Loading...
May 8, 1968CITY ®F ' CUPERT TO'� Mate ®f C€�13 °�s�°nia 10.800, T orre ' .venue, Cupertino, California 95014 Phone, 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE, ARCHITECTURAL AND. SITE CONTROL CCNUTTEE HELD MAY 891968 IN THE COUNCIL CIDERS CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIF®RM The meeting was called to order at 8,00 porno by .Chairman Small, who call to order sifbsequently led. the assemblage in the flag salute a flag salute CommitteIe members present. Fitch, Irwin, Small. Absent-. Member r present,. Chief Building Inspector Benevich9 Recording roll' call Aguilar. uila.. � .Also �° g P g p I Secretary Matzley. There -were no written communications. no written Mrs M. W. Smith of 8o99 Piesidio DriveCupertino, addressed the Committee protesting the de`�ris around, and the.general appearance of,, .the , peedee Mart located -op pos'; e... e idio Drive e stated that .he , had. contacted `the p °opri�tor f the.. market asking him to placa a trash .receptacle on �the:premise`s:o, A cardboard`box had been F placed, in front of the store after the request but this box is nest at the e t a �° cones were -protest always in evidence- Mr. Smith said th *� y.p P littering,an area some 660 feet around the mart°and wondered what, voiced if anything9 had been requested. in the way of trash receptacles when the ...Speedee Xart application was originally approved.. Further, if this bod. had legal power to not 'only induce t'e operator of the mart to clean up the premises but also to insist that the landscepin. i be maintained. Member Fitch said that he concurred. with Mr. Smith and asked that i ed.iat action be taken> Mr. Fitch further 'asked if the Speedee action Mart had a permit for 'operating the Ice Machine which is located.` requested on the.outeide of the mart There was considerable- discussion on this subject during which it was ascrertained that the application- in question (65®HCm67): had: bee denied by this body with a .5 0 Vote but that this decision had been reversed by the City Council with the proviso that the building be turned- to 9® degr .and o The 'members felt that.s sine the discussions application was deny ed, by .this body,, no.conditions could. have beery attached to the approval and that it would probably be' most difficult tonf®�° ce9nditions now. All members a%�d that t�ae be given a . copy of,theminutes of the meeting at which this applications was denied for reference Member Irwin moved, MemberFitch seconded..,and it was, passed unani- mously that the Chief Building Insptetb be instructed to contact ; the operator of the Speadee Mart about the iaintenancIa of his land- clean-up soaping and to request that garbage containers be placed at, strategic .quested. locations. Further, that the entire area, be cleaned up and ma.intalne ' which is assured to be part of the original applications regardless of what the meeting minutes state. page 2 minutes approved applications 335-HC-68 present- ation staff report statements discussion by members opinion by chairman information requested Minutes of H Control May 8, 1968 HC-9 Upon the motion of Member Irwin and the second of Member Fitch," which motion was passed unanimously, the minutes of the April 24, 1968 meeting of this body were approved as printed. Applications A. 335-HC-68a Powell & Lee, Inc. San Antonio and Second, Los Altos, requesting approval for an excerption to Ordinance #353, Section 6.041 to allow installation of pole sign at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bianchi Way. Mr. Bill Powell explained, by way of drawings and architectural renderings, the proposed pole sign and showed, by way of overlays, suggested alternatives to the sign which could also be placed on the roof of the building. Upon being questioned by the Committee members, Chief Building Inspector Benevich stated that the applicant was requesting an exception to the sign Ordinance to install a pole sign for which his property does not qualify as it meets neither the 210 lineal feet of public roadway nor the fifty foot set -back requirements, Mr. Benevich said that the roof sign would be within the Ordinance limitations as long as it does not overhang the foundation lines. Mr. Powell indicated that, although identification was an important consideration in requesting the pole sign, he was mainly interested in enhancing the building and creating an aesthetically tleasing impression. Chairman Small said that he had personally viewed Mr. Powell's building and that, in his opinion, the applicant had lived up to everything"he promised by putting in sidewalks, eliminating the garage, installing the front entrance and re -wiring the building. Member Irwin stated that, no matter how the conditions to the Use Permit were adhered to, this body is interested solely in the business at hand, i.e the applic- ants request for an exception to the sign Ordinance. Chairman Small further