Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 05-18-1978CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON MAY 18, 1978 IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ROOM 105, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chairman Ripplinger with the Salute to the Flag. TOLL CALL Members Present: Johnson, Irvine (at 9:12), Sallan, Chairman Ripplinger Members Absent: Bond Staff Present: Kathryn McKenna, Planning Intern Mark Caughey, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 4, 1978 Approval of minutes was postponed until the arrival of Member Irvine. POSTPONEMENTS & COMMUNICATIONS -None NOTICE: Chairman Ripplinger announced that no public hearing will be initiated after 11:00 p.m. If a hearing should be in progress at that time, it will be continued until its conclusion or until midnight, whichever comes first. The Committee will adjourn at midnight. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Application (from ASAC meeting of May 4, 1978) 1. Application HC -51,454.1 - San Jose Building Designs, Inc. (Brenda Williams) requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping, grading and lighting for a 12 -unit residential development on the east side of Blaney Avenue, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Ron Percy was present for this application. The staff reported a site concern regarding the size of the rear yards of the units. Mr. Caughey stated that the Planning Commission had addressed a minute order to the Committee suggesting that they be increased in size from 15' to 20' in order to give residents more usable yard area. HC -218 Page 1 HC -218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 2 Mr. Percy stated he would dislike having to cut down the size of the front yards to accomplish this since it would increase the difficulty of installing landscaping. The center of the development, which contains a planted area, would also have to be cut down. Member Johnson asked if it would be better for the City to keep a space in front so that the people could have more space. Member Sallan asked what the front setback is and Mr. Percy replied that it is 20'. Mr. Caughey explained that what the staff was getting to is that the ASAC should have a chance to examine alternatives to having 15' back yards. Member Sallan asked what was unacceptable with the present plan. Mr. Caughey noted that it isn't unacceptable; however there may be a better way to do it. He noted that the Planning Commission is also con- cerned about the amount of space between the rear of the units and adjoining sites. Member Ripplinger noted that it is a question of what is more livable for the tenants. Member Sallan said that an additional 5' in the rear yards would be acceptable to her Mr. Percy stated that it would be almost impossible to increase the rear yards by 5' without losing a unit or some garage storage space. He added that a 15' rear yard for a condominium is adequate, since any activities such as barbequeing, etc. could be carried on in this space. He added that he also lives in a condominium and finds his 15' back yard adequate for what he wants to do. He noted also that condominium owners generally want to get away from a lot of yard work. He again stated that landscaping in the front of the buildings (which is only 8' now) would not be able to support plants if it was cut down to accommodate an additional 5' in the rear yards, and that if the units were squeezed toward the middle, garage storage or perhaps a unit would be lost. Member Sallan stated she feels the applicant has a point and would not deny the application as it stands. Member Johnson.agreed. Mr. Percy noted the Commission did not give any reason why they wanted the back yards looked at again, just that the ASAC should look at it. Whatever the ASAC decides would hold. The plans halTe been redrawn many times and he feels the present one is the best configuration. Member Sallan noted that the north elevation of the site is against the service station next door and that the best possible configuration for the people living on this side should be considered. Mr. Percy replied that there is 10' of planting area on the other side of the wall where the gas. station is in addition to the rear yards. There would be 25' between the station and the residences, and 5' additional would not make that much difference. " Member Sallan asked if a 20' setback had ever been drawn for this rear yard area. Mr. Percy said he didn't know. This plan was deemed the best and was submitted to the City for approval. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC FETING Chairman Ripplinger said he would be hard pressed to ask the applicant to increase the rear yard sizes if he had to lose space. He asked about the possibility of sliding the building over. Mr. Percy noted that this would make the frontage on Blaney only 15', and Chairman Ripplinger said this would not be acceptable. Member Sallan noted that it is only the north side of the site which would be of issue, but that she is comfortable with the applicant's proposal as i Member Johnson and Chairman Ripplinger said they were comfortable with it also. A second site concern was brought up by Mr. Percy, regarding the installati of a masonry wall. He noted that when the application was first submitted, he was told that a masonry wall on the back side of a commercial structure was to be put in by the commercial establishment, not the residential one. There is no wall there now, only a wood fence. He feels this residential development should not be held responsible for erecting a wall. HC -218 Page 3 Mr. Caughey explained that when the Planning Commission gave it's approval, one