Loading...
PC 02-26-76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 PC-2l9 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chairman Gatto with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Adams (8:40), Cooper, O'Keefe (9:30), Woodward, Chairman Gatto None Commissioners absent: Staff present: Planning Director Sisk Assistant Planner Kramer City Attorney Kilian PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CITY OF to Si gn signs. CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an amendment Ordinance No. 353 establishing new regulations for First Hearing continued. Chairman Gatto announced this meeting was to continue public hearing of new sign ordinance being considered by City of Cupertino. He referred to previous hearing and additional information requested from staff. Tonight's discussion would be on three major concerns: (l) Whether the ordinance should be self regulating, (2) Amortization Period and it should be handled if there should be one, and (3) Actua mechanics of sign sizes. Assistant Planner Kramer then made the staff presentation. She referred to her memo of February 26, 1976 which covered costs of signs and alternatives for amortization periods, Table A - Selected Wall Signs as Related to New Ordinance and Table B - Valuation of Various Signs as Stated on Building Permit. These documents were in answer to the Planning Commission's request from last meeting for additional information. PC-2l9 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. Ms. Kramer answered Chairman Gatto there was a list of non-conforming signs that could be studied. Chairman Gatto then explained format for evening's discussion. The three areas of concern would be considered separately and he asked each participant to speak only to that subject tmder consideration. The meeting was then opened for public comment. 1. Should Sign Ordinance be Self-Regulating or Should H-Control have Subjective Ability to Modify? Mr. Frank Mulkern, 20800 Homestead Road, Cupertino, read a letter from the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who was unable to be at this meeting, which asked that the proposed sign ordinance be deferred until Chamber of Commerce members could study the document furthe r . Mr. Mulkern said they cannot comprehend how it will affect the businessmen tmtil there is a complete study of the ordinance _ but it does affect every businessman. Chairman Gatto answered he felt there should be input from those present. Ms. Kramer spoke to availability of ordinance draft. Mr. Robert Morgan, 1314 Whitegate, San Jose, said he objected to format of meeting. He did not think they should be working on finite details of ordinance. He asked members of audience be given an over- lay of sign ordinance. He asked to have the slides shown again as there were people here tonight that had not attended the last meeting. These people had a right to hear what staff has in mind tmder sign ordinance. Chairman Gatto ascertained that hearings had been published through newspapers and letters sent to over 300 members of the Chamber of, Commerce. Chairman Gatto agreed to having slides shown again, but he stressed they could not keep going over each meeting for benefit of people tmable to attend the previous meeting. He clarified the format. He explained what should come out of this group was a recommendation to City Council in terms of reports and recommendations on various alternatives. They are a public body for input who pass findings on to the City Cotmcil. Assistant Planner Kramer then went through slides again and reviewed how they would be affected by the new ordinance; as well as their status tmder existing ordinance. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. PC-2l9 Page 3 As requested by Chairman Gatto, Ms. Kramer expanded on purpose and intent of ordinance as noted on pages 1 and 2 of Sign Ordinance being proposed. She read the four concerns on which the proposed ordinance was based. Chairman Gatto reiterated the major question under discussion now was if the ordinance spells out in detail what is necessary for signs, should there be additional review by a body such as H-Control? Mr. Mulkern said he did not Come prepared to speak on any issues, but it was his opinion that from the businessman and developer's point of view, they would rather not have H-Control review any permit unless it was at variance with staff's determination that the sign met all the qualifications of the sign ordinance. He did not see the need for delay by having to go to another body. He would like to see staff approve all signs that are not controversial. COIlDll. Cooper asked Mr. Mulkern if he would be willing to have staff rule on a sign without a public hearing. Mr. Mulkern said it would depend on what the sign ordinance said. He felt staff was qualified to do this if specifications were made in a way that there could be no misunderstandings. Mr. Mulkern answered Comm. Woodward he was under the impression the sign ordinance would apply to planned developments. He thought the staff is, informed on intent of sign ordinance and would be capable of addressing what was wanted. Time is of the essence to a new business opening. Where possible, any sign should be handled at staff level. Mr. Don Bettisworth, l0490 Glenview Avenue, Cupertino, said he had received sign permit in 1963. Now is the most violated of violations. He wonde red hew far the si gn ordinance would go. Will they be telling them when to sweep their store or what color fingernail polish their wife