Loading...
April 10, 1968e CITY OF CUPERTINO9 State of California 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Phone: 252-4505 HC MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF, THE ARCHITECTURE AND SITE CONTROL COMMITTEE, HELD APRIL 10, 1968 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, .CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA � The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Irwin, who ,subsequently led the assemblage in the flag. salute'. Committee members.present Aguilar, Fitch, Small, Irwin. Also present, Chief Building Inspector Benevich9 Recording Secretary Matzleye Under the ,"Verbal Communications" portion of the agenda, Mrd'George Otsen of Otsen Sign Company asked to present an application for a sign relocation. The. Committee members.agreed that Mr. Otsenss request ,would be discussedas item Co under B°ApplicationsY. There were no written communications In referring to the March 27, 1968 minutes, specifically, Application., 328-H&-689 Member -Small requested that the minutes reflect the.follow- ing verbatim. clarification*. ya The applicant, Mr. Powell_, did submit a rendering of a sign to appear oar; the roof of. the building. It was the opinion by a 2 - l vote at the meeting of March 27, 1968 that the original motion for the granting of . the pole sign be re -affirmed by the Architecture and Site Control Committee and re -viewed by the City Council. I had.the opportunity call to order f lag ' sa lute roll call addition to, agenda , no written communications to attend the particular City Council meeting involved. The applicant clarification was notgivenan opportunity to present his side..and.in the interest of Minutes of;, girness it ..was the opinion of the Architecture and Site_ Control Committee that the City Council respectfully re-examine the application involved. Mr. Powell did not re -apply for a pole sign after the Council had denied the said sign,:,,, The reason for granting the application,was in the motion.of H Control's meeting -.of March 27, 1968. This is for clarification reasons only.'® Member Fitch asked that on Waage 5, fourth paragraph, under 11332-HC-6811 Item 16) read "that the architecture be compatible within.itself in the complex or that there be a continuation in the architectureP. Member Small moved, Member Fitch.seconded and it was passed unanimously that the minutes of March 27, 1968 be approved as corrected. Chairman: Irwin stated that; there were additional items to be dis- cussed in connection with Application 328-HCm68, and suggested that the members re-engage in.the matter under ",Unfinished Business". correction minutes approved items deferred page 2 applic- ations 290- HC- 67 present- ation staff report materials discussed 290- RC- 67 approved 333- HC- 68 member dis- qualified present- ation condition suggested Minutes of H Control April 10, 1968 ADDlications A. Application 290-HC-67, QRS Neon Company, 690 Potrero, San Francisco, requesting approval to erect a "7 - 11" trademark pole sign, to be located at 20455 Silverado Avenue. Mr. George Britt of QRS Neon Company stated that he had been in contact with the Chief Building Inspector relative to the proposed sign, and had been advised that he was allowed a 72 sq.ft. sign. Mr. Benevich stated that he had not been aware that the 7-11 stores have standards as far as signs are concerned but that the applicant was allowed a 72 sq.ft. sign. Also, that the reason for omitting the light on top of the sign, as specified in the minutes when the construction of the store was approved, was the close proximity of adjoining residences. The applicant said, in answer to questions by the Committee members, that the sign would be constructed of subdued plastic material with a xed' and green 7 - 11 on white background, and that the pole sign would be installed in the frontal planting area. Member Fitch moved to recommend Application 290-RC-67 for approval with the plans as submitted; further, that the top lighting fixture be omitted and that the sign shall have a maximum of 36 square feet per face. Member Aguilar seconded and it was passed unanimously. HC- 7 f Chairman Irwin advised the applicant to be present at the April 16, 1968 meeting of the City Council. B. Application 333-HC-68; Ad Art, Inc., P.O. Box 648, San Jose, requesting approval to erect a 21 x 616" "Florist" sign on the Cupertino Nursery pole sign, located at 10431 North Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. After Chairman Irwin had read the application title, Member Small stated that his wife is the florist in. this application and that he asked permission to be disqualified. Chairman Irwin concurred. Mr. Jim McClay of Ad Art, Inc. presented, by the use of an architectural rendering, the proposed sign which showed a "Cupertino Nursery" sign on the top of the pole, a "Florist" sign to the left and a reader board to the right of the pole. Mr. McClay stated that there would be no structural or engineering changes and that only a 4x6.6 sign would be added. Mr. Benevich cautioned that this sign would have to be placed in a protective surrounding. When the applicant stated that the pole sign was presently installed in concrete bumpers, Mr. Benevich maintained that, in order to preserve attractive impressions, H Control had previously insisted