of the conditions was that the applicant meet Title 25, that an acousti al study be conducted. The results of the study was a recommendation for an 8' high masonry wall or other barrier 100' along the east property line and 6' high on the remainder of the property lines in order to mitigate the intrusion of noise. He further stated that it is not clear what material would constitute an acceptable barrier besides masonry. Chairman Ripplingeri noted that it is not clear where the responsibility for building the wall stands and asked for clarification on this point. Mr. Caughey replied that he will get this point clarified as well as that of acceptable wall material. Member Sallan said she would like more specifics on how to deal with the responsibility for erecting a wall when this is in dispute. Mr. Percy made a comment about the landscaping, saying that there had been some concern about not enough variety of plantings. He said that the amount and type of plants has been doubled. Regarding the sound applicant include a conditioned on the Arrhi tPrtllra study recommendation, Mr. Caughey requested that the note on the building plans that all units will be air plan. This would answer one concern of the sound engineer. Staff concerns on architecture were as follows: (1) relocation of an upper -story windhw on the southeast corner of the site per Condition 18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1779; (2) addition of a wing -wall at the east edge of a window on Unit 8; and (3) that elevations of all walls should be provided, or similar elevations labeled accordingly. Mr. Percy said he had no problem with any of these concerns and would comply with t em. HC -218 I MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 4 Landscaping Mr. Percy stated that as many trees as possible will be saved. Five will be saved for sure, and a possible sixth.. The sixth, an olive tree, is in question (may be too close to the building to save). Mr. Percy said he would like to get as many trees as he can in as a buffer for the residents. He said he may have to change some trees shown in front to bushes if it is found that trees would not do well because of over- shadowing by existing redwoods. He said he would like to have leeway to shift the driveway a few feet in order to save a large redwood tree close to this area. Member Sallan said she would have no problem with allowing this leeway. Mr. Caughey noted that the site plan and the landscaping plan should be coordinated as to which trees are being saved so there is less confusion. Member Sallan pointed out that in one area the applicant shows Japanese Cherry trees, which are deciduous. This would mean that the building would not be screened in the winter. She asked that this choice be re-evaluated to see if another type would be better. Mr. Percy said he would look at it again. Mr. Caughey asked the ASAC if they had any problems with the use of white birch. Member Sallan said that this is also a deciduous tree which would lose its leaves in the winter. She suggested the applicant put an evergreen tree or two closer to the building and retain the cluster of birch. This would provide for year-round relief against the building. Staff pointed out that Planning Commission's Condition 17, Resolution NO. 1779 requires the site plan to reflect the use of protective devices around existing trees during construction. Mr. Percy said he plans to have 1' x 4' barriers installed 6' out from the trunks of trees during construction and was not aware that he was required to show this on his plan. He will include them. Mr. Caughey noted that most of the shrubs chosen are evergreen. He suggested some annuals be added for color and interest. Mr. Percy said he would incorporate staff's suggestion and submit some new types of bushes. Mr. Caughey asked if landscaped areas would be mounded. Mr. Percy said he will meund the center area but does not feel there is enough room for mounding along the street. Member Sallan agreed. Chairman Ripplinger noted that mounding in the front area may also disturb existing redwoods. Staff suggested that the applicant be required to install minimal landscaping in the rear yards. Mr. Caughey noted that the Committee has required in the past that trees and/or plantings be installed in rear yards so that something is started. Mr. Percy said he would be opposed to this because owners should have the flexibility to do whatever they want to do with the rear yard area. Mr. Caughey said he did not have anything specific in mind, but that the addition of some plantings may make it more pleasant for tenants when they move in and would make the units look more complete. He noted that this is not a big public concern. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING ! HC -218 Page 5 Member Johnson said he liked the idea of plantings already being started in rear yards, but that it would be more or less a private matter for the residents to take care of. He noted that the public would not be viewing this area. Member Sallan agreed, and Chairman Ripplinger said he saw no problem with leaving the plan as is. He added, however, that he would like to see small cutouts between the garage doors so that a plant might be installed. Mr. Percy said he would have no problem with this. Grading Staff reported noted that there is insufficient detail to evaluate; the applicant should provide drainage pattern, true top/curb elevation and true finished floor and garage slab elevations. Lighting There were no lighting concerns. Mr. Percy asked if the Committee would be agreeable to a new fence design.