HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 03-23-1992 Y.. -.5,sl�z ..-.trli .sJ571'• FJ ! .1 )I ' 1y���__.-_--�—
'F�'r83 1
0.
e •, " • U��µ1..:; L:t. i.l! �.y: 1 w v bh.n,". 1'e'
.C 1ll
41
At i
r;
i 1,i 1' .,t�•:1.. i,'-1a':�""
r. .:
•.i
1 =s.
•� .a . 1�.'1'I it` _ ,1 . _I.:r1 •: .a
oil
GO Wil
emu. ..ti •♦;
' � _� � - ••II=._ _ mot_,. .. �'
- .•i�__J ♦Ir IP.7 1 III J
�I
:It•�
. ,.. },.,. ..2 4n ,
f 8Mirth 23' 092
PagD -2-
Camittee member Jbcksm stated that do would not apm to anymme than
• am additicral sign, either the E�.lrlim sign or the sign
but not both.
emnittes Yienber Weber eqzessed concernthat the amw willreturnIn the
fubim with a request far a morament sign and that if a secand building
mmaat®d sign is approved far the site, and a mamment sign is approved in
the future, there would be an avr of sue. Ile eitated that
he would not vote far approval for a send building mounted spa.
cmm4oittee FAmber Lavias agreed with amn ttee VAnber Weber and questiarvsd
the owneas intent for the mmment sign.
Chairperson HmaMa stated 'chat a ma-mment sign will overwhelm the site and
that a se=d building mm&cec3 sign is ,one: iate.
committee Vawaxw Weber reiterated that a seom%d building mom sign is
not a1 r.priate.
Cimanittee Y"*ers and the applicant discussed different lities
for sign a for ale, site.
tbmittee W-unber Jadso'1 stated she would approve the building mid
signs but no mmmoent sigh. Me sLvjgested rescinding the sign
which web approved previously.
7he c%vinittee members agreed.
of a 3-1 vote, with Cmmittes Ylember Weber dissenting, Applicatiari
11-AMC-92 was approved according to the findings and cotiiticris a mtained
in the model resoluticaa with Finding 2 and ccmditions 10 and 31 added to
r
ea
das follows:
�a
2. 7hat approving a mmmment sign will make the center sign program
inconsistent with Title 17 of the Oqpertino Mzicipal code, further,
the builditkj has adequate visibility from both De An--a Blvd. and
Homestead lid.
QMftLti
lo. 'iris resolution makes null and void the met sign approval in
Application ASAC 51,820.2.
11. The building letters on the Homestead side of the building shall be a
mwdml of. 12" high.
u
x r rN
Page 3- 23, 1N2
Stevens4.
Blvd, MW=Juftly, 120 fPt. But Of Swdley Qeive.
the � t that staff h� with
with a plan9�te t t exte wly in the pat t� and omma up
Can be Zeoor ed ateapproml. He
ligRtInW aran d a A'ti+t machine as
PIZIancial r-TliredState
Code a� the t Pes and size Of gi ,M
being
Omlmittee Mmber twins owessed owicernwith the appeatancet of the two
new f after d$ atssion with the aFPli r�tt. 0= tree . Iaivios
agIme , that r1m plan was
0=dtt ee Mmber Jadmm stag she mWwts the applicatian because of the
increased safety and that no glare will be seen on Stevow Creek Blvd.
Cogmittee Member Weber e2qpressed cKsloem wj* 1 the height of the
poles
stating
t they dMild be lower and in Order to cmpmsate for the
lower
may be added.
OlairPmmm
Hwis
factorsff l ie stated that in c�.sicie ati� of the site and limitingicfi*JM fixtures that he would approve the WAicaticn.
pgwgim:
III a 3-1 vote, with Cctuittes r Weber
12-ASA 92 CeP1e s , AM.$Caticn
in the .a l resolutic n. the Fiatdings and aatditiom contained
5. 36-U-86 -
app va`1 for a handicapped parking y for an reviewstIM and
building.
918 sii a is located at the Southeast corner of Stevens Gbeek Blvd. and
Tcmre Avenue.
