Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 03-06-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE OF MARCH 6, 1974 AND JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Chairman O'Keefe opened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Planning Commissioners present: Adams (7:55), Ga.tto, Nellis, Chairman O'Keefe ASAC members present: Dressler, Koenitzer, Sallan, Weinstein, Chairman McLaren Staff present: Planning Director. Sisk Associate Planner Cowan Assistant City Attorney Kilian Chairman O'Keefe announced the meeting was for the purpose of dis- cussing section 7.2 on page 9 of Planned Development Ordinance, covering the role of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. He asked the assistant City Attorney to define the roles of the Planning Commission and ASAC as mandated by the State. The Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission would be required to make a report to the City Council before final action was taken on the Planned Development Ordinance. They have 40 days to put the report together. Member Weinstein wanted to discuss the role of the ASAC first before discussing the Planned Development Ordinance. Member Sallan said the Planning Commission had discussed the ordinance. The Planning Director said no unequivocal position had beer, taken. Assistant City Attorney Kilian said they had to look at mandates for Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Approval Committee as mandated by the State. He gave listed functions of the Planning Commission. With respect to ASAC there is nothing in the State plan covering it. The City has the power to regular architecture and design. Basic power of ASAC is set out by Ordinance 468, section 8. ASAC is a recommending body to the City Council. The j problem is that rules and ordinance are not in concurrence. lie referred to one rule that provides H -Control with power of repeal, but the ordinance has no such provision. HC -102 Page 1 HC -102 I MINUTES OF JOINT PLANNING COP1MISSION & H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 Page 2 Member Weinstein said the problem is that in PD Ordinance there are areas of obvious conflict. The overlapping areas was the purpose of this meeting; to decide who would do what or if they were to be overlapping. Mr. Kilian said the ASAC is simply a recommending body to the City Council under law. The Planning Commission is the decision making body pursuant to Ordinance. Member Weinstein referred to. page 319 of Planning Commission ordinance. 005.9 clearly gives the Planning Commission the right from time to time to go into areas of aesthetics, landscaping and architecture; things the ASAC was formed to do. It was pointed out that was the precise development stage and was the responsi- bility of H -Control. Chairman McLaren noted that in the past the two bodies had been able to get along well under these conditions. Member Weinstein said he was satisfied with that arrangement. "Advisory" interpretation is nub of the problem. Member Keonitzer said he felt there should be a definition: of the responsibilities of the two committees. There are several areas of overlapping responsibilities. He referred to H -Control Ordinance No. 468, section 5, where H -Control is asked to review site design but not given any opportunity to make modification. Comm. Gatto gave background that established the various bodies. With prestated ordinances, ASAC had been formed to review -aesthe- tics. He said the City is now moving into planning areas. There is no prestated ordinance; nothing is specified. The Planning Commission feels it is essential to have control of items during review that were previously prestated, Member Keonitzer asked what extent the Planning Commission would go into with each application - the exact landscaping and exact location of building on lots? He referred to area of overlap between Planning Commission of setting set -backs, amounts of land- scaping and general location of buildings. He felt fl -Control should look at architecture of building (Planning Commission having set maximum size), and set precise location of buildings as long as they are within the setback Planning Commission has set. In answer to Chairman O'Keefe, Member Koenitzer said one suggestion would be to look at the plans before they go to Planning Commission. He would like to see roles separated so there wouldn't be any cross purpose between the two committees. He felt there was a serious -problem in trying to work with Planned Development appli- cations if all they were to decide was a specific type of plant to be used. MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND H -CONTROL MEETING HC -102 OF MARCH 6, 1974 Page 3 In answer to Chairman McLaren, Comm. Gatto defined the three stages of a Planned Development application - basic conceptual, definitive and precise. He noted the more definitive input given before Public Hearings, the greater chance of an acceptable solution from both the standpoint of the City and of the develope Member Sallan said the critical stage is the definitive. H-Contrc has had input at precise development stage which is after the fact. H -Control needs to get input to developer at earliest stage. If the developer is still in the framework of modifica- tion, he