( It will fence the north side and the residential side. The Committee had no objection to looking at this design at the next meeting. Since there were no comments from the audience, Member Sallan moved and Member Johnson seconded that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Sallan moved continuance of Application HC -51,454.1 to permit Continuanc revision of submitted exhibits and investigations as follows: lof Applica tion HC -51 1. The applicant and staff to investigate the issue of fencing material 454.1 regarding the acoustical study on the north property line, and to establish responsibility for installation of this barrier. 2. That the applicant show drawings of all elevations, or similar elevations labeled accordingly; including the relocation of an upper -story window on the southeast corner of the building and the addition of a wing - wall on a window in Unit 8. 3. The landscaping plan should be modified to show the use of annual shrubs for color in addition to evergreen shrubs; mounding in the center court area; possible addition of evergreen trees and repositi of birch cluster on the Blaney frontage; and cut-outs between garage doors. 4. A grading plan should be provided to the satisfaction of the staff. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. Motion carried, 3-0 g HC -218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 6 2. Application HC -51, 458.1 - Coast Federal Savings & Loan Association requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping, lighting, grading and signing for a new bank building located at the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft. west of De Anza Boulevard. Mr. Joe Amestoy, Mr. Richard Lasero, Mr. John Follis, and Mr. Dunckley Murray were present for this application. Mr. Arnestoy explained that the building design is an adaptation of a Coast Federal prototype. The roof is metal and the walls precast concrete with aggregate exposed. The look will be simple. He presented a sample board of building materials and colors, noting that the roof color will be more of a rust color instead of the brown shown. One change to the plan is that a court will be added on one elevation which will be walled and planted to preclude a view of the service station next door. The wall would be 5'-6' high. The Traffic Engineer objected to the "single -loaded" aisle in the parking lot and suggested 45° stalls to alleviate possible congestion at the site entry and to achieve more efficient uses of the -pavement area. Mr. Amestoy said that he has developed an alternate plan which provides for a much more efficient traffic circulation pattern, but which calls for the elimination of a large spruce tree. He noted that the site is difficult to work with and he feels the two alternatives presented are the best. He did not feel that the City's suggestion is acceptable. The City suggestion calls for pushing the building back away from the street. Mr. Amestoy felt the suggestion used the land inefficiently and would push the building to within 10' of the property line. This would require that different building materials be used and destroy the design of the building. The tree which would have to be eliminated with the alternate plan would be replaced with 2 mature trees. The bermed areas along the side of the building would also be lost; they are integral to the design also. Mr. Caughey noted that this is the first time the staff has seen the alternate plan and that the Traffic Engineer should look at it. Member Sallan said she would like to save the tree if possible. Member Johnson agreed. Chairman Ripplinger said he is in favor of the alternate plan and would be willing to trade the existing spruce tree for 2 25' trees. Mr. Murray noted that the tree may be lost through high winds because it is old and unprotected by other trees. Member Sallan replied that the existing trees have a value and if the applicant could work around this tree, it would be better. She suggested changing the shape of the building to accommodate the tree. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Mr. Amestoy repeated that the building is site adapted from a prototype, and it would not be to the applicant's advantage to change the shape of the building. Mr. Joe Penwell noted that the building has to function. It needs a certain amount of square footage to accommodate a vault and other customer areas. He said he cannot continue to redesign and would like to have direction from the Committee as to which way to go. He noted that parking is an important service to the City as well as to the business. He said they have tried to show that the building is attractiz and have come up with two alternatives which are acceptable to them. The second plan addresses all the major concerns of staff with the except of one tree which they are willing to replace. He said he is in favor of saving trees, but a business has to function in whatever area is available. Member Sallan asked the age of the tree and whether it could be moved. Mr. Murray replied that the tree is about 100 years old and has an expected additional life span of about 50 years. It is too old and too deep-rooted to move. The tree has a limitation of age. The tree is in the open, not in a group of trees, which makes it more vulnerable to damage. Also, it would be close to the asphalt. The other tree in the area is in a better growing area. Member Sallan reiterated that she would rather have the tree saved, stating that she understands the applicant's reluctance to do more planning. However, she went on, suggestions do come along that may be better than the original plan which may involve redesign. Member Johnson said he would go with the first plan in order to save the tree, but would not cut a notch out of the building. He asked why the staff plan would be unacceptable. Mr. Amestoy replied that (1) the traffic flow for customers is unacceptable and awkward, which would restrict the clientele (2)by forcing the parking to be wider, it takes away from the concept of a bermed area for the privacy of officers and a] good design; and (3) by pushing the building to within 10' of the propert line, the bank cannot use windows on this elevation, but would have to use more costly materials that would detract from the design of the building. Member Sallan noLed that if the Committee is not concerned about saving the tree, the second plan is a very good plan. If saving the tree is critical, then the plan suggested by Staff is one which needs further study. Mr. Caughey noted that the ASAC has the leeway to recommend the removal of a tree. Member Sallan asked what the criteria for removal would be, which Mr. Caughey read from the ordinance. One area is if the tree in question is diseased, in danger of falling, etc. The other is in the case of hardship, to the applicant. Mr. Amestoy felt the applicant falls into the second area, in that staff's plan would restrict the business' clientele. It was determined that the applicant's parking requirement is 26 spaces. Mr. Penwell noted that the business will go elsewhere before they accept staff's proposal. HC -218 Page 7 ion io from HC -218 I MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 8 Chairman Ripplinger stated that the concern is that of the parking problem. This should be reviewed further and the applicant should come back with a better configuration. Member Irvine arrived at this point (9:12 p.m.). The Committee went on to discuss other areas of the application, the first being the proposed bench area in front of the building. The Public Works Office objects to the "bus1' bench, since the bus stop is closer to the intersection. Mr. Caughey stated that location of the bus stop areas is a Transit District concern over which the City has no jurisdiction. Another bench would cause confusion. Mr. Amestoy said he will take the bench out. .Chairman Ripplinger and Member Sallan noted that they liked the bench. Member Irvine noted that the bus stop may have to be moved from its present location because this would be at the entrance to the bank. Member Sallan commented that the Transit District had wanted a certain type of bus stop, which would be uniform throughout the area. Mr. Caughey added that if the applicant is willing to install a bench, he could do this with the location subject to approval of the Transit District. Member Sallan said that if a new style has to go in later, the Coast Federal bench could be removed. Mr. Caughey noted that the guidline for the area requires a decorative pedestrian linkage between this site and the adjoining developed property. The properties should tie in with a walkway. He suggested a walk to the Bank of America site and provision for. future walk to the property to the north. He suggested a possible route. Mr. Penwell noted that some of this property doesn't belong to Coast Federal. Mr. Caughey noted that the applicant's second plan would take care of this requirement. Member Sallan stated that it makes all other discussions moot if the Committee does not know which site plan to address. She suggested that a plan which both parties can be comfortable with can be worked out and brought back to the Committee at a later time. Member Irvine asked what the objection to the applicant's first plan is, stating that he sees no problem with it and it saves the tree in question. Mr. Caughey stated that staff is concerned about two-way traffic and the danger of access to Stevens Creek at peak traffic hours; and about a double -load vs. a single -load aisle. Member Irvine stated that a staff -proposed diverter in the driveway would take care of the concern about access to Stevens Creek because the motorist could only go in the direction of traffic. He stated the opinion that the Committee should take a look at the first site plan before chopping a tree down or making major modifications. Member Sallan asked what the setback of the building is from the curb. Mr. Amestoy replied that it is 25' to the outer posts, and 50' to the glass (actual building) . Member Sallan said that this is fairly close to the street. Chairman Ripplinger felt it is too close. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING I HC -218 Page 9 Member Johnson likened it to the McWhorter's building on De Anza Boulevard which is a massive building very close to the street. Member Irvine noted that the Coast building would be different because of the open area for pedestrians under the roof before you actually get to the building. Mr. Amestoy noted that the actual building front cannot be seen to a great extent because of this large walkway area under the skilight and that there is also landscaping which goes right up to the building. Chairman Ripplinger said that the Committee has to be willing to accept one plan or another before further discussion would be meaningful. Three of the members indicated they would be infavor of the original plan because it saves the spruce tree. Member Irvine asked about inclusion of a traffic diverter in the plan. Mr. Amestoy said he would rather not have it because it would cause more accidents since people would go against the diverter. -Member Irvine said the diverter would deter people from going against traffic. Member Johnson and Member Sallan said they would be in favor of including a diverter. Architecture Mr. Caughey directed the members' attention to Resolution 330, page 2 regarding architectural theme for this area (i.e., Spanish style archi- tecture). Mr. Amestoy