Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 01-22-1976CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA HC -156 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Page 1 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON JANUARY 22, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:15 p.m. by Chairman Koenitzer with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler, Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer Members absent: None Staff present: Assistant Planner Toby Kramer INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: 1. 15-U-75 Sobrato-Berg Properties: Construction of a health 15-U-75 clinic and therapy studio in portion of Building #4, Sobrato-Berg Valley Green Business Park, Unit II located at Not discussed Bandley Drive and Valley Green Drive. Assistant Planner Kramer noted there were no exterior changes so this did not need to be considered by this committee. 2. 16-U-75 San Carlos Homes & Development: Construction of 50 single-family residences located southerly of and adjacent to Voss Avenue at its westerly terminus. Assistant Planner Kramer described application. She explained to members of the audience who were interested in this project that this informal review was not to discuss land use. Concerns: Landscaping: Relation of open space to building area (density on developed portion) It was the consensus of the committee there should be fencing allowed; Ttype -to be studied further. 16-U-75 San Carlos Homes & Develo ment HC -156 =MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 2 `Chairman Koenitzer then opened the meeting for comments from interested persons. Ms. Patricia Blake, 10445 Lockwood Drive, Cupertino, said her concern :was the row of houses backing on her backyard. She did not want another big building behind her. Ms. Donald Pezzola, 22811 Medina Lane, Apt. A, Cupertino, said his concern was in ending up with a DeAnza Oaks. He objected to the cross sections not showing fences. He said there would be no view ;corridors and appearances are deceiving without the fences. Leaving out the fence was misrepresentation of site plans. Another concern was grading at easterly end of Alcada and Voss Avenues. In some cul-de-sacs there are 20 ft. grades which he felt could be avoided. He referred to drainage and instability problems. He felt the filled portion would be very unstable. He noted one two-story unit backing onto Lockwood Drive was 10 ft. from property line at one corner. Chairman Koenitzer pointed out this would be agendized as a Public Hearing by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1976 at which time these concerns could be presented by these citizens. A brief discussion was held on type of fencing. Since pools would .require fencing, these could be allowed in certain areas only. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 8, 1976 On page 8, paragraph 5, third sentence should read: "....Stevens `Creek Boulevard because of (1) site circulation safety and (2) adequate ingress -egress still maintained with closing one curb cut." On page 6, condition (4), first line, replaced "extrusion" with "protruding". �On page 7, delete the last sentence of paragraph 9. Minutes of :Member Sallan moved to accept Minutes of January 8, 1976 as amended. 1/8/76 approveaSeconded by Member Irvine. as amen de d Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING C HC -156 i Page 3 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None No item will be initiated after 11:30 p.m. announcement made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Application HC -51,015.19 - Syd Jacobs, DBA Jerry's Pants and HC -51,015.19 Things requesting exception to Section 7.021 of the Sign Jerry's Pants Ordinance to allow more sign area than permitted located in and Things the Crossroads Shopping Center at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard. Continued from H -Control meeting of January 8, 1976. Staff report: Assistant'Planner Kramer reviewed background of application. The problem was not in number of signs but size of signs. Area allowed is 35 sq. ft. Existing sign is 32.7 sq. ft. and they are asking for another 32.7 sq. ft. She answered Member Dressler that under the new Sign Ordinance they would be allowed 40 sq. ft. maximum. Mr. Sol S. Judson, 20690 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, represent- ing the applicant, said the store was located on the corner with two separate entrances facing different directions. He pointed out the architect of the building had provided for a sign to be hung on both sides. He said the sign has been erected and people have commented they did not know this was Pants and Things until the second sign was erected. Business has gone up over 200%. He felt the sign was aesthetically pleasing and conformed with every other sign in the center. He said it lighted up this area. A smaller sign would not blend in with other signs. He displayed