Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 02-18-76CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Gatto with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Adams, Cooper, O'Keefe (10:00), Woodward, Chairman Gatto Comm. absent: None Staff present: Planning Director Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Assistant Planner Kramer City Attorney Kilian PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Sign Ordinance No. 353 establishing new regulations for signs. First Hearing. Chairman Gatto announced this was a review of the amendment to the Sign Ordinance. He established ground rules and delineated method of operation for the evening. Planning Director Sisk briefly reviewed the Sign Ordinance study. He noted to night as the first legally agendized hearing by the Planning Commission. Final action would be taken by the City Council. Mr. Sisk advised there were copies of the proposed Ordinance available for anyone who wished to use them or to buy them. Assistant Planner Toby Kramer who had worked with the Sign Review Committee and written the draft gave the staff presentation of the proposed ordinance. She briefly went over the format, purpose and intent of the Sign Review Committee. PC -217 Page 1 PC -217 I MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 Page 2 Slides were shown of various signs in commercial centers which represents the biggest issue. She compared sizes of the signs with the existing ordinance and what would be allowed under the proposed ordinance. She said approximately 50% of the businesses now have signs that are non- conforming to existing ordinance. Ms. Kramer explained amortization period provided under the proposed ordinance. In addition to the amortization period stated, the owner of the sign is given the opportunity to extend the amortization period if it can be shown that the economic life of the sign has not been fully depreciated through IRS decpreciation schedules or some other mechanism. Ms. Kramer answered Chairman Gatto the amortization periods allowed in the ordinance were those comparable to other cities and what were acceptable to the courts. The City Attorney explained in more detail what was meant by "economic life" of a sign. Regarding administration of new ordinance, Ms. Kramer said it clearly states which signs the Planning Director can approve and which signs require approval by a group such as the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. She referred to the listing of concerns that would be looked at by this committee in reviewing sign applications. Assistant Planner Kramer noted the proposed ordinance provided for a sign consultant. This would be an advisory person with an expertise in design or graphics who would help the committee in making decisions on sign applications. At the end of Ms. Kramer's presentation, Chairman Gatto commented on the excellence of the document. The proposed ordinance was then reviewed by the commissioners with Ms. Kramer clarifying and answering any questions they had. She referred to her memo of 2/18/76 and noted there were three basic changes included as a separate memo. Chairman Gatto suggested -there should be a particular paragraph for the computation of sign area under definitions. On page 9, --Section 3.02, the discussion of who would constitute property owner evolved with the decision to add the words "and/or" between owner and person on second line. Page 13, Section 4.06, a short discussion was held on which signs are considered to be informational. MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 Page 13, Section 4.11. It was noted that the 25% of window signing allowed would be considered temporary even though the same area was covered constantly, provided the copy was changed. Page 14, Section 5.01. A brief discussion was held on differentiatinj between advertising and decorative statuary. Page 16, Section 6.03.2. Ms. Kramer advised the intent is to limit each concern to one sign. Ms. Kramer clarified that the sign consultant would be a paid or volunteer person appointed by the City Council who would be available as an information source. The hearing was then opened to the public for comments. Mr. Dale F. Applegate, 1089 Avondale St., San Jose, apologized for the small turnout of the business community. He complimented the SRC on purpose and intent statement on page 1. Mr. Applegatesaid his building at 20940 Stevens Creek Boulevard is 40 years old but has been brought up to gra;fessrionaL� staff daids. The previous owners had been allowed to legally construct the ground sign. They have leased the building out to a tenant in the same type of business and revision of sign is merely a change of letters. Mr. Applegate said they were told they must present request to H -Control who would automotically reject it since it will not be in accordance to the proposed ordinance. The only solution would be to tear down their 15 ft. $3,000.00 sign and replace it with a wail sign costing another $3,000.00. They think it is unfair and improper. The City is not taking into consideration the costs of signs. 50% of the' display seen tonight is foolishness. As for the amortization period, Mr. Applegate said he knew the zealousness of the personnel and H -Control. The City is unconcerned about the life of the sign and his economic situation. They would make him take it down immediately. Mr. Applegate referred to the proposed sign ordinance alternative he and Mr. Morgan had submitted which he felt was a normal and sane request. He read the paragraph suggesting existing signs constructed with a valid permit be allowed to remain under a "Grandfather Clause" until such time as the property is sold to a new owner, major ground changes are requested to be made to the sign or building improvements PC -217 Page 3 PC -217 I MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 Page 4 for remodeling or constructing under a building permit of a value in excess of $10,000.00. This makes it economically feasible for businessmen to come up with the money to make a sign change. The City should develop a