August 9, 1967 ®ems
10300 Tome Avenue, Cupertino, California 95.014 Phone. 252®4505
C I T Y O F C U F E R T I N O
California
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TEE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COIKITTEE
August 9, ?: 67
TIME: 8.00 Polo
PLACE. Councii. Chamber, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II ROLL CALL
Comm. present. Aguilar, Klau.smeyer, Fitch
Como absent o Irwin, Kowitz
Staff present. Chief Building Ins, pgctor., Bill Benevich
Recording Secretary, Lois Inwards-
In the absence of bogs the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the seniority
rule was applied, and Como Fitch chaired the meeting.
III_ CONMUNICA:TIONS
Ao- WRITTEN
1. August 8th memo from the City Manager, per the Council e s
direction, relating a policy statement.
20 Letter ,of July 24 from Mr.. Dennis Burrow, asking that
application 280-KC-67 be withdrawn from the agenda.
Mr. Klausmeyer noted that ;although the letter was, written
on July 24th, it was received and date=stamped by the
Building Department on July 27tha
Moved by Comm. Aguilar, seconded .by Comm. Klausmeyer9 upon request
of:the applicant, to withdraw application 280-Hc-,67.from- the.
agenda at this time s° the opportunity t be granted: to the applicant
to file a new application when he so desires
t`
AYES. Comm. Aguilar, Klausmeyer, Fitch
NAYS. None.,
.ABSENT. Comoro Irwin, Kowitz
Motion carried, 3=0
I'
mlA ';
Moved by Comm. Aguilar, seconded by Comm. Klausmeyer, to receive
the written communications.
Motion carried, 3-0
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Several referrals from the County were brought to the atten-
tion of the Committee. Chairman Fitch said they would be
brought up under New Business.
IV MINUTES OF THE ARCH. & SITE CONTROL COMMITTEE MEETING OF
JULY 26, 1967.
Moved by Comm. Aguilar, seconded by Comm. Klausmeyer, to approve the
Minutes of July 26, 1967, as published.
AYES: Comm. Aguilar, Klausmeyer, Fitch
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Comm. Irwin, Kowitz
Motion carried, 3-0
V APPLICATIONS
A. Application: 283-HC-67, William M. Chance & Harold W. Tamka,
557 Willow Road, Menlo Park, requesting the Architectural and
Site Approval Committee to consider an Exception to Ordinance
353, Section 6.041; to be allowed to erect a pole sign on the
property, located on the east side of Highway 85, commencing
approximately 300' from the NE corner of Bollinger Road.
Mr. William Chance, 557 Willow Road, Menlo Park, read his letter of
July 14, 1967, to the Architectural and Site Approval Committee.
It is contained in these Minutes as Appendix A.
Mr. Chance said that on June 28th, the automatic car wash was
approved as submitted, with the exception that, due to the depth
of setback and the front footage, they would not qualify for a pole
sign. At that time, their plot plan indicated they were 714" too
close to the highway to qualify. They left the meeting with the
understanding they would use the same sign, only adapt it to a
roof sign instead of a pole sign. They have since found that a
roof sign would impose some very serious handicaps under which they
would have to operate.
Mr. Chance said this application is a request for the Committee to
consider a small exception to permit the proposed pole sign. They
have moved the building back 2' to the property line, so they are
now talking about 5'4" instead of 7'4". The plans were placed on
the bulletin board.
Section 6.041 of Ordinance 353 was read.
-2-
t It was established that the large parcel to the south of this
s is R-�3, but almost certainly will be rezoned to commercial. . The
parcel to the north is C-1, with 400' depth from the unimproved
right-of-way; rezoned by the County.
Mr. Klausmeyer asked if the applicant felt the size of the sign
and its location would determine whether or not this business
would be successful. The applicant felt 'it definitely wa;s a
contributing factor. He pointed out that the pole sign, if
granted, would be set within the planted area.
Comm. Aguilar noted the roof sign would: be set back some 44° f roar
the viewing public. He-`asked how the applicant; felt hay situation
was different from others o Mr. Chance said: a person could be in
serious jeopardy with a small parcel such as this if faced. with
Large parcels oft either side. Buildings could be placed: on
adjacent properties which could block ham out completely.
Chairmen Fitch raised the following points to die considered by
the Committee:
1.a We have a precedent.
20 The applicant has a lack of qualifications,
3. The applicant is asking for an Exception.
4. Is the City in error on these limitations set forth in
Section 6'oo4l of Ordinance No. 353?
It was pointed out that the applicant would have no problem being
seen with a roof sign at this time; however, a 'hardship could.
result with the development of adjacent properties'.
