Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 12-05-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL C0Mi4ITTEE HELD ON DECEMBER 5, 1974 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairwoman Sallan with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler, Koenitzer, Rogers (7:15), Weinstein, Chairwoman Sallan Members absent: None Staff present: Assistant Planner Toby Kramer INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Associate Planner Kramer reported the staff was in contact with Portal Plaza personnel regarding dirt pile and hoped this would be, cleared up soon. Member Koenitzer noted there seemed to be developments at the Oak Shopping Center that he did not remember from the original plan. It was agreed that he would look over plans with staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of November 7, 1974 On page 3, before the first paragraph, the heading "Minutes of. October 24, 1974" should be added. On page 9, the second line should read "...something should be done to clarify his position." Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Dressler, to approve the Minutes of November 7, 1974, as amended. Motion carried, 5-0 HC -127 Page 1 Minutes of 11/7/7[! approved as amended HC -127 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 2 _._. 7__ Minutes of November 21,1974: Page 3, last paragraph, the word "high" should be inserted between "ft." and "structure" at beginning of second line. Page 9, the second paragraph should read: "Member Koenitzer felt that for a temporary building it was pretty good, noting the proposal was better than some existing stores. He referred to the Home Savings next to the Bank of America as an example of a good temporary building. Page 12, paragraph 4, the following sentence should be inserted. "Member Koenitzer felt the new appearance of the station was a definite improvement." Page 1, second paragraph from bottom of page, the word "recorded" should inserted bet -we "-from"and eondttiens"-insecond_ line. Or. page 12, last paragraph, the last line should read, "been quoted out of context and expressed...." Minutes of Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to approve the =11/21174 --ninutes__9f-_N -3 7 co -r e cted.- - --- — -- Motion carried, 4-0-1 approved as corrected Abstain: Dressler WRITTEN -COMMUNICATIONS - Letter from American Associate of University= _ WWomeri,—Sunnyvale-=Cupe-rti-n-o--Branch, —e-xpressrng suppo-t-and-- ap-pre-cia-ti-ors of -Archt e ct oral and i t App rovh Cosmmi ttee ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None _._ -Sa�1an---anne-uneed--ao---te-m--would be initiated after 11:30 p.m- 's Village Alfredo Fisherman's Scardina) requesting exception fo Section 7.021 of the Sign Village Ordinance to allow an advertising area in excess of the allotted square footage for an existing restaurant located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 feet easterly of Blaney Avenue. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING The applicant was not present. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to move to end of agenda. Motion carried, 5-0 2. Application HC -51,353.1 of Dividend Industries, Inc. requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping and grading for an 18 -unit duplex development located at the southwest quadrant of Vista Drive and Lazaneo Drive. Staff report: Assistant Planner Kramer located the site. The property is zoned R2 and is to the south of an existing junior high school. To the east is a duplex development, to the south a planned development residential zone which is undeveloped, and to the west is an undeveloped parcel zoned for residential. The main concern of the Planning Commission was to make sure that the driveway access for the development was by means of the cul-de- sacs rather than the major streets of Vista Drive and Forest Avenue. The tentative map approval required that Lot 4 be upgraded and reviewed by this Committee. The applicant should be required to submit plans prior to issuance of building or occupancy permit. The Assistant Planner pointed out that the 6 ft. fence for side and rear yards of Lots 1, 10, 11 and 18 will have to be 12 ft. back from property line or reduced to 3 ft. The house on Lot 1 appears to protrude into the 40 ft. corner triangle on the. corner of Forest Court and Lazaneo Drive. It was agreed this was something that could be handled at staff level, but that approval should contain a notation that set -back requirements would be met. In answer to Member Koenitzer, Ms. Kramer explained there was an island in the middle of Lazaneo Drive which would force people to mak the turn onto Vista Drive. Ms. Kramer referred to illustrations of building elevations. She pointed out all roofs would be of a shake material, with the excepti of one elevation which would be a black shingle. With regard to landscaping, the Assistant Planner noted the main concern was the frontage on Vista Drive. The applicant is proposing to use an ivy ground cover and insert trees along the fence line in addition to a number of shrubs. At this time, the City is not capable of maintaining this landscaped area; it will be up to the individual homeowners to do so. Staff has suggested a gate be installed on the owner side of the unit backing on Vista Drive which would lead to the landscaping strip. HC -127 Page 3 HC -51,353.1 Dividend Industries, Inc. HC --127 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 11 -CONTROL MEETING There are two existing trees on Lot 4. The developer is proposing to retain these and any healthy orchard trees where possible. With regard to grading, there will be a need for a 2 ft. wood retaining - wall along the southern boundary of the property adjacent to the - planned ---:--_-- residential zone. It was noted a portion of Lazaneo Drive would be