photos of the area before and after the sign was erected. He said he felt it fell within the provision of the ordinance for an exception. Mr. Judson answered Member Sallan the second sign had been erected prior to December 18, 1975. Member Sallan noted it was after the December 4 meeting at which time this committee had considered denying the application for a second sign. HC -156 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 4 When Mr. Judson again referred to the sizable investment the applicant had made in the second sign, Chairman Koenitzer pointed out this had been done at the applicant's own risk since the City had not given him approval for it. Chairman Koenitzer questioned what was exceptional about this business that did not apply to others in the center. Mr. Judson said this business had two entrances and people thought it was part of Howard's. The original sign plan and denial for two signs for this corner were discussed. Ms. Kramer pointed out the store does not qualify for the second sign because of area. In answer to Member Irvine, Chairman Koenitzer explained the applica- tion had been continued originally to allow the applicant to design a sign within the sign limitations or to present more specific reasons ;for requesting exception. 'The hearing was then opened for public comment. There were none. 'Member Irvine asked if they had considered the suggestion of a sign on the door. Mr. Judson said this would not do the trick. He spoke again how the sign enhanced the shopping center. Public Hear- ing closed HC -51, 015.19 approved Member Dressler moved to close Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Sallan. Motion carried, 4-0 ,There was a lengthy discussion among the committee members on the merits for granting an exception. Member Dressler moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Application HC -51,015.19 subject to standard H -Control conditions and recognizing we are accepting the exception to the Sign Ordinance Section 10 .4, paragraph D, again accepting the argument that the applicant has demonstrated the development and use of the property cannot yield a reasonable return to the applicant. A second reason Ifor granting exception will provide for the existing installation of the excepted sign in conformance with the sign program for the ≥shopping center which will carry out the aesthetics of that sign ,program. Seconded by Member Sallan. AYES: Members Dressler, Irvine, Sallan NOES: Chairman Koenitzer Motion carried, 3-1 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING HC -156 Page 5 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council at its February 2, 1976 meeting. At 8:55 p.m. a recess was taken with the meeting reconvening at ;Recess 9:08 p.m. 4. Application HC -51,216.5 - McDonald's Corporation requesting HC -51,216.5 approval of site, architecture, landscaping, grading, light- McDonald's ing and signing for a fast-food restaurant located at the Corporation southeast corner of Homestead Road and Stelling Road. Continued from H -Control meeting of December 18, 1975. Staff report: The Assistant Planner reviewed concerns of this application noted by this committee at the December 18, 1975 meeting., With regard to architectural compatibility between the McDonald's building and the Brunswick building, the applicant has reviewed plans. They have utilized the same brown metal roof material and the gray wall material used by Brunswick. The staff questioned the balance of the two materials to be used on McDonald's building - the gray wall material and red brick. The light beams on the roof have been eliminated. The colors on the shopping center ground sign have been changed to white background, yellow arch and black letters to be more compatible with the approved colors for Homestead Center and Brunswick. With regard to outside staircase, the applicant has stated there is no room for interior ladder. It is painted the same color as roof: Chairman Koenitzer noted there are lighted flag poles indicated on exhibit. Ms. Kramer noted the applicant could speak to this. Mr. Bill Churchfield, Palo Alto, answered Member Dressler the reason for the ladder on the outside was lack of adequate space in the interior and to meet the fire code. Ms. Kramer answered the committee members that under the fire code the ladder could be either inside or outside; in this situation, it was a matter of space. Member Sallan asked if the committee had the perogative of saying the ladder had to be inside. She said this could be a problem on all future applications if it was not made a policy of the City to require the ladders to be to the interior. HC -156 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 6 Site: No comments Architecture: Mr. Churchfield displayed photos of another McDonald's which used the lanai area and posts similar to those being proposed. The trellis would incorporate the posts used on Brunswick building. It