should use? He wondered how well versed H-Control is to make judgments on signs. Mr. Bettisworth said as a tax payer he resented paying for sign investigation of this nature. He did not feel the businessman could live with the ordinance that is being put forth now. Chairman Gatto ascertained he was objecting to everything in sign ordinance. Mr. Bettisworth said a sign ordinance that could be lived with could be written, but it should be written by people who were qualified to build a sign ordinance and not stacked as was this committee just set up. PC-219 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE F'EBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. City Attorney Kilian answered Chairman Gatto that the staff would have no authority to allow deviation from ordinance. Mr. Kilian said variance and exception procedures were the job of a body that had power of Adjudicating certain situations. Comm. Woodward, noting there was no intent to badger the business community, referred to complaints about a new sign ordinance, but the sign survey showed that 49% of signs did not have a sign permit. He referred to question raised at last meeting about City enforcing old ordinance before writing a new one, Sl% of signs do not conform to old ordinance. It was noted existing ordinance, No. 353, was adopted June 19, 1967. Mr. Mulke rn ago was the conforming. said the thing that should have been addressed a long time policing of signs that are without permits and are non- The businessmen could agree with this. The City Attorney answered Chairman Gatto these sign violations should be treated like any other violation. He described various means of treating the violations. He noted the procedure was geared to insuring compliance, rather than punishing. Most violations of city ordinances are infractions; there are some that would be misdemeanors. fines for infractions could be as high as $SOO and $1000 for misdemeanor. Mr. Doug Schultz, 1029 Ranere Ct., Sunnyvale, asked if there was a sign code prior to 1967 and what was done to bring signs into conform- ance then, Ms. Kramer answered there Was a sign code in existence to 1967. She read the procedure for amortization of non-conforming signs as contained in 1967 ordinance. There was no provision for method of enforcing amortization period. As signs came requesting change, the City attempted to bring them into conformance. Mr. Gordon R. Siebert, West Valley Sign Company, said he would like to know how many fines had been paid for illegal signs. The City Attorney said in the past 4 years they had gone to court on probably two or three violations and of those, the fines ranged from $SO to $150 for sign violations. They were corrected quickly as each day constitutes a new violation. He advised he would have no knowledge of those violations not brought to court. Chairman Gatto noted Hr. Siebert's point that amortization period of 1967 ordinance was not carried out. Amortization was then discussed, 2. Amortization Period Chairman Gatto referred to four alternatives suggested in staff's memo. He read Sections 10.03.1 and 10.03.2 of proposed ordinance. MINlITES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MfG. PC-219 Page 5 The four alternatives for amortization were; 1. The recommendation made by the Sign Review Committee as contained in Section 10.03. 2. Grandfathering - Whereby all existing signs made non- conforming by the new sign ordinance would be allowed to remain until a change of copy, site or structure were requested by the existing tenant or the new business. 3. Blanket approval to allOW' all signs issued permits after 1970 to remain unless changes were made as stated in alternative 2. Signs older than 1970 would amortize according to a schedule similar to alternative 1 with the ability to prove economic life. 4. Extend the amortization period for all signs which will becoæ non-conforming because of the new ordinance. Mr. Mulkern said, working on the premise that one would be decided on, he would choose Alternative 2. He said it was unfair to grant a permit and then after sign was erected, have the permit repealed because of a change of ordinance, Chairman Gatto clarified these fQur are not the only alternatives, there could be a conbination of alternatives. Mr. Mulkern said after the economic life of a sign is over, then the sign becoæs an asset and starts to payoff. He was not sure it was fair and equitable for them to say that since the cas t is removed, they should put up a new sign without complaint. Mr. Keith Judd, 10041 So. Blaney, Cupertino, said he has been in the Blaney location for four years and knows he speaks for a large number of small businessæn. He cannot afford to change the naæ of his place because he cannot afford to change his sign. He is just barely making a living. Mr. Bill Alley said he preferred Alternative 2. is a nice town but he does not like some of the in this sign procedure. He thinks Cupe rtino things being proposed Mr. Robert Morgan said it would be easy to get the impression they were throwing rocks, but they were not. He conunended the staff and commissioners on behalf of signing for new businesses in the future. PC-2l9 Page 6 MINUTES OF. THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. . He would be in favor of Alternative 2 with modifications. He suggested inserting the word "conforming" in first line and deleting "change of copy". Changing copy does not alter aesthetic value or economic life of sign. He said Alternative 4 has wisdom if amortization period extended to