on planters not only to enhance the area but to protect the sign from being damaged. He suggested that this condition be made a part of the application. • • Minutes of H Control April 10, 1968 HCm7 page 3 Application 333-HC-68 coat° k Member Aguilar wondered if the florist was part of the nursery con- cession and if it could be construed as a shopping center. Mrs Benevich assured Member Aguilar that the florist was under the employ of the points' nursery and that the sign Ordinance permitted advertising under one clarified sign if the business is under one ownership, Member Aguilar felt that the sign was unattractive because it shows three different shapeso Member Fitch agreed with Member Aguilar stating that he would like to see a continuation of design by tying members the two existing signs and the one now being proposed together so views that it would not gave the impression of an add -one The applicant stated that the sign had sheen metal fins giving it character and design and since all signs would be painted in the statements same color this 'would make it "loop very attractive. Additional discussion ensued relative to centering the two lower signs to the top sign and/or have the "Cupertino Nursery" sign on, suggestions top, the "Florist" signs centered under it and the reader board in center under the "Florist" sign with a distance of 611 between each signs Mr, dim Small addressed the. Committee members saying that the -'florist addition is not a concession, that it is owned wholly by the Cuper= statement tiano Nursery and that Mrs. Small is the managing florists Theme was further discussion on the enclosure for the pole sign, such as raised concrete or asphalt berms or redwood planter boxes to afford some sort of obstructions for car bumpers. Mr. Beanevichn strongly advised against redwood planter boxes stating discussao-ni- than sooner.or later someone will damage' the boxes and until they are repaired the area will loops messy, and suggested that the sign should be protected on both sides by a raised concrete berm of suitable height with plantings. Member Fitch moved to recommend Application 333=HC-68. for approval 333®HC-W ' as per the plot plane and sign lay -out as submitted, with the ,added approved condition that the ,area beneath the sign will -have a 6 to 3 inch high wised berm complete with suitable plantings. As Member Small, had'disqualified himself, thus leaving only three Committee members, Member Irwin seconded the motion with Member Aguilar voicing a Y°No" vote. Chairman Irwin advised.the,applicant to appear before the City Council at their April 16, 1963 meetings page 4 334- HC- 68 present- ation staff opinion 334-HC-68 approved unf. bus. removal of sign re- quested letters cited text of first letter Minutes of H Control April 10, 1968 Applications - cont'd C. Application 334-HC-68: Otsen Sign. Company, requesting approval to relocate sign on "Red Vest" restaurant at 19930 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. George Otsen of Otsen Sign Company stated that the existing sign was presently located back against the face of the building. Also, that the oval sign on top of the existing sign would be removed, thus reducing the height of the sign, that there would be no change in the lighting or the color and that the wording "Bottle Shop" would be replaced by "Banquet Room" in the existing sign. Mr. Benevich advised the Committee members that by placing the sign to the front northeasterly border of the property, the existing planter and reader board sign would be omitted thus lessening the congestion in the front portion of the property, all of which would result in a great improvement. Member Aguilar moved to recommend Application 334-HC-68 for approval with the plans as submitted. Member Fitch seconded and it was passed unanimously. Again, Chairman Irwin advised the applicant to appear before the City Council at their meeting on April 16, 1968. Unfinished Business Chairman Irwin said that several weeks ago numerous minor infractions to the sign Ordinance had,been discussed. One of them had been the sign on the Car Wash at Silverado Avenue stating "Open - Car Wash". He said that the sign was still on the premises except that it now reads "Car Wash Open". Mr. Irwin maintained that the building is self- evident and that it is unmistakably clear what it is. He requested that steps be taken to have this sign removed. Further, in referring to Application 328-HC-68, Mr. Irwin stated that he had received two communications from the City Clerk in connection with that application, both of which he wanted to read into the record. HC- 7 The text of the first letter, dated April 3, 1968 addressed to Mr. Keith Irwin, 19843 Baywood Drive, Cupertino, is as follows: " At its meeting of April 1 the City Council did not understand that portion of the Architectural and Site Control Committee minutes of March 27, 1968 having to do with Application No. 328-HC-68. It was the unanimous opinion of the Council that if this particular application had been refiled it would be placed on the agenda for the Council meeting of April 16, 1968. If this had not been re - filed subsequent to the denial by the City Council on March 18, 1968 no further action would be taken. Would you please advise me prior to April 11, 1968 what the status