Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 06-05-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON JUNE 5, 1974 IN LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m. by Chairwoman Salian. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler (7:12), Koenitzer, Rogers, Chairwoman Sallan Members absent: Weinstein Staff present: Associate Planner Robert Cowan Senior Planning Technician Toby Kramer. INFORi1L REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 9, 3-U-74 Vallco Park, Ltd.: Site Layout: No comments Construction of a headquarters building for American Micro - Systems located at the south- west corner of Swallow Drive and Homestead Road. Architecture: 12" to 18" should be added to parking para- pet for screening of automobiles Landscaping: No comment HC -109 Page 1 3--U-74 Vallco Park,L':C American Nicrc- H Systems The Associate Planner presented site plan for percolation pond. The ' Flood Control District has purchased five acres at McClellan Road and Bubb Road. They have asked the City for preliminary comments for plans for utilities. The water and island will be visible from Bubb Road and perhaps from McClellan. The Flood Control District has adopted the position of encouraging joint use between the percolation; pond and recreational use. The City Manager has concerns about J� possible liability. Perc olation Pond HC --109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 2 Chairwoman Sallan suggested going to the Parks and Recreation Committee for their comments. Mr. Cowan said there was a time element involved on the part of the Flood Control District. General comments of the committee were preference for tall plants in perimeter landscaping, complete screen- ing of chain link fence, landscaping on island and some water to be visible. Handholds on the sides were suggested as a safety_ measure. Undulating mounds around the perimeter was also suggested. Chairwoman Sallan noted it would be difficult to react until it was known whether it would have a joint use. The Associate Planner then left the meeting to participate in a Planning Commission meeting being held. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 22, 1974 On page 10, paragraph 7, Member Koenitzer wished the last sentence to read as follows: "He referred to the sign at Clean Scene Car Wash as an example of a wood frame." On page 11, paragraph 1, the second sentence should read, "...toward the street., and a concrete support copying lines of pillars cn building be used." Just below the motion to close•Public Hearings on this page; the following motion should he added: "Member Koenitzer then moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to continue Application HC -51,075.361 to the next meeting." Motion carried, 4-0-1, with Member Dressler abstaining. On page 4, paragraph 7, Chairwoman Sallan felt the 7th -line should read, ":..approved changing the words in the Ordinance. Member ...." On page 5, paragraph 3, line 5 should be underlined through the word "Committee". On page 8, paragraph 6, Chairwoman Sallan wished the following added to the last sentence.: "..,•.which was esentially that it can act as a noise buffer to some extent." On page 12, paragraph 8, the last line should read, "using evergreen trees based on adopted interim guidelines, and...". On page 18, paragraph 4, the Ordinance number should be 618 instead of 815. On page 19, item 13, the third comment should read, "...Buildings might be placed to better advantage to break up large expanse of parking lot." The basic concern on the application was the site layout. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING On page -13, paragraph 4, Member Rogers wished to add the following on line 3 after the word "effect". "Cupertino should not have a sameness in appearance as you drive down the street. The use of ivy should be broken by the use of other plants of the same type." There being no further corrections, Member Koenitzer moved to approve the Minutes of May 22, 1.974 as amended. Seconded by Member Rogers. Motion carried, 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: A request for a temporary sign had been received, The Committee agreed to hear this under New Business. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairwoman Sallan referred to Resolution No. 403 which recommended that informal review of Planned Development use -permits be heard at be initiated after 11:30 p.m. She read the Resolution to the Committee to make sure it was clearly understood and this was their intent. She questioned what would happen if the reviews were not finished at the 7:30 p.m. time set -for Public Hearings to begin. The Senior Planning Technician suggested the committee should give itself a little flexibility. It was decided to discuss this further at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Discussion of Sign Ordinance The Senior Planning Technician summarized Resolution No. 398 included in the packet. The City Attorney had looked at it and the guidelines and felt another way of wording recommendation or change in section of Ordinance under Commercial, Office and Industrial Signs was to leave the first part and on last part add a sub -section reading, "The Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall have the power to restrict the sign surface area for any application to 3% of the gross floor area, when in the opinion of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee, the maximum 3% figure would not be in keeping with the purposes of this ordinance or when it would be inconsistent with sign guidelines which have been adopted by the committee." The City Attorney felt guidelines should be used and adopted by the City. Ms. Kramer noted she did not know how this would be received by the Council. HC -109 Page 3 Minutes of 5/22/74 approved as amended Resolution. No,. 