said it is critical to have the design of the prototype because of Cost Federal's image. Member Irvine said he feels the guidelines are too restrictive. Mr. Amestoy stated the intent was probably to restrict a gaudy or crass design from going in. He feels the Bank of America building, although it meets the guideline, is not a beautiful building. Member Sallan stated she agrees that the guidelines are too restrictive. She said she has no problem with deviating from the guidelines. Chairman Ripplinger said he does not feel the proposed development is substantially different from the guidelines. Member Irvine said he would like to see a sample of the actual roof color before approving it. Landscaping Mr. Amestoy said that the landscape architect has altered the design of landscaping and come up with something that is simpler in proportion to th simplicity of the building design. Staff feels that the amount of plant material is generally sparse, especi close to the building. Mr. Murray, who is the -landscape architect, said shrubs are minimized, but the trees are there to do the job. Mr. Murray said he wanted to keep landscaping down to about 2' to allow people to see into the building. Member Sallan suggested using rafeolepis, which grows about 3' high. Mr. Murray said he would agree to that. HC -218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 1$, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 10 Mr. Murray said he would put some of these shrubs into add interest. Member Sallan noted that the mimosa trees used are deciduous and without leaves in the winter. Mr. Murray said that the leaves are rather lacy and the branches in the winter would also be lacy. The ground cover in front of the building and in other bermed areas have yellow flowers 8-10 months out of the year. The flowers look like a yellow daisy and would be on the berm, which goes from 6" at the base to 3' at the building. He said he feels the building is so powerful and beautiful that it should be the star rather than the landscaping. Member Sallan asked what compact dwarf grape is. Mr. Murray explained that it is actually a shrub, but will be used as ground cover. It would look bronze to the eye. Member Sallan said it would look very nice. The landscape plan calls for 1 gallon shrubs and 5 gallon trees. The standards for landscaping adjacent to major boulevards require minimum 5 gallon shrubs and 15 gallon trees. Members were satisfied that this standard should be imposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Murray stated that the star jasmine will have to be 1 gallon because they are not available in 5 gallon. Member Sallan also noted that this would not include the compact dwarf grape since this is being used as ground cover. Staff noted in its report to the Committee that the applicants are responsible for plantings along the easement to the Alpha Beta Market which is going in. This will be worked out by the staff with the applicant. Staff also suggested that the patio area north of the building could be better used by developing it as a patio area for employees and customers. Mr. Amestoy noted he disagrees with this and that the bank does not wish to encourage loitering. The Committee agreed that this area should be left as a landscaping area rather than a patio. Grading Staff noted that the applicant has insufficient data to evaluate the building height in relation to the street and also the drainage pattern. Member Irvine asked what the overall height of the building will be. Mr. Amestoy replied that it is 25' to the top of the skylight, and mechanical equipment is hidden. Members had no concerns about grading. Lighting Guidelines for the area call for Weyermauser woodscape pole with globe. The applicant would rather have a bronze globe. Member Irvine pointed out the Committee required the Alpha Beta application to use these fixtures and should also require them for this development. Other members agreed. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Signing Mr. John Follis presented the sign proposal for the application. He noted that the whole idea is that all branches look alike. He drew the members' attention to the debossed letters on the fascia first. The letters will be stained slightly darker than the building material so that it reads, but is subtle. The debossing will consist of the word "COAST". It would be externally illuminated. The ground sign would be the main identification for the business. The pedestal will be of the same concrete material as the columns on the buildin and of a slightly darker color. The proposed sign will be a can with black background, a green border, and yellow and orange letters in a stainless steel housing. The housing will have some detailing. The overall height of the sign was reduced to 8' and the sign panel would be 8' wide and 6 1/2' high so there will be 50 sq. ft. of sign. The members agreed that they had no problem with the fascia sign; however, Member Irvine pointed out that a ground sign is not permitted in this case because there is not enough frontage. Mr. Follis said he felt it would be better aesthetically if the sign is a separate structure; it would not be appropriate to put the sign on the building. The Committee took a short break at 10:35 p.m. and reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Mr. Follis pointed out that B of A has a separate sign structure, as do several other buildings in the area. He added that the width of the boulevard should also be considered. A sign should be perpendicular to the boulevard in order to be seen. It would detract from the design of the building and the visibility of the business if the sign was mounted on the building. Mr. Caughey stated that the requirements for a ground sign are a 200' linear frontage or 100' of frontage and a 75' building setback. The applicant's frontage is 138' and the building is not 75' back from the street. Member Irvine explained that if a ground sign is considered in this case, the applicant would have to prove that it would constitute a hardship to comply with the ordinance. Chairman Ripplinger added that the applicant has the right to ask for an exception, but that the proof of hardship rests with the applicant rather than with the ASAC. HC -218 Page 11 Mr. Follis said he had misunderstood this requirement of the sign ordinanc to mean the size of the sign. He stated that in order to function properly, the sign should be separate from the building and perpendicular to it. It would also be more aesthetically pleasing if the sign were not affixed to the building. The whole concept of the building would have to be re- designed. The whole concept on the building itself is to have "COAST" debossed on the fascia. This would have to be replanned, a financial hardsh p. Members agreed that the debossing would be a signing approach rather than an architectural feature. Chairman Ripplinger stated he did not think this issue could be solved at this particular time and that the applicant should come up with a plan that meets the ordinance or reasons that an exception should be granted in this case. This portion should be continued. HC -218 Page 12 Continuance of Applica- tion HC -51, 458.1 MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING The Committee addressed the proposed color of the ground sign at this time. Member Sallan said she does not react favorably to the colors, and that they do not blend in with the building. Member Johnson noted that the building is much classier than the sign. Chairman Ripplinger agreed, saying that that it is a banking institution with a hamburger stand sign. Mr. Amestoy said that as the designer of the building, he feels the business would benefit from a colorful sign which would contrast with the building. Mr. Follis pointed out that this will become the standard logotype for Coast Federal and the ASAC is violating corporate identification. Since the concensus of the Committee was that they did not like the sign colors, the discussion turned to two secondary message signs the applicant would like to include. They would be parallel to the boulevard. The color would be a dark background with off-white letters and would say that the bank is open on Saturdays and there is a 24 -hour teller machine. There would either be one sign or 2 messages on 2 separate signs. Mr. Caughey said that the City's objection is that directional signs should be limited to circulation messages. If services are to be listed, a direc- tory should be oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the motorist. Member Johnson said that staff makes a good point and that the location of the secondary messages should be re-evaluated. He suggested they be inside the building or on a directory. Mr. Amestoy suggested the messages be located on small signs near the parking lot. Since there were no comments from the audience, Member Irvine moved and Member Sallan seconded that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Sallan said the Committee appreciates the effort the applicant has made to make the project an attractive one, explaining that the ASAC has to concern themselves with small details. Member Sallan moved and Member Johnson seconded that Application HC -51,453.1 be continued to allow the applicant to modify the plans to answer Committee concerns. Motion carried, 4-0 (Member Sallan left at this point, 11:18) 3. Application HC -51,027.17 - Ad -Art Sings, Inc. (Marchant Travel) requesting approval of a sign exception. The subject property is located on the east side of De Anza Boulevard north of Town Center Lane. Mr. Bob Marchant was present for this application. Mr. Caughey summarized the history of this exception. About a year ago, the applicant requested an exception. The concerns of the staff and Committee regarding design and size of the sign have been answered. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING HC -218 Page 13 The applicant was to negotiate with the management of the Town Center to come up with a joint ground sign approach. The applicant has attempted to do so, but without success. Mr. Marchant said that the high shrubs and trees next door make it useless to put a sign on the building. There is also high landscaping on the other side and a big overhang on the building. He reported that customers have had a great deal of difficulty in finding the business and often go to the wrong place or end up calling to find out the location. The sign would be put in the driveway area.. Chairman Ripplinger said he agrees with the staff findings, but asked if the letters "INC" need be included on the sign. Mr. Marchant said that they are included in the logo and also balance the sign. The background of the sign will be a dark brown opaque material. The letters will be ivory, and there is a 1" orange border around the letters. The perimeter is wood and the sign will be in a slumpstone planter. Some plant material is to be installed. Member Irvine said he. likes the look of the sign, saying it is very tastef Member Johnson agreed and added that the orange is a nice accent. He agre that there is an identification problem in this case. Since there were no comments from the audience, Member Irvine moved and Member Johnson seconded that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Irvine moved that Application HC -51,027.17 be approved subject tc the standard ASAC conditions 1-8 and findings and conditions as follows: Findings: 1. Consistent with provisions of Section 11.01 of Ordinance 746, the request exception will reduce practical difficulties for the public, and provide for identification consistent with the purposes and intent of said ordinance for the subject business. Subconclusions: a. Practical difficulties will be reduced for the citizen attempting to locate the subject business by providing a means of identiy which distinguishes the individual character of that business from adjoining land uses, consistent with criteria 4 and 5 of Section 1.03.2, Ordinance 746. b. The proposed ground sign design is approved in lieu of individual tenant wall signs, thus reducing visual clutter of the streetscape which is consistent with the intent of signing in the City of Cupertino as declared in Section 1.03.1, and Section 1.03.3 (a) of Ordinance 746. pproval of pplication C-51,027.17 HC -218 Page 14 IMINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Conditions: 1-8. Architectural and Site Approval Standard Conditions to the extent that they do not conflict with the special conditions contained herein. In the event a conflict does exist, the special conditions as enumerated herein shall apply. 9. That the said recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits F 1st revision and F-1 1st revision and staff informational except as may be modified by special conditions contained herein. 10. That the internally -illuminated wall signs existing at the southwest corner of the subject building be removed. 11. That individual tenants within the subject building may be identified by one (1) non -illuminated individual letter wall sign consisting of gold color copy at a maximum height of 6 inches. No illuminated sign of any type shall be permitted any tenant in the development. 12. The approved ground sign shall be used only by the business identified as "Marchant Travel, Inc." per exhibit F 1st revision. At such time as said business vacates the subject building, the freestanding sign shall be removed. 13. The Architectural and Site Approval Committee or its staff shall retain authority to review lighting intensity of any sign approved under this application following installation and to require correction of off -site light intrusion impacts. 14. Final selection of plant materials to be installed at the base of the sign shall be approved by staff prior to release of building permits. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. Motion carried, 3-0 4. Application HC -51,206.2 - South Bay Restaurants, Inc. (Custom House/Robert Erving) requesting approval of architecture, land- scaping, grading and signing for an existing restaurant located at 20060 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Robert Clark, George Faraco, and Mary Lou Faraco were present for this application. Mr. Caughey reviewed the proposed site improvements, which consist of repaving and restriping the existing parking lot as a maintenance operation; and installation of a five foot wide planter along the entire south property line of the site. This planter area is to be enclosed with a concrete berm. The lot and planter area will tie in with the Chrisman-Taylor development on the west side of the site. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING HC -218 Page 15 Mr. Clark noted that the planter in the parking aisle does not go all the way back to the end of the parking row, but only part way. The drawing is in error. He said that the triangular planter area will be refurbished. Member Irvine noted that the parking aisle area will be screened from view so a planter all the way to the end would not be needed. Mr. Clark said there will be a 6" high curb along the rear property line. He feels it is an advantage to tie in with the adjoining property. Architecture The remodel effort calls for a new 3 1/2 foot parapet with tile cap. Mr. Clark said the applicant felt he wanted to create a new identify. The building has always been lost. With the new Chrisman-Taylor building in, the restaurant would tend to fade even more into the background. The applicant feels the addition of a parapet would increase visibility and tie the two properties together better. Member Irvine asked how the tile cap will be done. Mr. Faraco replied that it will be a single tile with a regular cap on it at 90°. The cap slant will be steeper than the existing roof line. He noted that someone viewing the building will be able to see the tile cap. Member Irvine commented that he has seen other tile caps where the cap doesn't show well, and this ruins the whole effect. Mr. Faraco brought a sample of the colors that will be used. The sample showed the parapet color as green, the stucco as a light pink, and an actual piece of the roof tile was brought in. Ms. Faraco had chips of the actual stucco color and parapet color. The stucco will be more of a sand or beige color and the green lighter than the other sample. Mr. Clark said the woodwork will be sandblasted to look natural. Mr. Fara said the parapet will be 3'6" high including the tile cap. The existing sign will be removed and the new name of the restaurant (which has not yet been determined) will be on the parapet. Chairman Ripplinger said he favors the darker green showed on the sample than the avocado green on the parapet. Member Irvine said he felt the natural stain on might look better on the parapet, but then then the lette would not show. The parapet stands up high and the green would make it look even higher. Mr. Faraco said that in view of the relationship of the new building to go next door, the papapet would give it more visibility. Member Irvine said he is