September 19th, 1973I
11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
Telephone: 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL COM2,1ITTEE ON SEPTEMBER.19, 1973 IN THE LIBRARY
CONFERENCE 'ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman McLaren with the
Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Dressler (7:35), Koenitzer, Sallan, Weinstein
and Chairman McLaren
Members absent: None
Staff present: Associate Planner Robert Cowan
Senior Planning Technician Toby Kramer
Recording Secretary Ruth Cox
POSTPONEMENTS: None
WRITTEN COMKUNICATION:None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
REVI94 OF CHAJ\TGE OF COPY ON SIGN FACE:
1. Golden West Sign Company (Lambertys Photo) 'requesting
change of copy of an existing sign located at 10325
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Continued from H-Control meeting
of September 5, 1973.
Chairman McLaren announced that Mr., Robert Dempster who would be
representing the applicant had something very important coming up
at the Council meeting and had asked to be heard at the end of the
agenda.
Member Sallan so moved, seconded by Member Koenitzer.
Motion carried, 4-0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
2. Discussion of final draft relative to Design Criteria
Guidelines for the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard.,
H,C - -0, 1
Page
He-91
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBERI9, 1973 H-CONTROL MEETING
Chairman McLaren commented her only objection to the outline as presented
was the wording of (a) under Signing. She would prefer having the wording
used in the study of May 18, 1973, "All ground signs for the site shall be
low profile monumental type signs. Variety of heights shall be allowed
depending on the building and landscaping heights".
Member Koenitzer said tie felt the height should be included to demonstrate
what was meant by "low profile". He referred to two recent applications
for signs 10' and 14' in height, neither of which met the definition of
low profile.
Member Sallan said she felt a maximum limit should be set as developers
could read different meanings into the wording of "low profile".
Chairman McLaren asked if there had been any applications for balance of
property. Mr. Cowan said no, there were two vacant lots but the staff
had no knowledge what would be going in.
Member. Sallan noted several minor corrections to draft. On page 2, under
(b) of Architectural Iheme, the seventh line should read, "to an off-white,
very light beige or other light, subdued earth tones".
Under (a) of Signing, Member Sallan suggested the phrase "with regard to
landscaping" be deleted.
Member Dressler ascertained the maximum height range would be from the
sidewalk grade, with the third line under (a) of Signing to read "maximum
height range between six (6) to eight (8) feet from the sidewalk grade".
At Member Sallan's suggestion, (b) under Signing was changed to read
"Building signs will be determined ;:or each application in accordance
with the type and size of establishment".
The committee agreed to add condition under Building and Landscaping
Setbacks.
f. Landscaping on street setbacks next to parking lots shall
contain plantings designed to screen the parked cars.
A discussion was held as to what was meant by "screening"; Member Sallan
noted she would be comfortable with total. screening. It was agreed this
could be determined at the hearing cf_ the individual applications.
Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of Design Criteria Guidelines
for the northwest quadrant of the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Stevens
Creek Boulevard intersection. Seconded by Member Sallan.
AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Sallan, Weinstein and Chairman
McLaren
NOES: None
Motion carried, 5-0
r
�J
I
C
a
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19,1973 H-CONTROL MEETING IiC-91
Page 3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the regular meeting of September 5, 1973 Approval of
Or, page 3, paragraph 2, Member Koenitzer wished to insert "in the minutes ofSeptembers 5,
parking lot islands" between the words "plants" and "could"1973
On page 5, paragraph 5, Member Koenitzer wished this to read "Mr.
Bagar explained to Member Koenitzer that the rear door was to the
garage of the new duplex unit. There is also a door into the.new
garage for the old -house." a
Also on page 5, paragraph 11, Member Koenitzer said it was his k�
recollection that an existing elm and two apricot trees would be.
retained. 5
Page 8, paragraph. 1, Member Koenitzer wished the minutes to reflect
the sign would contain three names, "Parham, Cabral and Cabrillo
Realty" a
On page 10, the 76 Service Station should be changed to Shell 'Servicd
Station.
Member Koenitzer also noted that under New Business, the request
was made.of staff to get slides of low profile signs in other
cities.
Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Sallan, that the minutes
be approved as corrected. Chairman McLaren abstained.
Motion carried, 4-0-1
REVIEW OF CHANGE OF COPY ON SIGN FACE:
1. Golden West Sign Company (Lambert's Photo) requesting
change of copy of an existing sign located at 10325
Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Continued from H-Control meeting
of September 5, 19730
Staff report. Mr. Cowan. showed slides of existing sign on site.
He noted this was a change' of copy on a non -conforming sign.
