Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 02-19-1976CITY 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 F1BRUARY 19, 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 7:22 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members present: Blaine (7:30), Irvine, Sallan, Chairman Koenitzer Members absent: Dressler Staff present: Assistant Planner Steve Piasecki INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 4 and 5, 1976 Minutes of February 4, 1976 On page 4, paragraph 4 at end of first sentence, add "due to several unresolved issues." Moved by Member Sallan, seconded by Member Irvine, to approve Minutes of February 4, 1976 as amended. Motion carried, 3-0 Minutes of February 5, 1976 On page 5, first paragraph, add to last sentence, "as an alternate to the proposed size." On page 8, paragraph 10 should read: ".....letters in "Deli" were larger than necessary for adequate identification and the amount of copy in sign to the left was excessive." HC -159 Page 1 Minutes of 2/4/76 approved as amen de d HC -159 Page 2 Minutes of 2/5/76 approved as amen de d HC -51,174.1 and HC -51,218.2 Whitevale Company ,Inc (A & W) MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING On page 9, paragraph 8 should read, "...inspector as the only person responsible for reviewing...." Moved by Member Sallan, seconded by Member Irvine, to approve the Minutes of February 5, 1976 as amended. Motion carried, 3-0 POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Northpoint Homeowners Association pertaining to Item 4 on agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Request from a proposed merchant in Coco's Center for review of color on sign. It was agreed to add this to end of agenda. Chairman Koenitzer noted no item would be initiated after 11:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application HC -51,174.1 and HC -51,218.2 - Whitevale Company, Inc. (A & W) requesting modification of landscaping and 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 setback requirements for said ground sign located at the southwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling and the north- west corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting of February 5, 1976. Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to colored render- ings of proposed ground signs and landscaping proposals as exhibited. The original proposal was also exhibited. With regard to the Portal Avenue site, Mr. Piasecki reported the Traffic Engineer did not chink it would be feasible to close -off driveway as suggested at last meeting because of minimum parking space and traffic circulation. Member Sallan questioned if there was any way it could work with just the one northerly cut. Mr. Piasecki said the Traffic Engineer had not spent that much time on it. Member Irvine felt the Stevens Creek driveway should be a one-way exit. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING A discussion was held on turning the parking spaces around, with entrance only off Stevens Creek Boulevard and exit on Portal Avenue. It was noted it would be possible to restripe and have two spaces at 9 ft. instead of the 9-1/2 ft. Mr. Piasecki answered Member Sallan the sign approval could be conditioned to cover closing of the curb cut. Mr. Piasecki then noted several concerns of Portal Avenue site: (1) trash enclosure is unsightly, (2) light standard in middle of parking lot that shines on adjacent residence, (3) planter area on corner can be enlarged, (4) auto overhangs where possible, (5) trash cans to be removed from planter area, (6) size of plantings, (7) applicant to insure 2 ft. of landscaping in public right of way. Stelling Road site: Mr. Piasecki said there should be a landscaping bond posted on both sites . The location of the sign on Stelling site could cause obstruction. It might be possible to get more landscaping in rear area and fence needs repairing. Mr. Ray Bartels,of Whitevale Company, said they needed both the ingress and egress on Stevens Creek Boulevard, as well as on Portal Avenue. Mr. Piasecki illustrated the committee's suggested traffic flow. Mr. Bartels said they would have to study the impact of this. He noted the Standard station across Portal Avenue has the same situation as exists on their site. Member Sallan explained their intent was to make the traffic flow as well as gaining maximum aesthetics for this site. Chairman Koenitzer advised information should be obtained from the City's Traffic Engineer and their traffic consultant. Mr. Bartels said they needed a decision tonight as their option period would run out on March 1. He said the site has functioned this way for five years and traffic has worked well. This is very important for a successful business. It was suggested that a landscaping bond could be posted and the application conditioned that applicant and staff would work out the details for landscaping and traffic flow. HC -159 Page 3 The committee members agreed the sign was satisfactory. HC -159 Page 4 Public Hear- ing closed HC -51,218.2 approved w/ conditions MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING The hearing was opened to public comment. There were none. Member Sallan moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Irvine made the point that the parking was suggested by the committee might not work. This was briefly discussed. Mr. Bartels said the first concern was safety and the second was landscaping. They are willing to put in any landscaping desired, but he wanted to reiterate the traffic flow has worked very well as it is. He expressed his willingness to discuss this with the Traffic Engineer. Reasons for granting the exception were discussed. Also the bond for landscaping and site improvement. Member Sallan recommended approval of Application HC -51,218.2, Portal Avenue A & W, with the standard H -Control conditions and the following additional conditions: (1) That this approval is for the sign exception allowing for the proposed ground sign installation. The sign exception is granted under Section 10.4 of Sign Ordinance 353, part (a) in that special conditions and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved or its intended uses, which were not created by the owner or his tenant therefore justifies this action. Landscaping portion to be continued. (2) That the applicant is to post a landscaping and site improve- ment bond with the City to insure adequate provision for such modifications as (a) the necessary changes to the site for parked automobiles and traffic flow (b) enlarging corner planter if southerly driveway on Portal Avenue is closed (c) modifications of light standards (d) provision for trash enclosure. (3) The final positioning of the sign on the site will be deter- mined pending safety and site modifications evaluation. Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Chairman Koenitzer advised the applicant the City Council would next hear his application at their March 1 meeting. Mr. Bartel expressed concern over possible delay or their not being able to reach a satis- factory solution regarding traffic flow. After a short discussion, Mr. Bartel agreed with the committee's action. Stelling site was then discussed. Member Sallan felt there should be additional data on the rear portion of the property. She suggested this be continued. Chairman Koenitzer pointed out the landscaping as presented at the last meeting had been found to be satisfactory. Mr. Piasecki advised that staff could work with applicant regarding any modification. It was noted the sign was right at the sidewalk. The possibility of moving it was discussed. It was decided the final location could be set by staff. The hearing was then opened for public comment. There were none. Member Irvine moved, seconded by Member Sallan, to close Public Hear - jag. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Sallan recommended approval of Application HC -51,174.1, Whitevale Company, Inc. for the Stelling location, that the standard conditions apply and that the sign exception is granted as per Section 10.4 (a) and the additional conditions: (1) That a parking and landscaping plan for the rear of the property be developed by the applicant along with staff to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the City staff. (2) Sign location be discussed again by the applicant and City staff for final placement in a position that maximizes safety precaution. (3) Landscape bond be posted with the City to cover the necessary landscaping and on -site improvements. Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine, Sallan and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Koenitzer announced this would be heard by the City Council at its March 1, 1976 meeting. HC -159 Page 5 Public Hear ing closed HC -51,174.1 approved w / conditions HC -159 Page 6 HC -51,002.5 Thomas L. Branham Site MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING 2. Application HC -51,002.5 - Thomas L. Branham requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping and grading for a five -unit apartment complex to be located at 10270 Alpine Drive, Lot K. Staff report: Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki said major concern was for potential for privacy intrusion into the rear yards of the existing single family dwellings. The problem is further complicated by the variation in grade between the Alpine Drive lot and the single-family homes located along Vista Knoll Boulevard. Mr. Piasecki referred to the staff recommendations to alleviate this problem. One would be to eliminate all balconies and windows oriented to the eastern view. Slides were shown of the site and surrounding area. A line of sight chart was displayed. Additional recommended changes included the flaring of the drive -way at the curb and the first parking stall, and the relocation of the refuse container. Member Blaine questioned side setback of 9 ft. Mr. Piasecki said this was normal for a two story building. Back setback should be 20 ft. or 20% of lot depth. Common rule of thumb on balconies is for not more than 2-1/2' projection. A recess was called at 8:47 p.m. with the meeting reconvening at 9:05 p.m. Member Sallan left at this time. Mr. Thomas Branham, 1384 Fairway Avenue, Los Altos, said he had no objections to the minor things such as flaring of the driveway, parking stall and refuse container. With regard to the windows and balconies, he pointed out every building in the row of lots of which his was one had windows and balconies. The windows to the rear were bedroom windows. He used slides to illustrate how little of the other houses would be seen from his development and the balconies and windows on both side of this lot. He said there are only three vacant lots left, his and two others; all the others have windows and balconies. He asked that the architecture be approved as proposed. Member Irvine said he did not feel this development had taken into consideration the adjoining residences. He could not believe that a view was the main reason for an apartment renting. If it has to be that close to the property line, it might be overdeveloped. He suggested it be redesigned. 