403 - Sign Ordinance HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 4 Member Koenitzer said the intent was. there but he wondered if it would not cause the same reaction as the other proposed revision. Member Dressler noted if the City Attorney supported it, it was worthy of consideration. Member Rogers felt it might be wise to adopt interim .guidelines and appoint committee to study entire ordinance. Chair- woman Sallan felt it was strong and well said and she would support it. Ms. Kramer pointed out the intent to revise Section 5,111, Exhibit A, to include both wall and ground signs as being subject to modification when a change of copy was requested. Member Koenitzer felt more study was needed in terms of abatement period. •He would recommend going with minimal change to existing ordinance that would do the basic job. Chairwoman Sallan then read the portion on non -conforming signs which said that ground signs and shopping center signs existing at the date of enactment of the ordinance shall be permitted to remain indefinitely. The intent was to omit the sentence which said the.ground signs could remain forever. Further discussion was held with regard to abatement period. Mr. Mulkern of the Chamber of Commerce was present and he was asked to comment on whether he felt that having ground signs subject to modification when the owner requested a change of copy was unreason- able. Mr. Frank Mulkern, 20800 Hor^.estead Road, Cupertino, said he recognized the problem they were having to live with in determining the period of time for existing ground signs, etc. The Chamber of. Commerce was hop- ing to provide input for the committee. He realized there are some signs in town that should be changed. He then explained equity, depreciation, investment credits, etc. as related to business signs. Two and five year abatement periods are not appropriate for a business- man to recover loss. Chairwoman Sallan explained they were asking if he thought it was unreasonable to say these ground signs would be dealt with as other signs. Mr. Mulkern said he would rather have his committee comment on this. Member Dressler noted that as aesthetics change around a business, the owner should want to bring his sign into conformance with the rest of the community. The Senior Planning Technician pointed out this would give staff power and flexibility for controlling ground signs. Member Koenitzer felt this was a controversial point and he would rather push for minimum that could be gotten without controversy. Mr. Mulkern said the H -Control Committee was already prevailing its will on businesses in regard to sign sizes, even without ordinance change. He pointed out that in all fairness they should consider new businesses which would be competing with existing businesses. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Chairwoman Sallan said if they changed this section of the ordinance, they should provide a policy statement to the effect that any sign that becomes non -conforming as a result of this change will not be actively purused by the City to change its sign until a new Sign Ordinance has been adopted, but that they could be asked to change their signs when they asked for some change in their signs. This is already on all sign: except ground signs. Member Rogers then moved for approval of proposed -modification of the Sign Ordinance, Section 7,0210. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 4-0 • Member Rogers moved for approval of the interim revision of Sign Ordinance, Section A, proposed for Section 5.111 and 5.112 with the •proposed guidelines as st-ated. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairwoman Sallan clarified the provision was that any sign that becomes non -conforming as a result of this action (approval of Section 5.111, Exhibit A) , the only change that can occur on these signs will be those initiated by the applicant when it comes to the City for change in sign structure or change of copy or any facet of signing for the structure. } The Proposed Guidelines for Signings, 2nd Draft, dated June 5, 1974 were then considered item by item, with the following changes being made: I ..Item 1 under Criteria for Evaluating Sign Area should have the words "or of the sign" inserted between "building" and "from". ..An Item 7 should be added to say "Readability of sign considering amount of copy, letter sizes, and specific viewing conditions". (Staff can elaborate so developers are