Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 02-06-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA nc-100 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF FEBRUARY 6, 1974 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler, Koenitzer, Weinstein Members absent: Sallan, Chairman McLaren Staff present: Associate Planner Cowan In the absence of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman, Member Koenitzer was voted to be the Acting Chairman. Motion carried, 2-0--1 Abstain: Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 17, 1974 and January 23, Minutes to he 1974. approved at next regular Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to continue meeting approval of minutes to the next regular member since two members of the committee were absent. Motion carried, 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS Staff requested item 6, HC -51,241.5, be continued to allow them to HC -51,241.5 get a legal opinion on whether or not the Homeowners Group should continued be contacted. Mr. McBain of De Anza Oaks had expressed his willing ness to delay for two weeks. Member Weinstein moved, seconded by Member Dressler, to continue item 6 for two weeks. Motion carried, 3-0 HC -I00 Page 2 HC -51,162.1 PG&E Substation MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application HC -51,162.1 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company requesting approval of site, architecture, lighting and modification of landscaping for an addition to an existing substation located at the southeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road. Staff Report: The Associate Planner gave a brief background of appli- cation. The request now is installation of substation and additional lighting, architecture of building, lighting and screening of sub- station site are to be considered tonight. At Planning Commission meeting a question was raised about location of substation. PG&E had been asked to discuss design and location. The applicant felt they had received landscaping approval for south and east boundaries. The question of screening would need study to resolve. Slides of site and existing buildings were shown. Also views from different points on Blaney and Homestead. Member Dressler asked why 50 ft. standards were being requested. The Associate Planner said the applicant wanted higher standards so they would not need as many fixtures. Also the higher the fixture the more control they have over the light pattern. Mr. Clifford Smith, 20065 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, said they had been through this several. times. In answer to Member Dressler!s question as to why they had chosen this corner next to residences for substation, Mr. Smith said it was the best spot from visual point of view. The wall along easterly boundary 'Line was built to protect residential area. He said it was difficult to see the site from the freeway going west. Member Dressler asked if noise would be offensive to residences. Mr. Smith said they would be averaging about 46 dbA. at the property line. They hoped the wall would have impact to offset sound. 60 cycle sound is of very low frequency. The Associate Planner pointed out the ambient level is higher than 46 dbA. because of the freeway. Member Weinstein asked about sound level, how it was measured and how the atmospheric conditions affected it. Mr. Smith explained. He said during damp weather the transmission lines did hum louder. However the transmission lines did not transmit sounds. Would have to be directly under overhead wires and the atmospheric conditions just right for this to occur. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Weinstein questioned whether there were new transmission wires coming into substation. Mr. Smith said the lines shown on plan were in. There will be one more structure built and would be about 35 ft. Member Weinstein asked why they had to be this high. Mr. Smith said there were three reasons: (1) drainage problem, land area involved and pole had to be 35 ft. to meet Wire clearance regulations. In answer to Acting Chairman Koenitzer, Mr. Smith explained why using another tower would not allow structure level to be lowered. He explained the line of site diagram, pointing out existing tower is 35 ft. Member Weinstein asked about landscaping along wall. Mr. Smith said the trees were taking hold and in a year should provide screening. He explained their landscaping intent. They had interspaced Monterey Pines on their side of the wall to create screening with., existing trees on freeway side. Mr. Clark Bonner said he had been in development of this station since 1968. He gave further background of site and application. He said they must have 32 ft. of height underneath transmission line for anything that accessible to vehicles or man. He also explained what noise could be expected. Member Weinstein said he could not discern what architecture of control building was. Mr. Smith said it was a prefab steelex building housing electrical switching equipment which could be painted any color. Mr. Bonner said there were numerous functions on site and described uses of existing buildings. He said this building will be approximately 10 ft. high and has no windows. Member Weinstein was concerned that people riot see anything but the 35 ft. pole and maybe the 18 ft. pole. He asked if PG&E had ever talked to the adjacent residents and was told these people had been contacted. Member Bressler questioned use of metal building. Acting Chairman Koenitzer said he would like a better building but because of location on site and other equipment it wouldn't be seen that much. Member Weinstein said he didn't feel the landscaping plan was detailed enough. He would like to see a more precise plan. Mr. Smith said the plan was approved by the ASAC in 1971 and these plants were in.. The Associate Planner explained the staff's positic He suggested giving the applicant some guidelines. Since