Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 01 12 CC MIN1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! pe0004712 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER) 14403 East Pacific Avenue The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in adjourned requtar session at the above niace at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Kinn led the salute to the flao, Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, BLEWETT. HAMILTON, KING. AND MAYOR MC CARON Also Present: CITY ENGINEER FRENCH. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHIVETTA. CITY CLERK BALKUS Absent: CITY MANAGER NORDBY. CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN. CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS. CITY TREASURER CODLING 00- COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT ALL ABSENTEES BE EXCUSED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections, The motion carried and w.as so ordered, 00- Mayor McCaron stated that this meetino was an adjourned meeting of the reaular meetina of January 6, and would be an informal meeting for further discussion on the proposed On-Premise Sign Ordinance. 00- City Engineer French stated he would like to introduce another matter before discussion on the Sian Ordinance began. He recommended adoption of a Resolution directino additional notification to property owners and recordina of a map on the Walnut Street Assessment District. He explained that this Resolution would allow filing of the map with the County Recorder and set the heart no date ahead two weeks. RESOLUTION NO. 71-21 DIRECTING THE GIVING OF ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH REFERENCE TO WALNUT STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-21 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- Mayor McCaron referred to the communication from the Planninq Director dated January 12, 1971 reoardinn the proposed On-Premise Sign Ordinance, and indicated this meetina was to study and discuss the proposed Ordinance. Information was presented and discussion held on each of the Sections of the aforementioned communication, i.e., Tract Sians, Construction Siqns, Freestandina Sians, Wall Signs, Roof Siqns, Accessory Sicins, Amortization Schedule, and Siqns Hereafter Abandoned. Mayor McCaron requested that Planm'nn Director CMvetta present his information. continued) JANUARY 12. 1971 7:30 p.n. FLAG SALUTE ABSENTEES EXCUSED RES. NO. 71-21 ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECORD PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MAP REFERENCE WALNUT ST. ASSESSMENT HIST. RESOLUTION W. 71-21 ADOPTED BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! peccoa-yt9'' Adjourned Requtar Meetina of the Baldwin Park City Council anuary 12, 1971 race 2 Planning Director Chivetta stated that the comments regarding nine Items of contention by Ilr. \\. P. Wells, representative of the California Sign Association, were being presented for the Council's review. Mr. Chivetta indicated there were some problems in terms of roof signs. The California Electric Sinn Association felt that if roof signs were to be permitted, they be limited to 50% of the total allowable signage per face and their heiaht to be determined by the height of the building or by the size of the sion. He stated this still had to be worked out, as well as other sections, in terms of height, sign face area, background area, sign copy area, and whether or not roof siqns would be permitted, or whether they will be excluded; also, there are no square footaae requirements for tract sions, or no requirements as to the number of tract siqns which could be permitted to be placed; and the same holds true for construction signs. Accessory signs should be limited to the number of square footaqe of sign face area for each sign. He qave as an example the travelino" signs in Times Square, i.e., the continuous traveling flashing type sign, and stated the Code would have to be amended to determine the number of square feet provided for these signs, and whether or not they would be approved, He stated the existing amortization schedule is from 90 days to 7 years, the California Electric Sign Associa- tion states there should be an amortization schedule; otherwise, the Sign Ordinance is of no consequence. However, the amortization schedule should be limited to various types of signs. A-frames, paper signs, cloth banners, flaos, and pennants—temporary signs for sales promotion—would be limited to a 6-months period. Painted signs would have to be removed within one year, and all other siqns would have to be removed or made to conform with the regulations within five years roof signs, wall siqns, freestandinq signs, etc.). Mr. Chivetta brought up another point of contention, which was signs hereafter abandoned". He recommended that the amortization schedule be increased from 90 days to 6 months or 180 days, which would allow the property owner necessary time to re-tease the buitdino or have the sign removed, or rehabilitated to conform with the Code. Mayor McCaron asked what orocedure there would be when a sign is not suitable for a new tenant; would they use the same sign can and change the copy? Mr. Chivetta replied that many times a new business may be able to have a sign remodeled to fit its needs by channino the copy and using the same siqn can. This is the problem we run into—whether the sinn can be refurbished to meet the needs of the new business, or whether it has to be replaced. Councilman Blewett asked if he understood correctly that this would allow a siqn to stay