Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 02-05-1976CITY 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 FEBRUARY 5, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened by Chairman Koenitzer with the Salute to the Flag at 7:25 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler (7:50), Irvine, Sallan, Chairman Koenitze] Members absent: None Staff present: Assistant Planner Steve Piasecki Assistant Planner Toby Kramer (10:40) INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: 1. 2-U-76 Vallco Park, Ltd: Construction of one building con- taining 10,700 sq. ft., one building containing 13,217 sq. ft., construction of six tennis courts and the relocating of a 2,200 sq. ft. building presently located at the southeast corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Wolfe Road. Said property is generally located adjacent to and westerly of Wolfe Road immediately southerly of the Vallco Village Shopping Center. Concerns were: ....Lighting of tennis courts ....Awkward traffic flow ....Landscaping on long walls UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 19 and 22, 1976 Minutes of January 19, 1976 On page 2, paragraph 2, the second sentence should read, "She noted the SRC proposal that a sign advisor make recommendations to the committee." HC -15 8 Page 1 2 -U-76 Vallco Park, Ltd. HC -158 Page 2 Minutes of 1-19-76 approved as amended Minutes of 1-22-76 approved as amended HC -51,375 .1 Ushiro Hoso MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Sallan moved, seconded by Member Irvine, to approve the Minutes of January 19, 1976 as amended. Motion carried, 3-0 Minutes of January 22, 1976 On page 11, paragraph 4, first line, insert "the written" before agreement. On page 13, last paragraph under New Business, last line should read, ".....centers, and she suggested that the new Sign Ordinance deal specifically with this issue." On page 1, last item under Concerns, insert "allowed" after "fencing". On page 9, first paragraph, second line, insert after "expressed", "and directions given by the City Council, although..." Moved by Member Sallan, seconded by Member Irvine, to accept the Minutes of January 22, 1976 as amended. Motion carried, 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairman Koenitzer noted no item would be initiated after 11:30 p.m. and that if time permitted, there would be a discussion of the proposed Sign Ordinance after Public Hearings item 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Application HC -51,375.1 - Ushiro Hosono requesting approval of lighting and signing for a Japanese restaurant to be located at the northeast corner of Bandley Drive and Alves Drive. Continued from H -Control meeting of January 22, 1976. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to new rendering of sign presented by the applicant. He advised the sign as shown on rendering was within the 40 ft. triangle and would have to be moved. The lighting plan was exhibited and locations of poles pointed out. Chairman Koenitzer had Mr. Piasecki point out location of street lights. Photos of a sign in another location were exhibited. Mr. Henry Yanaga, San Mateo, said he had tried to keep the sign simple. Member Sallan said they needed to see chips of the colors to be used in the sign. Mr. Vern Burgess, Campbell, described the materials and colors of the sign. He answered Member Sallan that the sign was 3 ft. x 10 ft. and would be 2 ft. off the ground. After a brief discussion, the meeting was opened to public comment. There were none. Member Sallan moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Sallan recommended approval of Application HC -51,375.1 to the City Council with the standard H -Control conditions and the following additional conditions: , ti (1) That the sign be moved out of the 40 ft. triangle to a location suitable to the applicant and the City staff. (2) That the colors as represented in the exhibit be submitted to the City staff for final review before installation. (3) That the lighting intensity of the sign be subject to review to be certain it is not overly bright relative to the surrounding signs. Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Dressler, Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 HC -15 8 Page 3 Public Hear- ings closed HC -51,375.1 approved w/ conditions HC -158 I MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 4 Chairman Koenitzer announced the application had been approved and would be heard by the City Council at its February 17, 1976 meeting. 