Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 11-20-1975CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1975 IN TILE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM OF CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Koenitzer with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer Members absent: Grubb and Irvine Staff present: Assistant Planner Toby Kramer L'flORMMIAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLLCATION: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of November 6, 1975 Page 1, last line: of. informal review should read, "...between this site and the adjacent site and provision for it be provided at this time. " Page 3, last line should read, "...intensity on the other side with regard to the overall visual impression." Member Sallan moved to accept the Minutes of November 6, 1975 as amended. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Member Sallan reported she had had a call from Ms. Barbara Rogers expressing concern about the presence of rats on wall between Vallco Shopping Center •and residential area. HC -151 Page.1 Minutes of 11/6/75 approved as amended HC -151 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2O, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS: HC -51,216.4 Application HC -51,216.4 - Brunswick Corporation requesting a clarifi- Brunswick cation concerning the erection of a sign for the Brunswick Bowling Bowling Center. Center Assistant Planner Kramer reviewed background of center development. She referred to letter from applicant which stated the problem and the rationale for the installation of the signs. Approval of the signs had been approved but staff and this committee had recommended that more than one tenant should be in the Center prior to the installation. Ms. Kramer displayed a colored rendering of the proposed sign, which, in accordance with Resolution No. 458, had Center name occupying one-third of sign dimension and remaining sign area divided into panels for four tenants. Ms. Kramer advised the committee that draft of new Sign Ordinance indicated a maximum of two tenants on a shopping center sign. She suggested a condition that actual number of tenants was not being approved at this time; each tenant would have to come in for individual approval. Chairman Koenitzer pointed out the sign had been approved with the idea there would be other tenants. It was stressed that MacDonald's could not have a groind sign. Chairman Koenitzer noted the real question was whether to allow the shopping center sign to be installed at this time. A lengthy discussion was held on the number of tenants to be allowed on the sign. Chairman Koenitzer said the present design did not lend itself to putting less than 3 or 4 tenants on it . Mr. Carl M. Manofsky, representing Brunswick, said they were trying to be as flexible as possible with design of sign. The panels could be changed size -wise. He said there were actually four owners involved. Chairman Koenitzer said they had approved the sign and he felt they had been thinking in terms of four tenants. He could feel comfortable with this and worry about the new Ordinance after it was inaugurated. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Manofsky said one owner wanted the option of not being included on the center sign. Assistant Planner Kramer stressed the other owners should be made aware of what was being approved. Member Dressler felt since there were four separate owners an exception might be allowed. Member Sallan said the committee has the option of not allowing the erection of the shopping center signs until there are other tenants and the new Sign Ordinance might be approved by then. Chairman Koenitzer said he could not see conditioning an application on what might be approved in the future. Member Sallan felt the applicant should be_aware of the new Ordinance and the possibility that the new Ordinance might require him to conform to a change. Mr. Manofsky explained the Homestead Lanes is incurring a hardship concerning proper identification and they believed the two street signs would help attract other potential commercial users and encourage development. A further discussion was held on possible designs of sign if only two tenants were allowed to be displayed. Member Sallan ascertained the applicant would be willing to modify panels if so instructed. The hearing was then opened for public comment. There were none. Member Sallan moved to approve Application HC -51,216.4, Brunswick Corporation, with the standard H -Control conditions and the following conditions: (1) The sign is approved as proposed with Brunswick portion. (2) Future tenant identification on ground sign will require conformance to Sign Ordinance in effect at that time. (3) Applicant agrees to modify Brunswick panel to conform to Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the second tenant seeks sign identification. Seconded by Member Dressler. AYES: Members Dressler, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 EIC-151 Page 3 IC -51,216.4 approved w/ _ondi t i ons HC -151 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20,-1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 4 It was clarified that the committee was only considering the possibility that Brunswick Corporation would have to change their panel the one time. Minute Member Dressler directed a Minute Order to staff to notify other owners Order on this project site of current approval of signing and the potential of sign limitation in the new Sign Ordinance as proposed. Minute Order to be for communication purposes only. Mr. Manofsky.asked if the vacant panels should be white. Member Sallan .suggested a darker color. It was noted the sign was internally illumin-. ated. A discussion was held on the