HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 06-23-1976 (Summary of Findings)*
Citi of Cupertino
TO: The Honorable Chairwoman and Members of the
Architectural and Site Approval Committee
FROM: Architectural and Site Approval Staff Committee DATE: June 25, 1976
SUBJECT: Summary of Findings from the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 23, 1976
Introduction
This document is prepared as a summary of the deliberations and findings of the
Architectural and Site Approval Committee relative to the proposed revisions of
the City Sign Ordinance. A special "work shop" study session was held on
June 23, 1976 with members of the Committee contributing their personal input
based upon review of various documents demonstrating the evolution of thought
behind the latest Sign Ordinance Revision. Among its findings, the Committee
noted several items which in their opinion were substantive in nature and
should be brought to the attention of the City Council for consideration. The
Committee first examined those issues which were reported in a memo dated
June 11, 1976 from the Planning Director to the members of the City Council.
Those items will be summarized first in this report. Other items of substantial
concern which were determined in a page -by -page analysis of the latest draft of
the new ordinance will be reported in the second section of this report.
Suggested changes to the draft ordinance are marked with an asterisk (*).
Part I: Committee Comments Relative to the Memo of June 11, 1976. (ASAC
Input to Planning Commission Regarding Ordinance Second Draft from SRC,
January, 1976)
1. "Information contained on ground signs should be limited to no
more than two tenant names per side rather than three tenant
names recommended by the Sign Review Committee."
The Committee chairwoman offered a brief explanation of background on this pro-
vision. Specifically, the intent is to encourage the use of low profile ground
signs which are designed specifically to minimize visual clutter along public
rights of way. This type of sign structure cannot accommodate a great number
of tenant signs attached thereto.
After some deliberation, it was the consensus of the Committee that Item 1 of
Page 1 of the June 11, 1976 memo should be stricken, and the original recommenda-
tion of three tenant names per ground sign as suggested by the Sign Review Committee
should stand. The ASAC Committee also noted that the variance procedure would be
available to applicants with exception tenant -signing needs.
-1-
June 25, 1976
Summary of Findings from the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 23, 1976
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. "The maximum height permitted for ground signs in shopping centers and
commercial districts should be changed to 12 ft. If special design
considerations warranted it, signs could go as high as 20 ft."
In its discussion of this point, it was noted that most objectionable signs
which come to the Committee's attention are excessively high freestanding or
ground signs. It was the consensus of the Committee that the wording of this
item is reasonable and accomplishes the intent for which it is designed, and
* therefore recommends it for consideration of the City Council. The Committee
did note, however, that a set of design criteria should be specified to enable
the Planning Director to make objective decisions in those cases where signs
in excess of 12 ft. in height are requested. In June of 1974, the Committee
adopted Resolution #406 establishing interim design review criteria for sign
dimensions. It is suggested that these guidelines be included in the ordinance
as an aid to the Planning Director.
3. "Tenants located on a corner building should be permitted two signs
provided that the second sign is a necessary part of the architectural
design of the building."
This suggestion refers specifically to Section 6.03.1 of the ordinance. It was
felt by the Committee that some clarification of the wording of Provision a) of
this section would clarify the unique situation of a corner tenant in a shopping
center complex. A suggested rewording would be as follows:
"Tenants located on a corner building of a shopping center should
be permitted two signs provided that the second sign is a necessary
* part of the architectural design of the building, and that the
tenant is identified permanently on a ground sign."
Committee Discussion of Section No. 3 - Administrative Procedure
The proposed procedure to place review and approval authority for various sign
application types with the Planning Director is of great concern to the Committee
for two principal reasons: First, by concentrating sign review authority with
the Planning Department staff, the level and type of citizen input which might
otherwise be forthcoming under the traditional public hearing process tends to
be limited. Second, the suggested procedural change will shortcircuit the
incidental "upgrading" process by which the committee encourages sign applicants
to correct minor deficiencies in their site, landscaping or architecture as a
condition of approval. It is their consensus at this time to report these
concerns to the City Council; however, no recommendation for modification of
the section.
Committee Discussion of Section No. 6 - Land Use Districts
After discussing the Planning Commission's recommendation that distinction
between shopping center and general commercial districts be eliminated, and
that commercial businesses with more than 400 linear feet of frontage on a
public street be permitted additional ground signs, the Committee felt that the
provisions of the current ordinance draft are sufficient in themselves to
accomplish their specific intent. No substantive issues need be addressed
under this section of the June 11 memo.