The 1260 square foot building is allowed 37 square feet of, signing;
c-an is about 40 square feet.
Chairman McLaren ascertained the present sign on building is a
temporary sign.
Lambert's
Photo for
change of
copy
11C-91
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 H-CONTROL MEETING
Member Koenitzer ascertained the can involved was an existing one.
Mr. Robert Dempster, Attorney,20325 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
said he was representing the owner of the building. He gave background
of property and reasons for asking for signs. He said the location of
the building made more coverage mandatory. Mr. Dempster noted they would
like to leave wall sign on building.
It was pointed out to Mr. Dempster that a separate application would
have to be made for a sign exception.. Chairman McLaren referred to
ordinance section covering exceptions. Mr. Cowan advised the applicant
ithis would entail a Public Hearing.
Member Sallan asked staff what the report would be under new sign ordinance.
Mr. Dempster said legally the committee must base their decision on existing
ordinance.
It was ascertained the cam would be the same colors as wall sign on
building, externally illuminated, 23 square feet on each side or a total
of 46 square feet.
Member Dressler noted the sign was bigger than ordinance allows; Mr.
Cowan said the sign was non -conforming in several aspects, but committee
could recommend if they so desired.
Member Dressler questioned continuing to approve non -conforming signs.
Mr. Cowan explained the City Attorne;, had advised staff that ground signs
even though non -conforming, can remain and copy can be changed. Non-
conforming signs cannot be modified - can change copy but not structure.
Member Sallan suggested putting a moratorium on sign applications until
ordinance revised. She said she would like to continue until this section
of ordinance was revised.
CLange of copy. I After further discussion, Member Kocnitzer moved to approve change of copy •
approved �as presented in drawings. Seconded by Chairman McLaren.
AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Weinstein and Chairman McLaren
NOES: Member Sallan
notion carried, 4-1
Member Sallan explained her preference would have been to wait on application
until sign ordinance was revised, or that sign be considered temporary.
A discussion ensued regarding time limit on non -conforming signs.
At 8:30 p.m., Chairman McLaren turned the meeting over to Vice -Chairman
Sallan as she had to attend the City Cotincil meeting.
Member Weinstein reported fie would be entering the hospital and would
be absent from several meetings.
3
I
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 H-CONTROL MEETING
3. Discussion of Sign Ordinance
Before Leaving,' Chairman McLaren presented her comments on the.
tentative outline for new sign ordinance.. She said she was in
agreement but noted there would be further discussion and study.
Mr. Cowan then described the sentence outline of staffs preference
for structure of new sign ordinance. They -would like to tie ordin-
ance change with changes in General ,Plan. Major problem seemed to
be commercial signing. Now have one ordinance that deals with
commercial land uses; Council leaning toward specialized type zones.
The merits of having a separate section of the sign ordinance
regulate each type of commercial was opposed to a single ordinance
covering all types of commercial was discussed.
Vice -Chairman Sallan noted problems in the past with shopping
centers that have restaurants in them. Ordinance should be designee
to reflect fewer signs; restaurants seem to provide justification
for separate signing.
A discussion was held on how much exposure is necessary for shoppin4
centers and the shops in them. Staff was asked to get pictures of
shopping centers with different types of signing. Input from sign
representatives was suggested.
Member Koenitzer suggested an. informal introduction to sign
ordinance that set forth specific goals and objectives for signing
in -Cupertino; a breakdown with general philosophical statement for
each section.
It was suggested that perhaps "definitions" could be the topic
discussed at the next meeting.
Vice -Chairman Sallan asked if there were any sections in the ordin-
ance the committee felt it was essential to change, such as gi
Section 5011 covering ground signs. The staff was asked to con-
tact the City Attorney for guidelines on getting rid of ground
signs. A time limit to be allowed for conforming to new ordinance
was discussed.
Member Weinstein referred to measurement of intensity of ill.umina- �
tiono He suggested a consultant be hired. Member Koenitzer noted
the City has to have some way of measuring intensity to determine
if standards are being met.
H C-91
Page 5
Sign ordinance
Discussion
U
0
HC-91 {� MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 H-CONTROL, MEETING
P age 6
Vice -Chairman Sallan said there were two areas that were very important:
(1) maximum height of signs and (2) the area of square footage in signs.
Different criteria for setting size of signs were discussed. It was noted
that visual characteristics must be included in consideration of sign size.
After a lengthy discussion, Vice -Chairman Sal -Ian suggested leaving the
t wording of ordinance to the staff a_id City Attorney; the committee should
:..come up with philosophical reasoning and then put numbers to it.
n
Temporary and political signs were discussed. It was felt the City should
;.have some way of making sure temporary signs are taken down. A deposit
c large enough to make it worthwhile to take signs down was suggested.