2 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Blaine agreed it was stretched to the utmost limit. If there was no other way to design for five units, then perhaps there should only be four units. She felt it was necessary to take into considera- tion what has gone in already to the rear on a lower piece of property. Member Blaine said the architecture itself was satisfactory; her conce was the effect on adjacent properties. She wondered if the higher windows might not be the answer. They could have the view but not look down on the property to the rear. Member Irvine agreed that the architecture is compatible with the area but they are still facing the privacy intrusion. Member Irvine noted it would be several years before the landscaping would protect the view. Member Blaine said some eucalyptus trees had a propensity for breaking in high winds and she questioned their use in this location. Assistant Planner Piasecki said another possibility might be the lowering of the grade which would bring the height of the windows down. Chairman Koenitzer said he was in general agreement with the other committee members. Mr. Branham wondered why he was being singled out when every other property along there had windows and balconies. He said he had to have five units. Chairman Koenitzer pointed out there had been controversy on each of the applications on lots along here. Mr. Piasecki referred to Dumas and Sanborn properties which were setback 35 ft. and 40 ft. and had been reviewed extensively. The meeting was then opened to public comment. Mr. William A. Stager, 10317 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said he lived directly behind the property in question. He felt the units had not been well designed. He said it would be undesirable both from his point of view and the tenants point of view to be able to see into each other's property. They were considering putting in a pool in their back yard, but to have four balconies looking down into it would be most unsatisfactory. This structure could be better designed. He enumerated several unpleasant incidents resulting from the existing balconies. Ms. Sylvia Metz, 10307 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said they have one balcony in contrast to four and there has been considerable trouble with this balcony. She also enumerated problems, noting apartment renters are much more transitory. She keeps drapes of family room drawn all the time. She said the view to the front is beautiful also and the balcony could be placed there to view mountains as well as valley below. HC -159 Page 7 Architecture Landscaping Grading HC -15 9 Page 8 Public Hea ing closed HC -51,002 .5]] continued HC -51,341.3 Otsen Signs (Alice Sie gris t) MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Eugene Tossell, 10327 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said they have a similar situation behind them now but the windows are set further back. After five years the trees are now providing screening. Planting large trees a -long a 20 ft. setback won't leave much yard space. He pointed out trees: aren't always the solution. There being no further comments, Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Blaine. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Irvine said he was not prepared to approve this plan and he would recommend continuing for redesign. If he had to make a motion, it would be for denial. Member Blaine said she could not compound problem that seems to be getting worse on Alpine Drive. She felt there was another way to design building on this property where there would be nice units and Mr. Branham would be able to use his property to the fullest. Chairman Koenitzer asked the applicant is he would prefer a continuance to allow for redesign or a decision. He advised him in the event of a denial he would have the right to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Branham said he would redesign building. He must have five units. Member Irvine moved to continue Application HC -51,002.51. Seconded by Member Blaine. Motion carried, 3-0 Assistant Planner Piasecki asked the applicant to meet with the staff before presenting his next proposal. Mr. Branham asked for suggestions. Chairman Koenitzer noted previously accepted solution was to put two story units in front and move units as far forward as possible from the rear property line. He noted the difference in grades was an important factor in this application. Chairman Koenitzer asked staff to notify all those who had spoken tonight when this application would be coming up for discussion again. 