January 11, 1988CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 (408) 252-4642
TO: ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE
FROM: RANDY TSUDA, ASAC COORDINATOR
MARK CAUGHEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
MARIA JIMENEZ, ASAC SECRETARY
DATE: JANUARY 8, 1988
SUBJECT: STAFF COMMENTS FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988
The enclosed materials constitute a complete packet for Monday night's meeting.
Please refer to the attached community -wide location map for the geographic setting
of each agenda item.
ITEM 1) APPLICATION ASAC 51,762.1 -- SHELL OIL COMPANY:
Requesting approval of site and architectural modifications to an existing
service station located at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Blaney Avenue. 19990 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Exhibits A-1, B-1, and Info of Application ASAC 51,762.1
2. Street and Streetscape Improvement Policy
3. Model Resolution
COMMENTS:
A. Applicant proposes the following modifications (see applicant's letter
dated November 20, 1987):
1. Remove the existing cashier kiosk and convert an existing storage
building to the new cashier booth.
2. Reduce the size of the canopy and install grey side panels
3. Alter gasoline pump island locations.
4. Widen the exit aisleway to accommodate relocated underground
gas tanks.
B. Applicant's letter includes discussion regarding imposition of the City's 50
foot landscape requirement along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
1. Council's policy states that the landscaping improvements may be
deferred if an application encompasses less than 25 percent of the
total building floor area on site (see enclosed copy of policy). Staff
has determined that this application triggers the landscape
improvements.
2. Applicant is seeking an interpretation that the project complies with
the deferral policy; thus, the landscaping is not required at this time.
0
ASAC STAFF SUMMARY REPORT -- MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988
PAGE -2-
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends denial of Application ASAC 51,762.1 per the enclosed
model denial resolution finding that the application does not comply with
the aforementioned City Street and Streetscape Improvement Policy.
B. Staff has enclosed a model approval resolution should the Committee
elect to do so. This application will be forwarded to City Council for final
review.
ITEM 2) APPLICATION ASAC 51,766.1 MARRIOTT COURTYARD:
Requesting approval of a sign program for a hotel located at the northwest
corner of Highway 280 and Wolfe Road. 10605 N. Wolfe Road
ENCLOSURES:
1. Exhibit F-1 of ASAC 51,766.1
2. Model Resolution
COMMENTS:
PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
A. Bldg. Sian, East Elevation: No concerns
B. Bldg. Sign, South Elevation: Height and orientation suggest intended
visibility to freeway; must seek exception under Section 17.28.050. Staff
recommends repositioning sign below first story level.
C. Monument Sign, Northwest Corner: Suggest elimination of southerly face
as unnecessary to minimize illumination to prevent possible disturbance
to nearby homesite.
D. Monument Sian, Wolfe Road Frontage: Proposed height would normally
be considered excessive; however, the Committee may wish to
consider the following factors:
a) Sign is intended to direct travelers unfamiliar with the Cupertino to the
site location.
b) Wolfe Road posted speed limit is 35 MPH, and street width is 120 feet;
maneuvering to site's indirect access is difficult without sufficient
advance warning of the site location.
c) Sign will be located in a grove of existing plus future Redwood trees
which will attain significant height at maturity. Sign height may be
mitigated insofar as the trees will provide a tall backdrop to the sign.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. The Committee should specifically evaluate the ground sign height along
Wolfe Road. Staff is attempting to contact the sign representative to
obtain a more detailed site plan showing the location of the ground sign
relative to the existing and future trees.
B. A model approval resolution has been included for the Committee's use.
C. The decision of ASAC is final unless appealed.
ASAC STAFF SUMMARY REPORT -- MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988
PAGE -3-
ITEM 2) APPLICATION ASAC 51,767.1 -- 20/20 RECYCLING CENTER:
Requesting approval of a recycling center at the McClellan Square
Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of De Anza Boulevard and
Mc Clellan Road. 10425 S. De Anza Boulevard.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Model Resolution
2. Packet A and Exhibit A of Application ASAC 51,767.1
3. Kiosk Description
4. Ordinance 1426
COMMENTS:
A. Applicant proposes to locate a recycling center as shown on Exhibit A.
Packet A contains details on size and layout of the center. The facility will
contain four storage containers and one manned kiosk.
B. Applicant's proposed location is adjacent to a residential area. Staff
believes that the location is inappropriate. The center will generate
vehicular and pedestrian activity which may create noise impacts upon
the adjoining residence. Further, the applicant proposes to pick-up the
deposited materials between 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM. General Plan Policy 2-
23 directs the City to protect residential areas which adjoin commercial
sites from noise, traffic, and litter impacts by locating noise generating
sources away from residential areas.
® C. Staff has asked the applicant to prepare an alternate location for
Monday's meeting. In order to obtain approval, the recycling center
must fulfill the criteria established within Section 6.2 of the Recycling
Center Ordinance (Ordinance 1426). A copy is enclosed for reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff opposes the installation of the recycling center at the proposed
location. Staff suggests that the Committee evaluate any alternate
locations that the applicant may submit at the meeting.
B. The Committee should utilize the Recycling Ordinance as a guideline for
evaluation. If the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance at the
meeting, it may be necessary to continue the application to allow staff
time to analyze the proposal.
ITEM 4) APPLICATION ASAC 51,768.1 -- CAL NEON SIGNS (PACIFIC WESTERN BANK):
Requesting approval of a freestanding sign to replace an existing ground
sign for an office center located on the north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard, easterly of De Anza Boulevard
ENCLOSURES:
1. Exhibit F of ASAC 51,768.1
2. Model Resolution
0
ASAC STAFF SUMMARY REPORT -- MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988
PAGE -4-
COMMENTS:
A. The existing ground sign was approved by the ASAC in 1978 under
Resolution 877. The sign was approved at a height of 10.5 feet, and
included a roof element similar in character to that of the building it
identifies.
B. The proposed sign is lower, eliminates structural mass unnecessary to the
sign's message function, and maintains the required minimum 15'
setback from Stevens Creek Boulevard curbline required in Resolution
877. A condition in the model resolution requires removal of the existing
ground sign simultaneously with installation of the approved alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends approval of Application ASAC 51,768.1 per the findings
and conditions contained within the enclosed model resolution.
B. The decision of ASAC is final unless appealed.
ITEM 5) APPLICATION ASAC 51,759.11 -- TANDEM COMPUTERS (AKAGI DESIGNS):
Requesting approval of a modification to a previously approved sign
program for a industrial building located at the southerly terminus of
Ridgeview Court. 10400 Ridgeview Court.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Model Resolution
2. Applicant's letter dated 12/17/87
3. Packet A of Application ASAC 51,759.11
4. Exhibit F-10 of Application ASAC 51,759.1
COMMENTS:
A. Applicant seeks a modification to the Tandem sign program to allow the
freeway -oriented wall sign shown on Exhibit F-1. ASAC previously
approved the sign shown on Exhibit F-10 of Application ASAC 51,759.1. A
modification is necessary since Tandem will not be leasing the entire
building, as previously believed. Instead, two tenants will occupy the
building.
B. Proposed sign measures 64 square feet utilizing 24-inch high letters. The
approved sign measures 45 square feet with 20-inch high letters.
C. The sign ordinance sets a 30 square foot maximum wall sign size for
industrial building with multiple tenants. The subject site, however, is
located in a planned development district so the maximum size limitation
is only a guideline.
D. Although it exceeds the ordinance guideline, staff believes the sign is
proportional to the building. Further, the sign will be unobtrusive since the
building is located approximately 220 feet from Highway 280.
ASAC STAFF SUMMARY REPORT -- MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988
PAGE -5-
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends approval of Application ASAC 51,759.11 per the
findings and conditions contained within the enclosed model resolution.
B. The decision of ASAC is final unless appealed within five working days to
City Council.
0
0
ARCHITECTUIU.&kND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE
JNFUARY 11, 1988
7:30 PM
UJ
1) 51,762.1
CC INA_-.1-
0 rl T L-
Shell Oil Compare 3 It N1
':
— -------------
2) 51,766.1 A
Marriott Courtyai
R 52
(Wade Mcclure)
5 _;.2 is '61
3) 51,767.1
clip Genter-
20/20 Recycl
t 771 P - -----------
Q
4) 51,768.1 A
Pacific Western Bari
(Cal -Neon Signs)
AL
Z
to I,--.
5) 51,759.1
q2w T
Tandem computers M
P
(Akagi Designs)
Y
Rt
n.
N-4-
DAN
J tj
0- IS
MEN
w:
R Q
'W_ h.-
---------------
17
NIP or
TIE
rill of 9 uplar,
DEPMTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
aw SHEET