Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 04-04-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AN D SITE APPROVAL COITHITTEE HELD ON APRIL 4, 1974 IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meeting was opened at 7:37 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Sallan with the Salute to the Flag. Members present: Dressler (7:57), Koenitzer, Weinstein, Vice - Chairman Sallan Members absent: None Staff present: Associate Planner Cowan Senior Planning Technician Kramer Introductions were made of sign representatives. Mr. Michael Kotowski, Vicom Services, Campbell Mr. W. L. Tagg, Vallco Park. Mr. Carl Heymann, California Electric Sign Assn. Mr. Roy Brown, California Coast Sign Co., Inc. Mr. D. Pit;.hoff, California Coast Sign Co., Inc. Mr. Paul Weiss, Key Chevrolet Mr. Marc Pettibone, Pettibone Signs Vice -Chairman Sallan noted the committee is in the process of revising Sign Ordinance. She determined each of the guests had received a copy of the draft. The reason for the meeting was that it was important to have professional input to the philosophy being espoused in ordinance revision. She stressed their interest was whether or not signs for proposed ordinance was a workable thing in terms of aesthetics - is it a visually workable plan. Comments on economics and whether or not busines men would be happy with proposal should be reserved. She then turned the meeting over to staff members. Staff member Cowan said they were there mainly to listen. Their concern was pitfalls of ordinance. He gave a brief background on reasons for revision. This document goes beyond interim ordinance and forms nucleus of new ordinance from point of view of ASAC. HC --105 Page 1 11C• -1O5 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING .cage 2 Vice -Chairman Sallan said it was clear from ordinance cuts in height and area size they are interested in seeing lower profile signs, less color, and no advertisements; just informational or directional. They want this to come out in ordinance. She referred to Marie Callendar sign and said it was this approach they were after. Would like representatives to tell them if this is realistic -- is it workable. Member Koenitzer gave brief background causing ordinance revision. The committee decided the major fault was size and height, conditions which could be spoken of. They were hoping in the future to make complete revision of ordinance. _Would like to pick size that would fit in with overall philosophy of signing which has been to smaller signs. He said the committee would like their opinions as to whether the smaller signs were workable. Mr. Brown said first thing was to decide what made a sign aestheti— cally good or bad. Until you get past that size or height doesn't have much to do with it. Member Weinstein said since this committee was the ASAC for the City of Cupertino, somebody has t0 come up with what -is thought to be esthetically desirable. It was decided to bring in sign people, businessmen and eveitual'y public and let them express ` t this as to whitewas O the their opinion. �3rown asked ,� committee or were they really interested in opinions. ":ember Weinstein said they zaould like to find middle groi. !d. Re said the representatives should give them evidence and convince them on size and colors. Vice -Chairman Sallan said given ordinance as proposed, would they comment on what it is about it that they feel will not work. Mr.. Heyman pointed out two basically serious problems. One was professionalism in ordinance. The ordinance should be a very simply worded ordinance, should have graphics. It should have a format - purpose, objectives, zoning of city, different applicable signregulations for various zones (you would not put together a . sign that would apply for commercial section as well as residential, etc.). There should be a division for variance, if any, for complaints or appeals, amortization or compensation. Basic step is for Planning Department to request other city ordinances which are working - good and bad. Look at their formats. This should be studied by staff and ASAC. Siphon ouz professional portions and apply them to Cupertino. In answer to Vice -Chairman Sallan Mr. Heyman said he was referring to both section being revised and entire ordinance when he said it left an awful lot to be interpreted. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING Vice -Chairman Sallan asked him to be specific. Mr. Heyman said it would entail a lot of time and offered to either sit down with the committee at a later date and to draft a letter, detailing specifics. He was asked to do so. Member Koenitzer pointed out the committee could not have staff support because of priorities of General Plan. Mr. Heyman said the best example was Sacramento. He recommended they get a copy of this ordinance for the purpose of layout and format. Member Weinstein asked them to take one specific aspect of section on size of signs and give opinion - how it is worded - is it precise enough? Mr. Heyman suggested breaking down into zones first. Member Weinstein said this was strictly commercial. This is intended to apply to all non-residential developments of any size. Mr. Heyman pointed out iniquity between commercial and industrial. Not a fair break down if we have several zones in one group and apply restrictional size to all zones. In answer to :Member Weinstein, Mr. Heyman said you have a different type of situation in commercial as opposed to industrial as opposed to neighborhood commercial. You would not want as much sign area and height, on neighborhood commercial as on commercial. Industrial usually has more setback and more square footage and. may be freeway oriented. Member Weinstein said he did not choose to break it down any further at all. He asked if there was any vagueness of size in revised draft. Mr Heyman said the size of square footage was very restrictive. Member Weinstein said this was not what he had asked. He wanted to know if it left him with any doubt whatever as to what sizes they were talking about. Mr. Heyman said one factor in proposed suggestion was they wanted to base a size on inside square foot- age of a business. This is unheard of. Has no correlation to relationship of outside of business to the sign which should identify that business. He said after reading this, it seemed to him that the purpose for choosing the inside, square footage is to become more