stated that he was personally opposed to roof signs and that the proposed pole sign was some seven feet lower than the allowable height and that there was a distance of at least 300 feet between the proposed pole sign and the nearest existing one. Member Fitch asked Chairman Small if he could afford the members some background information on how the restrictions for the control of pole signs were established. Chairman Small stated that the 210 lineal foot requirement was practically picked out of the air and certainly established arbitrarily. Minutes of H Control. may $9 196$ .page 3 335-HC-68 cont'a Chief-Builaing inspector BeneV ch disagreed and said that the res f°i do as had: cojie a` ut because the City Counncll.' had .considered the .sma' ll pr'®pbrt-ies � fro_ nting, Stevens Cree Boulevard w- icb. are inspector -ohed _66 ef°c al and,. to avoi :..pole signs in front* of biiil :ing9 defends .. had restricted the lineal footage... Mr tenevich stated: that -this ordinance sign Ordinance and its restrictions had been anything but picked but -of the air but had been decided upon over seven, drafts to give adequate protection to the City of Cupertino. Member Fitch reiterated that many discussions on the sub 'ect had: taken place and that the City Council had 'been most adamant in main- tain ng both the lineal footage and the set -back and that he saw, opinions no reason not to, abide by the Council's decision. Mr'. Fitch was of expressed the opinion that,, since this is a request for a variance., the City Council should be the deciding authority. Chairman Stall said that the pole sign was so"close to qualifying;. that it should be viewed on its, aesthetic merits and attractive appearance, I and twat ' it should be remembered. that `this is .a .new application and it should be treated: As such especially in Light of the confusion surrounding Mr. Powell: ° s first application. Member Irwin moved;that.spplicatioh 335.-)FIC-6$ he recommended for approval on the basis that the sign as "submitted is architecturally more pleasing than thealternate roof sign, subject to the standard conditions with the plans and prints as submitted application stressed: mot ion lacks second. As there was no second forthcoming to this motion, Chairman Small `.hair sec exercised the right of the Chair and seconded. -the motion. motion. .Ayes o Members Irwin and Small Noes o Member Fitch Absent o Member Aguilar Chairman Small advised the applicant that his application would he discu.ssced at the City Council meeting 'to be held. May 209 1963e 335-HC-68 approved 337-HCm6$ Mr.' Reynold Watson presented the application by the use of artists renderings, plot plans and, drawings and said that this property was located adjacent to the existing Gemco Store in. Cupertino. Further, present - that according to the desires expressed by the City Council, this at -ion presentation encompasses the entire balance of the project, which will consist of a restaurant fronting on Stevens Creek Boulevard and a retail store operation fronting on Saich Way. 11 B. 337-HC-6$e Reynold Me Watson, $23 Na Humboldt, San Mateo; requesting approval to construct two buildings, a restaurant and a -retail and office building located: on tot, #19 at the corner of Stevens Creek Boul,evardAt"and. Saich Way. page 4 present- ation plans discussed new methods explained lighting discussed identity stressed architecture viewed statements Minutes of H Control May 8, 1968 HC-9 337-HC-68 cont'd Mr. Watson stated that the restaurant was located 129' from Stevens Creek Boulevard with a seating capacity of 69 people, that it is neither a takeout nor a drive-in restaurant, and that this was a new venture by General Foods Corporation who had recently acquired the Burger Chef operations; further, that this restaurant represents the first of a national chain of such restaurants throughout the United States and features latest innovations. The applicant said that the design had been incorporated with the retail operation maintaining the original colonial design with a number of improvements, and that negotiations were underway to interest finance companies in leasing the retaii/office building. Mr. Watson said that the building was designed in modules allowing adjustment to any desired floor size. Mr. Dale Ellers, the project architect., explained that a new system had been devised by which smoke, heat and grease are dispensed through sub- mergence in a spray bath, the equipment for which is placed under the hood of the chimney and all appurtenances are hidden under the roof. Mr. Ellers stated that the landscaping and site plan varies little from that previously submitted except that the proposed pole sign would be surrounded by landscaping, it would `be a total of eighty square feet and thus within the 3% gross floor building area allowance. When Mr. Ellers explained that the restaurant building will show two sides of lighted