Chairman Fitch said thelimitations were set by the City after a
very thorough study of the matter. He pointed out that the
Committees must look at this matter, not only from the City°s
point of view; but also from the applicant°'s point of view.
Comm. Aguilar felt the--value of a Committee such as this is to use
discretion, 'based on the Ordinances and policies of the City and
on the members' previous experience. Each individual application
should be studied and discussed and acted. upon. The purpose -of
the Ordinance, in this case, is to avoid a cluttering of pole signs.
The facts indicate this property is narrow; however,, the parcel to
the south is considerably larger. The parcel to-the north has
considerable frontage also. Each would only be allowed one pole
sign.
Moved by Comm. Aguilar, seconded. by Chairman Fitch, to recommend
to the City Council approval of application 233-HC-67 as, submitted,
per the plans 9 specifications and oral representation by the
applicant.
a3o
f
I
Chairman Fitch was of the opinion that there would be a hardship in
this case, in view of his previous statements. He felt the applicant
had a sound request, based on that hardship.
AYES: Comm. Aguilar, Fitch
NAYS: None
ABSTAINED: Comm. Klausmeyer
ABSENT: Comm. Irwin, Kowitz
Motion carried, 2-0
Comm. Klausmeyer said the Committee has approved a pole sign in lieu
of a sign on the roof. He was not convinced, either way; therefore,
he did not wish to vote Aye nor Nay. A lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Richard Ray, 3117 Taper Avenue, Santa Clara, said that if they
were not granted the pole sign, which is smaller than that allowed,
they would have had to abandon that one and take full advantage of
the maximum allowable square footage for the roof sign.
B. Application 284-HC-67, Microwave Research and Development.
Attention of the Committee was directed to this application, which
will be brought before the Planning Commission on Monday, August 14th.
_Since time is of the essence in this case, the Committee was requested
to hold an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, August 16th, to consider
this application.
VI UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Indications are that the Produce Depot has cleaned up their area
and now intend to abide by the City's regulations.
B. The real estate office, located in the "old city hall", has made
some move to upgrade their advertising sign. The erratic printing
has been removed.
VII NEW BUSINESS
Referrals from the County were reviewed by the Committee:
A. County File No. 6A67.8
The proposed sign for Spic and Span Cleaners, 21666 Stevens Creek
Blvd., Monta Vista, was reviewed.
Moved by Comm. Klausmeyer, seconded by Comm. Aguilar, that although
the proposed sign is in keeping with existing signs on the building,
it would not comply with the standards set by the Cupertino Sign
Ordinance for the following reasons:
-4-
R
N
to If this sign represented one of a series of similar signs h
on this building, it contributed to a cluttered look.
20 In the event a roof sign is allowed as proposed, it should
not be placed beyond the foundation lines of the building.
3. We do not have sufficient information to comment on the size
of the sign area in relation to the size of the building.
Motion carried, 3-0
B. County File Noo 6A67o9
Moved by Comm. Aguilar, seconded by Comm. Klausmeyer, due to the
fact that this application for a screen shop in a bight Industrial
Zone on property that is immediately adjacent to the City of
Cupertino, we are requesting that the Planning Department ensure
that adequate parking is provided.
Motion carried, 3-0
Cm County File No. 6A67010
Moved by Comm, Aguilar, seconded by Comm. Klausman, in regard to
the proposed Mobil Service Station on the SE corner of Foothill
Blvd, and Stevens Creek Blvda9:n6ting that the City of Cupertino
seeks to maintain high level architecture, advised that subject
station should be as good as or better than the one at Stelling
Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. Further, the Committee recommended:
to Adherence to this Committee's 10 standard conditions, a copy
of which is being forwarded to the .County.
20 Compliance with our present Sign Ordinance; specifically,
no revolving signs.
3. Good landscaping and maintenance of same.
Motion carried., 3-0
VIII ADJOt3RMENT
i
Moved by Comm, Aguilar, seconded by Comm. Klausmeyer, to adjourn
the meeting to Wednesday, August 16th, 3 P.M., City Hallo
Meeting adjourned at 10030 P.M.
i
Motion carried, 3-0
APPROVED.
ST:
/s/ Guy Wo Fitch
Acting Chairman
Chief Building n ector
eye
i
i
i
APPENDIX TO THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
OF_AUGUST 9, 1967
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is the letter of July 14, 1967, from Mr. William Ma Chance to
the Architectural and Site. Control Committee:
"Gentlemen:
"With reference to the application of the undersigned dated July 5, 19672
requesting an Exception to Section 6.041 of Sign. Ordin.annce 353, said
section, in defining where ground signs shall be permitted, ,reads,,As
follows.