of this is so that a determination as to whether or not it should be an agenda item can be made. 11 L6 11 Minutes of H Control April, 10, 1968 Unfinished Business cont°d The text 'of the second letter, dated April, 3, 1968 addressed to Mr'.' - William Powell, San Antonio at Second, Los Altos, with a carbon copy to Mr. Keith Irwin, reds as follows: 99 At its meeting of April 1, 1968 the City Council unanimously agreed that it would have been ,necessary for your application No, 328-HC-68 to have been refiled in order for the Council to take any further action. If -this particular application for a sign had been refiled sub- sequent to the CouncilBs previous denial it will be considered at an adjourned meeting of the City Council to be held at 8o00 p.m., April 16, 1968. If this particular application did not comply with the foregoing, no further action will be taken. �9 Both of the abode letters "were signed by Wm, 'E, Ryder, City Clerk, City of Cupertino, Mr. Irwin stated further that, in suubseq ent 66nWe"isations relative to this matter he had found the application to be "dead". However, in talking to Mr. Benevich and in an attempt to cla,ri£y.the confusion, it was ascertained that the applicant came in.for a sign exception, paid a fee of �25.00, was then denied the exception, then came back and filed for a sign within the confines of the sign Ordinance. At that time Mr. Benevich felt that no additional filing fee -should be charged and that the original application number could be retained When asked, Mr. Benevich stated that Mro Powell was well aware of the facts and realizes that application 328-HC-68 is 09dead". He has now. re= pplied for .& ,sign under a new number, the -,,,presentation of which would not be heard until the May 8th meeting as Mr. Powell is going through the entire filing and publication period of 21 days Further, that Mr. Powell will submit two,,sign proppsals so that :the Committee and the City Council can review both, Again, Member Small wanted the record to.show that his only point in connection with this application was the fact that, heaving per- sonally attended the City Council meeting under discussion, the applicant was not called upon to present his case and did not get a chance to even speak; Member Small maintained that the applicant Should have been givena chance to speakwhether or` not the City - Council agreed in approving the application. Member AVilar said the fact that Mr. Powell had submitted a roof sign at the last meeting of H Control, which sign was found to be unattractive, should have been stated in the minutes of that meeting to avoid further confusion, New Business After having read a portion, of Condition One of the ten Standard Conditions, Member Small wondered if the verbage was sufficient to discourage protruding appurtenances on building roofs from being surrounded by coverings even more unattractive, HC_ 7 page 5 text of second letter clarifying statements staff report point stressed memberes opinion questions asked page 6 ordinance verbage discussed staff suggestion ordinance amendment indicated reminder ordinance infractions reported statement adjournment) Minutes of H Control April 10, 1968 New Business - cont°d Discussion ensued on this matter and the Committee members felt that if an applicant is instructed to hide protruding appurtenances from view and he does so by enclosing them with some awful looking fencing, the purpose of the Ordinance has been defeated. Member Aguilar felt that the verbage should be specific enough to be clearly understood yet flexible enough to be applicable in any and all instances. Mr. Benevich suggested that perhaps a sub -paragraph could be included in the first Condition to the effect that H Control insists on examining plans for the installation and covering of appurtenances prior to the installation. The members agreed that the suggestion as made by the Chief Building Inspector was a very valid one and Chairman Irwin indicated that he would incorporate the suggestion in the verbage formulation for the proposed amendment to the ten Standard Conditions on which he is currently working. Mr. Benevich reminded the Committee members that a Chairman and Vice Chairman should be appointed at the next meeting of H Control. Chairman Irwin stated that he would also like to see the vacancy on H Control filled with a fifth member. Member Fitch noted the following infractions to various Ordinances within the City of Cupertino, asking that the Chief Building Inspector check into these matters: 1) the vacant area on the west side of Saich and Stevens Creek, south of the car wash which is cluttered with various debris; 2) the signs in the gas station on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek and Highway 85, which keep growing in number; 3) the "Patio Supplies" sign which is located on the Gemco store property; 4) the banner on the restaurant at. Highway 85 and Stevens Creek which is thought of as a sign. Member Small stated that the Pizza Parlor in the Portal Plaza Shopping Center had displayed a sign mounted on a truck on weekends, and asked that Mr. Benevich follow up on this. HC- 7 Member Aguilar moved, Member Fitch seconded and it was passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. AST: P APPROVED: ,Is/ Keith E. Irwin Chairman • Ex- Offici