won't react as vehemently if told to change than he would at a later date. She concurred with Member Koenitzer. This will have to be resolved at the definitive level and the question becomes to whom do you input at this stage. She would like to have input before the fact rather than afterward. She suggested input at use permit stage of general concept on Planninf Commission level and more specific on H -Control level. With regard to H -Control being authorized to act for aesthetics, she referred to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 468. Also Rules and Regulations of the ASAC on page 10. Comm. Gatto stressed the last sentence on this page which said nothing shall be construed as restricting the powers of the Planning Commission. Member Sallan said section 7.2 addresses the noticn fairly by saying in addition to powers the Planning Commission has, H -Control will supplement with aesthetics. Comm. Gatto said reference to section 5, review of architecture and site design would be in areas where expressly required. Dis- charge of that requirement only occurs when there is an archi- tecture and site review requirement expressed by an ordinance. Under the Planned Development Ordinance, there is architecture and site review required at precise development stage. There is an ordinance telling when H -Control is to give input and a main ordinance saying that H -Control can act. accordingly. It does not say that H -Control acts for all site design review at any point - it says when specified. At definitive stage there is no question that aesthetic input is valuable at this stage.. Staff has given aesthetic input to the developer of what is City policy or direction. Comm. Gatto did not see where the H -Control could perform a function at this point more effectively than the Planning Commission when Planning Commission has conditional powers to enforce its input. If H -Control and Planning Conunis- sion disagree, it is just one more set of input to mill about i and the Planning Commission still has to make the final recommend< tion to the City Council. He suggested H -Control give the staff directions for the developer through development policies. Member Sallan said she believed they were now doing this, but it HC -102 MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND H —CONTROL MEETING OF Page 4 MARCH 6, 1974 didn't satisfy her to have the concept of a body of people who are concerned all the way down the line with site, architecture and landscaping being told they could review these things, but had no power to act on them. Comm. Nellis said it seemed the problem was that H -Control felt things were set so they have no flexibility as far as site is concerned. She asked for specific examples when they would have made a different decision. Member Sallan referred to Oak Shopping Center. H -Control was directed to provide for a bicycle path, but were not allowed enough set -back to accomplish it adequately. Member Nellis said since it appeared that set -back and building layout were two areas of concern, rather than having H -Control review each and every application, they could give guidelines that would cover these points. She said they needed guidelines from H -Control for Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and when these are set, there would be no reason to wrestle over each application. Her concerns were staff time, H -Control and Planning Commission time. She would not want to add steps that would require more time. Member Sallan agreed that they needed to establish a policy state- ment or performance standards that were related to aesthetics that dealt with side setbacks and frontage setbacks. It was noted that H -Control had been working along these lines with regard to High- way 9. Member Weinstein said there are areas where general guidelines could be followed. The problem he sees is who has the final say on architecture, Planning Commission or H -Control? The Planning Director said schematic drawings have been asked for to give, an indication of motif of building but that architecture was not approved at Planning Commission level. Chairman O'Keefe pointed out the final decision is made by City Council. A discussion was held on who should be placing the buildings on the site. Member Koenitzer said his feeling was that the Planning Commission should set the use of the land and H -Control should then place the buildings on the site. Comm. Nellis summarized the problem as being should Planning Commission get involved with location and setback of landscaped areas and where does H -Control give input. Because Planned Development so dependent on how it is laid -out, it is very crucial that Planning Commission do this. She gave an example where the square footage and use was right, but the application was not at all what the Planning Commission had conceived for that area. Member Koenitzer said he was talking about having it laid out to the last foot. Member Sallan said she thought H -Control should have flexibility to make meaningful changes; not major ones, but at least meaningful ones. She said section 7.2 as it stands is some attempt at having this body function aestt et:ically at a time when 4 may make a difference. She does not see it as being usurping of anyone's