clear on meaning.) ..Item 1 under Height of Ground Signs should have the words "that will be allowed" deleted. ..Item 2 under Materials and Color, the words "during the"day or" should be added between "glare" and "when". ..Under Item 3, the word "blaring" should be "glaring". ..An Item 4 should be added: "Samples of proposed materials and colors shall be brought before the committee. Representatives shall show materials and colors in natural and illuminated states." HC -109 Page 5 Modification app roved Interim Revision 5.111 and 5.112 HC -.109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 6 Guidelines Member Rogers moved for adoption of Proposed Guidelines for Signing, 2nd for Signing Draft, dated June -5, 1.974 with the corrections as stated. These to be approved sent on to the City Council. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 4-0 Mr. Mulkern said he felt the Chamber of Commerce would fight this. Chairwoman Sallan asked if it was clear these are interim guidelines and will not effect businesses already in. Mr. Mulkern said there are things that need to be commented on by experts. He asked if it would not have beer, better to get together with the business community. He noted not one businessman had spoken; the committee had said just what they wanted. He pointed out the Sign Ordinance is only 7 years old and although the committee has been considering changes for many months, the business community had not been informed. They had not been asked for their input. Chairwoman Sallan reiterated these are not final; they are only guidelines. Implementation for study of final Sign Ordinance was then discussed. Ms. Kramer answered Member Koenitzer that the amount of staff support would depend on the budget approved. Member Koenitzer asked the staff to write to other cities, asking for their ordinances and also what- ever information they had used to prepare their ordinances and to base their criteria on. It was agreed these would be informal study sessions with a meri'ver-- ship composed of 3 F. -Control members (2 alternates), 2 businessmen, 2 technical advisors and 2 representatives from the community -at - large. Mr. Mulkern referred to an ad hoc committee being appointed by the Mayor. Chairwoman Sallan said this was for something. different. At 9:10 p.m. a recess was taken, with the meeting reconvening at 9:16 .p.m. Sign Ord. With regard to the previous discussion, Member Koenitzer moved to Study recommend to City Council the appointment of a Sign Ordinance Committe-e Study Committee to consist of three H -Control members and two alternates, two representatives of the business community, two technical advisors and two citizens -at -large. Seconded by Member Rogers. Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING 2. Application HC -51,334.1 of Mercury Savings requesting approval of landscaping modification for a bank facility located south- erly of and adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft. westerly of the intersection of East Estates Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff report: The Senior Planning Technician referred to a May 6, 1974 I approval by City Council requiring a 4' landscaping strip on the eastern'. boundary of the property adjacent to the Flood Control easement. The present application includes the 4' planter proposal and modifications to the entire landscaping plan. She pointed out a 10' landscaping area adjacent to the sidewalk that will have to be added. Ms. Kramer noted Calabazas Creek has dense natural growth that will be removed when the concrete channel is added, so something more substan- tial should be added along the fence. Mr. Mel Kapson, Mercury Savings representative, noted that what is being proposed by the architect is a planting that will cover the fence on both sides with greenery. The trees will provide height. He noted all they can do is provide greenery for east side of fence; the other side belongs to Flood Control District. Member Rogers questioned whether the Evergreen pear trees in front would cover the sign. Mr. Jerry Newsome, 1415 Lexington Avenue, San Jose, said they would not. Mr. Kapson pointed out that the signs are visible from the sides rather than from the front. Member Rogers ascertained the Star Jasmine would cover the fences extending approximately 8" above it. The architect said he planned a wall of green. Member. Koenitzer suggested the photinia be spaced at 25' centers and an additional one be included at south end of planting. on east side. Chairwoman Sallan said what was being proposed would cover the fence, but since what was being taken out was so big and beautiful, larger growing shrubs and plantings at distances on center that would provide screen in both directions should be considered. Mr. Kapson said this would close off driveway and have to be chopped out so driveway could be used. He said the jasmine will intertwine and cover both sides of the fence. Mr. Newsome said another reason was the maintenance and longevity of plants. In a 4' area they will have to be chopped back and this will diminish the life of the plant. Member Dressler suggested increasing jasmine to 