Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 06-10-1976CITY 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 JUNE 10, 1976, IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:04 pm by Chairperson Sallan with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Blaine, Bond, Irvine, Chairperson Sallan Members absent: Claudy Staff present: Senior Planning Technician Mark Caughey INFORMAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION 12-Z-76 Senior Planning Technician Mark Caughey referred to display of proposed duplexes off of Foothill Blvd. adjacent to Arco service station and explained the proposal. Slides of area were shown. Concerns: ... Preserving Oak trees ... Increasing yard area for property C ... Space for parking that would not interfere with traffic flow ... Only 5 ft. area between units with large areas of glass facing each other ... Aesthetic impact of no overhang on roof ... Need for roll up garage doors ... 10 ft. planting area on Foothill Blvd. This represented minimum allowance and already included 5 ft. of City right-of-way. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 13, 1976 Page 13, second paragraph from bottom, insert the word "aid" in second line between "would" and "applicants". HC -167 Page 1 12-Z-76 HC -167 Page 2 Minutes of 3/13/76 approved as ame n de d 'linutes of 5/20/76 approved as amen de d MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 14, paragraph 3, first line should read, "Member Bond said he had read articles by attorneys of other cities." Page 8, paragraph 9, should read, "....she did not think the setting of the formal sign program should be tied in with this application at all but should be considered separately." Page 4, paragraph 6, last line should read, "approach, an exception to the sign ordinance would have to be.....". Member Bond moved to accept the Minutes of May 13, 1976 as amended. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 20, 1976 Page 4, paragraph 9, add "to contain any spillage" to second sentence. Page 8, paragraph 5, second line to read, "it represents an aesthetic diversity in the community and would be attractive." On page 10, condition (7) should read, "That there will be vines on the street side of the perimeter wall facing DeAnza and Homestead under all the pear trees." Moved by Member Blaine, seconded by Member Bond, to approve the Minutes of May 20, 1976 as amended. Motion carried, 3-0-1 Abstain: Irvine POSTPONEMENTS: None TEN COMMUNICATIONS : None RAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairperson Sallan announced no item would be initiated after 11:30 p.m. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS: (1) Application HC -51,075.45 - Vallco Fashion Park requesting approval of architecture for height extension for an exist- ing precast concrete wall located along the westerly side of Sears starting south of Wheaton Drive and running northerly along the perimeter road approximately 600 ft. Continued from H -Control meeting of May 20, 1976. Staff report: Senior Planning Technician Caughey noted the applicant had met with the residents being impacted by the extension and referred to submitted compromise. Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park, wanted to correct the records, noting the existing wall was concrete block. He said the increase of height was a condition of use permit for regional shopping center, even though the wall is on Sears property. He said they had met with property owners, noting their objections to the redwood extension previously proposed. Vallco Park representatives were now presenting a proposal for a precast extension. He referred to exhibit which had been distributed. Mr. E. C. Oliver, 10128 Denison Avenue, Cupertino, agreed the present proposal would provide security and would be more durable. They were pleased with the compromise. The Public Hearing was opened to comments from the audience. There were none. Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Blaine moved to approve Application HC -51,075.45 as shown on Exhibit B 1st Revision. Seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairperson Sallan noted the application was approved and would be heard by the City Council at their June 21, 1976 meeting. HC -167 Page 3 HC -51,075 .45 Vallco Fashion Park Public Hearing closed HC -51,075 .45 approved Chairwoman Sallan encouraged other residents to communicate their concerns to the City whenever they felt a need to do so. iC-16 7 ?age 4 3C-51,075.4011 Vallco Park Ltd. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING (2) Application HC -51,075.401 - Vallco Park Ltd. (McDonald's and King Norman Toys) requesting approval of architecture for two mall shops and a sign plan incorporating three mall shops into a program including all existing signs in the center. Staff report: Senior Planning Technician Caughey distributed copies of revision and described change. He went over concerns of staff regarding window configeration at McDonald's, suggesting the possibility of a slight bay window effect. With regard to trellis work, the possibility of carrying it under the roof overhang to the King Norman Toy shop and possibly further west to entrance of main mall was suggested. With regard to sign program proposal, Staff member Caughey referred to policy that exterior signs would be oriented toward the pedestrians; thus the King Norman and McDonald's signs should be scaled down and moved to other locations. Staff was recommending the second McDonald's sign on wall not be permitted. Staff member Caughey noted that while a flag pole is highly appropriate for a center of this size, they were recommending the overall height be scaled down and the pole mounted on the ground. Slides were shown of the area under discussion. Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park, read a statement dated June 10, 1976, in which he noted staff had critized their proposal for 68 minutes and indicated it might not be acceptable. The statement reviewed the professional team working on the regional shopping center and gave their credentials. Hr. Ward said this was the 166th meeting when ordinarily 9 to 12 might be required. He said because of the complex inter -ties of the many specialists involved, they were asking this committee to either approve the plans as submitted or reject them. If rejected, he asked the committee to state a reason that it was in violation of a code, an ordinance or a clear peril to public health, safety and welfare. He indicated their unsubstantiated personal opinions would not suffice. The statement then briefly answered concerns of staff. Chairperson Sallan said she felt very badly this situation had built up. Mr. Ward said this project has come to a halt and they are losing money for no practical. reason. It was imperative that they enclose these two stores. Chairperson Sallan noted the committee would continue to look at what was their responsibility, make judgements on best input and pass them on to the City Council. They are trying to work together to get what will be best for the community. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Ward said this proposal would not have an impact on the traffic outside because of its location. Criteria for permanent bay window signs was distributed. Member Blaine clarified that Vallco wanted an approval or denial of entire application. Mr. Ward said they feel this is a good project and it has come to a point where they must proceed. Mr. Ralph Butterfield, Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, architect for the center, agreed there was an over amount of suggestions on the part of staff relative to their applications. Many were unrealistic, impractical and unworkable. He displayed colored drawings of their proposal and described intent of architectural treatment. He said the rectangular windows were meant to separate it from the mall area and depicts an entirely different use. The trellis is meant as cover to stairway and he demonstrated why it could not be extended. Signwise, Mr. Butterfield pointed out the King Norman sign was completely surrounded by brick. He displayed materials of the sign. The dimension of the sign is primarily the letters themselves. The McDonald signing will be the logo letter taped to the glass. A sample of this was displayed. In addition there was another sign on the side wall panel. A sample of this letter type was displayed. The "M" would be 30" high and the other letters would be 16-3/4". Mr. Butterfield pointed out there is a McDonald's department store so they need the identification of the yellow "M". He clarified that they do intend their identification for passing motorist and to scale the signs down to 1/10 would be unreasonable. Mr. Butterfield described signing intent for the I. Magnin store. A sample of letter type was displayed. A drawing showing the scale of the flag was exhibited. Member Blaine asked why the flag pole was being exhibited in this location. Mr. Ward said they had always planned to have it there. They don't look on it as advertising. They need the 40 ft. pole to display both the California and American flag. This is an automatic pole and is to be taken down in inclement weather and at night. The flag is 5 ft. x 8 ft. Mr. Butterfield added there is really no front to the center and this is the only prominent spot that will be seen from both major directions. Chairperson Sallan noted her respect for the people working on this project and said she didn't intent to question their expertise. HC -16 7 Page 5 HC -167 Page 6 Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Irvine said the proposed location of the flag pole was the only logical one. He noted the McDonald's signs were in good taste compared to some demanded by fast food facilities. He had no problem with this presentation. Member Blaine said she had no problem with the signs or windows and felt the trellis was a nice addition. She did feel the flag pole was not in a proper place or in proportion to the bridge. Member Bond expressed his appreciation for the criteria which had been presented. He agreed this committee has obligations to fulfill and questions to ask. Their input should be available to a developer