-2-
June 25, 1976
Summary of Findings from the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 23, 1976
—------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Discussion of Section 6.07 - Planned Development Districts
After discussing the intent of the sign program as a valid regulatory tool
in the Planned Development District, the Committee concurred with the wording
of Section 6.07 as contained in the current draft of this ordinance.
Committee Discussion on Section 7.07 - Illumination
In its deliberations on this point, the Committee struggled with the issue
of objectivity and credibility in establishing technical limits for artificial
illumination in this section of the ordinance. It is their wish to report to
Council that more research and design review guid=elines should be forthcoming
in order to justify the specification of light intensity contained in this
provision.
Precise issues such as the influence of "surround" on color intensity, the impact
of "glare" on traffic safety, the relationship of numerical ft. lambert values
* with specific colors, points of concern to be detailed by Mr. Carl Heymann, and
standards of "milliamps" and cabinet construction to be explained by Mr. Jim
Burgess, all bear on the technical aspects of illumination.
The Committee also took special note of Section 7.07.4 of the draft ordinance
which specifies that non -essential lighting should be turned off within two
hours after a business is closed. The Committee encourages the City Council
to retain this provision as a necessary energy -conservation device.
Committee Discussion of Section 10
Much discussion in both the government and private sectors of the Community has
already taken place relative to the disposition of non -conforming signs, and
signs which would become non -conforming with the passage of a revised sign
ordinance. After reviewing the historical flow of thought on this question,
the Committee agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove
the amortization periods from the ordinance and to allow non -conforming signs
to remain in use until a change of copy, a change in use of property or
modification to the building site occurs. The Committee also concurred with the
procedure specified for legalizing signs erected without valid building permits
from the City.
Part Two - Issues of Substance from Page -by -Page Analysis of Draft Sign Ordinance
After examining the memo of June 11, 1976, the Committee proceeded to discuss
the latest draft of the ordinance on a page -by -page basis. Each member was
asked to review the draft ordinance personally and note any comments or questions
which he or she may have. Each member's comments were then taken in turn at
the special meeting. The following items were agreed by the Committee members
as items of concern to be reported to the City Council at the June 28, 1976 hearing:
* Section 2.26 - Political Signs: Some concern here about allowing political signs
for candidates and issues in which Cupertino residents are not eligible to vote.
Suggested that a possible restriction on display of such signs be considered.
* Section 3.06 - Suggested that this passage be reworded to grant the inspecting
authority power to carry out necessary action to reduce light intensity.
-3-
June 25, 1976
Summary of Findings from the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 23, 1976
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggest that the second sentence read as follows: "The building inspector shall
have the ability to review the light intensity of all illuminated signs with the
power to require the reduction of the light intensity ..."
Section 4.04 - Street Address Numbers: The Committee's concern here was the
implication that "super -graphics" displaying address numbers would not be
regulated under the sign exemption section. Some additional rewording might
be required to clarify the intent of this provision.
* Section 6.03.3 - "200 -Rule" Formula
A comprehendable reading of the "200 Rule" Formula might be as follows:
Ground Sign permitted if:
a) Street frontage 200 feet
or
b) Street frontage + building setback ≥ 200 feet
and
Street frontage ' 100 feet
and
Building setback ?' 75 feet
* Section 6.05.1 - Discussion: The Committee is concerned about the rationale
of the restriction to three tenant signs maximum per building sign, and wishes
to report this concern to the City Council.
* Section 7.11 - Roof Signs Discussion: The principal question of concern here
is whether or not the intent of this section is to permit signs to be located on
the structural screen surrounding roof -top mechanical equipment. It was the
Committee's feeling that some potential exists here for abuse of the intent of
the ordinance's intent to encourage low -profile signage display, should the
present wording be left as is.
Section 8.04.5 - Political Sign Removal Deposit Bond:
The Committee suggests that a removal bond also be collected for political signs
posted on vacant lands within residential districts.
Section 9.07 - The Committee had serious reservations about the last sentence
of this provision, as it would seem to place the burden of ensuring year-to-year
safety of all signs in the City upon the building department staff, rather than
upon the owner of each individual sign, where such responsibility should more
property be lodged.
-4-