5 -gallon cans. Mr. Newsome said he would rather close spacings and keep the 1 --gallon size. Chair- woman Sallan thought they, could plant larger ones on Stevens Creek Boulevard. HC -109 Page 7 HC --51, 334.1 Mercury Savings HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 8 Mr. Kapson pointed out they have over 20% of total area in landscaping. If it doesn't look nice, they will put in bigger ones so it will. Mr. • Sanford Wong said 5 -gallon plants have been in the container a longer time and will not grow like a young plant. Young plants on closer • spacing will do a better job. Mr. Newsome answered Member Dressler Chairwoman Sallan referred to treatment of small area on Stevens Creek Boulevard. She suggested putting plants on mound using higher growing plants. Member Koenitzer said the east planting area should not have dwarf variety plants.. It was ascertained that traffic obstruction was not a concern. Chairwoman Sallan noted the building could handle higher growth, especially on Stevens Creek Boulevard where a verdant appearance is desirable. The desired height is 5' or 6'. The architect agreed this would be done. Member Koenitzer noted the west side needed some- thing taller also. The hearing was opened for comments from the audience. There were none. Public Member. Dressler moved, seconded by Member Rogers to close Public Hearing Hearings. closed Motion carried, 4.0 HC -51,334.1 Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51, approved • 334.1 to the City Council with the standard conditions, the w/condition attached exhibit and the following special conditions: (1) That the photinia along east boundary be planted on 25' centers starting at south end of the planting area that leads to Stevens Creek Boulevard where the gravel. starts. (2) That the Star Jasmine along east boundary be planted on 2' centers. (3) That mounding be provided at the planters on Stevens Creek Boulevard at the east and west property lines. (4) That the plant variety in above planters be changed to } something with a growth height of 4' to 6'. (5) That the landscaping be extended to the property line along Stevens Creek Boulevard. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING The motion was seconded by Member Rogers. It was clarified that the intent of the committee on easterly boundary is to have the entire fence area become a green area. Motion carried, 4-0 The applicant was notified his application had been approved. Mr. Kapson said the committee had been very cooperative. He noted there were things the committee had asked for that were completely unaccept- able but the committee had been willing to mediate and arrive at something that was acceptable to the City and acceptable to Mercury Savings so they could operate their business as a business. 3. Application HC -51,075.361 of I.S.S. (Bern O'Connor) requesting approval of a sign plan for 3 light industrial buildings located at 10435 and 10501 N. Tantau Avenue and 19050. Pruneridge Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting of May 22, 1974. Member Dressler abstained from the discussion. Staff report: The Senior Planning Technician noted the application had been continued from previous meeting as the committee was interested in having the signs tie in with the architecture of the buildings. A third building to the north on Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue for which a sign is being requested. • The applicant is proposing a sign with redwood stained posts and frame across top and bottom for Building 1. Buildings 3 and 6 will utilize concrete columns which will support the sign and match the concrete exteriors of the. buildings. Ms. Kramer pointed out there. is a concrete foot on just one side of sign. Mr. Bern O'Connor, I.S.S., explained this would create better visibility; without having projection on outside. He exhibited plant plans. He noted there will be dual occupancy of Building 6. It was then brought to his attention that only one sign is permitted for each building. A discussion ensued. Mr. Dressler asked if Vallco Park had been contacted. Mr. O'Connor said Mr. Rose, owner, had been contacted and he concurred with this plan. Member Koenitzer wondered if Mr. Rose fully realized the problem of identifying both tenants on one site. Member Rogers asked how this had been handled in the past. Ms. Kramer said they have never had this problem before on an industrial building. She suggested continuing this portion until staff could contact owner and explain. It was so agreed. HC -109 Page 9 HC -51,075. 361 I.S.S. HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H• -CONTROL MEETING Page 10 Mr. Dressler pointed out the reasoning behind the sign composition of native concrete with buttress instead of pilon. They were matching the building and decreasing bulk. Public Member-Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to close Public Hearing Hearings. closed Motion carried, 3-0-1 Abstain: Dressler HC -51,075. Member Koenitzer recommended approval of Application HC -51,075.361 361. to the City Council with the standard conditions, Exhibit F 1st approved Revision, F -1, F-2, with the following special conditions: w/conditions (1) That the legs on the sign shown on Exhibit F-2 be made symmetrical on each end. (2) That the sign for Building 6 be continued so the applicant can discuss the multi -tenant problem with the building owner. Seconded by Member Rogers. Motion carried, 3-0-1 Abstain: Dressler The applicant was notified the application for signing for Buildings I and 3 had been approved.. Signing for. Building 6 had been continued. Approved portion of application would be heard by City Council at its June 17, 1974 meeting. HC --51,027. 