was stressed there would be no outside seating area until a permit had been gotten from the City. Member Irvine said he liked the original proposal better. He did not like the metal roof. He was answered by Mr. Churchfield that they had not used this design before and it was hard to judge just what it would look like. .Member Irvine answered he had concerns about the compatibility of ;the grey slumpstone and red brick. He preferred the tan slumpstone and the original design. The former roof conformed to shape and the ,material was better. If going into this design the slumpstone should be the predominate material. Member Sallan said she would prefer to see a richer impression and ;she got this from the brick rather than the slumpstone. She felt the applicant had tried to conform to Brunswick but she suggested going to more brick than slumpstone. ;Member Dressler pointed out the lanai would tend to hide the grey panel. Chairman Koenitzer said he did not think the design was any more 'coordinated. The roof design is only vaguely similar. He felt some of the massiveness could be picked up in a smaller building. He would like to see grey slumpstone as the predominate color. ti Mr. Churchfield said the brick was flexible and could be changed. 'The colors in the materials were the same or similar as Brunswick's. He answered Member Sallan that they felt the brick was the more appealing material but they would be willing to make the slump - `stone the more predominate material. Assistant Planner Kramer read the conditions of the City Council ,and Planning Commission. With regard to stairway on the exterior, Member Sallan suggested the building should be designed to accomodate the stairway to the interior. This should be a policy determination that would apply -to all applications that would come before them. Mr. Wayne C. Johnson, 7280 Blue Hill Drive, Suite 7, San Jose, ;said he would be the owner -operator for the next twenty years. Regarding the ladder, the Fire Marshall had told him he would not accept any interior roof ladder. He pointed out they have MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING HC -156 Page 7 tried to answer the concerns expressed at last meeting. He referred to original and present proposals and asked which they preferred. He asked them to come up with something positive - not just personal opinions. Ms. Kramer said she had talked to Building Inspector rather than the Fire Marshall. Staff was asked to check this out with the O.S.H.A. and the Fire Marshall as a basis for a standard condition. Mr. Johnson gave the O.S.H.A. requirements. Staff member Kramer suggested conditioning the approval that if a feasible way could be found to put the ladder inside and still meet the Fire Marshall's requirements, staff would work with the applicant on this. The applicant agreed. Mr. Churchfield asked again what they would like. They would like to leave tonight with an acceptable solution. They would prefer a totally brick building but would do whatever the committee requested. Landscaping: Mr. Jim Hoffman, landscape architect, said no changes had been made. Mr. Hoffman answered Member Sallan the low profile and green of Olive trees blended with remainder of the site. They are evergreen and there are no other evergreen trees on the site. He said he had not used some of the existing plants because of the height factor and the frost factor. He noted also that they could get mature Olive trees but not the Eucalyptus. The litter problem of Eucalyptus trees was also a problem. Chairman Koenitzer spoke again to compatibility with the rest of the center. Mr. Hoffman said this was a pilot building and the . other buildings could be coordinated. Member Irvine pointed out the existing landscaping was screening the parking lot and at this corner a transition is made. He liked the Olive trees. He felt the Eucalyptus trees went with the autos and the olive trees went with the people. Lighting: Mr. Churchfield said there would be lighting along the sidewalk and around the building from the lights in the soffit. He said there would be no lighting on the flag poles. With regard to flag poles, they planned to display the American flag, the California flag and the Cupertino flag. Member Sallan said she felt one flag was enough. Signing: Member Sallan questioned why the roof sign was lower on present proposal. Mr. Churchfield explained the higher sign was due to an artist's error. It was noted the sign was at the roof break. -156 age 8 Public Hear- ings closed HC -51,216.5 denied MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Dressler ascertained the roof sign was illuminated. It was noted the logo on the wall of the building facing Stelling Road had been eliminated. The meeting was opened for public comment. There were none. Member Sallan moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 . Chairman Koenitzer summarized the concerns were the outside ladder, balance