Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2002 1008 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark, California October 8, 2002 An Adjourned Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on October 8, 2002, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Mayor Hunter announced that the adjourned meeting was called to discuss Item 10.A., which was continued from the October 2, 2002, regular meeting. 2. INVOCATION: None. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Harper led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Mikos, Millhouse, Harper, Wozniak and Mayor Hunter. Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Hugh Riley, Assistant City Manager; Mary Lindley, Director of Community Services; Paul Porter, Principal Planner; and Deborah Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk. S. PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS: None. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 7. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 10. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION: October 8, 2002 A. Consider Proposed Sign Program for Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 2001 -01 (Moorpark Marketplace - 357,621 Square Foot Commercial Center) Located South of New Los Angeles Avenue, East of Miller Parkway and West of the SR -23 Freeway on the Application of Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. (Continued from September 18, 2002 meeting and October 2, 2002 meeting.) Staff Recommendation: Approve the Master Sign Program subject to the staff recommended modifications. Mr. Porter gave the staff report. Brian Wolfe, P & R Architects, 111 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 2100, Long Beach, California, representing the applicant, discussed revisions to the sign elevations and presented four alternatives, which due to limited time did not include the final architectural details. He stated that changes in the alternatives included: the division of panels to a side by side configuration; the reduction in letter height from 36- inches to 30- inches; and a reduction in the total height of the sign from 78- feet to 52 -feet. Mr. Wolfe presented renderings of four options, including line of sight versions as seen from Los Angeles Avenue, along with aerial simulations of the entire center. He went on to state that all the options are of similar height with Option D having the least mass. Veronica Fischer, a Moorpark resident, stated her support for the project. Ms. Fischer described the difficulty in getting companies such as Target to locate to a City with a population such as Moorpark's; the benefit of Target coming to Moorpark will be the attraction of other desirable retail tenants; the increased sales tax revenue for the City; and the eagerness with which residents are awaiting this project. Kevin Mauch, a Moorpark resident, stated that he did not support the billboard type signage; the Council should not give in to the developer's claims that they cannot make a go of it without the sign; and residents would not be in favor of this pole sign. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 October 8, 2002 Pierce Verleur, a Moorpark resident, questioned the need for the sign to attract customers from the freeway since the customer -base for the center will be predominately from within the City of Moorpark not from residents of Simi Valley or from the 101 freeway corridor. Lise Houston, a Moorpark resident, stated her support for the retail development and the proposed stores; that the freeway sign is unnecessary for generating business; and that if there must be sign, a shorter version would be an improvement. Mark Armbruster, representing Cypress Land Company, 2121 Avenue of The Stars, Los Angeles, California, stated that he looks forward to the synergy between the commercial and industrial projects; he cares about the success of the shopping center; and from his company's viewpoint, freeway signage is needed to ensure that the center is successful. Councilmember Harper asked if any Councilmembers liked any of the four options. Councilmember Mikos discussed the need for a compromise between the Council's objections to the signage and the applicant's need to have the signs. She went on to state that she supports the center, which has already been approved; a decision still needs to be made about how the sign will look; there is no guarantee which tenants will occupy the center; she is pleased with the overall design of the center; the sign options presented are not that desirable; the whiteness of the panels makes it difficult to visualize the signs with more detail; and she would like to hear from the rest of the Council before making a decision. Councilmember Wozniak stated that Option D resembles a power pole; he is not favorably impressed with the white area on the signs; the reduction in height is an improvement; and a pitched roof could improve the appearance of the top. He stated that the height of the sign should be determined by the Council at this meeting and the design should come back for approval, allowing time for the applicant to work with Target to illustrate the embellishments. Councilmember Harper stated that the proposal looks like a billboard; he concurs with Councilmember Wozniak that Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 October 8, 2002 more design work is needed to add character to the sign; retailers look at the City of Moorpark as a marginal market area and feel it is necessary to have adequate signage if they are to locate here; and with modifications, Option C or D have potential. Councilmember Millhouse stated that he did not vote in support of the project; he does not like the tenant mix; this is a lower -end shopping center and the City of Moorpark deserves better; the freeway signage is not needed; the decision to have a sign has already been approved by the Council; he is willing to take the chance that Target will not leave if the Council takes back their decision for the sign; the design of the sign needs to be determined; he does not like the new options, which look like a billboard; and he might be able to support the original pylon -type design with a reduction in height. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Kueny confirmed that the location and height of the signage have previously been determined by the Council. Mayor Hunter stated that what is left to be determined is the architecture; the applicant indicates the architectural details are missing due to time constraints, so there is nothing to decide; and there is a 24 -foot sign to be located on Los Angeles Avenue, east of Miller Parkway, which also needs to be considered as part of this sign program. Councilmember Mikos stated that the advantage of the lower signage is view preservation; she is concerned about Councilmember Harper's suggestions for archways, which will create greater mass for the lower signs; there are no renderings depicting what larger, low signs will look like; it is difficult to make a decision without seeing that design; the columns depicted in the new design do not blend with rest of the architecture in the center; renderings are needed showing embellished versions of the signs; she can go either way on the 24- foot pylon sign, which does blend with the architectural style of the center and is the same height as the signs at Ralphs Center and Mission Bell Plaza; she is concerned about the plain and ordinary appearance of the 12 -foot high monument sign near the corner of Miller Parkway and New Los Angeles Avenue, which depicts the minor tenants' names; and that the same font for the lettering "Moorpark Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 October 8, 2002 Marketplace" should be used on the big tower as is depicted on the three entry monument signs. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wolfe stated that the 12 -foot high monument sign is the only identification for the twelve or more, smaller tenants tucked back in the center. He deferred to Mr. Exel to elaborate. Robert Exel, representing Zelman Retail Partners, Inc., 515 South Figueroa, Suite 515, Los Angeles, California, stated that all of the tenants do not need to be on the 12 -foot monument sign; two restaurant pads, which are below grade, would need to be named on the sign; and the seven panels on the freeway sign are reserved for the five major tenants along with two restaurants. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Exel demonstrated on the site plan where the tenants for the below grade pads are to be located. Councilmember Millhouse stated that there is too much signage on the project; he agrees with Mayor Hunter that excess signage located in public locations must be removed; and until an acceptable design for the large sign comes back to the Council and /or additional signage is removed, he cannot support this sign program. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Councilmember Millhouse stated that all the signage along the food court area needs to be an art piece not an advertisement; the 12 -foot high sign along Los Angeles Avenue is unnecessary if the 78 -foot sign is approved; and that the entryway signs should be better designed to resemble entryway features such as those at the Promenade. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Kueny confirmed that as part of the amendment to the Settlement Agreement, the Air Quality fee was reduced for this project by about one million dollars. Councilmember Harper stated that this center is a great addition to the community; other communities have developed these smaller centers prior to acquiring the major retailers like the ones at the Promenade; and that this center would allow local residents to do the majority of their shopping in Moorpark. He asked the Council to concentrate on one element of the sign program at a time, in order to give the applicant more focused Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 direction. October 8, 2002 Mayor Hunter concurred and stated that it would better serve the public and the applicant if there was closure on the project rather than returning to another meeting. He asked the Council what direction they would like to focus on the major sign at the corner. Councilmember Wozniak stated that the taller pylon sign is not necessary; the 24 -foot sign should be reduced in size; and the panels of advertising can be split between it and the 12 -foot sign. He went on to state that without renderings it is difficult to decide what the signs are going to look like. Mr. Kueny suggested reaching a consensus on the tall pylon sign and summarized: Option 1) the 78 -foot sign as originally proposed; Option 2) reduce the panel size on the original proposal and decrease the height to 72 -feet; Option 3) a 52 -foot sign with the addition of approximately 4 feet for adding a roof element; and Option 4) eliminate a panel and create an approximate 68- foot high sign. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wolfe stated that the roof design could be revised; one sign panel could be split into two panels; and one panel could be eliminated with a reduction in the height of the signage to approximately 66 -feet or less. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wolfe stated that the fundamental design would remain that of the 78 -foot tower. Councilmember Mikos asked if Planning Commissioner, Mark DiCecco, would comment on the design. Commissioner DiCecco, based his comments on the pylon sign and stated that the applicant's suggestion that the sign could be 21 -feet wide rather than 42 -feet wide would make it more proportional to a bell tower; signage on only two sides would leave an opportunity for a clock face on the other two sides; and that his preference would be for a taller, narrower sign, as opposed to a wider more massive sign. Councilmember Harper stated that a taller bell tower would be the highest element in the City and would become Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 October 8, 2002 more of a landmark; he could support the taller version with modifications, if that is the Council's desire, however his preference is for a lower, wider, more conventional sign for a shopping center along with better detail. Councilmember Mikos stated that the only way to reach a decision is to see what the different renderings would look like. She concurred with Councilmember Wozniak that the 24 -foot corner sign is not necessary with the tall pylon sign. Mayor Hunter stated that the applicant is directed to return with renderings showing a variation of the 78 -foot high sign and a variation of the three options, presented at this meeting, excluding Option D, all of which will include sufficient embellishment to show architectural detail. Councilmember Millhouse stated that direction should be given regarding the three options. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wolfe stated that they would try to provide renderings of a 66 -foot high variation of the 78 -foot high sign and a rendering of the version of the lower, wider sign by Tuesday preceding the next meeting. Mr. Kueny stated that if it is the consensus of the Council that the 66 -foot variation with details from the original 78 -foot sign is preferable to the more massive shorter sign, he would like to avoid the difficulty of coordinating the distribution of renderings by deferring to Mr. Hogan to bring the sign into conformance. Councilmember Wozniak concurred and requested that Mr. Hogan approve the sign at 66 -feet or less in height. There was no Council consensus on deferral of approval to Mr. Hogan. In response to Councilmember Harper, Mayor Hunter stated that clock elements should be included in the renderings and if the Council determines they are not attractive they can be eliminated. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wolfe stated that it would be better to focus on one design rather than Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 October 8, 2002 prepare renderings of each of the lower signs and requested that the Council direct which one they would like to emphasize. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wolfe stated he was not sure that freeway views of the sign could be completed by the following week. Mayor Hunter stated that by a straw poll it can be concluded that there is not support for a 52 -foot by 42- foot sign and that the architect should focus on a 66- foot or less by 21 -foot sign with sufficient detail for the Council to render a decision. Mr. Kueny read the Settlement Agreement language regarding the 24 -foot and 12 -foot signs. In response to Councilmember Millhouse, Mr. Kueny stated that that the Council has discretion over the location and design of the signage. Mr. Wolfe stated that they height of the 24 -foot sign panels on the other sign. will attempt to reduce the and reduce the number of In response to Mr. Mikos, Mayor Hunter stated that the Master Sign Program has to be adopted as a program. Councilmember Harper stated that he would like to see the 24 -foot sign reduced in height; the number of panels reduced; and that if the direction of the Council is to make the tower on the corner the most prominent feature of the center, he will reluctantly agree. Mayor Hunter stated that the 24 -foot and 12 -foot high monument signs target the same audience along New Los Angeles Avenue. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wolfe stated that the two signs are approximately 300 -feet apart; the signs are located west of the driveway; different tenants are identified on the two signs; street identification is needed for the tenants; and that street signage will be necessary as the landscaping matures and screens the building signs. In response to Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Millhouse`s concern regarding the advertising placed on the "Arts in Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 October 8, 2002 Public Places" portion of the center, Mr. Wolfe stated that the signage near the fountain can be reduced, but the side panels will need to remain. Councilmember Harper stated that he did not object to signage on the colonnade, which is adjacent to the water feature, not directly on the fountain; the center needs a reasonable amount of signage to be successful; and the Council needs to achieve closure on the sign issue in order for the center to move forward. Councilmember Millhouse stated that the fountain element was an attempt at "Art in Public Places "; the colonnade is critical to the water fountain element, because it helps shield the diners from the parking lot; and he is concerned that waiving the Arts in Public Places fees, which could have been used for actual art in the community, is not the correct thing to do. Councilmember Harper stated that the signage on the colonnade will not be visible from the food court; the signage will not detract from the outside dining experience; the fee is not being waived, rather the developer is allowed to produce some art object for the project or pay "in lieu" fees. Mayor Hunter stated that other fees are being waived on this project as part of the project approval. In response to Mayor Hunter, Mr. Wolfe stated that he has sufficient direction on the freeway oriented sign, but he is unclear on the other signs and the colonnade. Mr. Kueny summarized that on the colonnade the signs should be moved away from the fountain; the 24 -foot sign should be reduced in height to approximately 20 feet with no specific direction as to how to accomplish that; and a the 12 -foot high monument sign should be reduced in height along with a reduction in the number of panels from twelve to eight. A discussion followed among the Councilmembers regarding a date for continuance. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 October 8, 2002 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to: 1) direct the applicant to return with a variation of the freeway oriented pylon sign not to exceed 66 -feet in height by approximately 21 -feet in width with a clock face on two sides; 2) move the colonnade signs away from the fountain; 3) reduce the height of the 24 -foot sign to approximately 20 feet; 4) reduce the height of the 12 -foot high monument sign and the number of panels from twelve to eight; and 5) continue the meeting to the October 16, 2002, regular meeting which would be adjourned to Thursday, October 17, 2002. In response to Councilmember Mikos, Mr. Wolfe stated he would try to have the rendering of the freeway sign available for the Council to review on the Tuesday prior to the meeting date. 14. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Harper moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Th ATTEST: Deborah S. TraffensfeVdt City Clerk