3. Applications HC -51,174.11 and HC -51,218.21 - Whitevale Company, Inc. (A & W) requesting exception of Section 6.041 of the Sign Ordinance to allow a ground sign on a parcel which does not meet the required frontage or set- back requirements for said ground sign located at the southwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road and the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to sign rendering displayed on board which was the same as presented before. He noted that in accordance with the definition of computing sign area, the background or frame and trim of the sign is included in the calcula- tions of area so each sign is 60 sq. ft. per side. The Portal Avenue site is permitted a total of 73 sq. ft. and the Stelling Road site is permitted 45 sq. ft. Mr. Piasecki said the Portal Avenue sign appears to be within the 40 ft. triangle. He questioned whether the sign as proposed would fit outside the 40 ft. triangle. It was noted the applicant had not brought in any plans for a wall sign; they are asking for exception instead. Mr. Piasecki reported the insurance sign on the Portal Avenue restaurant was illegal. The landscaping plans for both sites were exhibited. The staff was suggesting some of the shrubs be changed to Evergreen trees. Staff was also suggesting that the applicant utilize 5 ft. of the sidewalk on Portal Avenue to expand the landscaped area. Chairman Koenitzer questioned closing southerly curb cut on Portal Avenue. Mr. Piasecki answered the staff had not discussed it but considered it a good plan. Mr. Piasecki was requested to exhibit total parking layout. Mr. Jim Cassidy, Los Gatos, representing Federal Sign and Signal Company, reviewed the problems of signing for the two sites. He said neither building was designed for wall signs. They had spent a week trying to design a satisfactory building sign but had not been able to do so. He described the proposed sign. Member Sallan asked if he had brought any of the wall sign render- ings. Mr. Cassidy said no, since the customer did not approve any of them. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Cassidy answered Member Sallan that the height of the sign would be lowered to satisfy staff's recommendation. The committee members were in agreement that the signs were too large. Mr. Cassidy answered', Member Sallan there was a 3 x 7 ft. oval sign available as an alternate, to the proposed size. Slides were shown of the two sites and existing buildings. Possible placement of wall signs was discussed. It was agreed the Stelling Road site could not support a wall sign. Chairman Koenitzer said to him the sign was out of proportion with regard to height and area. Mr. Cassidy offered to scale the sign down to 8' 6" height. He suggested leaving off the wood trim. It was felt by the committee members that the wood trim enhanced the sign. A discussion was held on how a sign could be designed for the area which it would occupy on the Portal Avenue site. Member Sallan felt a picture should be brought before the committee that would so them exactly what the proposal would look like. Mr. Ray Bartels, Menlo Park, said the trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard hide, the signs. If their sign was reduced to 21 sq. ft. it could be placed on 8 ft. mounting. Chairman Koenitzer felt even without the wood trim the sign would still be too large. He felt monument type sign would be more in proportion. Member Sallan reiterated her desire to see a rendering of how the sign would look on the site and in relation to the building. She noted it was hard to rule out wall sign on their say so; she would like to see their proposals. Mr. Cassidy said that would be useless as the applicant had not approved them. It was noted that unless the planter shape was changed, there would not be room for a monument sign on corner. The discussion then centered on Stelling Road site. Mr. Piasecki said the sign would be placed in same location as existing sign. Member Sallan felt there was a perspective problem in bringing sign lower. Chairman Koenitzer said again that it looked too big for support which was his concern about proportions. After discussion, it was agreed the Portal Avenue site had possibility for building sign; the Stelling Road site did not. I Member Irvine ascertained the exception would be valid under new ordinance. HC -158 Page 5 HC -158 Page 6 HC -51,174.1] and HC -51,218.2, continued MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING It was noted the Stelling Road landscaping proposal was satisfactory. The closing of the southerly curb cut at Portal Avenue was discussed. Member Sallan suggested extending plant material around to include this area. She was in favor of extending landscaping into public right of way. Mr. Bartels said they would be happy to put in large trees on the Portal Avenue site.Member Sallan said her concern was in not seeing cars that would be parked against this area. Mr. Bartels suggested using trees and shrubs in combination to screen cars. Mr. Piasecki noted that assuming the curb cut was closed and the landscaped area extended, this would give more room to fit in a monument type sign. Traffic Engineer was to check on traffic flow to see if closing the curb cut would be feasible. Mr. Bartels said they would do almost