un for 180 days. Mr. Chivetta explained that this was the California Electric Sign Association's suqaestion for & business that abandoned a particular store sinn; the Ptanninn Commission's suggestion is 90 days. Councilman Btewett stated he would be more inclined to aoree with the Planninn Conmission, continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! peCCOWIA^:; Adjourned Renutar Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Pane 3 Plannino Director Chivetta explained that the Plannina Commission's thoucht in placing the 90-day requirement was that after the 90 days, when the owner is notified, it usually takes almost another 90 days before the sign is removed. He stated that the Planning Comm'ssion felt that under the California Electric Sign Association's plan of 180 days, it night be a year after notification before there would be any action by the property owner. He stated they try to work with the people, and sometimes it takes anywhere from 30 to 60 days over the period for action, which is sort of a grace period. This has been a kind of a policy statement of the City in working with the various businessmen. Mayor McCaron inquired whether, if the time limit noes by and then the property owner was notified to remove the sign but he decided he could re-use it, a hearino would he required. Mr. Chivetta indicated this was correct. The Planning Commission sends out a letter to the person notifyino him of the non-conformity, and then he has 90 days to either conform to the Code or appeal it to the next hinher body, which would be either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mayor McCaron asked what the Planning Commission was recommending when there is a change of business and the sign does not fit. Mr. Chivetta suagested they hold the limit at the 90 days, and allow the flexibility stated. The Mayor then asked whether it would then be the policy to notify the owner 30 days following the 90-day cutoff period, to which Mr. Chivetta responded affirmatively. Mayor McCaron asked whether the owner would then have to come in for a hearing, and Mr. Chivetta replied yes. Mayor MdCaron then indicated it would be better to avoid too many hearings, because of the cost to the people applying, time involved, etc. Councilwoman Gregory asked Mayor McCaron whether he was suggesting that a notice go out before the 90 days, at which time he requested Mr. Chivetta review some of the points already discussed for clarification. Mayor McCaron asked about a case of a non-confonninn sign after the tenant leaves, regardless of time, may the new tenant use it even though it is a non-conforming sign. Mr. Chivetta answered no. Mayor McCaron posed the Question if the owner has 90 days to remove an abandoned conforming sign, then another tenant comes in who can use the sign, must the new tenant come in for a hearinn. Mr. Chivetta replied that on a conformino sign, he would not have to remove that sign within that time limit. Alt he would have to do is paint out the sign copy. If he had a non-conforminn sign that did not comply with the Code, it would have to be removed. Mayor McCaron brought up the question of service stations, where the sign copy can't be painted out. Mr. Chivetta stated the sions were usually covered or the copy removed in that case. Mayor McCaron asked Mr. Chivetta how many signs would be affected by this Ordinance, and to please clarify this as to whether determined by the Sign Ordinance as originally presented, or as returned from the Planning Commission with changes made. Mr. Chivetta stated that he and Mr. Wells had made a windshield" survey of the business area to determine which signs would comply with the Plannino Commission's recommendations. Most of the newer signs in the central business district and the outlying district would comply, including the Buy Back" store; however. Quite a few of the old ones would not. continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! pec coins'1 1^ f Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Page 4 Mayor McCaron asked Mr. Chivetta if he had taken any photographs. Mr. Chivetta replied he had not, because of the inclement weather today, but that there were oictures in the office showing various sions from time to time. Council- man Blewett asked whether McMahan's roof sign would conform. Mr. Chivetta replied that it would not conform to the new regulations. Councilman Hamilton brought up the question of possibly extending the 18-inch overhano limit, suqgestinc it mioht be extended up to a point of the heioht of the sicin from the ground. Councitwoman Gregory noted that standards were being set for the future, which is always difficult. In answer to Councitwoman Gregory regarding an obtrusive auto parts sign on North Maine, Mr. Chivetta explained that it conforms to the present Code. He has discussed its removal with the property owner, but the owner says it does not belong to him; and there is no violation. Mayor McCaron stated that there are many lots that have a 25-foot frontage. If freestanding signs are allowed, they could become objectionable because of the size, or interfering with a sign on an adjacent lot. He stated he felt the property owners need to have a little choice in what type of sign they can put on the front of the building. Mr. Chivetta stated each store could have a freestandina sign. Councilman Btev/ett stated he and Councilman Hamilton v/ere primarily concerned with the merchant who would be in the $100 to $500 category, which would include a lot of the merchants, and that some sort of standards must be established. Councilman