facia , continuing and internally illuminating General Food's standard trademark, the identifying diamond insignia also shown on the pole sign, Chief Building Inspector Benevich immediately cautioned that the identifying diamond insignia lighting on the facia would out- line the building and is, thus, considered a sign. The applicant stated that this lighted facia insignia would give the operators of the chain identification and is, apart from the diamond that appears on the pole sign, the only identifying mark left. Further, that the lighted facia would provide sufficient lighting for the parking area in front of the restaurant and that the parking spaces for the other building would be illuminated by lanterns. The members discussed the basic architecture and found it in good order and quite pleasing, When the landscaping plans were discussed, concrete berms and stops for adequate protection of not only the parking lot but the two existing and the one proposed mature tree as well as a sprinkler system were requested and agreed upon by the applicant. Mr. Watson reiterated that the lighting effect was critical to his tenant, and thus to him, and asked. approval of the facia lighting subject to the density being acceptable to all parties concerned. opinion The Committee members asked that the Chief Building Inspector give requested them the benefit of his opinion. 0 Minutes of H Control may 89 1968 HC-9 page ..5 A 337mHCm68 cont `d • Mr. B6nev ch- ststed that,. unequivocally, this diamond` facia is alp attracting device and as such considered a sign which,, in turn, j_ s governed by the sign Ordinance. When, asked by the Ce itt4,e members if it Would make a difference if a configuration. other than the diamond were used,_ Mr. Benevich replied -that-, although the'build.ing was gall designed and: architectirrally sounds the. lighting would provide a circus effect and should be eliminated. He s.uggest6d9 however, that the lighting could be placed under the eaves excluding the diamonds. Much discussion ensued among the Committee members during which the fact that the facia lighting was also utilized. to light the parking area was repeatedly stressed. The members also considered the intensity and color of subdued lighting -When When asked the applicant stated that there ware two considerations for the lighted facia request one of which was that no high intensity would be allowed on the building lights and the other that much time and money had been spent to convince the tenant to agree to the pro- posed set=back of the building. fir. Watson said, should the ident- ifying sign bo taken away, he would have to start all over again and perhaps suggest that the building be moved to a location much closer to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Member Irwin wondered if the tenant would,.` still insist on the facia lighting if, the building were placed, chaser to Stevens Creek and the applicant replied that the tenant would insist upon the identifying sign regardless of the location of the building. Chief Building Inspector Benevich reiterated, the necessity for considering the lighted insignia as a sign because it is a trade- mark, has a diamond on the facia area and is an attracting device regardless of the intensity of the lip �eus. He read Section 4.20 of the sign Ordinance, which verbiage confirmed his contention that the proposed facia lighting is to be governed by the sign Ordinance. In answer to questionsby the Committee ?embers, Mr. Benevich allowed that there are several, instances of lighted facias in the City, all of which had been installed prior to the inception of the. sign Ordinance,.hut did not feel that the sign -Ordinance should be defended. It was his opinion that this applicant was adamant in retaining the sign because of its advertising ,import- ance "and suggested that a legal interpretation relative to the proposed lighted facia be obtained from the City attorney, and . that this matter.b.e postponed until such time as this opinion can be. obtained from:, the City Attorney to afford. the pity Council abasis upon which to base their decision. I statements by the inspector discussions alterhative suggested ordinance cited; legal interpret- ation requested page 6 337-HC-68 approved with conditions motion amended clarifi- cation further amendment points clarified recess 338-HC-68 present- ation 338-HC-68 approved with exception Minutes of H Control May 8, 1968 337-HC-68 cont'd Member Irwin moved to recommend Application 337-HC-68 for approval, subject to the ten Standard Conditions, with the plot plan, artist's rendering and .landscaping plans as submitted,, with the specific proviso that the lighting on the facia of tae: restaurant be approved as conforming with the literal interpretation of the sign Ordinance by the City Attorney. Member Fitch seconded. Member Irwin amended his motion tc state that the facia lighting in question is as shown on the artist's rendering minus the diamonds. Member Fitch agreed to include th-is and furtJ.�?er explain that the lighting is to be subdued and directed to act as parking lighting and not as a sign lighting, clarifying this further so that it could be interpreted as not being just a sign but as a rather unique handling of parking lighting, Mr. Irwin further amended his motion to state that the diamonds be removed from ''the facia lighting and the lighting to be subdued and directed as a, parking lighting. Member Fitcb seconded. After he seconded the amendment, Mnm:bFr Fitc a asked that the record show the thoughts of the Committee members in allowing the motion and the amend iernt to sta.-nd because i+, was b_9ought out in the dis- cuss'ons that the I.1ghting on the facia De subdued and directed to be considered as 111ghting for t'ne--&rk-,--ng lot, the :powering of the lighting to be e6tablished by some met"llod of loira•ring and the in- tensity of the light-i ng to be .such that i-r. 4-s not objectionable. HC-9 The amendment was passed ian&aimously, after wh'_c-n the original motion passed 3 - 0a Chairman Small called a recess at 10o00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10015 p.m. C. 338-C-68° Louis R. Chetaud, 11706 Shadow Creek Place, Los Altos; requesting approval to construct a two-story townhouse type triplex, to be located. in La Crest° Unil t #2. Mr. Louis Chetaud explained the plot plau and architectural renderings and stated that, although the _��endering showed a mature tree in front of the proposed triplex, there would be a, tree but not necessarily one of the size drawn. Member Fitch moved to recommend Application 338-HC-68 for approval, per the elevation and plot plans as submitted, subject to the ten standard conditions, with the landscaping as shown on the rendering with the exception of the mature tree. Member° Irwin seconded and it was passed unanimously, indicating that the Planning Commission's checklist had been reviewed and applied to this application. Minutes of H Control May 85 1968 D. 339-HC-68.- Sharon Sondrol, 3358 Stevens Creek Boulevaird,,San Zos'e'9 requesting approval to erect a 6', x 1P-"*obd carved pole signs to be located at the proposed beauty shop at 2076o Stevens Creek Boulevard. Sinc'e the applicant was not presentg Member Fitch moved, Member Irwin seconded and it was passed unanimously that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. E. 34o-Hc-680 R.W. Young,, 90 E. Gish Roads Ban Jose; requesting approval to construct a 7-11 store to be located on Homestead Road, 1661, west of Woranda Drive. Mr. A. Van Hoog came forward. and explained that he was present at this meeting as both the architect and the builder were unable tol'appear. In looking at the submitted data, the members immediAtely ascertained that this application needed a Tentative Mapq and, Chief Building In- spector Benevich stated that the applicant had beep: advised of this necessity and would obtain sameg but that hat the application could be reviewed at this time if all other data was.,in.1ordero Member Irwin moved, Member Fitch seconded and it was passed unani- mously that Application 34o-Kc-68 be continued to the next regular meeting for the following reasons-. 1) lack of Tentative Map; 2) non- appearance by applicant; 3) insufficient numter of parking spaces; and 4) no provision for a,,masonry wall on the application. Unfinished Business Chief Building Inspector Benevich was asked if the Speedee Mart dis- cussed under "Oral Communications" had a permit to operate an Ice Machine on the premises. Mt. Benevich replied that the .City frowns on this practice but has no jurisdiction as it is located on the property. it was suggested that this matter be discussed further at the adjourned meeting. Mr. Benevich stated that he was chosen Ex-Offio of this Committee for the sole purpose of bringing any Ordinance violation to the attention of this body since'a number of citizens attempt to cir- cumvent adherence to. City Ordinances. It was, his opinion that the, General Foods application was such an instance and thatP although he .approved. of the architecture, the proposed facia lighting was another attempt to squeeze by Ordinance requirements resulting in a gaudy, carnival-likesetting. HC-9 page 7 339-Hc-68 matter continued 34o-Hc-68 qualifying data missing 34o-HC-68 continued forlack of suppprtj data unf . bus. questions statements by -chief building ihspector page 8 new bus. later meeting requested adjournment Minutes of h Control May 8s 1968 HC-9 There was no new business. Member Irwin moved to adjourn this meeting to a later date to be estab- lished by the Chief Building Inspector to accommodate Application 337-HC-68, i.e. after the City Attorney's opinion has been obtained. Member Fitch seconded and it was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11-.00 p.m . ATTEST-. APPROVED E. J. Small Chairman n L-A 0