REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

Similar documents
REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Sacramento

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

It is recommended that the Development Committee take the following actions:

Board of Zoning Adjustments Staff Report Monthly Meeting Monday, February 15, 2016

ORDINANCE NO. Introduction (CM)

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA

Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions:

CITY OF PALMDALE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. CC

City of Sacramento Zoning Code - Zoning Descriptions Excerpt from website on April 5, 2010

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT August 30, 2007

DATE: September 18, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Douglas Spondello, Associate Planner

REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REVIEW CRITERIA

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT. SUBJECT: Master Case No ; Tentative Parcel Map No

A G E N D A CITY OF BUENA PARK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING

City of Placerville Planning Commission STAFF REPORT

City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report

ARTICLE XI SIGNS Shelbyville Zoning Regulations 1994

A G E N D A CITY OF BUENA PARK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

CITY OF WILDOMAR PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item #2.3 PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: January 6, 2016

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

b) Tangerine Corridor Overlay District 1) Tangerine Corridor District Regulations

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

ORDINANCE NO

MEMORANDUM. Mr. Sean Tabibian, Esq. Dana A. Sayles, AICP, three6ixty Olivia Joncich, three6ixty. DATE May 26, 2017

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

CITY OF SANTA ROSA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 APPLICANT FILE NUMBER MJP

Article 18. Sign Regulations

MEMORANDUM. DATE: November 9, 2016 PC Agenda Item 3.B. Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners

Article 9 Signs and Billboards

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of September 19, 2015

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA Napa (707)

EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION NO.

PA Parking Adjustment for a change in use at 1300 Solano Ave.

PA Conditional Use Permit for Kumon Learning Center at 1027 San Pablo Ave.

PA Temporary Use Permit for Night Nation Run at Golden Gate Fields (1100 Eastshore)

Sven & Katrin Nauckhoff (PLN030156)

AGENDA CITY OF EL MONTE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE TUESDAY OCTOBER 23, :00 P.M. CITY HALL WEST CONFERENCE ROOM A VALLEY BOULEVARD

Planning Commission Staff Report

CITY OF MERCED Planning & Permitting Division STAFF REPORT: #12-21 AGENDA ITEM: 4.1

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Approved 58 Unit Residential Condo Development for Sale. For Sale: Price Upon Request

MONTEREY COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

All of the following must be submitted before the Planning Department can process the application:

APPLICATION FOR 555 Washington Street Tentative Map Red Bluff, CA Subdivision Map (530) ext Parcel Map.

RESOLUTION NO. P15-07

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report

March 26, Sutter County Planning Commission

RESOLUTION NO. C. No other public utility facilities are in use on the Easement and no facilities would be affected by the vacation.

REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY & MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSIONS Zoning Ordinance Reformatting

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 12, 2018

RESOLUTION NO. PC

PC RESOLUTION NO. 15~11-10~01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)

There are no immediate economic impacts associated with this report.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

BUTTE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) EXECUTIVE OFFICER S REPORT. LAFCo File City of Chico Extension of Services 716 Oak Lawn Avenue

COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA (707) FAX (707)

ORDINANCE NUMBER WHEREAS, the regulation of development in single-family residential districts is within the police powers of the City; and,

EMERYVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION. Report Date: June 18, 2015 Meeting Date: June 25, 2015

Chapter SIGNS. Sections: Specific Standards by Zoning District Specific Standards by Use

1. Cuyler-Brownsville planned neighborhood conservation (P-N-C) districtphase I (section ). (2) Single-family semiattached dwellings;

Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner

City of Brisbane. Zoning Administrator Agenda Report

E X C L U S I V E L I S T I N G R E T A I L S T R I P

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM. Planning Commission. Alice McCurdy, Deputy Director Development Review Division

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: July 20, 2017

COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA (707) FAX (707)

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SANTA ROSA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION February 26, 2015 APPLICANT. Citywide FILE NUMBER

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ARTICLE 11. NAMEPLATES AND SIGNS Signs in all districts.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

6040 Bathurst Street and 5 Fisherville Road Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application Preliminary Report

GEORGE / GROSVENOR AREA STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING CITY OF LONDON DEPARTMENT OF. MAY 1985 r----q

MINOR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

City of San Juan Capistrano Supplemental Agenda Report

CITY OF WILDOMAR PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item #2.1 PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: June 6, 2018

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVATO

CITY OF MORRO BAY SIGN PERMIT. Public Services Department Planning Division 955 Shasta Avenue Morro Bay, CA (805)

Hearing Date: April 17, 2014

Christopher J. Blunk, Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer

Secondary Dwelling Unit

Operating Standards Attachment to Development Application

Master Plan Review SILVER SPRING CBD. Approved and Adopted February Updated January 2013

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the proposed Ordinance Amendments; and

Stenberg Annexation Legal Diagram Exhibit "B" W Subject Property Annexed to the City of Red Bluff VICINITY MAP "1:3:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: JUNE 21, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING

CHAPTER 154: SIGNS. Section

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA

Transcription:

REPORT TO PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION City of Sacramento 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2671 www.cityofsacramento.org 5 PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2016 To: Members of the Planning and Design Commission Subject: University Village PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment (P16-047) A request to amend the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sign Guidelines by removing the guidelines (Part V) for University Village in their entirety and defer to the Sign Code for all future signage requirements. A. Environmental Determination: Exempt (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)-No Significant Effect); B. PUD Guidelines Amendment to amend the Campus Commons PUD Sign Guidelines by removing the section containing the sign guidelines for the University Village Shopping center. Location/Council District: 27 University Village (Assessor s Parcel Number 295-0381-003)/ Council District 6 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission approve the request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1. The Commission has final approval authority over items A through C above, and its decision is appealable to City Council. At the time of the writing of this report, the project is noncontroversial. Contact: Sandra Yope, Senior Planner, (916) 808-7158; Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, (916) 808-7110 Applicant: Pacific Neon c/o Shelly Gouveia, (916) 927-0527 ext. 228, 2939 Academy Way, Sacramento, CA 95815 Property Owner: Merlone Geier Partners c/o Jon Plomteaux, (916) 595-6325, 3191 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 23, Rancho Cordova, CA 95815 1

2

Summary: The applicant is requesting to amend the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sign Guidelines by removing the section specifically pertaining to the University Village Shopping Center signage. The project requires a PUD Guidelines Amendment. At the time of writing this report, staff is not aware of any outstanding issues. Staff notified all property owners within 300 feet of the site for this public hearing and has not received any opposition. Table 1: Project Information General Plan designation: Employment Center Mid Rise Existing zoning of site: Shopping Center, Planned Unit Development (SC-PUD) Existing use of site: Shopping Center Planned Unit Development: Campus Commons Property area: Approximately 7.67 (APN) 295-0381-003 Background Information: On November 25, 1969, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution #79 establishing the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). On February 13, 1973, the Planning Commission approved a Special Permit to develop a shopping center (P5310). On October 6, 1987, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Campus Commons PUD guidelines to add sign guidelines for the PUD area (P87-313). The site is currently developed with an anchor grocery store (Safeway), a pharmacy (CVS), and various retail stores, restaurants and medical offices. On March 16, 2016, design staff approved a renovation for the entire shopping center (DR16-046). Since the adoption of the sign guidelines in the late 80 s, there have been a number of developments in federal and state law, both statutory and judicial. The City Council recently amended chapter 15.148 (Sign Code) of the City Code to address these developments. There are sections within PUD sign guidelines that should be similarly amended. The applicant recently began a complete renovation of the University Village Shopping Center. The applicant is seeking to update the center s signage to compliment the new renovation. Staff recommended the applicant seek a PUD Sign Guidelines amendment to completely remove the sign guidelines pertaining to the University Village Shopping Center and defer to the SC zone section of the Sign Code in order to allow the desired signage. Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: The site has been posted and property owners within 300 feet radius of the site have been notified for the hearing. Staff has not received any comments at the time of writing this report. Environmental Considerations: The proposed PUD amendment to amend the sign guidelines, removing a section, has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which 3

have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Policy Considerations: Sign regulations are used to preserve and improve the appearance of the City as a place in which to live; to safeguard and enhance property values; to protect public and private investment in buildings and open spaces; and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. General Plan The 2035 General Plan Update was adopted by City Council on March 3, 2015. The 2035 General Plan s goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap to achieving Sacramento s vision to be the most livable city in America. The 2035 General Plan designation of the subject site is Employment Center Mid Rise. This designation provides for large mixed-use office/employment centers that include office complexes as well as support retail and service uses. Some of the goals and policies from the 2035 General Plan supported by this project are: Goal LU 7.1.1 Employment Intensive Uses. The City shall encourage employeeintensive uses such as medical and professional offices, light industry, research, and skill training. Staff finds that the project will support the viability of businesses within the Employment Center which in turn will address community needs. Goal ED 1.1 Business Climate. Maintain a supportive business climate and a healthy, sustainable economy that increases the City s ability to expand existing businesses and attract and retain new businesses. Staff finds that the project will support existing businesses in the subject neighborhood and will help maintain a healthy and sustainable economy that increases the City s ability to attract and retain businesses. Arden Arcade Community Plan The Arden Arcade Community Plan Area contains mostly residential neighborhoods with local employment office and retail centers at key intersections. The subject site is located southeast of the Fair Oaks Boulevard/Howe Avenue intersection. Staff finds that the request supports the viability of commercial tenants in the retail center. PUD Guidelines Amendment: The proposal involves an amendment of the Campus Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sign Guidelines to remove Part V Sign Criteria-University Village-Retail Shops from the Guidelines (see Exhibit A). The applicant recently began a complete remodel of the existing shopping center and desires to revamp all signage for the center. The existing sign guidelines adopted in 1987 are outdated in design and actual guideline language. The guidelines refer to canopy signs based on the design of the buildings when the guidelines were adopted. There are no longer canopies and the language needs to reflect the requirements for attached signs. The existing sign code section 15.148.140 of the City Code that applies to the Shopping Center (SC) zone provides the desired flexibility for signage proposed 4

for the shopping center once the remodel is complete and new tenants are signed (see Attachment 3). Any proposed signage will still be subject to Site Plan and Design Review for architectural integration with existing buildings. Under Section 17.808.230(B) of the Planning and Development Code, an amendment to a planned unit development schematic plan or guideline that does not change the intensity of land uses by more than 10% is subject to review by the planning and design commission. Staff finds that the proposal to amend the signage guidelines will not change the land use intensity and therefore may be reviewed and approved at the planning and design commission level. Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Campus Commons PUD Sign Guidelines will: 1) preserve and enhance the appearance of the PUD by allowing signage to follow more current sign regulations applicable to the Shopping Center zone that will permit newer sign types and designs that are harmonious to the buildings and sites which they occupy; 2) support the vitality of the businesses in the PUD; and 3) be consistent with General Plan policies and goals to maintain a healthy and sustainable economy. Staff recommends that the Planning and Design Commission approve the project based on the following findings (City Code section 17.808.230(C)(1)(c)): A. The designation, adoption, or amendment is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation, use, and development standards; the goals, policies, and other provisions of the general plan; and any applicable specific plan or transit village plan in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines is consistent with the Employment Center Mid Rise land use designation and with the goals and polices of the general plan to maintain a healthy and sustainable economy that increases the City s ability to attract and retain businesses. B. The designation, adoption, or amendment promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the city in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines assists in business identification and way-finding with signage that will support the viability of businesses that provide services to the community. C. The zoning classification of the subject parcel is consistent with the proposed amendment to the planned unit development sign guidelines in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines is consistent with the objective of the planned unit development guidelines to preserve and enhance the appearance of the PUD. Conclusion: Staff recommends the Commission approve the request based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1. 5