plans are now known, the applicant could address landscaping so much more directly. He said all that had been approved was in. HC--l0O Page 3 Architecture Landscaping HC -100 Page 4 Lighting MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Acting Chairman Koenitzer noted recommendation made previously asked for 8 to 12 ft. trees on 20 ft. centers. He did not get the feeling from looking at the slides that these sizes were planted. Mr. Smith agreed they were not that height, but they had used the 5 -gallon size. Acting Chairman Koenitzer read the condition which did not mention gallon size. In answer to Member Dressler, Mr. Smith said they were in the process of trade with City and would bring in landscaping plans for Blaney Avenue area. In answer to Member Weinstein, Mr. Smith said it was thought the trees would afford screening within the next year. They were set out to fill in gaps. Member Weinstein said he would like to see something other than Monterey Pines. He said if the screening were adequate, he could o alog with the iron shack and wire fence. g Member Dressler asked if the applicant would consider some lower lights. Mr. Smith explained the lights were covered with hoods and well screened. The union said they must have a certain amount of light. The tall standards keep the lights from spilling over into adjacent yards. Member Weinstein said light does not have to be lifted up if more poles were used. Mr. Smith said he thought this was the best way - to protect neighbors. Member Weinstein suggested working toward lower pole height with an appropriate ratio to satisfy union. Mr. Bonner said because of the energy crisis they were trying to use fewer lights. Member Weinstein disagreed. He felt modification needed on lighting. He said he did not want to see the lights. Actin; Chairman Koenitzer said he felt 25 ft. should be the maximum pole height and suggested more and lower poles. Mr. Smith said rather than have to come back on other things they would withdraw lighting application and make changes. In answer to Member Weinstein relative to additional landscaping on easterly and southerly property lines, Mr. Smith said they would fill in areas where the holes showed up but hoped what they had in would work out. Types of trees to be planted on freeway side were discussed. Mr. Smith explained reason for low growing plantings was transmission lines. Acting Chairman Koenitzer noted this was a Public Hearing and asked for comments from the audience. There were none. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Weinstein moved, seconded by Member Dressler, to close Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Dressler recommended approval to the City Council of Application HC -51,162.1 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, subject to standard H -Control conditions, to include Exhibits A, B and B-i only, with the following conditions: (1) The applicant return within 60 -days with the recommended changes in their lighting plan for the facility. (2) If the applicant chooses not to install lighting that he return a statement as to why lighting is not necessary. (3) The applicant review the screening of landscaping along south boundary common to freeway and make recommendations for closing in landscape screening along that boundary within the same 60 days time period. Seconded by Acting Chairman Koenitzer. Member Weinstein amended the motion to add that the revised landscape examination include also the easterly boundary of the property to address specifically the height of plantings that exist now and how the height might be improved by added plantings at this time within 60 days. Seconded by Member Dressler. VOTE ON AMENDMENT AYES: . Dressler, Weinstein and Acting Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Amendment passed, 3-0 VOTE ON MOTION AYES: Dressler, Weinstein and Acting Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council at its February 19, 1974 meeting. HC -100 Page 5 Public Hearing closed HC -51,162.1 approved w/ conditions I10-100 Page 6 HC --51, 230 .10 Fashion Fabrics Architecture (MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING 2. Application HC -51,230.10 of Fashion Fabrics (Farn Reed) request- ing approval of a sign plan and modification of architecture for a commercial building located in the Payless complex at the south- west corner of Homestead Road and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Staff report: The Associate Planner showed slides of the store and shopping center. He indicated where the existing Payless Store is being divided so as to form an additional retail operation between Payless and PW Market. He suggested a condition of approval should be that the store is modified for splitting. He pointed out where the sign would be hung. Mr. Cowan mentioned the size of sign in relationship to smaller tenant and the mounting of the sign. It was clarified that the building department has not approved building modification. Member Weinstein asked if there would be more splitting and the Associate Planner said there was not City ordinance that would prohibit it from taking place. A diagram on comparison of sign heights was displayed and explained by Mr. Cowan. Mr. Farn Reed, 169 Medford, Hayward, said he had not intended to apply for building modification as did not have lease signed as yet. Lease will be contingent on getting sign and approval for modification of building front. He would be willing to go for a smaller sign. Color could be changed to white to conform with the other signs. A brief discussion was held on general approach for signing on this shopping center. Member Weinstein asked about letter style and Mr. Reed said it was the Fashion Fabrics logo. The letters are 3 ft. on larger and 2 ft. on lower case. 80-90 sq. ft. of sign was considered adequate by the committee. Mr. Reed said he would hope for at least 90 square feet. Member Dressler suggested raising letters but Mr. Reed said it would be difficult to hide back pieces. The Associate Planner said the applicant was not interested in getting approval of architecture. Mr. Reed said he had architectural drawing of proposed design and an approval now would save a future application. The committee studied the drawing. Mr. Myron W. Hatch, 8000 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, described the modification, noting the doorway would be aluminum similar to the existing doors on the building. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Acting Chairman Koenitzer opened the meeting to comments from the audience. There were none. -- Member Weinstein moved, seconded by Member Dressler, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Weinstein moved that Application HC -51,230.10 be recommended for approval to City Council with the standard H -Control conditions and in accordance with Exhibit F and the following additional modification: (1) That the building modification be subject to approval by the building department. (2) Color of the letters of'the proposed sign be changed from red to white and that the maximum letter size be 3 ft. high; that the total length of the sign not exceed 30 ft. and therefore the area of the sign not exceed 90 square feet. Seconded by Member Dressler. AYES: Dressler, Weinstein and Acting Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council on- February 19, 1974. 3. Application HC -51,320.2 of Karpet King requesting approval of a sign plan for a commercial building located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Randy Lane. Staff report: The Associate Planner said the sign was illegal in that it was not approved by this body. He gave background of appli- cation. The sign on Randy Lane and the sign on fascia of overhang were to be removed. The applicant was requesting sign mounted now be approved. It is too large and is not the sign approved. Slides were shown of the building and the signs. Member Weinstein noted that if proposed amendments go through, the sign would again be non -conforming. HC -100 Page 7 Public Hearing closed HC -51,230.10 approved w/ condition HC -51, 320.2 Karpet King It was noted the crown sticking up above structure was illegal. HC -100 Page 8 HC -51,320.2 continued MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING The sign that had been approved was passed around for the committee to examine. The Associate Planner said the Council was concerned about future sign program for that building. The committee should consider whether the store next door should have a painted sign. Mr. Earle Montague, 2532 Rose Way, Santa Clara, said the owner had to leave town and had asked him to attend the meeting and indicate his willingness to conform to whatever would make it legal. Member Weinstein said he would prefer not to have painted signs; sign on fascia should be removed. He asked about the crown but Mr. Montague could not answer his questions. The Acting Chairman suggested that the committee give guidelines for Mr. Montague to relay to owner. Member Weinstein said the first guideline should be something under 60 square feet (19 ft. in length and 3 ft. in height) so sign would not be non -conforming under proposed amendment. He would like to see a general upgrading of sign. Acting Chairman Koenitzer voted for 30 sq. ft. because he had exist- ing sign. This sign was far too big and none of the things asked for had been done. He would prefer sign not over 45 sq. ft. and did not like painted sign on building. He could live with colors but would prefer sign can. Member Dressler suggested something that adjacent owners could use also. Member Weinstein suggested the owner come in and discuss this with the staff. Member Dressler recommended continuing Application HC -51,320.2 to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Member Weinstein. Motion carried, 3-0 At 9:55 p.m. a recess was called, with the meeting reconvening at 10:05 p.m. REVIEW OF CHANGE OF COPY OF SIGN FACE: 4. Otsen Signs (Mary Jakob Realty) requesting change of copy of an existing sign located at 10051 East Estates Drive. Continued from H -Control meeting of January 23, 1974. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Staff report: The applicant had changed face of sign within the Idylwild Center without approval and is here requesting approval. Slides were shown of the building and signs. Also center sign and existing building sign. The previous pole sign was shown. The size was not changed, just the copy. Acting Chairman Koenitzer noted that one of the comments made earlier was that the signs were far too busy. Member Weinstein asked about square feet in building. Mr. Cowan said he did not know, but the signs were legal in terms of square footage. Mr. Mary Jakobs, 10051 E. Estates Drive, Cupertino, gave history of his business. When he joined the franchise of Century 21, he had to change signs.- He was not aware that he should have come for another permit. He felt present sign was more aesthetic. Member Weinstein said it was not this sign per se; it was the lignin€ in the entire center. He said the sign does not look right sticking above roof. He would have preferred to have can changed and the sign to be completely redesigned. He referred tc new ordinance that might make this sign non -conforming. He does not like sign but does not know what can he done. Mr. Jakob said had he known about it, he would have been glad to come in before paying $1000.00 for this sign. Acting Chairman Koenitzer said he didn't like the sign as it is far too busy but since it is up he doesn't know what to do with it. He pointed out signs in window are illegal as only 25% of window area can be covered. Member Weinstein asked what the applicant intended to do with sign in window. Mr. Jakob said the sign had been in the window for 9 years and was to keep the sun out. When the new ordinance goes in he will be willing to go along with it. Acting Chairman Koenitzer said the window sign is illegal under the existing ordinance. Mr. Jakob said he would comply to written notice from the City. The meeting was opened to comments from the audience. There were none. Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to close Public Hearings. HC -100 Page 9 Public Hearing closed Motion carried, 3-0 HC -100 Page 10 Minute Order HC -51,050.2 Bank of America MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Weinstein proposed a Minute Order that change of copy for Mary Jakob Realty he approved and that the existing window signs be the subject of review by the staff. With the likelihood these will be found illegal, if this is the case, staff be directed to notify the owner to comply with Sign Ordinance as it presently exists. Seconded by Member Dressier. Motion carried, 3-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Application HC -51,050.2 of Bank of America requesting modification of the sign plan for an existing bank facility located 300 ft. west of the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff report: The applicant is requesting to remove a sign which spells out Bank of America from the west elevation to the east elevation. A drawing showing proposed change was passed among the committee members. Mr. Peter K. Smith, 260 Fifth. Street, San Francisco, described the sign change. The change was for reasons of identity. Mr. Smith explained previous hearings had not included him. In answer to Member Weinstein, Mr. Smith clarified sign locations on building. Acting Chairman Koenitzer explained the previous applications for signing for this building. He noted it took a sign exception for two signs. Member Weinstein asked about B of A logo. Mr. Smith said they were still used. Member Weinstein said he did not like sign up on wall as proposed, and would prefer to see the logo on the wall. Mr. Smith said they only had one standard size logo and if this was acceptable, he was agreeable. Acting Chairman Koenitzer said he saw no reason for sign exception and if there was to be a sign on building, the north wall would be the best location. It was ascertained the standard logo is 3'8"x5'. The meeting was opened for comments from the audience. There were none. Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to close Public Hearings. Motion carried, 3-0 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Weinstein proposed a Minute Order to approve application of Bank of America to eliminate the Bank of America sign on west elevation and to place a standard B of A logo on the east eleva- tion in the same place where the proposed Bank of America sign was to be located. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 2-1 Koenitzer No 6. Application HC -51,241.5 of De Anza Oaks requesting modification of the recreation area for the condominium project located 1600 ft. west of Foothill Expressway on Permanente Road. Continued until the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS n 7. Bumbleberry Enterprises, Inc. requesting approval of a temporary sign plan for an existing restaurant facility located at the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of Saich Way. Staff report: The Associate Planner said this request is for a temporary sign. The applicant is going to breakfast type operation and would like to make a special promotion for ten days or two weeks. After a brief discussion, Member Dressler proposed a Minute Order recommending approval of one temporary sign for Bumbleberry Enter- prises, Inc. for existing restaurant facility to announce their new breakfast menu. The temporary sign to be placed on their facility for 16 days to allow them two weeks and three weekends. Seconded by Acting Chairman Koenitzer. Motion carried, 2-1. Weinstein No Member Weinstein wanted the records to note his objection was to length of time; he felt ten days was sufficient. Acting Chairman Koenitzer brought to the committee's attention a sandwich board which has been placed on sidewalk of Bumbleberry Restaurant during lunch hours. The staff was requested to check into this. HC -100 Page 11 HC -51,050.2 approved (HC -51,241.5 continued Bumbleberry (temporary sign flute Order Sandwich Board • IIC-100 Page 12 Sign Ord. Revision P1) Ordin- ance MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Acting Chairman Koenitzer reported the Planning Commission had returned the proposed Sign Ordinance Revision back with suggest- ion that the committee meet with sign representatives, business- men and others who would be affected by the change. The Commission felt the change was too drastic not to have public input. Member Weinstein asked for more data on existing signs relative to square footage, etc. Acting Chairman Koenitzer said he thought it would come down to a philosophical question of "how much sign is enough?". It was decided to wait until staff had provided more data before setting up meeting for public input. Acting Chairman Koenitzer reported that he and Member Sallan had appeared before the City Council to speak on Planned Development Ordinance. He asked if Planning Commission would be hearing it on Monday. Staff member Cowan said he was not sure. It was felt that somebody from H -Control should appear and present the committee's position. Member Dressler appeared to be only available committee member for that meeting. Mr. Cowan suggested that each member could write an individual letter giving his views. Member Weinstein referred to quote by Commissioner Nellis calling for reduction in sign heights. He thought it would have been nice for her to have mentioned these were topics originated in the H -Control committee. He appreciated her support of ordinance and proposed ordinance. Member Weinstein also distributed copies of Washington Post dated December 31, 1973 re San Jose and Santa Clara Valley. ADJOURNMENT The motion was made to adjourn at 11:22 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk Motion carried, 3-0 APPROVED: /s/ Juanita McLaren Chairman