signs that remain non-conforming. He suggested a combina- tion of Alternatives 2 and 4. At 9:15 p;m, a recess was taken, with the meeting reconvening at 9:37 p.m. Comm. Cooper urged the audience not to hold back their comments and points of view as the Commission members were interested in knowing what they would like to have happen. Mr. Paul Weiss, 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, commented this was an emotional issue. He said aobody knows the expense it will be to conform signs. It will cost residents and taxpayers as revenues will be less. He was against the new ordinance as it was more restrictive than existing ordinance which was restrictive. He was talking about lost sales because people could not find the businesses. Cupertino is losing out to other businessmen in neighbor- ing cities. He urged that businessmen be given the chance to do business and provide tax money for the City. Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco, asked to show slides relative to sign program for Vall co Park. Since Mr. Ward had just arrived at the meeting, Charilllán Gatto quickly review-èd what' hád been discussed. Chairman Gatto asked Assistant Planner Kramer to use these slides as discussion vehicle. Mr. Ward then showed slides taken of signs in Vall co Park which would not be in conformance with new sign ordinance but which they felt were reasonable signs. Mr. John Lowe, Straw Hat Pizza, said he had been in business in Cupertino for nine years. His sign had been approved and he felt it should be grandfathered. It was an investment he meant to last for the life of the business. He does not think they should tell him to take it down and put up another one. Mr. Lowe said he had a new location which had suffered from lack of signing. He disagreed with philosophy of relating size of sign to size of business. The criteria should be readability of sign from the road. Limiting center signs to three tenants would mean that only major tenants ever would be seen, never the small tenants. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. PC-2l9 Page 7 Chairman Gatto advised they would continue with the general discussion on number of signs, where they can be placed and relative sizes. Ms. Kramer then spoke on commercial elements, noting size and numbers allowed and the conditions for determining same. She defined shopping center as listed under new ordinance. The intent was to separate shopping center from general commercial development. She compared the new ordinance with the existing ordinance. Mr. Mulken said there was an inequity shown to general commercial as opposed to shopping center. Ms. Kramer explained intent of ordinance as it applied to these two situations. This was briefly discussed. Mr. Dick House, 10750 Rae Lane, Cupertino, said he was opposed to the new ordinance for three reasons: (1) He was opposed to subjectivity involved in certain situations: Le., a business fronting on two streets MAY be allowed two signs. (2) Sears sign which would be made non-conforming is architecturally a part of the building. (3) The signs were approved five years ago. Now they are suggesting he replace the signs at great expense. If ordinance passes, what's to assure him it will not happen again? Mr. House said he wanted them to be aware that money spent on this store affected his pocketbook. He was in favor of Alternative #2. In answer to Chairman Gatto regarding self regulating ordinance versus review, Mr. House said in reviewing they are getting down to personal opinions and this is what he objects to. He is afraid of subjectivity. He personally may not like a red sign, but it was proven that colors make a difference in attracting people. He was concerned they would be at the mercy of the personal opinion of one or two people. Comm. Woodward spoke" to amortization alternatives. He noted the' general consensus of the business community present was for Alternative 112, grandfathering. If this alternative were adopted, there would have to be inclusion of Alternative 4. He was speaking to signs that were not conforming to existing ordinance. I t was clarified this would speak to illegal non-conforming signs. Mr. Mulkern said it was his opinion there should be some fair and equitable treatment to allow businessmen to recover cost of sign and then conform to existing ordinance. Chairman Gatto noted there was technical information that needed to be digested by the business community. He referred to request from C1lamber of Commerce for time to study ordinance. He suggested the Commission members discuss H-Control involvement and amortization. PC-219 Page 8 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. CO'Dl1l1issioner Adams said relative t(> H-Control involvement, using , H-Control as a body of appeal for any staff decision which might be questioned by applicant might be a viable way of conducting sign ordinance utilization. Staff could cover all permits and only when staff and applicant were in disagreement should it be appealed to H-Control. Carom. Woodward ascertained H-Control's decision could then be appealed to the City Council. He questioned if H-Control when then serve any purpose in the process. Chairman Gatto answered it would depend on how the ordinance read. Ms. Kramer pointed out under new ordinance they were trying to reduce the time it takes to get a decision. It would stop at H-Control unless it was appealed by the applicant, a sign exception or Planned Development. She noted they have been trying to get the applicants to bring in sign