City entrance signs were briefly discussed.
Vice -Chairman Sallan gave a resume of what had been discussed:
(1) Sign objectives
(2) Non -conforming signs
(3) Illumination of signs
(4) Height and area of signs
(5) Temporary and political si;;ns
Staff member Cowan said he would li'.ce to see some meat put into outline. The
staff is to get a statement from the City Attorney which will be given to the
committee as input to their study.
It was suggested that the committee look at signs, take pictures and use
those that are pleasing as examples.
OLD BUSINESS:
Texaco stationl Staff member Kramer reported that the Texaco station on Homestead had been .
contacted and owner would try to clean it up.
Union 76 The Union 76 Station owned the trucks parked in back and used them in their
Station business. Owner felt the gas stations were being picked on.
Shell station Signs on Shell Station at Stevens C-eek Boulevard and Highway 9 were to be
checked.
Temporary signs Member_ Dressler asked about temporary tire sale signs at Shell stations; 45
day limit was up. It was suggested perhaps a deposit could be put on
temporary signs of this nature also.
a
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 H-CONTROL MEETING
Member Koenitzer asked about the proposed meeting on newspaper racks.
Ms. Kramer reported the Postmaster did not want the racks on their
property and the City does not want them on. theirs. Member Koenitzer
noted his main concern was getting them off the public sidewalks.
NEW BUSINESS:
Vice -Chairman Sallan introduced the subject of the Council's overrule
on the Bumbleberry application. She said she realized the Council
was entitled to overrule, but her concern was their reason for so
doing which was that since the application request was for less than
maximum square footage allowed under the ordinance, it should be
allowed. She felt perhaps in this instance the ASAC should interact
by letter or conference with the Council to let them know the
committee's philosophy involved in cutting down size requirements.
She reported one of the Councilmen felt the committee should be- b acke
up unless they grossly abused their guidelines, while others felt the
committee was being restrictive with applicants and developers. She
felt the committee was acting well within the ordinance.
Member Weinstein said he felt that the City Council in overruling, or
making any decision on these applications, was operating on less
information and the ASAC was better qualified He felt when the
Council did not agree with the committee`s decision, perhaps it would
be better for them to automatically return the application to this
committee for further consideration with an expression of their
concern.
Vice -Chairman Sallan suggested a minute order to the City Council con-
taining a philosophical statement of the way the committee believes
they are operating within the framework of the ordinance. Member
Weinstein said he would agree if the committee went one step further i
and opened the possibility that City Council return any.application j
they did not agree with. Member Koenitzer pointed out that there
had been a disagreement between the committee, so he did not see how
returning it would have helped and would have cost the applicant
several weeks delay. He also pointed out that the committee had been
backed up by the Council. in most cases.
Vice -Chairman Sallan expressed her concern that the applicant had
not designed a 3/4 size sign in conformance with the committee's
request, but had fully intended to go to Council with their original
request. She said she would like to see the applicant do everything,
in depth in response to the committee`s wishes rather than have the
Council overrule.
HC-91
Page 7
Council
overrule
HC-91 MINUTES OF THE SEPTE':MER 19, 1973 It -CONTROL MEETING
Page 8
fmember Koenitzer said he felt this was the point where Council might
Wwish a meeting since the Council felt the ordinance gave
each applicant the right to the maximum size and the committee did not
feel this was so.
Vice -Chairman Sallan said she felt when the applicant was insistent on
needing the maximm,: size the Council would bend to it as the City
Attorney had been consulted and had advised the Council that the
Bumbleberry application was within the allowed footage. She felt the
Attorney could have advised them that something less would be appropriate.
Member Koenitzer then read the section of the ordinance covering this
situation which said the applicant ,as entitled to 3% of the gross floor
area of said establishment. IIe noted "entitled" was the key word.
Staff was asked to check with the City Attorney�to see if there was
any latitude. Vice-Ch.airmaii Sallan noted they had been operating
under the notion that maximums were not "entitled", but were guidelines.
It was agreed that Section 7.021 should be changed.
Lrem'�er Koenitzer said after seeing '-he Bun,bleberry sign he was sorry
he had not pushed harder against allowing the lights; `.ember Weinstein
said the lights glared and should n,�t be allowed. Vice -Chairman Sallan
wished to check the Landscaping plans as she felt some of the plants
were not of the size required.
Adjournment 4 At 10:05 p.m., Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Weinstein to
adjourn to the next regular meeting on October 3, 1973.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
.Motion carried, 4-0
10
APPROVED: •
s/ Juanita McLaren
Chairman