anything regarding landscaping to make it more aesthetic, but if they couldn't resolve problem of signing, they would just not close escrow. In answer to Mr. Bartels offer to design smaller and lower sign by leaving off redwood trim, Chairman Koenitzer said an oval sign gave impression of being big. He referred to the Ralph's market sign. He felt the background enhanced the sign. Mr. Bartels then suggesting putting a low sign on a mound. Member Dressler said he felt a low sign on the ground would be acceptable. A small logo monument type sign was suggested and discussed. Member Irvine suggested that one material be used for base and trim. Member Sallan reiterated her concern of how it would look with the building, where it would be placed, etc. The applicant agreed to a continuation. Mr. Piasecki said the staff would like to talk with the applicant about a curb cut and placement of sign. Member Dressler moved to continue Applications HC -51,174.11 and HC -51,218.21 to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Member Sallan. Motion carried, 4-0 At 9:10 p.m. a recess was called with the meeting reconvening at 9:17 p.m. 1 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING 4. Application HC -51,376.1 - Carl Young (Demeter Enterprises) requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping, grading and lighting for a three -unit residential cluster project located adjacent to and westerly of Miller Avenue at the southwest intersection of Miller Avenue and Calabazas Creek, approximately 120 ft. northerly of Greenwood Drive. Assistant Planner Piasecki reviewed background of application. He referred to site plan, indicating there was a concern about privacy factors relating to the adjoining apartment complex. Mr. Piasecki described new proposal which was reducing development from six to three units and a turn around space on the Miller Avenue frontage. Mr. Carl Young, Sunnyvale, gave a brief theory behind the project. He said the roofs would be of shakes. He described the courtyard treatment. Site: Chairman Koenitzer said he did not think the backup area would keep cars from backing into street. Mr. Piasecki explained the Planning Commission's thinking on this. Architecture: Member Dressler questioned width of houses in relation to height. Mr. Young said this was due to the artist's rendering. Mr. Young answered Member Dressler that the chimney covers would not be as shown on the rendering but would be the usual metal covers. Grading: Mr. Piasecki noted the grading was higher than normal but necessary because of Flood Control District requirements. . Landscaping: No comments. Lighting: Mr. Young said each unit would have two lights along walkway plus exterior wall light. With regard to privacy problem, Mr. Piasecki answered Member Sallan this could be treated with landscaping. The hearing was then opened to public comment. There were none. Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Sallan, to close Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 HC -15 8 Page 7 HC -51,376.i Demeter Enterprises Public Hear- ings closed HC -158 Page 8 HC -51,376 .1 approved HC -51,341.2 Public Hear- ing closed HC -51, 341.2 approved MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Sallan moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,376.1 to the City Council with standard H -Control conditions and exhibits as attached. Seconded by Member Dressler. AYES: Members Dressler, Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Koenitzer announced this would appear before the City Council at its February 17, 1976 meeting. 5. Application HC -51,341.2 - Alice Siegrist (Andrea's Delicatessen) requesting approval of a sign plan for a delicatessen located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rodrigues Avenue and De Anza Boulevard. Staff report: The Assistant Planner described location of the building and referred to exhibited renderings of the signs. He noted the appli- cant is requesting two 9 sq. ft. signs and a total of 31 sq. ft. is allowed. Chips of the colors being proposed were exhibited. Mr. George Pope of Otsen Signs answered Member Sallan the applicant had chosen the red, white and black as being compatible with what was already in the center. Member Dressler questioned amount of copy on the one sign. Colors were discussed. Member Sallan felt the letters in "Deli" were larger than necessary for adequate identification and the amount of copy in sign to the left was excessive. The hearing was opened to public comment after discussion. There were none. Member Dressler moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Irvine moved to approve Application HC -51,341.2, Alice Siegrist (Andrea's Delicatessen) as shown on Exhibit F with standard H -Control conditions. Seconded by Member Dressler. AYES: Members Dressler, Irvine and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: Member Sallan Motion carried, 3-1 The applicant was informed this would be heard by the City Council at its February 17, 1976 meeting. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING A discussion was then held on preparation of position of H -Control Committee to present to Planning Commission with regard to the proposed Sign Ordinance. Chairman Koenitzer summarized concerns expressed at the February 4th adjourned meeting. Member Dressler stressed his belief that a 12 ft. height was desirable 20 ft. would be allowed only if aesthetics demanded it. Signs should be related to human -scale. Member Irvine wondered if samples of colors and materials and scale drawings with human figures to give perspective should be required. This was discussed. The use of the verbs "may" and "shall" was discussed. Member Sallan said where there was an option it should be "may" and where required, "shall" should be used. Member Dressler proposed a statement of H -Control philosophy be included. It was noted this was included in pages 1 and 2. The ordinance was then reviewed page by page, with changes being noted. ,Qn page 12, Section 3.06, Member Sallan questioned having Building Inspector as the only person responsible for reviewing. This was discussed. Page 15, Section 6.02.2 - Delete words "low profile" in second line. On page 16, Section 6.03.1, line seven, insert the word "usable" ' t before the word "frontage". Page 16, Section 6.03.3, it was recommended to change three tenants on each side of the sign to two tenants. Page 17, Section 6.03.4 should read: "No ground sign shall be greater then 12 ft. in height except when the applicant can show necessity because of design considerations and then 20 ft. will be the maximum allowed." A discussion was held on reason for choosing the 12 ft. height figure. Ms. Kramer advised a statement be included that all 20 ft. Signs would not be non -conforming. HC -158 Page 9 HC -158 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 10 On page 17, Section 6.04.2 (b) should read: "A commercial development consisting of two or more businesses attached to one building shall adopt an overall sign program for development. Each individual tenant may have one wall sign. Said sign shall only give name of business and shall be limited to one foot in height." Member Sallan suggested developing guidelines to go along with Ordinance which would deal with letter height. On page 18, Section 6.04.5, add "as referred to in Section 6.03.4. Page 19, Section 6.05.7 should read: "Each center shall be required to have a directory listing the names of the tenants in the center and a location map. The directory shall be oriented to the pedestrian in the center rather than the passing motorist. Such signs shall be placed at appropriate intersections of the interior of a center behind the required building setback line." On page 25, Section 7.09.3: "The sign is to be compatible to the surrounding land uses and building designs." Section 7.09.4: "Ground signs are to be placed in a manner that takes into account the proposed landscaping theme and the existence of other ground signs in the area." On page 26, Section 7.11.2: "Signs shall be attached by structural supports which ......" Section 7.12, "....Chalk, crudely painted or other improvised......" On page 29, Section 8.04.2: "...ballot issue. Each sign shall beia maximum of......" On page 30, Section 8.06.1, Member Irvine objected to restriction of five units or more, noting this is one of the few ways an architect or engineer gets exposure. It was noted that Sections 8.07.1 and 8.08.1 create confusion. On page 33, Section 9.03, second line delete the word "facings". It was noted these reviews would be made by the Building Inspector. On page 34, Section 9.08, second line should read," .....Inspector shall be given ten days notification to remove or repair by...." It was suggested that some statement of color was needed to give ASAC the ability to review colors. This could be added as Section 3.04.4 (d) and include review of light intensity. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING A discussion was held regarding two signs for corner locations. It was felt this should be included, that a second sign might be considered for corner locations provided they met other requirements. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Kramer explained to Chairman Koenitzer how colors on Pic -A -Dilly sign had evolved. Chairman Koenitzer reported an "open" sign on Suburban House which had not been approved. Member Irvine referred to location of transformer vaults in front of Sobrato development on Greenleaf. Avenue. Member Irvine said these could be included in review. Further discussion to be held on this. ADJOURNMENT At 11:05 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on February 19, 1976 at 7:00 p.m. APPROVED: /s/ R.D. Koenitzer, Jr. Chairman ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk HC -15 8 Page 11