Tbm Robillard reviewed the staff ocrMents noting that the cry o tAw two
handier pwking stalls is requfrW in order to the of
t� 24 of the Uniform Building Code. He stated that the appearance
of
canopy will match that of the office building.
Than Hermt3 Architects, reviewed the staff its and
ansmred questions of the Committee Members.
Committee Member Weber used no concerns for the Proposal.
00amnittee Member Jadcsoat e4ressed om'cern for the
planted and with the type of IM-193tion. types of plants to be
I+
21s log
Pago -4-
ttM VAubw lavics aggested reqdrbq a condition fdr aWxaml for
• PlantIng and Irrigation. She equissed cmzwn that no =Ior surles were
availablP for the pal. It van OVIained that the roof mid
colors dNould match that of the office building.
oereolaHMISie stated that the strunhze shad lack lidce the office
building rather than adjacentrtQikxdrdunits.
s
On a 4-0 vote, liaa ara ASAC 36-U-86 was appvved a=mdiyq to the
findings and conditions contained in the model rewILUm with Findling 2
modified and Cotdit.ions 10 and 11 added to read as follows:
2. That the cwxPY colors and ma!'13rW f4 match the adJacent office
building.
10. Both side planter areas shall be irrigated and maintains regularly.
Each planter shall be planted with llOn star jasmine vines.
11. 2he oolcrs and mils of the canopy shall match the adjacent office
building.
HISP s lL
6. A licatiaar 10-ANAL!9. Yiassa4's - Raquest.,ingf review and
approval for as planned d�eg�nellgzent.�sign
g ;=gram for
,�,a,�n..exfs�tinsj restta�yuyrmt^
located an the East side o De Anna Blvd. q F m & te1Y 2SO f. Nbr Gil o
Balling Rd.
Tom Robillard reviewed the staff c onimmt•s rx ting that the site does not
meat the 200 ft. rule criteria for mm ment signs utd ch is the reason for
.�: - -n ung denial.
Roula and George saris reviewed the staff comments and answered
questicm of the amittee VAnbws. They a pLuned that the Taco Bell
rest,virant previously had a mm nent sick of the same size and that they
were simply moving it to a different location.
Committee fiber Jackson enwessed cmxwn with the colors and materials
and that there were no solar draw-L-irgs or material samples to look at in
axder to make a decision.
Om m lttee Member Iavius expressed the Sam cmx=n that she dial not have
end information to make a decision on the colors.
Pag MOM 23 j,
the ant sign was qp1proptimte for the location, and •• so,, wand
require a c entinca m In arder for the applicant to drag bwk color
samples and a color drawing.
ClOmmittee Member Jackson stated that she felt the sign makes good sew in
the location and would approve the maimment sign.
Committee Ylember W-ber stated that he cannot agree with the motament sign.
Be stated that the site is to short for a mmrument sign and would corm an
over proliferation of maimment signs an De Anza Blvd. He stated that the
building sign is visible from both dir�..fans.
Committee Member Iavias stated that she is leaning in favor of the morwimt
sign.
W. Isagaris explained in more detail the location of the moment sign.
Committee Member die explained to Mt. his that ASAC rxw has the
oio�awbndty to bring the site up to conformance with the sib ordinance.
Be stated that the site is too sea]1 and that approving a met sign
would set a precederoet for breaking the 200 ft. rule criteria.
oomittes Member Iavics agreed with Omrinittee Member Hm sie.
A motion for denial was not passed by the committee mom. The Cmmittee
Members discussed that a monuneart sign for the site would not be
approjiate but that an addition to the building mounted sign explaining
the type of res�aurant would be more a;Frogriate.
ASAC agreed teat a sign on the side of the building may not be reoona�tded
but should be in:luded on the building sign as previously ate.
gecirian•
On a 4-0 vote, Application 10-AW -92 was cm*Inued to the meeting of April
13, 1992.
7. &Tlicatian 14-AgG 2 The Driving Maditne - RequesLujg review and approval
for an extortion to the sign ordinance for an existing building located in
a light industrial zone. The site is located on the East side of Bubb Fed.
appradmtely 300 ft. South of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tom Robillard reviewed the staff gents noting that the site is located
in a conventional MG zone. The pr+rposal is for a sign exception to grant
approval of a morrmmimt sign for a site which is ap% vxinately 20 ft. short
of meeting the 200 ft. rule criteria. Rwther, the applicant is reciussttng
approval of a freeway oriented sign. Mr. Rabillard explained the criteria
for ASAC approving a freeway oriented sign.
G<, v
z'
/+�ma�'tirCs
23,
INIMM
Jars ! She Diving may@, rsviOmd thB staff cmmft and answered
westims of the mmdttae mmftm.
Chairperson , 4jusstiaeaed the size of the sign.
After a brief dimmmi n it ms aWeed that the sign shcu dmtChthat of
the Apple bj sigrOWWLchare 5' 86" hick by 45" w3cde.
"I"ImIttee Mwler I,m4m stat®d that the site is close to meeting the 200
ft. rule criteria and that the Wilding signs are limited and maw and
the mmmment sign is a good design.
Omiaitt"m JadM m stated that she
MWarts the bemm
"t � , e
design ty and is need for visiwutty. �
Cmuittee Aber Webw stated he OWOrts the montnaent sign but d not
support a cried sign. He stated that ASAC should be aamistent
with grenous menials for freeway oriented signs sft as the IP station on
EbMestead and highway 85.
ClairPersOn Hmmie statted that the M=ment sign Is very wire, clean
not and of 9 He stated that two aadit$a ,l building signs
mwe a sign. as ASACsas already for the
Mtet &,scussicn the
a O=Ittee Mmftm agreed that they mild M=w the
moa'naneat sign and Nurth facing Wilding sign but would =ftinm d sion
of the East facing freeway oriented sign until the next meeting.
Decsi_ghs
On a 4-0 vote, Application 14-ASkC-92 was approved a=xding to the
firdings and it.i(mss om*aimed in the model resolution with F�imUngs 1
and 2 deleted and a new, Finding, 1 added and Concditicnr 10, it road 12 added
to read as follows:
Fib
1. Mat the mmment sign is needed for better site visibility and is
compatible with other signs in the area. For these reasons ASAC has
WNW the 200 ft. rule require m*.
9onditim
10. The me mment sign shall be a maxim m of 5' We hig
h by 45" snide.
11. Zhe mwnmmnt.. sign shall be located outside the sidewalk site triangle
as depicted an 04xrtim Standard Detail 7-6.
12, the dust facing building sign is not approved as pit of this
application and is eantimied to the next meeting of April 13, 1992.
M 23, 1992
Page 7-
MINUM
S. On a 2-0 vote, the minubas of the regulew meeting of March 9, 1992 were
aid as spitted.
9. On a 3-0 `rote, the Washes of Feftuary 24th were with the
foLlwingrrodifiatfan:
Item 3, secu d Paragraph - Ocmoittee Mm bw Jackson stated that able,
would abstain from discussicn of this item duce to conflict of
interest.
mattes YAWber Jackson asked staff to look into an 4 Uepl sign for Sys
Liquors at the camw of Homestead and Blaney. 91he discussed the issue of nem
signs throughout the city and suggested that the other camuttse members lac
at ctter cities and see that they also have a grcblem with an over
proliferaticn of neon signs.
Cmuittee asked staff to find coat what other cities do abut nem signs.
Ommittee Ymdmr Weber asked staff to rg9aae the neon lights in OwXere m
Ron A tG true color lights. He asked staff to look into the sign at An-jan
Feed store. He also asked staff to Look into ompliance with the sign: cue for
billboard signs throu0jout the city.
7he Conamittee Members then discussed aendizing the sign cridumme an the next
ASAc agenda in oast to discs a work plan, scope of work, and to sat goaas
for the sign ordinance.
RE Wvw- COW
S1PP
Staff updated the Committee Members on code aroement actions.
b
Ttm Robillard stated that: there was no further update from the last aeetmV.
k =...> �.'.2� � Men.,'..-. +'S` �i? x� F•'k � '.h...i." £ _
U
s r..
�q
1