of the brick and grey slumpstone, landscaping compatibility :and number and height of the flag poles. After a discussion, it was agreed if there was to be only one flag ;pole, it could be 20 ft. Member Dressler moved to recommend approval of HC -51,216.5, subject to the standard conditions, as presented in Exhibits A 1st Revision, �B 1st Revision, F 1st Revision, and additional revisions, and the 'following special conditions: (1) Applicant pursue moving the exterior ladder to the interior of the building and work with the City staff in establishing City requirements for ladder placements on the exterior, if mandatory. (2) Limit number of flag poles on the site to one pole with a maximum height of 20 ft. and limit use of the pole to flying government flags only. (3) (4) That the architectural materials used in building be as presented in Exhibit B 1st Revision. The lighting of the building and signs be subject to review and approval by the City staff after installation. 'Seconded by Member Sallan. It was stressed the lighting on the ground sign panels would be of the 'same intensity. AYES: Members Dressler and Sallan 'NOES: Member Irvine and Chairman Koenitzer Motion failed, 2-2 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING After further discussion, Member Irvine said that since the appli- cant had answered the concerns previously expressed and directions given by the Ctiy Council, although he did not personally prefer thj.s presentation, he would approve this proposal if the motion werd: made again. Member Dressler then placed his motion before the committee again for a revote. Member Sallan again seconded the motion. AYES: Members Dressler, Irvine, Sallan NOES: ChairmanKoenitzer t Motion carried, 3-1 Chairman Koenitzer notified the applicant his request would now be heard by the City Council at the February 2, 1976 meeting. 5. Application HC -51,374.1 - Self Sery Food Corporation (Burger Pit) requesting approval of the modification of architecture and landscaping for an existing restaurant located at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting of January 8, 1976. Staff report: Assistant Planner Kramer reviewed the application, noting staff had been directed to review several concerns related to the curb cuts on the Blaney Avenue frontage, the amount of landscaping on the Stevens Creek Boulevard and the reciprocal parking aisle agreement. With regard to Blaney Avenue curb cut, staff recommended the closing', of the northerly most driveway as most practical and least disrupt-ve to the on -site and off -site circulation. The existing situation consisting of three continuous curb cuts serving this site and the southerly parcel is confusing to both vehicle and pedestrian circulate" tion in this area. The second point along the Blaney Avenue frontage was the landscaping proposed by staff located adjacent to parking space #17. The appli- cant felt this patch of landscaping would be too costly to install and too remote to be properly maintained. Staff felt possibly this landscaping could be deleted as a compromise over the closing of the northerly driveway. In reviewing the application it was noted two parking stalls were non -conforming to the City of Cupertino standards and hazardous to safe on -site vehicle flow. It was recommended these two stalls be deleted which would enable the movement of two stalls on the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage to the east and west side of the building after restriping these areas. She referred to Exhibit A last Revision, HC -156 Page 9 HC -51,216.5 approved w/ conditions HC -51,374.1 Burger Pit HC -156 " MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 10 noting this would provide for 10 ft. of on -site landscaping. Ms. Kramer said the applicant was provided with a copy of an agreement as an example of the type of agreement requested here. This was not agreeable to the applicant. She distributed copies of the applicant's proposed agreement which was not acceptable to the City. Mr. Douglass Adams, 14363 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, attorney representing Self Sery Food Corporation, said Mr. Hopkins was concerned over the two parallel parking spaces. He felt there might be a question of customers getting out of the automobiles, the ability of the customers to park parallel and the loss of two parking spaces. They would go along with it but they wanted to record their concerns. ,With regard to curb cut, Mr. Adams said both entrances are used Eby trucks and customers. As to safety there has only been one, land a possible second, accident there that could be attributed to this site. -Mr. Adams pointed out Self Sery does not own site; they are leasees. The owners don't want any curb cut closure and as leasee they cannot close any curb cut. 1Chairman Koenitzer noted this would have to be handled by the City Attorney. Site: Member Dressler said he felt the applicant was entitled to ;have access to his business and if any curb cut was to be closed -it should be the southerly one. ;Member Sallan said she felt with three cuts so close, `would not impact the property. She would be willing ,professional assessment of closing northerlymost curb =suggested the owners should come in and talk with the ;about traffic flow relative to the site. ;Member Irvine agreed. If this were a new site there the two curb cuts. The southerly cut functions with northerly cut does not. { jChairman Koenitzer agreed with Member Irvine. closing one o go with cut. She City staff would not be the site; the .Member Irvine ascertained the aisleway between building and planters was 13 ft. Parking spaces are 911 ft. x 20 ft. With space between the two it would make them more than adequate for customers to park and `get out of their automobiles. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING HC -156 Page 11 Member Irvine suggested tree wells be eliminated and street trees be moved into planter area.. Ms. Kramer explained the street trees are established in this area and are used even in new developments. Landscaping: Member Sallan was concerned about legend#6. There should be low growing shrubs rather than ground covering. Applicant agreed to make this change. Member Sallan suggested something that grows no higher than 4 ft. The rapheolepis should be changed. to Tobira or something that grows tall enough to -screen automobiles and should be continued around to curb cut. - Mr. Adams said he had a problem with the written agreement �s suggested by the staff. He could not agree to doing something' before -he knew what it was. Member Dressler suggested making a motion that would let staff, applicant and City Attorney work together on implementation. This was discussed. Chairman Koenitzer opened the meeting for public comments. There were none. Member Sallan moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member ' Public Hearing Irvine. closed Motion carried, 4-0 Member Sallan moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,374.1' to the City Council with the standard H -Control conditions and the following additional conditions: (1) That it is the intent of this committee to direct staff to work out agreement between the City and the applicant so that in the future parking aisle easements and upgrading for landscaping and circulation improvements can be obtained at such time as in the future one of other of the owners initiates such action. '. (2) That the northerly driveway of Blaney Avenue be closed. In its place, the applicant shall construct a curb gutter and sidewalk to City standards and extend the planter area as shown on Exhibit A -l. The plant types used on the Stevens Creek Boule- vard planter shall be continued into this area. HC -156 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 12 (3) A street tree acceptable to the Public Works staff shall be planted in the southerly tree well on Blaney Avenue. (4) The one-way and two-way circulation drives shall be clearly marked on the pavement for easy driver identification. (5) That additional shrubs are to be planted in the two planter boxes adjacent to the north facade of the building. These to be those reaching the maximum height of 4 ft. (6) That the planter referred to as #3 on the legend is to be changed to plant #2 on the legend or some other plant that has similar height and texture qualities. Seconded by Member Irvine. HC -51,374.1 AYES: Members Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer approved w/ NOES: Member Dressler conditions Motion carried, 3-1 The applicant was notified this would now be heard by the City Council at its February 2, 1976 meeting. HC -51,375.1 6. Application HC -51,375.1 - Ushiro Hosono requesting approval of Ushiro Hosono site, architecture, landscaping, grading, lighting and signing for a Japanese restaurant to be located at the northeast corner of Bandley Drive and Alves Drive. Staff report: Assistant Planner Kramer noted this particular property serves as a transition between the stringent guidelines of the property to the south and the Highway 9 area to the north. Ms. Kramer said the building and parking area occupies approximately 85% of the site. There is an unused portion of land which the applicant may develop in the future. She described the proposal. The Public Works Department had indicated that a handicap ramp is necessary at the corner of Alves Drive and Bandley Drive. Ms. Kramer described the architecture treatment proposed. She referred to material sample board. A Monterey Pine proposed on the north property line blocks the future driveway access to the property to the north and should be moved. It was noted the ground sign on Alves Drive is located in the 10 ft. public right of way. This will have to be located on the inside of the sidewalk adjacent to the building or parking areas. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Henry Yanaga, 160 Borel Place, San Mateo, explained his reason- ing for choice of plants and basic approach. Site: Chairman Koenitzer asked if the parcel to the east would be useable. Ms. Kramer said it could be used as gift shop or some other small venture. The applicant will be maintaining it with ground cover. Chairman Koenitzer questioned use of divider area in center of driveways.' He said experience had shown them to be a problem. It was noted there are 14 ft. on each side. Chairman Koenitzer then suggested that something taller should be planted in them; something which would grow to about 3 ft. Architecture: No comments. Landscaping: Member Sallan suggested the landscaping that will screen parking on Bandley Avenue needs to be looked at. The applicant agreed to do this. Mr. Yanaga said the mounding proposed will be gradual. Chairman Koenitzer noted the juniper shown would grow anywhere from 2 ft. to 15 ft. and asked that each variety be specified. Hollywood juniper would not be satisfactory at the southwest corner of Bandley Avenue and Alves Drive. At 11:45 p.m. Member Dressler left. Chairman Koenitzer referred to growth habit of planting in driveway dividers, noting again that it should be something tall enough so that people would see it and not run over it. Grading: Satisfactory Lighting: Assistant Planner Kramer located placement of lights on site. Mr. Yanaga explained his reasoning behind placement and the number of lights. It was suggested one light be moved closer to the building. Member Irvine noted there seemed to be an inordinate number of street'- lights shown on the plan. Staff to check. Ms. Kramer pointed out where the curb cut to accommodate handicapped would be placed. Applicant agreed. HC -156 Page 13 HC -156 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 14 } Signing: Mr. Yanaga chose samples of plexiglas proposed for use in sign. Member Sallan said she did not feel the sign coordinated with the building. Mr. Yanaga agreed to frame it in wood. He said the on -site position of sign had not been chosen. He said his sign would be very unique and suggested he bring a picture of similar sign in San Mateo. The hearing was opened to public comment. Mr. Don Bandley,10054 S. Highway 9, Cupertino, asked that committee srecommend a ground cover for the unused portion of land. It was the 'consensus of the committee that lawn would be preferred. Public Hear- :There being no further comments, Member Sallan moved to close Public ing closed ).Hearing. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 3-0 ,'Member Sallan moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,375.1 Ito the City Council with the standard H -Control conditions and ,'Enclosures Exhibits A, B, B-1, C, C-1, F and Informational with the ,,following additional conditions: { (1) That the meandering sidewalk indicated on plan shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department to insure a suitable configura- tion and that wheelchair ramps for the handicapped at the corner of Avies and Bandley Drives be properly provided as per the Public Works regulations. _ ti (2) That the Monterey Pine indicated on the northern property line which blocks the easterly most driveway of the property be moved to a suitable location. (3) That the Bandley Avenue landscaping frontage abutting parking area is to be landscaped with additional plants and properly maintained to insure adequate screening of the parked autos. This to be approved by City staff. (4) Sign portion of application as well as lighting is continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. HC -51, 375.1 approved w/ conditions ;Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING The applicant was notified his request would be heard by the City Council at its February 2, 1976 meeting. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Kramer advised Vallco Park has worked out suitable height for wall on freeway portion of Vallco Shopping Center. 12 ft. is necessary in order to screen sound of cars. The same precast walls as used in rest of center will be utilized. Copies of notes submitted by Members Sallan and Irvine on their fact finding tour were distributed. It was noted Winchell's Donuts will be coming in for an exception to allow them a second sign. February 4, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. was scheduled for an adjourned H -Control meeting on Sign Ordinance. Member Sallan suggested a penalty be imposed on anyone erecting an illegal sign. N Member Sallan spoke to two signs for corner businesses in shopping centers and she suggested that the new Sign Ordinance deal specifically with this issue. ADJOURNMENT At 12:22 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the adjourned meeting. GtL February 4, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: Is! R.D. Koenitzer, Jr. Chairman ATTEST: Is/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk HC -156 Page 15