best way to cover the vacant panels. Member Dressler suggested covering the empty panels with redwood or leaving them open. The other members concurred. Stereo Assistant Planner Kramer reported two of the tenants in the Coco's Factory and complex were planning signs different from those presented and Pic -A -Dilly approved at previous meeting. She referred to the criteria for signs in the center. The proposed signs are within the criteria of 24 inch letters and 70% coverage. The colors will be the same. Renderings of the signs for Pic -A -Dilly and Stereo Factory were displayed.. Mr. David Strong, representing Pic -A -Dilly, -said they had never seen the proposal presented by Ad -Art. The logo used on that proposal was their old logo and has since been changed. This proposal is their new logo and conforms to the criteria given them by the City. The sign only reflects 60% of the frontage. Member Sallan asked if the new sign could not be made in the same size as the previous proposal. Mr. Strong said it could be but it would change the configuration of letters. He stressed the proposal from Ad -Art would not have been acceptable to Pic -A -Dilly. Member Sallan said it was her thinking that they had been approving the exact dimensions as proposed by Ad -Art. Mr. George Pope, representing Stereo Factory, said he had been contacted by Stereo Factory and when he had checked with the Building Department of the City he had been given the figures of 24 inches and 70%. He had designed the sign accordingly. Ms. Kramer answered the committee members it was her understanding that Ad -Art was responsible for getting an agreement from all the tenants. Member Sallan stressed it was the intent of the committee to approve the signs as presented and the criteria established with their approval were for future tenants. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Ms. Kramer advised Pic -A -Dilly was only using two colors on their sign. Mr. Pope said Stereo Factory would only be using 30 milliamp bulbs rather than the 60. Chairman Koenitzer said one of the conditions of approval was that all signs must end up with about the same degree of brightness. Intensity of lighting was briefly discussed. Member Sallan suggested a letter to Mr. Merritt Sher indicating the problems they had had with this application. She was distressed at developer's misrepresentation to this committee of the tenants' sign intentions. Chairman Koenitzer said since the proposed signs met the criteria he felt they could be used, but he also was upset over the situation. It was agreed staff should write a letter to Mr. Sher from this committee indicating their distress at the misrepresentation for signing in shopping center and hope that they are not dealt with in this manner again. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of H -Control procedures Since the two newer members of the committee were not present, it was agreed to briefly discuss material submitted by Ms. Kramer. Ms. Kramer was complimented on her work. Chairman Koenitzer one thing to be considered is what is hoped to be achieved with policy review. Member Sallan said she was comfortable with points highlighted in staff report. She agreed with suggestion of informal meeting format. She felt procedure needed to be worked on. Chairman Koenitzer suggested when the committee members reviewed material received in the packet before the meeting, each member could present briefly and concisely the points they wished to make and then let the chairman lead the discussion and try to resolve differences with the applicants. Ms. Kramer suggested perhaps it was not necessary to go into such detail on each area of application. Member Sallan said there were two points that should be considered: (1) how to streamline process on staff and committee level and (2) what is the committee trying to say to the developer and how it is being said. It should be laid out what aesthetic criteria is and IC -151 'age 5 HC -151 Page 6 Mercury rcury Savings Portal Plaz. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING then determine how much nit picking was needed. Specific guidelines should be set up. She felt their input was especially valuable at beginning of planning stage. The preliminary review could use more time. Chairman Koenitzer summarized the optimum procedure would (1) reduce staff time spent on H -Control, (2).speed up processing of applications and (3) clarify criteria for judging project so staff would be able to tell developers what is expected. Samples of materials used by other cities which had been included in the report were discussed. Several suggestions were made. (1) Prioritize special conditions. (2) Each member list what he feels are major problems in handling applica- tions. (3) Set goals for review. (4) State what they feel is purpose of committee; i.e. the philosophy of the committee. (5) There should be general guidelines and specific criteria. One of the main concerns of the committee was definition of light measurements. This was discussed. It was agreed the review of procedures should be included on the short agendas for discussion at each meeting. Member Sallan noted Mercury Savings planting was still inadequate. Ms. Kramer reported the planting had been done but the squirrels were eating the plants.. , Member Sallan said the landscaping at Portal Plaza needed to have curb— ing placed around it so the dirt would not spill over into the sidewalk and parking lot areas. ADJOURNMENT At 9:30 p.m. Member Sallan moved to adjourn to the next regular meeting on December 4, 1975 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Member Dressler. Motion carried, 3-0 APPROVED: Is/ R. D. Koenitzer, Jr.. Chairman IATTEST: fs/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk