The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 06-29-66 1_�321 ��ztka ry�ratoga-�Z�n.n,y�r�le Road Cupertino, Califc�rii�a Pl�ic�n�: 252-�+5�5 PC-W2 ° l, 00 ��,OOU.4� C I T Y 0 F C U P E P T I N 0 California MINUT�S 0�' T�u. STLrD`.L SESSIGN OF ThE PLANNING COMMISSION June 29, 1966 8:00 P.M. Held in the Office of the Building Department, City Hal1, CuNertino, Calif ornia Comm. Present: Bryson, Bu�henuth, Frolich, Horgan, Hirshon Ca�,�rn. Absent: None S��ff Fresent: Planning Director, Adde Laurin Chief Building Inspector, Bill Benevich Assistunt Plariner, Jim Nuzum Recording Secretary, Lois Inwards Tn.� meeting began with. ��:e Plan�ing Director d�scussir.g procedures: "The writi n.� of zoni.n� crd3_nances and rezoning of a particular prope��i�r is not planrlin.�, '�lzt �.rlplementation of planning pclicy. Vari�rceU and LYse Per�nits, particula�ly sign �nd fen�e variances, are still m��e .rez;loved from the fiel� of ac�ive �Ianning. "En�."oreeme�lt of zon��lg orc�inaces is the function of t:�e Building Dep,�:��ment, whicn �°�sul�s in overlapping of auth��rity ar_d d�uplicat�ion of. t.he work oi the ?'lannin� and Btzildin� Departments. So�n^ cities have resolved this dualism by plac�_r�g the Building Derarcment unc�er the Planning Director, but this is not a good solL�tion, because th� s emp�zs�.zes the police function of zoning te 'c�ze det�iment of active planni�:g. "In some cities and cour_ties, Vaz�iances and Use Permits are gr.an�ed en the administrati�re level by a Zonin; Administrator., This would probab��y not work we11 in a ci�y the slz� of Cupertinc9 either the applicant or the public would appeul every decision by the Zonin� Admistrator, and the Ci�y Council •cauld not help getting invclved in_every issue. "It is suggested that varian_ces requesting changes af�er an area is developed, mosfily sign and fence variances or variances for p��ios, should be ��eard by the Archi�ectural �nd Site Control C�mm�.ttee rather thar_ t'rie Planning Coinm:Lssion. Stafr' wor� on such variarlces would be �one by the Building Depar'c�,��r_t ra �'�er �han the Plannirg Depa.rtment . This would emphasize t��e active planning funct3_ons of the Planning Commission, tend to equal�.ze the tivorkload of the Commission and the Committ�e, and minimize dupZication of st�z"f work. -- 1 - Jun� ��th Suudy �?e�sian by �he Planning Comnis�ion "Present procedure is t�.at the Planning Commissi.c�n decides U?1 sign varian.ces, but their decision may be appeaied �� the City Council. In the case of all otxzer variances tize Plar.nir.i� Com- rr�is�ion onJ_y makes a positive or ne�a'cive reco:nmendation f�o the Cizy C�uncil, V�hich body decides . "Suggested procec�ure would be either: (1) tY�e Archit�c'cural and Si�ce Con�crol Committee decides, but their decision ma;� b� appealed to the City Council; or !2) the Committee makes a posit�ve or ne;a'cive recommAndation to tre Cityr Council, which body decides. "State law says that �Yie City Council can delega��e certain powers �CO tr.e Planning Commission. The suggested procedure (l� would _r.zquire similar delegation to the Architectural and Si�e Control Cornnit�ee; ;;he City �ttorne�r would advise on that. Otherwise, procedure (2) can be used; this,procedure is �he same as the one r_�i�r applied to .F:rchitectural ancl Site Approvals . "1'ne Planni�io Commission sYiould still be involved in writing and revision of sign 2.nd fen.ce ordinances, which is closer to planning policy. The Plannzng Lepar�ment would, of course, be available f or interpretation an.d advice, whenever the Buildin.g Department needs thj s .'` Com.m. Ho�.�gan said tha : when he was on the H-Control he felt that signs belonged with: the H-Control. Comm. Fr�lich cc;rr:meri�;.ed tk�at if th� City 'Attorne,r says H-Cc�.trvl can do this, peri�.aps we could move �his procedure ove.r a notch and gAt; H�Control recommendation and send it to the Planning Commisszon. The H-ControZ v;ould then be doing the gro�and work and i�c would n�t be so time consuming for the Planning Commission. `l''r.e other Planning Commissioners were agreeab�e to this. Comm. Horgan feels tr�e H-Control should take a look at t�.� ordi- r�ances after the Planning Commission and the City Attorney have made their re�isions to see if it is something they can live with, �s well. as the Chief Building Inspector. The Planning Director felt �rere should be a joint meeting of the Plannin� Commission, H-Control, City Council and staff on this. Comm. Frolich feels tha�c if the Commissian and the Committ� work on tYie ord�_nance separately, the P�.anning Commission should have the last crack at i�. T'r:e Chief Building Inspector feels, however, tha� the Sign Ordi- nance interpretation should be in �he Planning Departmen�; the Buil.ding Department will do �che police work. , TY�e Chief Building Inspector then revi�wed h�?s suggest�d changes _ �n �Lhe �ign Ordinance. There are cea��ain facets in the present 2 - J�:;�ze ?