals are in essence requests to be included on a list that allows the nonconforming signs to remain where otherwise such signs would be required to be removed or modified by April 2000. At the public hearing, staff will present a brief overview of the meritorious sign requirements, followed by a visual presentation of the appealed signs. The public hearing will then be opened and all appellants and members of the public will be provided three (3) minutes for public testimony. The required findings for meritorious signs, as outlined above, are very specific to whether a sign has merit that should warrant its preservation. The findings do not allow for broader consideration of the benefits of the sign code, impacts on business activities and other important, though extraneous, issues. These issues were considered with the adoption of the Sign Code in 1985. Further, staff’s experience in working with businesses is that most of the requests for meritorious designation are very similar and, consequently, the analysis for one situation often applies to many others. In fact, public testimony before the Meritorious Sign Review Board tended to be very limited in duration given these similarities and the narrow scope of the findings. Therefore, in the interest of giving - 6 - everyone a chance to speak, and using the Council’s time efficiently, staff recommends that the City Council suspend its rules of procedure for this appeal hearing and allow each appellant three (3) minutes to present their appeal testimony rather than ten (10) minutes. Following the close of the public hearing, staff suggests that the Council select the signs which warrant further discussion, remove them from the list, and vote on the remaining list as to which findings cannot be made in the affirmative as a group. The Meritorious Sign Review Board found this type of hearing procedure to be successful. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council include 00APP010, 00APP017, 00APP024, 00APP036, 00APP055, 00APP056, and 00APP062 to the final list of meritorious signs and exclude the remainder of the appealed signs with the findings as listed in Exhibit D. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Acting Senior Planner City Planning Division Planning and Community Development Department - 7 - Attachments: A: Chronology of Signs 2000 Conformance Effort B: Appeal Statements with attachments C: Meritorious Sign Appeals Presentation including photographs D: Proposed Findings for Appealed Signs E: List and Photographs of designated Meritorious Signs F: Findings for designated Meritorious Signs G: List of Nonconforming Signs Citywide H: Ordinance 1956 I: Notice of Public Hearing J: Correspondence SHK F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\meritsignappeals.doc July 5, 2007 - 8 -