restrictive. Mr. Tagg said he felt Vallco Park signing was conservative but under proposed ordinance there were signs that would have to be removed. Five signs will be non -conforming. All the signs in shopping center will be non -conforming. Staff member Kramer explained scope of the proposal and areas being covered. Shopping centers would come under maximum total. HC -1O5 Page. 3 T1C-105 Page 4 I MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING In answer to Member Weinstein, Mr. Tagg said the financial center has two signs (is on corner) but they are over 60 square feet. Member Weinstein asked if any industrial group in Vallco had signs that would be non -conforming. Mr. Tagg said no, the industrial plant doesn't need a sign other than for location. Mr. Tagg suggested not getting hung on one little item. Member Weinstein said that was the guts of the ordinance. Vice -Chairman Sallan noted this, should not be a confrontation or argument session. She said the •committee was here to get their feelings and they gratefully accepted whatever they had to say. Mr. Brown said this had not been indicated so far. Mr. Heyman pointed out the ordinance would affect the entire merchant community of this City. There are many people who will attempt to interpret. They are trying to help and advise. If the City were to use some sort of formula for size determination and square footage and base this particular formula on zones and signs, a citizen could understand. "This ordinance doesn't make any sense" will be the screams of 300 merchants at the City Council. A discussion was held on why there should be a formula for each specific category as opposed to "umbrella" type formula as is proposed in revised ordinance. Vice -Chairman Sallan said this would be based or. the premise that different uses should have larger or smaller signs. It isn't clear to her that you should have large signs for commercial. Anything they choose is arbitrary. What the committee is saying is that they think the height and area design can be read given traveling at a certain speed, etc. They think they have something reasonable in that context. They are not saying it will be popular. Mr. Tagg said when you go to an office or industrial building you are just trying to find the address. If you are going to buy, these places need more identification. This is as he sees it both as an architect and an owner. Member Weinstein explained his formula and how it had been arrived at. Mr. Brown pointed out there are other things besides height and size that make up an aesthetic sign. Member Weinstein said the committee had had problems with height and size, not necessarily an thin else on sign. Mr. Brown said approval or disapproval y g should be based on individual applications, not on a rule of thumb decision. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Brown pointed out they worked with 20 different communities in the Bay Area. They cannot know each ordinance. He referred also to the Sacramento ordinance. It is very descriptive, the signs are categorized, color -coded, etc. Member Weinstein asked if they could live with this size for commercial. Mr. Heyman said no. If you want good design, good aesthetics, you must allow the artist to do his work. Such restriction is inviting the second and third rate sign makers. He showed photographs to illustrate different points. Mr. Pithoff said it would make it a lot easier on City and on designer if it could be spelled out so average merchant could read ordinance and know what he was entitled to. Member Dressler said the committee has been working to get signs down to eye level that will be aesthetic. He said they don't support big signs, don't support freeway attracters or big billboards to attract people into the City. Mr. Brown said the ordinance needs to be flexible. Sign r' companies are in between customers and the city. He said they were here tonight because they were concerned and because they would like to offer something. Member Dressler said this had been thrashed out and set on formula of what was pleasing to the committee. Vice -Chairman Sallan wanted to know if they could design signs that will conform to ordinance designated here. Mr. Brown said yes, it could be done. Mr. Tagg said that just being pleasing doesn't mean it will do the job. Mr. Pettibone gave an example of a sign change increasing business noticably. He said a lot of ordinances are not workable. They cause grief and cause City money in time and aggravation. He did not feel that anything they could say in one sitting could alter what the committee thought. Member Koenitzer referred to his memo on sign ordinance revisions It provided a discussion of basis of why he picked certain sizes for signs and recommended certain size maximums. It was based. on reading 30 letters 12" high 500' away at .40 mph. Mr. Brown said you could have a sign 4' x 8' with 3 rows of 12" letters and have a misli mash. Mr. Heyman asked if the Chamber of Commerce had been informed of this change and what was their viewpoint. Ms. Kramer said the Chamber of Commerce had been told of Public Hearings on April 17 but there had been no response. HC -105 Page 5 Ii' -•105 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING Page 6 �Mr. Heyman asked if the committee was aware that by imposing legislation on a business because of feelings of committee, this is illegal? Member Weinstein said they would let the City Attor- ney worry about this. Mr. Heyman said this would defeat the initial, purpose of this meeting. Vice -Chairman Sallan said as she understood it this constitutes a proper action by this committee. It must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City. Council. Ample input will take. place. She did not feel they were operating illegally in placing ;restraints on people operating in City. The present ordinance does this. The issue tonight was "how much". Mr. Heyman said the unfortunate thing was the climate that had developed in the last hour and a half which indicated certain members of the committee had had their minds made up before the meeting. Member Weinstein said he inferred they meant him and the problem was that he had heard nothing that gets around the emperical approach of taking signs that gave them no problem and signs that were a problem and drawing a line. Iir. Pettibone said the formula was based on a false premise. It should be based on whac sign has