�1;;.1 S'cud�T �Se�s:��ri by' tre Co,n�n:iss3on _ 0>>dinance which are hard to in.tErpret atzd har�d to enfc�r�;e. Th� County computes by percentage�of net 1ot. Sunn�rvale us�s runnin� foot . The Chief Building I��Speci,o?' recommends bas3.nd si�n area on total squarn footage of �the building. Some o�,her cities are using 2�. (Gemco has square footage es 100,0�0; occupies 10 acres; could have 600 square fee� of sign surface.) Should we have a maximum and minimum square footage of sign sur�"ace`? WhicYi is aesthe�ically better, one big or �Trro smull sign�? How about 2f for first s'�ory, 1% or 12� for second story, no�ching for �hird, o� 2� for the. first 50,OOJ sq. feet`? No sin ;le sign to exceec� 3�0 sq. ft . arid no 1ot to ha.ve more toi,al sign a�rea than 800 sq. i''t . Coml•n. Frolich would like to see the maximum set at somP'ching like Gemco has now. Comm. Buthenuth f�els we should not a1'i;�nr ex�;ra for i,ize second sf�ry. Co:n�n. Frol�ch fe�ls thut a multi�story bt�ilding has m�re inves'ctrre��t and snould be allowed more sign � Com�. Br�TUo:� sug�ested a multi-s�'cor�r cerner 'c�uilding � or a series of shops under.one ccr_troT should be allowed an idcntification si�n plus a reader sign con�aining inf ormation for each lessee. Ch�i.,°?ry!an Hi ?"Sf10i1 askea the staif to come up with a recom�nen.ded pe��cer�t��e, m�ximum total sq. footage, minimum total sq. f oota�e,. ar�c� a maximum nu.mber cf signs . `l�he Ass�_star�t PJ_anner asked what approach you would use with five individual signs spel.ling G E M C 0? Perhaps there should be no one sign larger than X number of feet per sign surface. Comn�. Bryson suggested one sign per. Y nw of square feet. Comm. Frolich suggested no one sign less than X number of Fe�f; �,rl�ic'Z would auuoraatically eliminate too many si gns a� a�iven locaticn. The Chief Building Inspector was asked to mal�e a survey of presEnt signs in Cupertino. What are the qualificatiotls i'or a shopping center? Is it tenta� tive map lot ar�a minimum, or one ownership of the land? There should be a minimum area, The Chief Building Inspector suggested that ,�L1S� the name o� �he shopping czntPr snould be adver�tised on the shopping center s3_gn, instead of each business in the center. Cor��rn. Horgan felt this could crea�e hardship. mhe sugges��.�n was tlien made to have a given square footage per shopping cen�er and sma_ll reader sign for each lessee, which must be big enough no;; to c�eate a t.r.affi.c � huzard in car�s slowir�g dowiz in order to read them. The Assistant Pl.anner, ref�ri�ing to Section �4:11, said �here should be a rec�uirement that snoppin�; center signs must qe on two different stree�s and a certain distance apart. Comm. Frolich was not conv�ir.ced there should be two signs even if t:�ere are two front- <��es. C�ne per shopp�ng center would be enou�h unless there is m�re t;han one separate i'��ontage . -3- Jun° 29th Study �ession tYy the Planning CominlSsion Section 5.3 �o b� reworded. The Chief Building Inspector su;ges'ced elimi.nating the last portion, and �s'_��c� i#' �rot?nd Sign Sections �+.081 and �.0811 could be rEwritten. Chairman Hirshon questioned Section 2.11 in the proposed ordinance. The Assistant Planner suggested changes.in what constitutes a roof sign and wh�t constitutes a ground s:i.gn. He suggested any- thing on the roof is a roof sign, whether the principal supports are on the ground or on the roof. We have a Height Ordinance which limits structures in commercial zones to 3�' and the roof, sign and �11,'should be limited to this height. Ground signs should be held to 20'. The Planning Director suggested that roof signs shail not exceed the height permittec� in the zone and shall not extend more than 10' above the roof, whichever is more res�rict�ve, ��nd-h�: f�lt defz_ni�ions are needed for ground and roof signs. (Roof sign: A_r_�rthir�� which is attached to or pro�ects from the bu�Llding or the area covered by the roof. Ground sign: Has to be separated fxom any build3.rig or structure: by 5 feet .} It was felt �he Si�n O��ir.ance would be easier f or staff and applicants tu interpref; if done in this manner rather than in grapns. Comm. Frolich suggested Section 7 be divided into 7.1 Location, 7.2 Height, 7.3 P��ohibited Obstructions. Comm. Buthenutr suggeszed Section 5.5 be rewritten for clarit,y. Section 12 to be expanded. Prohibition of projecting sig�s was discussed. Tn.e Chief Building Inspector was asked to mail copies of old ordi- r.ance to tre Commissioners. Chairman Hirshon commented on Section 2.1�. Comm. Fr�lich suggested adding "a te�nporary sign': , but it t�ras felt that Sec�ion 9 takes care of this. He felt temporary signs and political signs, for instance, srould have a fixed time limit. How would rules ab out vacancy signs or signs in windows o1' grocery stores and service stations be enforced? He proposed an addition to Section 3.17. Advertising oi� any vehicle with an expired license plate parked in a commercial area shall be con- sidered as s sign (or �hall be prohibited). Meeting ad�ourned at 1�:�0 P.M. APPROVED: /s/ Jack T. Hirshon C airman ATTEST: ( _l�!( ./, ,�_ �.�.r��i�i/ i�'!'�'t j�dde Laurin _ � _ Lirector of Planning