King stated that regarding the 5-vear period, there was no objection whatsoever from the merchants regarding abolishing alt non-conformino sinns within the 5"year period. Mr. Chivetta mentioned that Mr. Parenteau said there was no problem in terms of amortization; they saw no problem of 5 years on a11 signs, and an immediate abatement upon $1,000 or more of improvement construction. He further stated that a11 existing roof sians rendered non-conforming would not have to be removed until the 5-year statute of limitations, or the $1,000, and that no roof signs could be installed unless the person could not install a freestanding siqn. In order to be permitted to install a roof sign, he would have to make application for a special permit, stating the reasons he can't put up a freestandino siqn, then he would be given consideration for a roof sign, but only in that instance. Mayor McCaron asked if this could be done administratively, to which Mr. Chivetta replied yes. Councilman King presented a question regarding the siqn face area for a roof sign. He asked if 30% would be allowed for the sign face area for a roof sign, or one half, or 15%. The question was referred to Mr. Wells. Mr. Wells replied that this was what they had in mind--to use one half of the allow- able sign area which, in this case, is proposed 30% of the building facade, and you could use half o^ that, or 15%, for a roof sign and the other half for a wall sinn, to gain balance. continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! peOOC47:J^; Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Paqe 5 Councilman Kinq asked fir. Wells whether he meant hat a person, if he wants to take half of the sign face area, can have 50% of that sign face area for a roof sign, and the other 50% applied to the sign face, and then still have a freestanding sign, if he has the setback ai^ea. Mr. Wells replied that you have to take into consideration how many of the downtown area merchants could use f^eestandinq signs. Councilman Btewett then commented that roof sions, by this Ordinance, would be non-conforminq where you could have a freestandinq sian. Councilman Hamilton commented that merchants with small buildings would be allowed only very small roof sions on this percentage basis. Mr. Wells pointed out that if a buitdinq is 15 feet in width, it is probably 15 feet in height also. Mr. Chivetta stated that the present Code allows frne square foot of siqn space area for every 200 square feet'of lot area. Under regulations as suggested by the Ptannino Co.nmission, now under consideration by the Council, the buitdinn facade would allow a particular business which could presently put up 25 square feet of siqn face area to put up 225 square feet of sign face area. California Electric Sim Associa- tion is sayinq to allow the person 30% of the buitdino facade, but then only allow them a certain percentaqe o^ the total square footage for sian copy, which would cut down the siqn considerably. This is within the reain1 of possibility, and would eliminate an overbearino sign for the structure. Mayor McCaron asked Hr. Wetts if he could rive a ballpark" figure of what an in-between sign would cost to install. The Mayor and Mr, Wells concluded that about $30 per square foot would be a rough estimate; however, many thinas would have to be considered to arrive at a more definite fiqure, such as copy, type of letterina, etc. Mr. Chivetta then diaqrammed on the blackboard examples of various types of siqns and explained each. Multiply the height by the width, then take 30% of that fioure for the total siqn face area that would be permitted. He stated that the California Electric Sign Association suoqcsted 225 square feet of sign face area not be allowed. The sinn copy would be limited to 40% of the total 30% of background area. City Enqineer French asked whether that applied to a double-face sign. Mr. Chivetta stated that on a double-face sign, the policy is that one side only is computed for sinn face area if it is in the same can. If there are two separate cans, both sides arc counted. Mayor McCaron stated that the recommendation nade didn't take care of the problem where a siqn is needed for tlie face of a buildinq that is rinht on the property line facinq the public riqht-of-way. Mr. Wells commented that there was an 18-inch projection. Councilman Hamilton stated tie didn't fsel the 18-inch projection would be enough for a roof sion where the building was rinht on the property tine; however, it would be sufficient for a flat wall sion. He stated the merchants agreed to go along with this, because they were wittinq to compromise also. Councilman Hamilton disanroed with a comnent by Councilman Kino that he felt that in this Ordinance we were bending over a little backward to helo the merchants", and stated he felt they were trying to oet somethino the merchants could live with. continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! pecd^ Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Page 6 Councilman King stated that the merchants were satisfied with what was presented at the last meeting, and that they gave as much as the Council, and that no one was giving to the other, but to the Community as a whole. The question was raised regarding buildings set back only a few feet from the property line putting up signs that projected over the public right-of-way. Councilman Blewett suggested the recommendation be changed from an 18-inch projection over the right-of-way to an 18-inch projection from the building. Councilman Hamilton stated that, in his opinion, that was not enough for a roof sign. Planning Director Chivetta suggested that the practical solution might be, under a special use permit, if a person cannot erect a freestanding sign, he could erect a roof sign, subject to a maximum square footage as suggested by the California Electric Sign Association, but the roof sign in terms of its height and projection over the public right-of-way would be subject to the Uniform Building Code. City Engineer French stated that under the Building Code, you can go out as far as the curb face if the sign is high enough. Councilman King asked for clarification on the matter of the 25-foot lot. Mayor McCaron stated that you can clutter an area with too many signs if you had a freestanding sign on every 25-foot lot. The Mayor asked what the distance requirement was for freestanding signs, and Planning Director Chivetta replied it depended on the zone and the frontage of the lot. Planning Director Chivetta stated that this Code would allow freestanding signs on each 25-foot lot. Councilman King asked for Planning Director Chivetta's opinion on this. He said he felt there was a problem, but there was no way to stop the merchants from doing it. Mayor McCaron stated he was thinking in terms of making it a percentage of the width in relation to the size of the freestanding sign, since this would apply to wait signs. Planning Director Chivetta stated this was a suggestion of the California Electric Sign Association—to work it out on the basis of square footage, with 400 maximum for freestanding signs, but then the location of the sign would have to be worked out in terms of height, background area, and things of this type. Mr. Wells stated their suggestion would be to allow 3Q% of the building facade for wall signs, and to allow 1 square foot per 1 lineal foot of frontage. He further stated that 400 maximum square feet would be sufficient for most users' needs, in their opinion. Mayor McCaron stated that they were allowing 400 feet on every 100 feet of ground, and Mr. Wells responded that he was making a proposal that the size of the square footage of the sign be limited by the size of the front footage of the lot. Mayor McCaron stated they would like to have an Ordinance which would eliminate the need for too many variances. Mr. Wells stated the cost in time and money was somewhat prohibitive, but they, as an industry, were wininq to look at controls and reasonable formulas, or whatever the Council decided. Councilman King asked Mr. Wetts whether he felt there should be a formula, or whether economics would control the situation. Mr. Wells replied economics would not control it, although it might be a consideration. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! pecco^ia- Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Page 7 Planning Director Chivetta pointed out different ideas that had been considered, and then stated he agreed with what Mr. Wells had suggested, which would encompass the 25-front foot lot, which would hold down the freestanding sign; in other words, on a 25-foot lot, the person would be allowed 50 square feet for the sign face area i.e.: 2 square feet for every lineal foot of frontage. Councilman Blewett stated he was willing to concede to the 1 square foot of face area for each foot. Councilman King stated he thought that was good, and asked what the limit would be. Planning Director Chivetta replied it would be held to 400. Mayor McCaron asked whether a freestanding sign and a watt sign were allowable for one place. Planning Director Chivetta replied in the affirmative, and stated that where a freestanding sign was allowed, there is no oof sign, but where you cannot erect a freestanding sign, a roof sign is allowed. On a roof sign, you would be allowed 50% of the total allowable signage per face, plus the 18-inch overhang over the public right of-way. Councilman Blewett suggested the 18-inch overhang be made from the front of the building", rather than over the public right-of-way, and all were in agreement on this point. Councilman Hamilton brought up the amortization period. Councilman Blewett suggested it be either 5 years or $1000.00. Councilman King asked for discussion on the Amortization Schedule as outlined in the Ptanhing Director's memorandum. Lengthy discussion followed on A-frame signs. Planning Director Chivetta pointed out that service station A-frames were regulated by a different set of standards, and this Ordinance would not apply, and that under those standards, A-frames were outlawed for service stations. Councilman Blewett suggested perhaps this Ordinance could be written to outlaw them for all businesses. Councilman Blewett stated he felt the amortization schedule of 5 years or $1000.00 was excellent. Mayor McCaron posed a question of projection of freestanding signs. City Engineer French stated that the way it is written presently, freestanding signs cannot project over the public right-of-way. The only time you have a projection over the public right-of-way is when the building is on the right-of- way, and then it cannot have a freestanding sign. Planning Director Chivetta stated he felt the best way to say it is that roof signs, wait signs and freestanding signs are allowed an 18-inch maximum projection over the right-of-way. Councilman Blewett felt the best way to state it would be 18 inches from the building face. Councilman Gregory concurred. Councilman Blewett clarified his statement by saying he was speaking of roof signs and watt signs, and that there would be no projection allowed over the public right-of-way for a freestanding sign. Planning Director Chivetta suggested attaching an addendum to the regulations, which would be drawings depicting what is meant by background sign face area, roof signs, wall signs, projection, etc., so there would be no controversy as to the intent and purpose of the Code. Councilman King asked if a11 agreed with Sections 1 and 2 on the Planning Director's memorandum. Councilman Blewett stated a11 were in agreement regarding Sections 1, 2 and 3, plus a thousand dollars on No. 3. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! peCC04719 *•''- P-. Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Page 8 Mayor McCaron stated that the consensus on front footage versus sign area on freestanding signs was 1 square foot for 1 lineal foot, with a maximum of 400. Councilman Hamilton brought up the matter of relation of signs to R-1 properties. Mayor McCaron stated that the sign must not become objectionable to the R-1 property. Planning Director Chivetta stated the Ordinance could be re-written to state that no sign placed on C or M zoned property shall be located as to reflect light on the adjacent residentiatty zoned property so as to become a detriment. Councilman Hamilton mentioned that under Section 9838, Special Sign Provisions, 100 feet was allowed to erect a sign. He suggested that this be revised from 100 feet to 50 feet. Councilman Btewett concurred with Councilman Hamilton to move it down to 50 feet. Planning Director Chivetta stated there was one section in the present Code which states shall be located as far as is consistent with the public safety and be located remote from such R zoned properties when such are located on the same side of the street." He stated that particular wording could be expanded upon to encompass illumination, but standards would have to be set by an expert to determine what would create a public nuisance. Councilman King said he felt 50 feet would be in order, and that the Ordinance should control the illumination. Councilman Hamilton suggested that Planning Director Chivetta's office draw up the Ordinance with the suggested changes incorporated and present it at the hearing, and if acceptable, it could be adopted at that time. Mayor McCaron indicated that the hearing was stilt open, and this meeting was for the purpose of discussion. He stated the suggestions should be brought to the hearing, along with any further ideas on the suggestions by the California Electric Sign Association. Councilman Gregory felt the hearing should be continued at the next meeting. Mr. Wells indicated he felt some discussion on tract signs and constructions signs should be held. Planning Director Chivetta stated that regarding construction signs, the original draft of the Regulations limited them to 32 square feet, with a time limit. California Electric Sign Association is saying it is too liberal to leave it open, without a maximum square footage for the sign. Mr. Wells stated that if you're going to control some signs, you should control a11 types of signs. Councilman Hamilton felt 32 feet was small for a large tract. Planning Director Chivetta explained that it was probably sufficient for most construction signs; however, subdivision signs were limited to 80 square feet. He also stated that for possible additional control regarding removal, the City could require a cash deposit to insure removal of the sign after the last sale of the property. The Association is suggesting that this would be a good item to insert in the Ordinance. Roof signs were again discussed. Councilman King stated that the total sign face area allowed was 30%, so 50% of that would be 15% of sign face, and 15% of roof, or a percentage thereof, as long as it didn't exceed the 30%. A11 members agreed on this. Also agreed upon was that in no case where a free- standing sign is allowed is there to be a roof sign. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 01 12 CC MIN(ÌìÙ! peI t^-'^ 0^720 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 12, 1971 Page 9 Mayor McCaron stated that maintenance on signs had not been discussed. Planning Director Chivetta indicated this would be controlled under the public nuisance section of the Municipal Code. He also pointed out that there had been previous discussion on the definition of maintain" and maintenance", and stated that the On-Premise Sign Ordinance pertains to the keeping of a sign that is in violation of the suggested regulations, not the repair of the sign. In conclusion, the Council members were in agreement on the following points: freestanding signs 1 square foot for one lineal foot of frontage; roof signs and watt signs projections limit of 18 inches from the face of the building; amortization schedule to be 5 years or $1000.00; roof signs 50% of the total allowable sign space, i.e., S0% of the 30% of building facade allowed. Councilman Hamilton thanked Mr. Wells for attending the meeting and presenting his suggestions and information, which were very helpful. Councilman King suggested that if Mr. Wells had any films on signs, perhaps they could be shown to the Chamber of Commerce. 00- AT 9:52 P.M. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN 9:52 P.M ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- THELMA L. ALi<US^'ZnY~CTERi< APPROVED: X^^^^<'? 1971 Date of Distribution to City Council: 6w^^^>^ /•^c^ 1971 Date of Distribution to Departments: ///^^^^^>^^^^^, 1971 BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 01-U02 12-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9970-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06