so he will know what the community wants. He felt the signs for McDonald's were necessary; also Magnin's. The flag pole was acceptable. Chairperson Sallen felt the presentation by Mr. Butterfield had clarified perspectives and cleared up questions. Her only concern was the flag pole. A criteria was needed on height of flag poles. She suggested having two flags instead of one, keeping the height to no more than that of the building. With regard, to the advertising approach for bay windows, Chairwoman Sallan agreed that 10% could be construed as discriminatory. -Chairperson Salan said the second. McDonald sign was a concern also She was not sure it was not excessive. Mr. Ward explained McDonald's will be open .before and after the rest of --the mall shops so they need to be -identified to the motorist traffic. Member Blaine clarified that the 40 ft. pole was the shortest automatic pole that would carry two flags. The hearing was then opened for public comments. Mr. Frank Mulkern, Chamber of Commerce, said they were going to object strenuously to the 20 ft. limitation on flag poles. The American flag is flown on all State capitals, schools, etc. As a veteran and service- man he objected very much to claim that flying the American flag was advertising. Federal laws prohibit its use as advertising. Mr. A. T. Roten, 19812 Veronica, Saratoga, said he thought the American flag was beautiful and a stirring sight. He was in favor of it. Member Bond moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairwoman Sallan asked about study that had been requested on glass panels on bridge overcrossing Wolfe Road. Mr. Butterfield said they had provided a diagram which had been presented- to the City Council. The applicant showed there would be no visual glare problem from the glass to the motorists on Wolfe Road. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Bond moved to approve Application HC -51,075.401 with standard H -Control conditions, including Exhibits A, B, B-1, F, F-1 and Design Criteria. Seconded by Member Irvine. AYES: Members Bond, Irvine NOES: Member Blaine, Chairperson Sallan Motion denied, 2-2 Chairperson Sallan announced the motion had been denied and would be heard by City Council on June 21, 1976. At 9:22 p.m. a break was taken with the meeting reconvening at 9:35 p.m. Since the applicant for items 3, 4 and 5 were not present, Member B moved to hear item 6 next. Seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 (6) Application HC -51,083.1 - Villa Montessori School requesting approval to exception of Section 6.04 of the Sign Ordinance to allow more than one ground sign on a single lot. Said property is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 450 ft. east of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road. Staff report: Mr. Caughey distributed copies of a letter from Mr. Roten, representing Villa Montessori School. The letter was dated June 7, 1976 and was an explanation of their request for the exception. A colored rendering of the sign was exhibited. Slides were shown. Mr. A. T. Roten said he was chairman of the Board of Trustees of Union Church which is site of the school. He pointed out the sign in the front of the church, indicating there would be no place to indicate the presence of the school. He located the proposed site for the sign. He said the sign was already made up, having been used at another location. To save money, the applicant would like to use the same sign. Mr. Roten was asked to describe traffic flow on the site which he did. HC -167 Page 7 HC -51,075.401 denied HC -51,083.1 Vi l l a Montessori HC -167 Page 8 Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING The location of the sign was discussed. Mr. Roten explained why it was the only logical location for the sign. Member Blaine noted the sign was next to the entrances. She ascertained there would be a maximum of 30 children in each session. She suggested a traffic pattern for pick up and delivery of children should be studied. Member Irvine agreed it was the logical place but noted the class room might be difficult to find the first time. Chairperson Sallan questioned whether the phone number on the sign was necessary. She suggested the church might like to add a few shrubs along the sign area. Mr. Roten pointed out there is no sprinkler system in this area so it would be a problem to put a wide range of planting there. It was suggested something of low maintenance variety could be used. Chairperson Sallan pointed out Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major street in town which was why she was suggesting additional planting. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none. Member Blaine moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Blaine moved to approve Application HC -51,083.1 for an exception of Section 6.04 of the Sign Ordinance, reason being 10.4 (a) "special conditions and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved or its intended uses, which were not created by the owner or his tenant, and which do not apply generally to other properties with the same land use." Standard H -Control conditions and the additional condition that (1) Area where sign will be posted will be planted with some additional shrubs subject to staff approval. The landscape strip is between the two curb cuts as indicated on exhibit. Seconded by Member Irvine. Public Hear- The hearing was re -opened to the public. Mr. Roten said the planter ing reopened is 30 or 40 ft. There is already some planting there. He had thought they meant some minor plantings around the sign. He said neither the church or the school had much money. Chairperson Sallan said she was talking about 5 or 6 plants. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Bond said he did not support the condition of additional shrubs since the sign was not directly the church's responsibility. The church was doing a service to the school. He pointed out the stretch on other side of curb cut and felt it would unbalance the existing landscape. Member Irvine said he felt it was an opportunity for upgrading the landscaping throughout the City and the cost could be passed on to the school. The slide showing the area under discussion was restudied. Mr. Roten said he could envision many problems. He asked for approval of the sign, taking on faith their promise to upgrade the area. He did not feel this formal condition was needed. A discussion was held on whether or not to formalize the stipulation. Mr. Roten was directed to bring his proposal to the staff so it could be included in their file. Public Hearings were closed again. HC -167 Page 9 Public Hear- ing reclosed AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine, Chairperson Sallan HC -51,083.1 NOES: Member Bond approved w/ condition Motion carried, 3-1 The applicant was notified of the approval and that it would be heard by the City Council on June 21, 1976. (3) Application HC -51,153.2 - Shell Oil Company After a short discussion, the committee members agreed they would prefer to have the applicant present when they acted upon their request. (4) Application HC -51,269.2 - Shell Oil Company (5) Application HC -51,075.46 - Shell Oil Company Moved by Member Blaine to continue Applications HC -51,153.2, HC -51,269.2 and HC -51,075.46 to the H -Control meeting of June 24, 1976 Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 HC -51,153.2 continued HC -51,269.2 continued HC -51,075.46 continued HC -167 Page 10 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (7) Discussion of Sign Ordinance Mr. Frank Mulkern, Chamber of Commerce, asked to have staff provide him with a final input from H -Control relative to the Sign Ordinance. Chairperson Sallan reported on review by Planning Commission. Member Blaine recommended that in view of what has happened with Planning Commission and lack of communication because of time mostly, if it would be possible to have a working session with the City Council showing the differences being proposed by Planning Commission and concerns of H -Control. Since several of the H -Control committee members were recently appointed, Chairperson Sallan gave a brief background of H -Control input to Sign Ordinance. Member Irvine suggested Planning Commission should be a part of the working session also. Chairperson Sallan noted issues considered most important should be clarified. She felt it should be City Council only as it would be less controversial. Possible meeting dates were discussed. Staff member Caughey was asked to continue with his summation of their concerns. NEW BUSINESS Member Blaine, having attended the Mayor's luncheon in Chairperson Sallan's place, reported on items discussed. Member Bond referred again to his proposal that the committee take field trips to developments in the City. He was not sure many would come out if an open meeting was held while informational trips to certain areas would be most beneficial. He feels citizen input is necessary if they were to avoid acting on their feelings rather than that of the citizenry. Staff was asked to get clarification of how the group could visit around the City without being in conflict with the Brown Act. Chairperson Sallan advised that each member could act as an individual and report to the committee. Member Irvine agreed with Member Bond that the committee should go through Vallco. He noted it was the largest single impact on the City and the committee should be familiar with it. MINUTES OF H -CONTROL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1976 Member Irvine was answered there was an ordinance that allowed campaign signs for councilmen from other cities to be exhibited in Cupertino. Staff member Caughey reported City Council had asked applicant of HC -51,385.1 (Edmund F. Schnieders) to research other materials for use on roofs and report back. Fire safety in townhouse and condo- minium developments was discussed briefly. Mr. Caughey said a policy statement should be forthcoming. ADJOURNMENT At 11:26 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to the meeting of June 23, 1976 at 7:00 p.m. APPROVED: /s/ C. Nancy Sallan Chairwoman ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk HC -167 Page 11