5. Application HC -51,027.141 of James W. Foug and Associates 141 (Security Pacific National. Bank) requesting exception to Security l the Sign Ordinance to allow a ground sign in addition to Pacific two wall signs and to allow a ground sign on a lot less National than two hundred ten (210) ft. of linear frontage. located Bank at the northeast corner of Pacifica Drive and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Staff report: The Senior Planning Technician noted there are two applications. One is for a sign exception for a ground sign and the other is for two wall signs and lighting. Information on lighting that had been requested was distributed to the committee members. Ms. Kramer pointed out directional signs on site for bank f had been approved. The wall signs were continued. MINUTES OF THE JUNE.5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Ms. Kramer noted the necessity for applicant to file a sign exception for the ground sign was twofold: (1) Section 7.023 allows for only two signs per site. (2) Section 6.041. permits ground signs only for lots with 210 ft. of linear frontage. All the signs are in keeping with guidelines discussed by the Committee and the total sign area requested is not unreasonable. Member'Koenitzer asked about Planning Commission condition to use permit regarding no ground signs. Ms. Kramer referred to previous staff report which said zoning for the development included a stipula- tion that free standing signs shall not be allowed for individual developments within this three acre project. Chairwoman Sallan asked the applicant if he was aware of the section of the Sign Ordinance which would allow an exception. He said he was. Mr. Ray Clark, Los Angeles, said he had contacted staff and obtained Sign Ordinance and had talked with Ms. Kramer about guidelines. They had tried to determine purpose and goal of Ordinance and initiate these in their sign plan. He noted the guidelines are still changing. He believes their sign program is better than what Ordinance would allow and pointed out the size is less than allowed by Ordinance. Chairwoman Sallan said it was the Ordinance that was restrictive; there are two areas where they do not qualify under the Ordinance. The third restriction is the condition of the use permit. She asked Mr. Clark to justify the exception. Mr. Clark said they must have their business identified adequately and fairly. He noted it was not fair to discriminate against bank in relationship to competing businesses. Mr. Clark showed slides of other Security Pacific National Bank buildings, illustrating their signs and logo. Other slides were shown of freestanding signs at banks in the community.. Mr. Clark noted that Northern California Bank and Wells Fargo Bank just up the street have two wall signs and a free standing sign.. He noted signing is very important. He offered to modify building to any degree, but if they can't identify, they cannot succeed. Another slide showed Bank of America had two wall signs and free stand- ing sign plus 9 directional signs; Wells Fargo has 8 directional signs. He noted what they are asking for is nothing more than what other banking institutions in the community have. HC -109 Page 11 HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 12 Mr. Clark pointed out they are asking for 104 sq. ft. as compared to 154 sq. ft. allowed by Ordinance. He asked that they be treated fairly in competing with other banks in the City. It was noted the Bank of America directional signs should be removed. Mr. Clark showed samples of sign materials. Chairwoman Sallan said the committee had to determine whether or not the evidence satisfied criteria for allowing exception. Member Rogers asked if the document from Planning Commission could be overriden. Ms. Kramer said this was a condition of approval and the committee could recommend the granting of an exception. Member Koenitzer noted the Committee had granted exception to Bank of America for third sign. Chairwoman Sallan then read reasons for allowing an exception. Lumber Rogers said she was having trouble finding something that would justify cexc.cpti_on but thought the presentation was very persuasive and the signing was aesthetically a;reeabie. Member Koenitzer said he could not find ui).y rea,-;on .