power. She MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 would feel better by knowing what the Planned Development would look like and helping early in that process. She felt it was clearly in the jurisdiction of H -Control to consider site and landscaping. Chairman McLaren felt one thing should be remembered. The land is very costly and by the time the developer has hired an architect, landscaping architect and time and money preparing his application., she didn't think H -Control should re -landscape it for them. She felt that sometimes members of this committee overstepped on this. Member Weinstein said he would like a better definition of "advisory" and what action would be taken on their advice. With respect to the mechanism of getting input in at an early stage, Member Sallan suggested it could be part of the regular H -Control agenda, coming before this body before going to the Planning Commission. It could be an informal type thing with the developer present. They could look at the plan and get a feel of the site and landscaping area. Then it could go to Planning Commission with their recommendations and Planning Commission could then use this input. Member Weinstein said if he spent time to study the application and make recommenda- tions, he wanted it to be considered more than a recommendation. He would like some procedure whereby Planning Commission and H -Control could reach an agreement. He would like to be more than an advisory body to the Planning Commission. Member Sallan said she could be comfortable with having input at the defini- tive stage. Member Dressler saw a problem in that the applicant might have to come in twice. Member Sallan said if this is a committee of aesthetics, then let them have aesthetic input before the application was "locked in". Comm. Adams said he had been on both sides of the fence. He could see no reason why a compromise could not be found. During Planning Commission review of conceptual or definitive plan, maybe two members of H -Control could be present for input at the meeting, giving a purely advisory point of view. Member Weinstein said this was asking 2 people to speak for 5 people. He referred to Member Sallan's suggestion that H -Control review the definitive development during one of their meetings. Comm. Nellis felt this would be making the City Council choose between the two bodies if there was a difference of opinion. Rules must be defined and spelled out so the two committees are not doing the same work. Having H -Control members coming to Planning Commission meeting and disagreeing would not be good. Planned Development is on two major streets. If H -Control and Planning Commission could sit down together and come up with some broad guidelines, this should alleviate some of the problem. Things to be considered would be landscaping setbacks, HC -102 Page 5 HC -102 I MINUTES OF THE COMBINED PLANNING COMMISSION AND 11 -CONTROL MEETING Page 6 OF MARCH 6, 1974 bicycle paths, sidewalks, and height guidelines. She pointed out that section 7.2 is not a recommendation of Planning Commission at this time. Member Dressler pointed out both bodies deal with the same staff. When something is initiated H -Control could be notified, they could hear the preliminary plan and perhaps see slides. This could be made part of the minutes and Planning Commission would see their recommendations. For a use permit, the applicant would be going to the Planning Commission and for the precise plan they would come to H -Control. The consensus of the H-Concrol committee was to go along with section 7.2 as per City Council recommendation in the hopes that this would be a satisfactory solution to the aesthetic overlapping responsibilities of Planning Commission and H -Control. In answer to Comm. Nellis, the Planning Director said he was not opposed to H -Control input prior to definitive stage being approved. It would be a matter of degree and formality. He gave several processes that had been considered. He suggested his bringing in a plan at the end of an H -Control meeting without reports, etc., and giving a very brief summary of it. He did not want to add any more written work to staff's already overloaded work schedule. The Associate Planner pointed out there are some cases where you can't divorce the land use from the design. Comm. Gatto spoke to the role of Planning Commission. To evaluate a plan, they must take into consideration all impacts and must consider total aspects of the property. They must have the ability to address each aspect of a total project. He noted the H -Control plays a valuable role in going through the details of an application. H -Control serves a valuable function by doing the precise development review. To duplicate the planning process would be redundant. Comm. Nellis noted the Planning Commission had been very open to what every- one had said. In looking at a Planned Development application, the Planning Commission must look at a total picture. She was concerned the two bodies would be abrasive to each other. Would like to see H -Control have input to landscaping and setbacks so they would have some flexibility. Written guide- lines could be solution for staff and developers. The Planning Director reiterated his offer to briefly appraise H -Control on applications, but he wanted to be sure the depth of his report he was talk- ing about understood by H -Control committee. At 9:10 p. m. a recess was called with the Planning Commission adjourning to their separate meeting. MINUTES OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was reconvened at 9:18 p.m. by Chairman McLaren with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Members absent: Staff present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dressler, Koenitzer, Sallan, Weinstein, Chairman McLaren None Associate Planner Cowan Approval of Minutes of February 20, 1974 On page 9, paragraph 6, Member Sallan wished to add "and were submitted to Mr. Myers and the City staff." On page 9, paragraph 7, Member Koenitzer pointed out that the first word in the third line should be "porcelainized". On page 11, paragraph 3, Chairman McLaren said "Florida" should be changed to "Palm Springs". There was some discussion about the last sentence on page 8. The Associate Planner said Mr. Myers' position now was there would be no additional landscaping on site to the degree asked for by H -Control . There being no further corrections, Member Sallan moved to accept Minutes of February 20, 1974 as amended. Seconded by Member Koenitzer. Motion carried, 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS - The Associate Planner noted the postponement of item 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None HC -102 Page 7 2/20/74 Minutes approved as corrected HC -102 P age 8 HC -51,320 .2 Karpet King MINUT'E'S OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Application HC -51,320.2 of Karpet King requesting approval of a sign plan for a commercial building located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Randy Lane. Continued from H -Control meeting of February 20, 1974. Staff report: The Associate Planner went over background for benefit of the applicant. Last August a sign was approved for his business at Randy Lane and Saratoga-Sunnyale Road. Instead a painted sign was placed on parapet of building. The issue is two pronged in that the new sign would have to be approved and it is 2 ft. over the 90 sq. ft. that is allowed under the present ordinance. Mr. Bruno Bicocca, 764 Emory Avenue, Campbell, said the sign on side of the building had been removed. The crown part of sign on front of building had been fixed. Slides were shown of building and signs. Mr. Bicocca said there had been some confusion with the sign maker and he had had to have identification, so had just had the existing sign repainted. He said the window signs were coming off and he offered to take enough off each end of sign to bring it within the allowed 90 sq. ft. With regard to the "Linoleum, wallpaper and draperies" across the front of overhang, Mr. Bicocca noted that the Charron furniture store next door had wording across the length of the building. Member Dressler pointed out that this did not exceed the sign ordinance since there was no additional sign on building. Member Weinstein pointed out the sign is vastly different from one approved in August. He inquired as to why there had been so many postponements. Mr. Bicocca said he did not see why this was relevant, but enumerated reasons why he had not been present. Member Koenitzer noted he did not care for either present sign or sign approved last August. Member Sallan said she had a problem with red background on signs and preferred the approved sign. Member Weinstein asked about removing everything and replacing with approved sign. Mr. Bicocca said it would cost about $500.00, He pointed out that the area he was in did not call for a fancy sign. MINUTES OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MJRCH 6, 1974 The Associate Planner pointed out that when City Council approvedl sign they stipulated a time period and the sign had been approved] because it was already made up. They did not want to set a precedent. The concern was expressed as to how this sign would relate to the one next door. After further discussion, Chairman McLaren opened the meeting to comments from the audience. There were none. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Sallan, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 Member Sallan moved to recommend to City Council approval of Application HC -51,320.2 of Karpet King with the standard H-Contr conditions and the following conditions: (1) The sign as existing on side be modified to the following extent. The existing red background be painted a color to be the exact color of the existing parapet. The yello letters with the black border to remain. (2) The "Linoleum Wallpaper Draperies" sign be eliminated. Seconded by Member Dressler. A brief discussion was held on the "Linoleum Wallpaper Draperies" sign. AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Sallan, Weinstein., Chairman McLaren NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 The applicant was informed this would be heard by the City Council at the March 18, 1974 meeting. 