plan, make it fair and enforce it. Ms. Kramer amplified the intent of Section 10 .02.1 was that there would be no change of copy until the sign was brought into conform- ance. With regard to this particular situation, Ms. Kramer said they were granted an exception for a pole sign as they do not have the required frontage or setback. Since they are changing face of sign there would be no amortization period. Member Woodward referred to previous discussion on amortization periods. He remembered the decision:. being that copy changes would be allowed and would then be considered under a three year amorti- zation period. Ms. Kramer said at the time of that discussion, - there were two choices. They could change copy and agree to come in on July 1,1976 with new sign application or they could change the sign completely to conform with the existing ordinance. Mr. Carl Heymann, Sign Users Council of California, referred to his letter addressed to ASAC Chairman, and asked if the Commissioners had a copy. Since they did not, he read it to them. He said he had been here approximately a year and a half ago and had offered these same services but did not achieve much. The business community is the one who will suffer tremendously and if they suffer financially, the end result will be on the City's revenue. He referred to slide presentation, noting that sigrr that are aesthetically pleasing but non -conforming must come down. Mr. Heymann questioned enforcement. He said he was told the City did not have the staff or finances now to enforce the existing ordinance. This creates a problem. The bad signs should be policed first. Mr. Heymann referred to a "self governing" ordinance. He said decisions are being put into hands of a body of people who can overrule the code. Cupertino is unique and deserves a special ordinance, but the business community should be able to live with it. Ms. Kramer spoke to enforcement. She agreed it would require a lot of work on the part of the City. Under new ordinance, notices would be sent as to what was non -conforming and period of amortization. The sign owner would be responsible for contacting the Planning Department. Notices would be sent out a year ahead of time. If not contacted, the City would then notify them to remove the sign. After that they would be contacted by the City Attorney and brought to court. MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 The City Attorney said the code enforcement officer's role could be expanded to cover the issue of illegal signs. The person would then be required to appear in court and to plead guilty or not guilty. Chairman Gatto ascertained from Mr. Kilian that most of the work would be done by the staff before the case went to court. It would require only an hour or two of the City Attorney's time. Planning Director Sisk answered Chairman Gatto that he felt the staff could handle this issue. Mr. Heymann answered Chairman Gatto that if Cupertino felt H -Control was necessary, it should be in an advisory capacity only. In 90% of the cases where H -Control attempts to advise rather than order the matter will come• out to the benefit of the City. There are no sign experts on H -Control. A consultant would not be a sign expert. Only sign people are experts. Chairman Gatto asked Mr. Heymann if he thought the applicants would listen objectively and follow suggestions of H -Control if H -Control had no authority. Mr.Heymann said the ordinance should be clear as to height, area, setback, etc. and in the majority of cases, the businessmen would adhere to these. Mr. Heymann said cities should be forceful about not issuing permits to unlicensed contractors. Comm. Cooper asked if business people were involved in the study of the ordinance. Ms. Kramer said Mr. Mulkern of the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Heymann had been. She noted that although it was requested, little information had been received from Mr. Heymann, certainly not the concrete material he seemed to think was necessary. Consensus of both the City and business community were incorporated in the ordinance. In answer to Comm. Adams, Ms. Kramer said it was not required that an applicant be a licensed contractor, only that the application complied with the ordinance. She pointed out licensed contractors erect non -conforming signs too. The City Attorney answered Chairman Gatto that the City would be unreasonably discriminatory in limiting issuance of permits to those on a list and would probably be struck down by the courts. Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager for Vallco Park, said he felt the staff and SRC should be commended for goals. He had not realized action would be taken tonight and the slides they were preparing were not ready for presentation. He went through a list of their concerns as the proposed ordinance related to Vallco. PC -217 Page 5 PC -217 I MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 Page 6 Section 8.02.2 - Flags. They had intended to fly the U.S. flag over the mall portion of the regional center. Section 6.06.4 - Industrial Parks. Mr. Ward wondered if there should not be signs at every major entrance. Mr. Ward noted they had intended changing sign of Vallco Village. He pointed out the shop signs are a little over the proposed 2 ft. but he felt they were acceptable. Mr. Ward said the ordinance was too restrictive on a regional shopping center. Mr. Ward questioned gold leaf signs on offices and stores. Ms. Kramer said these would be covered under Section 4.05. Mr. Ward said they 1_ from tL e t A.