`.or allowing the exception. Member Dressier said the architecture of the building signified banking and the building is well exposed. He did not see any reason for putting in a ground sign. Chairwoman Sallan agreed, noting there were no trees that would obliterate sign. She felt their identification was adequate. The Senior Planning Technician explained reasoning behind Planning Commission condition. This was one large parcel divided into three small ones and the City wanted to avoid having many ground signs. A joint ground sign for all tenants was a possibility. The hearing was opened to comments from the audience. Mr. Mulkern noted this was really what the committee has been doing on signs in the City. The applicant is requesting less than is allowed. He pointed out the easterly sign is not visible except from the east. With regard to an exception, this does impose a hardship since Wells Fargo and Northern California banks have the free standing signs. He MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING I HC-109 Page 13 pointed out this sign is what the committee has been asking for. Mr. Martin Hall, 1.0113 Parkwood Drive, Cupertino,said as far as he was concerned as a businessman, he was sure they must have these signs. Every bank in Cupertino has them. Every business needs them. This is a magnificent sign. He said he felt it fit in with every requirement for an exception. It conforms with other signs in the City and other banks have more sign area than they are asking for. Member Dressler pointed out Barclays and Sumitomo Banks which have much less. Mr. James Foug said constraints should be used to control unpleasant or unappealing signing. This sign is below constraints of Ordinance allowance for size and well within the sphere of constraints. They need the third sign to be seen by traffic coming down Highway 9. After further discussion, Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Public Hear Rogers, to close Public Hearing. ings closed Motion carried, 4-0 Me,rzber•Koenitzer moved to recommend denial of HC -51,0.27.141 to City. HC -51,027. Council. Seconded by Member Dressler. 1141 denied exception AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Chairwoman Sallan NOES: Member Rogers Motion carried, 3-1 Chairwoman Sallan noted the request for exception to Sign Ordinance had been denied. She asked the applicant if he wished the wall signs to be considered or continued in light of the denial. Mr. Clark noted this sign program was carefully studied by the best experts. He did not feel it was appropriate to modify the signing arbitrarily as it had been tonight. He indicated his intent to appeal to the City Council. Chairwoman Sallan explained the wall signs were completely separate from exception request. After discussion, it was agreed to consider the wall signs. 4. Application HC -51,02.7.14 of James W. Foug and Associates HC -51,027. (Security Pacific National Bank) requesting approval of 14 lighting and signing for a bank facility located at the Security northeast corner of Pacifica Drive and Saratoga -Sunnyvale . Pacific Road. Continued from H -Control meeting of May 22, 1974. National Bank HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, '974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 14 During a brief discussion, the committee members agreed the wall signs were acceptable. Public Hear- Member Rogers moved; seconded by Member Koenitzer, to close Public ing closed Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 HC -51,027.14 Wall signs and logo approved Member Rogers moved for approval of sign portion of Application HC -51027.14 to the City Council subject to the standard conditions, as presented on Exhibit F., labeled Sign A, for two wall signs and .logo. Seconded by Member Dressler. . Motion carried, 4-0 Ligh.ting. Staff report on lighting: Ms. Kramer noted that Exhibit E 1st Revision showed the requested illumination pattern. The lights will be on 10' mounting with 175 watt bulbs in two locations along easterly line. There will be 7 recessed lights around the building. The twolight standards are similar to those at Sandpiper Restaurant. She noted the driveway will be to offices in future and might need some Lighting. Chairwoman Sallan n.ot:'_d her concern, and -h of Menihe.r Weinstein, was that the lighting in sofit. not be. too intense. Mr. Foug explained foot candles as shown on exh.ib:it. He said the light source would not be seen; it is recessed light with diffuser. If need be, the lights would be recessed further. In answer to Member Koenitzer, Mr. Foug pointed out lights o'Ter drive -up window., Mr. Sanford Wong said their policy as a bank is not to turn on any external lights because of energy crisis. Lights under canopy will only be on during the dusk.h.ours. They -are not intended to operate beyond 6:00 p.m. He noted they are 1/5 of. what service stations have under their canopies. Member Koenitzer asked about different light standards being used on property to the east, noting the parking lots would be contiguous. It was discussed whether they wanted to use this standard for what would be proposed for north, or conform to what was being used to east. Ms. Kramer pointed out the standards are of similar height. Chairwoman Sallan suggested if these were used, it should be recommend- ed for lighting to the north. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, ].974 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Koenitzer moved o approve lighting HC -51,027.14 to the City Council with standard conditions, Exhibit E 1st Revision and associated materials supplied with exhibit: (1) Poles are to be 10' in height with 175 watt bulbs. (2) Lighting intensity be subject to review by the Committee after installation. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 4-0 HC -109 Page 15 lighting japproved 6. Application HC -51,331.3 of Martin L. Hall (May Investment HC -51,331.3 Company) requesting approval of site, architecture, land- May scaping and grading for two duplex units located at the Investment south side of Rodrigues Avenue, 140 ft. west of Blaney Avenue. Company Staff report: This request is for approval of site, architecture, landscaping and grading for two duplex lots. The Senior Planning Technician noted each was different architecturally but compatible with what exists. Both plans meet the required setbacks for a duplex. Member Rogers ascertained that contrary to plans one garage 10' and the other was 20'. Ms. Kramer referred to concern of trees. Mr. Marty Hall said they are saving every tree that can be saved. He said they were saving 6 out of 11. There were no comments on site. Site With regard to architecture, Member Koenitzer0felt it would add to Architecture the symmetry of the buildings if the plan of one were reversed, putting the garages on opposite ends. He explained how it would look better if the wide garage doors were reversed on one plan. Mr. Hall said this was a good point and he would present it to Mr. O'Keefe, the owner, for his consideration. Chairwoman Sallan suggested a provision be made for a planter between Landscaping the garages on each duplex. Mr. Hall agreed to do this. It was ascertained the grading was satisfactory. Grading. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Dressler, to close Public Public Hear - Hearings. ings closed Motion carried, 4-0 HC -109 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 16 HC -51,331.3 Member Dressler moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,331.3 approved to the City Council, subject to standard conditions, as presented in Exhibits A, A-1, C, C -1, D and D -1 and to compliment the applicant on his presentation. Seconded by Member. Koenitzer. Chairwoman Sallan wanted to include the special condition that planter would be added between the garages, but Member Dressler noted the applicant had agreed to this and he felt the condition unnecessary. Motion carried, 4-0 The applicant was notified of the approval of this application and that it would be heard before the City Council on June 17, 1974. Although it was now past the 11:30 p.m. time frame, the Senior Planning Technician noted Shell Oil wanted to put up temporary signs between now and the next meeting. The committee agreed to extend meeting to cover two temporary signs being requested. NEW BUSINESS Shell Oil 8. Shell Oil Coepany requesting approval of a temporary sign Co.`- Temp?. plan for existing service_ stations in Cllpertino. sign approved The Senior Planning Technician displayed an r. -exhibit of promotional signs being requested for a 45 -day period. There will be 7 signs on each Shell service station throughout the City. Member Koenitzer moved to approve temporary sign for Shell. service stations. Seconded by Member Rogers. Motion carried, 4-0 Policy Member Rogers moved that temporary signs be handled by staff unless Statement there is some unusual condition that in their opinion necessitates bringing it to H -Control. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 4-0 Cupt. Round- up - 'Temp. A temporary sign in the Boulevard Center at the corner of Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard was being requested. Member as she was making presentation. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5, 1974 11 -CONTROL MEETING Mrs. Barbara Rogers, Cupertino Round -up representative, said they are moving to facilities in the rear of Boulevard Center. The building has. concrete block wall around porch on which there are currently 3 signs. Member Koenitzer questioned having Departrae Cupertino Round -up and ::'es t Valley I and R, lettering made the sign look too busy. 1'frs each group needed to be identified on sign. for two months. 0 at of Social Services, thinking 3 rows of Rogers explained why It is a temporary sign Member Koenitzer moved to approve re;uest for temporary sign as requested. Sign to be the same size as adjacent signs, and have a white background with dark lettering. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 3-0-1 Abstain: Rogers Chairwoman Sallan referred to resolution on H -Control's new starting time. She asked members to think about how additional business would be handled that did not fall within time frame. She noted she was preparing a memo for staff on Old Business, but this would not get into the minutes for Council's notice. ADJ0URN NT The meeting was adjourned at 11:54 p.m. until the next regular meeting on June 19, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0 APPROVED: /s/ C. Nancy Sallan Vice -Chairman ATTEST: Is! Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk HC -1.09 Page 17