3. Application HC -51,259.81 of Edwin J. Myers requesting approval of site and architecture for a proposed bank facility located in the Portal Plaza Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting of February 20, 1974. HC -102 P age 9 Public Hearing closed HC -51,320.2 approved w/ conditions HC -51,259.81 Edwin J. Myers continued HC -102 Page 10 Divers Dock; MINUTES OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 A letter was introduced from Mr. Myers asking for continuation of this application. It was so moved by Member Sallan and seconded by Member Koenitzer to continue this application to next regular meeting. Motion carried, 5-0 Member Sallan asked to have it communicated back to Mr. Myers her concern about elimination of landscaping and to include the service station. The Associate Planner explained the service station is a separate property. The City Attorney would be consulted to see if the applicant could be forced to landscape service station area. A discussion was held by the committee on what they would like to see on this site. The Associate Planner said Mr. Johnson, designer of the building for Divers Dock, was present. He explained this application had been caught up in interim zoning. A modification to building was being requested. It was brought to the committee for their approval as the changes were fairly significant. The basic changes were two entry ways on the front elevation. Mr. Milton F. Johnson, Architect, 2417 Emba.rcadero Way, Palo Alto, gave rationale for change. He said because of the delay they had lost their tenant. He gave background of the building intent. They would be taking out the pool and interior until a new tenant was found. Member Sallan asked if he was set on this exterior or would he consider making it more comparable to the Adamo building on adja- cent site. Mr. Johnson said he had lost over $5000.00 already on this building. A discussion was held on the possibility of changing the building style. Mr. Johnson offered to go to the plaster with shake roof as this would be more suitable to him. He said this would solve several problems for him. Member Weinstein felt the roof should be a tile to tie in with Adamo building. Mr. Johnson described how the shake roof would be compatible, and made several suggestions that would make the two buildings comparable. He said he was acquainted with the owner of the Adamo property and would consult with him. MINUTES OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 Member Dressler recommended a Minute Order on Application HC -51,294.1 which was approved by this body in 1972 to permit the architect to modify the exterior of the building to give aesthetic treatment to match the Adamo building on adjoining property. The modification would include changing the exterior wood siding to a stucco exterior, modifying soffit treatment of roof and to a parapet extension on the mansard. The modification to the exterior would also include the addition of one entrance and window on the north elevation as presented on Sheet #83 revised February 15, 1974 on Job No. 7015. Seconded by Member Koenitzer. Motion carried, 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Member Weinstein asked what the status was on revision of interim sign ordinance, and about the information he had requested from staff. He referred to_,the Planning Commission recommendation that H -Control get together with sign experts and businessmen. He introduced an article from the Palo Alto Times on revised sign ordinance. The Associate Planner said there was an intern doing research on the requested information. A discussion was held on who would be included in this meeting a when it could be scheduled. It was decided technical personnel would be included at first meeting. March 27 was suggested as a possible date. The Planning Commission Minute Order for H -Control to continue working on overall landscaping design for I280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard was discussed. Member Sallan noted "Carefree Wash" sign was placed flush with edge whereas she thought it was approved to rest against the facade. The staff is to check. Member Koenitzer referred to a sign at #85 at Stevens Creek Boulevard advertising vacancies. It was his understanding there were no more lots available in the park. The staff was to check. Member Sallan asked about a review of Bob's Big Boy sign. Also the brightness of lights hanging from the roof. Member Weinste objected to having the figure of the Big Boy just inside the window where it is clearly visible. Member Koenitzer said he was also concerned with intensity of sign. This was something that should be included in the Sign Ordinance. HC --102 Page 11 MINUTE ORDER Interim Sign Ordinance Landscaping "Carefree Wash" West Valley Industrial. Park Bob's Big Boy sign and lightE HC -102 Page 12 Samples needed Election of officers ADJOUR MENT MINUTES OF THE H -CONTROL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1974 Member Sallan again commented on the advisability of having samples of materials brought to the H -Control along with the application. Chairman McLaren noted her office as chairman would be expiring on April 17. She requested everyone be present at the April 3 meeting as a full quorum is needed for election of officers. It was moved at 10:40 p.m. to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting on March 20, 1974. ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ruder City Clerk Motion carried, 5-0 APPROVED: /s/ Juanita McLaren Chairman