3. Application HC -51, 341.3 - Otsen Signs (Alice Siegrist) requesting approval of a sign plan for an existing liquor store located on the westerly side of De Anza Boulevard between Rodrigues Avenue and Sunrise Drive. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki showed slides of the site and existing signs. The U -Save ground sign will be removed. and -the- reader board willbereplaced. with the new sign for the liquor store. The existing sign on building will be replaced with a new sign can. Chairman Koenitzer questioned if parcel was large enough to permit a ground sign. Mr. Piasecki said it was and referred to "Deli" sign approved at the last meeting which was part of this center. Color chips were displayed. Member Irvine ascertained the pole would be cut off below the top box. Mr. George Pope of Otsen Signs answered Member Blaine that the sign was set in concrete with bumper guard. He said they would be using the same pole and cutting out top portion. Member Blaine ascertained colors of this sign and the "Deli" sign would be the same. The Lambert sign is yellow background with brown letters. Chairman Koenitzer said his problem was one of proportion. The red letters of 2 ft. will be a very strong sign. He did not feel comfortable with it. Mr. Pope said they are asking for 110 sq. ft. and are allowed 145 sq. ft. They are well within the sign ordinance. Chairman Koenitzer referred to proposed sign ordinance. They would not want to approve a sign that will become non -conforming before it is up. y Mr. Pope said the owner is trying to clean building up. The wall sign will be cut in half. Member Blaine noted staff recommendation that wall behind the sign be painted. Member Irvine said he thought it was a definite improvement and he was not disturbed by the proportions. Chairman Koenitzer reiterated his concern that letters were very large for a sign so close to the road. Background should be approximately 50% of space. He suggested Liquors be reduced to 18" and Cupertino reduced proportionately. Mr. Pope said he did not think the owner would have any objections to reducing the letters from 24" to 18". Member Blaine ascertained the wall sign letters would be reduced also. Member Irvine questioned landscaping not being addressed. Mr. Pope said there had been a proposal for overall upgrading of site at some future time. HC -159 Page 9 HC -159 Page 10 Public Hea ing closed HC -51,341.3 Approved w/condition: HC -51,273.5 Michael and Carolyn Orr MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Chairman Koenitzer then opened the hearing for public comment. There were none. Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Blaine. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Irvine moved to approve Application HC -51,341.3, Otsen Signs, with the following conditions: (1) That the letters on the free standing sign be reduced to 18" and Liquors and Cupertino reduced accordingly. (2) That building sign be reduced proportionately same as the free standing sign. (3) That the same colors as the "Deli" application are used in this sign. (4) That the wall be repainted to match existing building once the old sign is removed. Seconded by Member Blaine. AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 Chairman Koenitzer noted approval of application and that it would be heard by the City Council at its March 1, 1976 meeting. 4. Application HC -51,273.5 - Michael W. and Carolyn S. Orr requesting approval of architecture for the addition of a window in a garage in the Northpoint development located at 20054 Northwind Square. Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki showed slide of the installed window. He gave a background of the situation. All of the work was done without a building permit. The City Attorney has advised that the City does have ultimate authority over situations of this type. Mr. Piasecki said this committee is being asked to rule on aesthetics of modification only.:.He referred_to letter and information received from Northpoint Homeowners Association which the committee then read. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Irvine ascertained there were no structural violations, that it was within the City code. Chairman Koenitzer asked if the City approved CC&R's as part of subdivision of property. Mr. Piasecki said he thought it was handled by the Engineering Department who looked to see if certain items were included. Chairman Koenitzer said the City should not be placed in a position of granting something that was in direct opposition of CC&R. He wondered if the City should not support the CC&R when they approve them. Chairman Koenitzer noted this represented a big policy decision and he did not have sufficient information on legal requirements and implications to make a recommendation on policy to the City Council. Member Irvine expressed his opinion that it had been brought before this committee to rule merely on its architectural compatibility. Member Blaine said she would like some legal