"'Ground signs shall be gn permitted on all lots with at least 210;feet of
linear frontage on a public right-of-way., and on lots with less than 210
feet of frontage where the building set-back is 50 feet deep or more•. °
"The size of applicant's lot is 100' x 150' and therefore the erection of
a ground sign thereon would. normally be subject to the building set-back
requirement of 50 feet
"The size of applicant''s car wash building is 24 feet in width by a depth
of- 105 feet`, 4 inches, and consists of 6 car stalls each 15 .feet: in_width
plus an equipment room. Overall dimensions are at an absolute minimum;
"With the rear of the building now set at the rear property line, the
setback is exactly 44' feet, 8 inches, or a variance of only 5 feet 4
inches from the amount stipulated under Section 6>0410
"Applicant most'earnestly desires to erect a ground sign within the plant,.
ing area at the front of his property, as shown on the elevation and site .
plans accompanying his previous application No. 281-He-67, and hereby
requests an' Exdeption of 5 feet, 4 inches in the building set-back require-, .
mment for ground. signso
i
"The following reasons and statements in support of applicaaat's ,request
are respectfully submitted.-
"I- Due to the special design and use of the building as a car wash, i
including traffic flow,, drying and parking areas, it is not possible4 to
locate the building at the front of the property in order to derive. benefit
of a. roof sign installed at that point.
"2- The depth of .the building cannot be reduced in order to gain 51411 of
additional set-back except at the expense of eliminating an entire car
stall. This would be' economically prohibitive.
"3- A roof sign (the.a,l.ternative to a front ground sign), if installed
on this building will be set back not only 44,811 from the front property
line, but a total. of 65 feet from the nearest northbound traffic lane on
Highway 99 (allowing 10' for the sidewalk and another 10' for the parallel
parking lane).
i
r
dxo
_ _ i
APPENDIX TO THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
OF AUGUST 9, 1967
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4- The size of the sign proposed by applicant is exactly 5' x 5' , or a
mere 25 square feet per each viewable side. This sign is also 25 square
feet less than the maximum allowable for this building under the Sign
Ordinance, being the only standard size available from the car wash equipment
manufacturer which falls within the sign area formula as set forth in the
Ordinance.
"5- Both applicant and his Lessee-Operator are of the considered opinion
that if this small sign were to be set back, as a roof sign on this building,
some 65 feet from the nearest traffic lane, it would have little, if any,
practical advertising value or effect in the operation of this car wash.
"6- Applicant calls the attention of the Committee to the future development
of the large acreage parcels adjoining applicant's lot both on the north and
the south sides. The property on the south side has approximately 210 feet
of highway frontage which, together with C-1-H zoning permits a building on
this parcel to be located at any point that may be desired,-without any
set-back requirements whatsoever.
"Applicant submits that it is entirely possible that new construction on that
parcel could completely block the car wash building from view of north-bound
traffic on Highway 9, in which event a small roof sign on the car wash would
be completely useless.
"This is to say nothing of what the situation would be if the view of the car
wash were to be equally blocked by new construction on the north side,-and
the only advertising on applicant's property was a small roof sign hidden
from sight between two large buildings on each side.
"In conclusion, the applicant respectfully submits that the Exception to
the Sign Ordinance applied for is in harmony with the general purpose of said
Ordinance, and that the following criteria are valid and applicable in support
of the granting of said Exception;
"a.- That there are special conditions beyond the control of the applicant
in the construction of a standard 6-bay car wash building on his lot which
result in a small variance in the building set-back requirement for a
ground sign.
"b.- Literal enforcement of the building set-back requirement of Section 6.041
will result in unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the spirit and intent
of Ordinance 353.
"c.- An Exception of 5'4" in the building set-back requirement for a ground
sign would in no ways be contrary to, nor materially detrimental to public
interest and welfare, or injurious to conforming signs in the City of
Cupertino.
-II-
6
APPENDIX TO THE ARCHITECTURAL A,RD SITE APPROVAL C® TTEE 1YETING NllBUTES
. OF AuGus,r 9 9 1967
--- -----------moo. .®--®-----------o®®mm®---
99do= Applicant already has sustained a substantial loss in advertising.,
although self-imposedg in that he is compelled to erect a sign which is
33-1/3% less in size than the maximum allowableg as previously stated;
and it is the opinion of applicant as well as the Lessee-Operator that if
the Exception is not granted in order that a front ground sign may be
erected; this car- wash operation will be without any truly effective
advertising for automobile traffic on highway 9g -with a resultant reduc-
tion in business well.below that of its capacity and potential.
He.- The Exception to be granted is one that will require the least
modification and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose.
"The height and area of the proposed sign meet the requirements of the
Sign Ordinanceg while the colon design and materials incorporated in the
sign have been previously approved by both. the Architectural and. site
Control Co .ttee and the City Council o B4
i
i
i
�IIIm