concerned about what the parapet will look like. Mr. Clark added that if there was no color, the building would look washed out. Member Irvine said he would like to see detail of how the parapet, tile wil look before granting approval. Member Johnson said he is sure other members would be interested in seeing the details and this is enough reason to bring the application back a second time. Mr. Clark said the applicant is anxious to get the project under construction. The establish- ment is now closed. HC -218 MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING Page 16 The addition of ornamental iron grillwork on the windows and at the west entry was discussed. Members had no concerns. Staff noted that the east elevation of the building has a 4' wall which allows the public to view mechanical equipment stored in the area. Staff would like to see this area screened. The applicant sees no problem with screening this area. Mr. Faraco asked is this could be brought back at an informal review. Staff noted that a second public entry will be provided on the north elevation. The applicant will thin out landscaping in this area and install a walkway of some kind. Some stonework will be added to the fireplace for interest and three chimneys will be added to the top to add color. Landscaping Mr. Faraco said the applicant will spruce up the existing landscaping, Chairman Ripplinger asked why the planter strip in the parking lot is not being extended. Mr. Clark said that the reason is that the parking lot is only being refurbished and the strip does not exist now. The whole parking lot is a minor resurfacing job. Member Irvine said this won't be of great public concern because it cannot be seen from the street. Planting will be added around the trash enclosure. Member Irvine noted that street side landscaping needs some work. Mr. Caughey requested that a written plan be submitted regarding landscaping refurbishment. Mr. Clark said the applicant has every intention of making the site look nice and sprucing it up and maintaining it. Member Irvine noted that if the application is continued, the applicant can address all the ASAC concerns. Mr. Clark asked if there is any way the applicant can satisfy the concerns without continuing the application. Member Irvine said that the parapet is his only concern and he would be willing to approve all other aspects of the application. Member Johnson said there is enough concern that it may be worth having the other members look at the application. Mr. Clark said the property is in escrow right now and he would like some kind of indication of what the City position is. He does not want to let the escrow drag another three weeks. Mr. Caughey brought in parapet detail, which the applicant had submitted to the City at an earlier date. After viewing the drawing, Member Irvine said he was less concerned with the parapet, and would approve it. Mr. Clark said the restaurant would look more in line with the Chrisman-Taylor building next door with the parapet addition and that the parapet would be the logical place to put a sign. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1978 ASAC MEETING HC -218 Page 17 Signing The sign will be on the parapet and externally lighted by spots on each corner of the building. Member Johnson asked if the color of green for the background of the letters could be qualified in some way. It was decided that the sample brought in would be used as an exhibit to qualify the background color. The application was opened to the public. Mr. Robert Erving (the owner of the property) said he is satisfied with the overall approach and he like the colors chosen. The parapet will provide a contrast to the tile color and the muted earth tones below, which will create a pleasing effect. He said he would like to get a reliable reading from the ASAC as to whether something similar to this is likely to be approved by the Committee and the Council. Chairman Ripplinger said he did not wish to speak for the Council. Member Irvine moved and Member Johnson seconded that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried, 3-0 Member Johnson moved that Application HC -51,206.2 be approved subject to th Approval of standard ASAC conditions 1-8 and conditions 9-11 as follows: Application HC -51,206.2 9. That the recommendation of approval is based upon Exhibits A, B, C and F and Staff Informational 1 and 2 of this application except as may be amended by special conditions contained herein. 10. The applicant shall present the following information to the Architectuial and Site Approval Committee for informal review and concurrence: a. A proposal to screen public view of equipment stored in the side yard at the east elevation of the site, which may take the form of a fence or planter -screen device on or affixed to the existing block wall on the east property line. b. A written description of maintenance procedures to be undertaken to upgrade the existing landscaping and a definitive planting plan for the existing planter areas within the parking lot. Said planting plan shall also indicate existing plants to be replaced and a walkway from the north entry to Stevens Creek Boulevard. 11. The existing ground sign and wall sign on the subject site shall be removed. The proposed light fixture to replace said deleted ground sign shall be eliminated. Specifications for roof and wall sign lighting may be approved by staff at the building permit level. The motion was seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 3-0 The meeting was adjourned at 12:46 a.m. until the next regular meeting. ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder /s/ Ted Ripplinger City Clerk Vice Chairman