plans at the same time landscaping and architecture are reviewed. Carom. Cooper noted streamlining of the H-Control process has been needed, especially since it presents a time hardship to many people coming before the City. She would be happy with some more responsi- bility going to the staff for decision. Carom. O'Keefe said he would like to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. Because of complexity,of situation, he felt objectivity was a most important feature. Those signs when permit was issued, where businessman had abided by code and law the ordinance should be honored. Where procedures were not followed, that was a different question. Comm. O'Keefe answered Chairman Gatto that any time a sign is changed it must be reviewed and the current ordinance adhered to. In regard to H-Control, Comm. O'Keefe said the sign ordinance should be designed so it was consistent with time and in such a fashion that it does not involve business sector and City in disputes. Ordinance should be so clear cut conflicts should be the exception rather than the rule. He agreed with Carom. Adams that H-Control would see application only when appealed, Chairman Gatto asked Planning Director Sisk how-he felt about it. Mr. Sisk said it had been discussed. Generally there seemed to be a lot of time being taken for it to go through H-Control. If the ordinance could be written clearly enough for all parties to understand it, it could be administered at staff level. He'sai~ there were some situations when input from H-Gontrol would be required, such as Planned Developments. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. PC-219 Page 9 Comm. Cooper asked the Planning Director if he felt the new ordinance needed to be tighter. Mr. Sisk said he felt the area and location of signs were well defined in the new ordinance. He said he could see some subjectivity at staff level; it was difficult to be totally 1.msubjective. Comm. Woodward ascertained the Planning Commission can legally impose conditions on signs. The City Attorney said their powers were in addition to the sign ordinance. Comm. Cooper agreed it was appropriate for Planned Developments to go to H-Cont rol, or when staff did not feel they wanted to make a decision that they should have the option of sending it on to H-Con- trol. Chairman Gatto felt subjectivity cannot be eliminated entirely but the more it can be minimized the better. Streamlining procedure would lessen work load and the City would benefit. Whatever the ordinance is, if it is clear and concise the City can achieve high quality design through it. Chairman Gatto said he was in favor of grandfather procedure. Signs that are illegal, without permit or in violation. should be cited or whatever is necessary to bring them into conformance. On other signs when a change of copy or alteration is requested, they would come 1.mder the amortization period. He was including change of copy because there had to be a way to upgrade signs. Comm. Cooper agreed with grandfathering, but noted signs that are in need of repair whether in conformance or not should be brought into the amortization period or upgraded. After a discussion, it was the committee's consensus that all changes to non-conforming signs would trigger requirement to conform to ordinance. Comm. Woodward suggested signs that were conforming but did not get permit, should be grandfathered. Ms. Kramer ascertained that those signs that are illegal because they did not get a permit and do not conform to regulations will not go into amortization on adopting of new ordinance. Ms. Kramer questioned about another group of signs: those that did obtain a permit but did not conform to regulations because of people making the interpretation at that time. The City Attorney advised that if the City issued a permit and applicant built on that permit, the City could not prosecute. It was noted that basically there would be no amortization period. PC-2l9 Page 10 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 1976 ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. After further discussion. Chairman Gatto summarized that basically the commission members felt H-Control approval should be minimized in sign review; sign ordinance should be 'as specific as possible with prime review at staff level, initial appeal to H-Control and final appeal to City Council. " All signs presently legal (with permits) will be grandfathered. Al! illegal signs (without permits) ~~ll be pursued as violations. All signs in conformance,but without permits, shall be grandfathered. Any changes to signs made non-conforming by new ordinance would have to be brought into conformance with the new ordinance. Chairman Gatto suggested that by the next meeting these sections could be rewritten by the staff in draft form to see if this course is to be followed and they will also go into specifics on size and numbers of signs. Ms. Kramer asked that at the next meeting they go through the ordinance page by page, Comm. Woodward suggested including in the ordinance that any decisions made by the City Councilor Planning Commission which are at variance with the ordinance should supersede the ordinance. The next hearing on the sign ordinance was set for Wednesday, March 24, 1976. ADJ OURNMENT " At 11:05 p.m. Comm. O'Keefe moved to adjourn to the next scheduled meeting of Monday, March 8, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. by Comm. Adams. regularly Seconded Motion carried, 5-0 APPROVED: , ATTEST: i-t. Gatto, ~ wm. E. Ry' r, City Clerk