clarification. She has been told the City does not enforce CC&R's. In this instance, she felt the question was whether the window was aesthetically pleasing and fit into the building. The Homeowners Association could take it to court if they so desired. Chairman Koenitzer said they should recognize there are serious problems in the City dealing with Homeowners CC&R's. Since the City requires some of the CC&R's and passes on all of them, he suggested the City Council consult with the City Attorney as to the City's legal and moral obligations in this matter. He was not suggesting that City should be in the position of enforcing the CC&R's, but he felt since they had required some and approved them, the City should support them. Mr. Piasecki said since the City does not know if the CC&R's had been followed, one group saying they had and the other saying they hadn't, the dispute between the Homeowners Association and the condominium owner would almost have to be ignored, unfortunately. It was agreed to limit discussion to the acceptability or unaccepta- bility of the window as shown on the slide. A drawing of the window was also displayed. Mr. Harry Sengal said he was representing Mr. Michael Orr who was in India at this time. He said basically the window speaks for itself. It is pleasing to the eye. There is a dispute about other matters but not about the compatability of the window. Chairman Koenitzer opened the hearing for public comment. HC -159 Page 11 HC -159 I MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 12 Mr. Michael Roddy, 10803 Northfield Square, Cupertino, president of the Northpoint Board of Directors, said he was disappointed in the committee's decision to limit approach to this question. He was concerned if anyone was going to answer the ultimate question which was how the condominium owners would be treated by the City of Cupertino. There are CC&R's that go with the purchase of condominium. The purchaser agrees to abide by these convenants, conditions and restrictions. Mr. Roddy said the neighbors objected to the installation of this window. They could not be here tonight because there was not time to notify them of this hearing. He -feels the City is avoiding the problem that will become more and more complex. He asked how the committee could recommend approval without implying the whole installation was okay. This will set a precedent that will be dangerous. With regard to the compatability of the window, they do not feel it is because of its location and design. There are a lot of homeowners and neighbors being affected by this window. Mr. Roddy said they felt the City owed the townhouse and condominium owners ' a policy decision and he had thought a recommendation would be coming from this committee tonight. He wondered where they should go to get a decision made. Chairman Koenitzer explained this committee is not a policy setting body, it is a recommending body only to the City Council. The City Council set the policies. Member Irvine asked why the Homeowners Association couldn't make a decision and make it stick. Mr. Roddy answered it was before this committee because it was installed without a permit. The only alternative the Homeowners had would be to go to civil court and they did not feel it was fair to make 416 homeowners pay attorney -t fees because one owner decided to flaunt CC&R's. They had thought the City of Cupertino would establish policy that would help them. He referred to their letter which asked that City codes be amended to require approval by development before an application can be submitted for any structural modification of a condominium dwelling. Mr. Roddy felt it was important that the City accept this responsi- bility. Mr. Sengal said they felt they are in compliance with CC&R's. He said they had papers to support this claim. He pointed out the window can only be seen from one street. He used the slide to support this contention. The issue is the dispute and the Orrs feel they have complied. While they hope it doesn't go to civil court, they feel they have sufficient supportive evidence for their claim. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Ms. Evelyn B. Olgiate, 10882 Northfield Square, Cupertino, said she was Vice -President of the Homeowners Association. She also owns several other units in this development. She did not want to get into specifics about their complying but she would reiterate everything Mr. Roddy had said. Phone calls had been received complaining about the window. It is actually on one of the through streets in the complex. She referred to minutes of the Board of Directors which are on file. Ms. Olgiate said they are proud of this condominium and do not want to see it become a hodge podge with everyone doing whatever they want. They are very strict on even little things. They want the City of Cupertino to be proud of it. Other people will be in asking for windows everywhere and anywhere. She cannot understand why the City is not standing behind the Northpoint Homeowners Association. There being no further comments, Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Blaine. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Irvine noted an aesthetic statement would be of no value to anyone in this situation. He suggested continuing it until staff could present them with more information. Assistant Planner Piasecki went through background. The City Attorney had advised they should not debate on whether or not the CC&R's had been violated but should send it to City Council. Member Irvine reiterated the window aesthetically is fine, but this is not the real question.. A discussion was held on whether they should recommend approval or denial. Chairman Koenitzer said there were complications in appeal- ing if approval was recommended. It was considered sending it to City Council with a notation that the committee did not feel competent to take any action on it. Chairman Koenitzer read from Section 5 of ASAC Rules and Procedures which indicated either an approval or denial would be required. Chairman Koenitzer suggested making a motion and including a Minute Order asking City Council to make a policy statement covering this situation. If the CC&R's are not enforced, they will become void. Obviously these problems are beyond this committee. Member Blaine said the window was aesthetically pleasing and in keep- ing with the archtecture of the building, but she understood fully the concern of the Homeowners Association. HC -159 Page 13 Public Hear- ings closed HC -159 Page 14 HC -51,273.5 approved MINUTE ORDE] Sign Color Review MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Blaine moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,273.5, Michael and Carolyn Orr,to the City Council. Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine and Chairman Koenitzer NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 Chairman Koenitzer moved for Minute Order to the City Council request- ing them to set policy with respect to the support of CC&R's which the City has approved as part of developments. Seconded by Member Blaine. Motion carried, 3-0 Chairman Koenitzer advised the application would be heard by the City Council at its March 1, 1976 and advised Mr. Roddy they had a right to appeal in writing within 5 days. Mr. Roddy said he had one statement to make on the motion made and passed and on the basis on which it was made and passed. The motion was based on the approval of a permit for a window. The committee has recommended that a precedent be set that will allow homeowners on an individual basis to destroy the architectural integrity of the entire development. The committee has refused to look at this from a standpoint of effect of issuing this permit on the entire develop- ment and he thought they had avoided their responsibility in doing so. He asked to have this -statement. included' in the'record. Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to a request for approval of a sign for the Coco's Center. Staff was to approve colors unless there was a question, in which case it would be brought before this committee. Staff had felt this sign should be reviewed by this committee. Mr. Walter Sargent, representing the Satisfied Ear, referred to two colored renderings. One was a red and one was in green. Staff had recommended a green of another shade which they did not feel would be effective during the day. He displayed a chip approximating the color. -they were requesting. Chairman Koenitzer said he would have to see the exact sample of what was being proposed before he could make a judgment. The other members agreed. MINUTES OF TEE F BRUARY 19, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Sargent said they are opening the first week in March. He said they would go to the orange which was one of the colors already being used in the center but which they felt was not as satisfactory. Chairman Koenitzer noted staff should have advised the applicant to bring in a color sample. A temporary sign was suggested. Mr. Sargent said any temporary sign would look very unprofessional and shoddy and would not be satisfact- ory- with the owner. Chairman Koenitzer said if he wanted a ruling tonight they could approve another shade of green or another color. Mr. Sargent felt there had been some misunderstanding as to what colors were acceptable for the center. He asked if staff could approve sample in the interest of time. He answered Chairman Koenitzer's concern that the sign company had assured them the light intensity would not be excessive. Member Blaine said it was her feeling that the proposed green would go just as well with the existing red, purple and orange as any other color. Member Irvine agreed. Staff was instructed to make sure it was not a transluacent plexiglas. Mr. Sargent said he would bring in a chip for staff's approval. The committee agreed 2-1 to direct staff to approve. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Piasecki reported that Suburban House sign was not approved and they would be notified. Cicero's Pizza had been advised by the enforcement officer to apply for sign or take it down. ADJOURNMENT At 11:48 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on March 4, 1976 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Is/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk APPROVED: Is/ R. D. Keonitzer, Jr. Chairman HC -159 Page 15