(.. Kramersaid t would probably not De visible the street. Rio. nl timer i�. was not possible to write an ordinance that would cover every con- tingency but these would probably qualify for exception. Mr. Ward said the majority of professional people traditionally have names on doors and this should be spelled out so it would not be a matter of interpretation. Section 6.06.1. Mr. Ward said a directional sign for a multi -tenant building might include ten or twelve names. Section 6.08.3. Mr. Ward said since Vallco Park was a planned development he felt the master plan should be "Grandfathered" or approved. Section 7.08 - Turning Signs Off. Because of vandalism, they have been asking tenants to leave lights on as preventive measures for better security. Mr. Ward suggested decals should be put on back of sign as he did not think they would add to aesthetics of sign. It was ascertained there are 36 signs in Vallco Village. Ms. Kramer advised the commissioners that the intent with regard to height of flags was aimed mainly at commercial flags. She felt it should be handled individually -rather`. than• -.under --ordinance. Mr. Richard House, 10750 Rae Lane, Cupertino, said he was not prepared but he wanted to voice objection. He assured them he did object both as a businessman and as a tax payer. There is an existing ordinance which Cupertino has not been enforcing. Situation will not be bettered just by passing new law. Five years ago the Sears signs were approved. It will cost a great deal of money he is not prepared to spend to make them conform to the proposed ordinance. MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. OF FEBRUARY 18,1976 Mr. House answered Comm. Cooper that he could not tell her what the cost of replacement would be relative to their yearly gross. He said he would get the figures and send them to the City. At 10:17 p.m. a break was- taken with the meeting reconvening at 10:27 p.m. Mr. Robert Morgan, 1314 Whitegate, San Jose, asked to have one slide shown. It was at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard. He said this is the type of sign the City should be giving their attention to: scab signs without permits, chalk signs, parked truck with painted sign, etc. Existing ordinance should be enforced before adopting a new one. In answer to Comm. O'Keefe, Mr. Sisk structured how present ordinance is enforced. He said the City has been negligent to some degree concerning A frame signs and some that have gone up illegally, but these will be more fully enforced in the future. Mr. Morgan said responsible businessmen will respond to ordinance but these are not the ones the City should be concerned about. He said they own a sign of great value that was in total conformance when it was erected. He noted that just as this body felt previously approved signs to be unsatisfactory, in a few years another group might so deem signs approved by this ordinance. Such a stringent sign law would be indiscriminately unfair by causing the removal of aesthetically pleasing, legally placed, costly signs. He stressed promotion of equitable "Grandfather Clause" to allow existing signs to remain until the property is sold or significantly altered. He agreed that if a sign is an eyesore to the community or in disrepair then action should be taken. In answer to Comm. O'Keefe, Mr. Morgan said years should not be considered as a criteria, circumstance should be the determiner. Comm. Woodward ascertained it was usually the owner, rather than the tenant, who would pay for the sign. Mr. Sisk advised the ordinance, as drafted or as modified, would be within the policy and zoning power of the City. Lt.was noted this is somewhat more detailed and more clear than most sign ordinances. Reason for drafting the new ordinance was to clarify some of the unclear portions of the old law. Mr. Lee Cheney, 10221 Adriana, Cupertino, said he came in daily contact with small business owners. He asked what assurance these small business people had that in a few years another group might not require more changes. He felt -the shaggy trees that covered signs and the telephone and light poles were more atrocious. ' C-217 'age 7 PC=217 I MINUTES OF THE ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION ?v!tG. OF FEBRUARY 18, 1976 Page 8 Chairman Gatto agreed regulations change from time to time. Equity of application and fairness to all are the tests of a regulation. He pointed out reasonable amortization periods are accepted by law. He agreed the City is charged with the maintenance of trees.in public right of way, but not uncover signs. With regard to undergrounding of utilities, Public Works Director Viscovich explained the present status of this operation. Mr. Cheney noted that approximately 50% of the signs were non -conforming. He asked what would happen if these people decided not to conform and the courts were jammed? The City Attorney said it has been their policy to insure compliance. A very small percentage of this type of violation gets to court. The commissioners then discussed the real cost as a factor in amortization. It was noted there are possibly some cases where "Grandfathering" would be completely acceptable. These would be dealt with on a case to case basis. Comm. Woodward said he would like to see figures on what number of non -conforming signs are being talked about under current law. He questioned whether they could afford to set criteria on developments that will be constructed in the future. Comm. Cooper agreed she would like to know the cost involved for different types of signs. She noted impacts are quite different on small and large businesses. Ms. Kramer noted some cities have said amortization should be based on cost of sign. Time was also used as a criteria. Comm. O'Keefe said amortizing utility is a difficult task. It is more than dollars and cents. He was concerned about time it will take to deal with this and time it will take to get it solved. He would like to see number of signs and values before making a decision. After discussion, staff was asked to come up with effect on existing signs, particularly wall signs, and a plan that might be adopted to lessen the burden on the small businessman. Mr. Heymann said he wanted to make a point of clarification. He had specifically mentioned licensed sign contractors. He did not insinuate or imply any group of sign companies or contractors. ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Comm. Adams moved, seconded by Comm. Cooper, to adjourn to the next meeting on Thursday, February 26, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder /s/ John M. Gatto City Clerk Chairman