Attachment 1: Proposed Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval University Village PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment (P16-047) 27 University Village Findings of Fact A. Environmental Determination: Exempt Based on the determination and recommendation of the City s Environmental Planning Services Manager and the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Project, the Planning and Design Commission finds that the Project is exempt from review under Section Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines as follows: The PUD amendment to amend the sign guidelines, removing a section is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. B. PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment to amend the Campus Commons PUD Sign Guidelines by removing the section containing the sign guidelines for the University Village Shopping center is approved as set forth in Attachment 2. Conditions of Approval B. PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment to amend the Campus Commons PUD Sign Guidelines by removing the section containing the sign guidelines for the University Village Shopping center is hereby approved subject to the following condition: PLANNING B1. All new proposed signage for University Village shall comply with chapter 15.148 (Sign Code) of the City Code. 7

Attachment 2: Resolution for PUD Guidelines Amendment RESOLUTION NO. P16-047 Adopted by the Sacramento Planning and Design Commission September 8, 2016 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SIGN GUIDELINES AMENDMENT TO DELETE PART V OF THE CAMPUS COMMONS PUD SIGN GUIDELINES (P16-047) BACKGROUND On September 8, 2016 the Planning and Design Commission considered the PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment to allow delete Part V of the Sign Guidelines specific to University Village Retail Stores in the Campus Commons PUD Sign Guidelines. BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning and Design Commission approves the PUD Sign Guidelines Amendment based on the following findings of fact: 1. The designation, adoption, or amendment is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation, use, and development standards; the goals, policies, and other provisions of the general plan; and any applicable specific plan or transit village plan in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines is consistent with the Employment Center Mid Rise land use designation and with the goals and polices of the general plan to maintain a healthy and sustainable economy that increases the City s ability to attract and retain businesses. 2. The designation, adoption, or amendment promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the city in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines assists in business identification and way-finding with signage that will support the viability of businesses that provide services to the community. 3. The zoning classification of the subject parcel is consistent with the proposed amendment to the planned unit development sign guidelines in that the proposed amendment to the PUD Guidelines is consistent with the objective of the planned unit development guidelines to preserve and enhance the appearance of the PUD. Attachment: Exhibit A - PUD Guidelines Amendment (Redlined Copy) 8

9

10

11

Attachment 3: Excerpt from 15.148.140 (SC Sign Code Regulations) The University Village Shopping Center will now follow all applicable Sign Requirements found in the Sign Code- Chapter 15.148. including but not limited to 15.148.140. Article III. Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts of City 15.148.140 SC shopping center and HC highway commercial zones. Within the SC shopping center and HC highway commercial zones, signs are allowed as follows: A. One detached sign for each developed parcel not exceeding one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage abutting the developed portion of such parcel, provided that: 1. Where a developed parcel has in excess of three hundred (300) feet of street frontage, one additional detached sign may be erected for each additional three hundred (300) feet of street frontage in excess of the first three hundred (300) feet of street frontage abutting the developed portion of such parcel. 2. Where a developed parcel is allowed to have more than one detached sign under these regulations, the distance between the detached signs on each parcel shall be not less than three hundred (300) feet. 3. Subject to the provisions of Article IV of this chapter, the total area of all detached signs on each parcel shall not exceed one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage of the developed portion of such parcel. B. Two attached signs for each occupancy within the developed parcel. Such signs shall not exceed a total aggregate area of three square feet of sign area for each front foot of building occupancy. Such signs shall be placed flat against the building, on an architectural projection, or attached to the underside of an architectural projection subject to the provisions of Sections 15.148.460 and 15.148.470. C. No detached sign shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. No height limit is specified for signs placed flat against the wall of a building or for other attached signs provided all other provisions of this chapter are complied with. D. No sign shall be located nearer than five feet to an interior property line nor shall any sign be located nearer than five feet to any common wall or other point common to two separate occupancies on the same parcel. This regulation, however, shall not apply to signs painted on or otherwise attached flat against the wall or architectural projection of a building on the same parcel. A sign may be located within or project into a required front or street sideyard setback area; however, no sign may project into or over an abutting public right-of-way except as otherwise provided for in this chapter. (Ord. 2016-0010 8; prior code 3.04.064) 12