done a good job. Mr. Heyman offered a book that puts together a formula based on size, speed of traffic, distance, etc. Vice -Chairman Sallan suggested they go through the questions pre- pared by staff. Mr. Kotowski said with regard to relationship of size to sign, size is restrictive in ordinance proposal. Size is not a rule for aesthetics. He explained procedure used in Campbell. In answer to the question could a good sign be made of that size, the answer is yes. It could even be smaller. The sign must be functional for the job. The ordinance is so restrictive it doesn't allow any room for buffer zone. Mr. Heyman pointed out that California enjoys a sign association that advises and helps cities to form ordinance so everyone is happy. In answer to Mr. Tagg's concern about Vailco signing, Member Weinstein spoke of a 10% deviation for allowing existing signs. Mr. Kotowski said other ingredients to be considered for aesthetics of signs were size, how it is utilized, how close building is to roadway, sign placement, etc. Does it look good. He suggested professional help in way of. advisory. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING Vice -Chairman Sallan asked if a lay person's opinion was less valuable. Mr. Kotawski said their judgement of artistic effects is less valuable because this is not their business and it is the business of the professional. Mr. Tagg noted proportionality should be taken into account. He said in speaking of experts and professionals, it was meant in tone that when you are sitting up there and you have a combatant type attitude, it would be different if you had a member of the group who could advise and point out what was good. Member Weinstein said the difficulty they have is with size per se. Mr. Brown pointed out the problem of putting in low profile signs and having treed grow up around it. Do you cut down tree or do you change sign? Mr. Cowan said there must be guidelines established. Equal treatment for property owners. Have to come up with some type of standard put in ordinance form in terms of size, etc. Mr. Brown said the criteria had to be spelled out. Ground rules established. There needs to be more specifics. Another committee must come in and interpret what feelings of. this committee were. Lighting intensity was briefly discussed. Vice -Chairman Sallan asked each guest to answer question 5 on list prepared by staff. Mr. Kotowski: Yes, signs could be designed that would be pleasing to City. Mr. Pithoff: No comment. Mr. Brown: Not enough flexibility. Mr. Heyman: Not enough flexibility. Mr. Tagg: Yes, if you forget background and a lot of other things. Mr. Pithoff said he did not see how any City could write a cut and dried ordinance. Member Weinstein said they can't quantify there will be the same hassle. Mr. Heyman suggested inviting committee of Chamber of Commerce, sign people, sign association to give input what will happen to the City. Vice -Chairman Sallan then thanked them for coming and giving their input. HC -105 Page 7 HC -105 Page 8 :; MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING Staff member Kramer said there had been discovered a big temporary sign in front of McClellan Square. When they reached the party who had put it up, he said he would be in tomorrow morning for permit. She had contacted members of committee to drive by and look at it. It is approximately 10'.x 21' on truck. It has a white background with lavender letters spelling Ralph's on it. A member of the audience said she lived adjacent to McClellan Square and the citizens didn't like it. It was discussed whether allowing it would be setting a precedent. Member Koenitzer said the question is whether this sign is acceptable. Member Weinstein said he didn't like the idea of anyone moving unilateral. Ms. Kramer said she didn't know if there was any means of moving it. By the time they had taken legal steps to do so, the sign would probably have been removed. It was ascertained the grand opening was scheduled for May 1. Member Koenitzer moved to require the sign be' taken away and owner be required co come to meeting on April 17 with application for a temporary sign for their grand opening. Seconded by Member Weinatei.n .. AYES: Members Koenitzer, Weinstein, Vice -Chairman Sallan NOES: None ABSENT: Member Dressler Motion carried, 3-0 Vice -Chairman Sallan then asked if staff were 100% behind them on ordinance revision. Member Koenitzer questioned whether it was worth putting effort into revising ordinance until can get into whole thing. Vice -Chairman Sallan pointed out main problem was ordinance saying "they are entitled to". She wondered if they wanted to change that small a portion. Member Weinstein was in favor of going with what they had now. Staff member Cowan said sign uses should be categorized. After General Plan will have to separate commercial land use, neighbor- hood commercial centers, mixed professional, commercial, industrial centers. Will deliniate between different types of business as to sign requirements. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 1974 ADJOURNED H --CONTROL MEETING Member Koenitzer asked if they should try to pressure change in height in attempt to get something better than present ordinance' or should they drop this effort and get on with overall study. Ms. Kramer suggested at a later date there could be additional staff to provide help and allow for technical meetings. Member Koenitzer said the ordinance allows signs that are too big. Signs will be coming in. He questioned handling of applications until ordinance can be changed. The Associate Planner said the City Attorney said there is no flexibility now. Vice -Chairman Sallan said she was willing to go with this change It was noted this should be called nucleus of a new ordinance rather than an interim ordinance. A member in the audience said larger size according to setback should be in ordinance. Relationship of sign in regard to building should be considered. Ms. Kramer explained concerns about 120' maximum allowance. Shek asked the committee to write down concerns in terms of pictorial; illustrations and give to them to see if they can mitigate this to staff's satisfaction. After further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 17, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: s/ C. Nancy Sallan Vice --Chairman ATTEST: HC -105 Page 9 s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk