July 8th, 1985ASAC-375
CIARY M 1 NU A
TES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURL AND SITE
APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF JULY B, 1.985. MEETING HELD IN'THE CONFERENCE
ROOM 106 OF CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014.
t p.m. by Chairman Miller who
The Meeting was called to order at 7.-00
ed the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Presentg Committee Members Chapman, Jackson, Mann, Nobel, and
Chairman Miller
Staff Present: Sonia Si. nnendyk, Planner I!
CONSENT CALENDARg
Item No. I was removed from the Consent Calendar.
NEW BUS'INESS2
Item 1}Application 3-U-34 Lawrence_Guv Informal.,review of
building color for an expansion of an existing, office
6
building located on the south side of. S.ilveradb. Avenue
approximately 140 ft. east of De Any Boulevard'..,
Presentationt None
The proposed colors were approved unanimously.
Item 2.) App ji cati on HC=5.j_,!.j3. I Cupf!::tino Prlofes,si onal -:0++ice
nter .(Wil'liam Marocco. Devel.op!ngg:t .... 9gmp vlAmc6e' -Sian
+ an
gompanyl Requesting approval of a Sign Progrzim., - or
office building located on, the north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard between PortalLAvenue and Blaney Avenue.
Pr 11 e . sentation-. Stephen CoUlthard, Amcoe Sign Company
Staff outlined the subject proposal, commenting ,that the.
prb 1pos ed si g n s were cc5n�s-.;Lstent with the Sign ' 11rdin'ance,
provided that the applicant was limited to a max i,mum %n+ one
sign per tenant.
Several members commented, that a bronze background color,
consistent with the previously approved ground',sign ,.;wbuld
be preferable to the proposed White background.'Several
other members suggested a duller background color (beige)
which would blend in with the building. None of the members
liked the proposed white background.
The Committee asked the applicant how many S4-,..g;?s,.vjould be
installed. The applicant indicated that helbn,ly anticipated
the two downstairs tenants requesting signs at this time.
The Committee was concerned that upstairs tenants may also
want signs in the future. In order to prevent the front of
the building from getting cluttered, the possibility of
limiting the applicant to two signs per side of the building
Was discussed. The applicant indicated this would be
acceptable.
. A.S.A.C. Minutes of July S, 19B5 ASAC-375 F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Chapman commented that tenants in office buildings
generally do not rely on casual passersby for business.
Therefore, individual tenant signs should not be necessary.
The building's name on the ground sign should be adequate
for clients to locate the building.
Member Chapman also commented that the proposed signs
detracted from the professional appearance of the building.
He felt the signs cheapened the building and gave it a
retail look. He pointed out that the redwood trees planted
in the front landscape area would eventually block the
signs.
Several Members agreed with Member Chapman's comments. They
felt that the proposed signs were intended to advertise the
tenants rather. than identify the building. They indicated
that it would be preferable to eliminate the individual
signs on the building and, instead, incorporate a maximum of
four (4) tenants into the ground sign.
The applicant stated that the ground sign was already
constructed, per the Committee's approval in May, 1985. Any
modifications at this time would be expensive. He had
excluded tenants from the ground sign based on the
understanding that individual signs would be permitted on
the building. This understanding was derived from a
discussion with the Planning Department.
Member Jackson commented that if the applicant was told he
could have building signs, the Committee should be
consistent and permit these signs.
Member Nobel felt that the Committee should based its
decision an what was best for the City in the long run. She
moved that Application HC-51,613.1 be -denied with directions
to the applicant to incorporate the signage for individual
tenants into the ground sign. Member Mann seconded the
motion. The motion was adopted (3-2).
The applicant indicated that he intended to appeal the
Committee's decision. If the City Council supports the
appeal, the Committee recommended that the City Council
reduce the tenant signs to a maximum length of 4 or 5 f t ,
permit a maximum of 2 signs on the front and rear of the
building. and require a bronze background color, consistent
with the ground sign.
The Committee unanimously approved the vinyl lettering
proposed on the east and west doors of the building.
A.S.A.C. Minutes of July 8, 1985 ASAC-375
------------------------- -------------------------------------------
INFDRMAL REVIEW OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION-.
Item 3) Apqlication 23-U-85 - Dirk and Deke Hunter - Requesting
Approval of a use permit to construct a commerciallof+ice
building consisting of approximately 6,700 sq. ft. The
subject property is located on the southwest corner of De
Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road.
Presentationg Bill Haaman and Dake Hunter
Site Plano
Chairman Miller commented that the driveway on McClellan
Road could.be dangerous. It will be difficult for drivers
exiting the property to get into the left -turn lane. He
suggested limiting the driveway to one-way in traffic on-ly.
The Committee was concerned that the proposal was not
consistent with the 35 ft. minimum landscaped setback
required.in the recently adop.tLd South De Arta Boulevard
Conceptual Zoning Plan. Member Chapman suggested reducing
the setback between the -building and west .property tline in
order to increase the front landscaping. He indic.ated-Ithat
the proposed 16 ft. setback would, co1l-ect trash and be
difficult to police. He felt that an B ft. high, masonry
barrier would protect the privacy of the adjoining
residential property.
Member NobelFeltthe building was very uninspiring. She
was particularly concerned that the parking was locatedat
the front of the property where it would. be. highly 'visibl-e:
to the street. The applicant indicated that although
locating parking at the rear of a building wor,ked-we.11 for
office structures, it did not work for retail
�establishments.. Member Nobel suggested that, perhaps,': an
office might be more - appropriate at this loc,ation.,..:....:: In
Addition to permitting a more attractive parking1ayout, an
office would generate less traffic than a retail,,,., store.
Given the congestion at McClellan Road and De Anza
Boulevard, less traffic would be a real bonus.
Member Mann agreed with Member Nobel regarding the
desirability of locating parking at the rear of the
property. However, if this was not possible, she,". supported
Member Chapman 's proposal to move the building closerto the
west property line. High berms would be desirab,lealong De
Anza Boulevard.
Member Jackson commented that the property had many
constraints Affecting it (ie: Bus turnout, -_35 ft. setback
from curb, etc.) which could make retail use. in. -Feasible.
She felt it would establish a bad precedent to .waive the 35
ft. setback requirement so soon after adoption of the
Conceptual Zoning Plan.
Mi nUtes of Jui y 8, 1985 ASAC-375
Y----------------------------------------------------------------------'
Architecture:
Member Chapman said the proposed building lacked creativity,
as did many other buildings along South De Anaa Boulevard.
He pointed out that greater architectural variety was
needed. This could be accomplished by incorporating
different textures and window treatments or by varying the
structure's height.
The remodeling of Kentucky Fried Chicken was identified as a
project which successfully introduced interest into a
previously plain building.
Member Mann requested that the applicant "spice -up" the
architecture. She suggested making each tenants' frontage
different, like at the Oaks Shopping Center.
Member Jackson commented that flesh tones and hard, sterile
materials like the should be avoided. Incorporating more
earth tones would add warmth to the building. She agreed
with Member Chapman's comments regarding architectural
variety.
The Committee continued the application for two weeks in
order to enable the applicant to revise his plans consistent
with the Committee's comments.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 24, 1985, were approved as
amended.
INTERCOMMISSION NOTES:
Staff explained that Sedway/Cooke would provide the Committee with
some instruction on site and architectural design. This instruction
would be provided either on July IS, 1985 or in September. All the
Committee Members indicated they could attend a meeting on July 18.
Staff promised to contact them prior to July 18 to confirm the
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
ATTEST:
The meeting was
Miller to the next
July 22, 1985.
adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by Chairman
regular scheduled meeting of
APPROVED:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius /s/ Martin Miller
City Clerk Chairperson