completed`in conjunc- tion with this development. Mr. W. E. Muir, 2160 Forest Avenue, San Jose, said they would resolve fence and corner problems to the City's satisfaction. Mr. Art Anderson, 405 N. Central Expressway, San Jose, answered Member Dressler's question regarding the driveway to Lot 7. He turn around. Member Weinstein asked why one elevation had a black roof. Mr. Muir said it is a design feature to give French attitude. There will be 3 houses with this roof. He explained it is a very good Mr. Muir also said it did generate a little more heat in the attic but takes the same insulation as -the shake roof. He felt it made a nice break. He answered Member Koenitzer's concern by saying when the roof materials have weathered for several months, the shakes and shingles will not look that i Brent. aIof o the otge�p��ss ---e ed the ---o ' iuu that±t-was-rather-pi Pte- g—-- -- - -. to have this difference in roof material, and color. - R t i-re-gar& rain azn ce- =an sd —caping-ozr-- it e- -ron:t'- age- -Mr. Ande-rson--s-aid they-would-st-ip-u-late the--City_sh-ould �- homeowners would not do d e- �-: maintenance free landscaping so all that would have to be done was to turn the sprinklers on. Ms. Kramer said until there was more staff in the Public Works Department or until the policy was changed, the City would not be maintaining it. Chairwoman Sallan referred to development on Foothill with the = sprinkler system for frontage landscape attached to homeowner's system. Ms. Kramer said she had not heard_.any complaints but she had not checked it lately. The Public Works Department is aware of this problem. _ Mr. Muir said this was their development also and he reminded the committee of the one year maintenance bond he had with the City. He had been out there today and found the gardener they had hired was not doing a satisfactory job. Several is will have to be replaced, due to lack of water. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Chairwoman Sallan questioned the City's ability to force the home- owners to maintain this area. Mr. Muir said he did not think the City could force them to maintain it to their liking. He noted they have asked the people to assume this responsibility. He felt the gate was a good idea and this would be incorporated into plans. Chairwoman Sallan asked staff to obtain the City Attorney's opinion as to what legality of requiring anything that died to be replaced in 30 days. Mr. Muir pointed out this was private property. Chair- woman Sallan pointed out the difference between a front yard which reflects on the homeowner and this type of landscaped area which is a reflection on the City. With regard to fence set -back, Mr. Muir said they would probably drop the fence down to 3 ft. Chairwoman Sallan ascertained the applicant would be agreeable to adding more shrubs. Mr. Muir said the private resident would probably be brought up to date and sold as a single-family home. Mr. Muir said they would be amenable to any suggestion with regard to submitting plans for this upgrading. He suggested tying this in with the occupancy permit. The committee agreed. Mr. Anderson said the existing pine trees would be properly taken care of and the grading would determine which orchard trees could be kept. Chairwoman Sallan suggested the number of trees planted be the same ratio of trees that will be taken out. Mr. Muir ncted that homeowners usually planted more trees than were removed. Member. Rogers questioned the retaining wall to the south, noting that such walls sometimes are not well built and will lean and deteriorate. Mr. Muir said the wall would be of redwood set in concrete, built to City requirements and specifications. The wall should last 20-30 years. Chairwoman Sallan noted the committee should speak to the maintenance of landscaping. She asked Ms. Kramer to obtain opinions from City Attorney and Engineering Department for the committee's education Mr. Muir said they have not been able to solve this problem at other developments in six years. He felt the answer would be for the City to do it; private owners will not. Chairwoman Sallan noted this was a critical problem as these areas represent the image of the City. Mr. Muir suggested including a specific sentence in the CC&R pointing out that lot owners will be responsible for maintenance of landscapinf on outside of fence; this would give City a legal right to say "you are responsible". Chairwoman Sallan suggested adding that they would be subject to City regulations. HC -12 7 Page 5 HC -127 Page 6 Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Muir pointed out these are really single-family homes. He was , surprised and irked that the City would get so involved in landscap- ing of a single-family residence. After further discussion of sentence to be added to deed restriction, Mr. Muir suggested Havng_the City Attorney approve the wording. The meeting was opened to public comment. There were none. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Rogers, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval to the City Council of HC -51,353.1 with standard conditions, Exhibits A, B, B -1, B--2, B-3, B-4, B-5, C and D and the following special conditions: (1) The developer and staff will work together to resolve any problem of intrusion in corner set -backs; such against the ordinance and are not intrusions are approved. (2)_ That before occupancy permits are issued, developer will T E come back with the plans for the improvements on Lot 4. (3) That the developer will put in gates facing Vista Drive on Lots 2 and 3 so that the owners will have access for maintenance purposes to Vista Drive. (4) That on Lots 10, -11- and 18 there will be additional shrubs _________ and other taller plant material installed in the side yard---- set-back between fence, if used, and Vista Drive. •_-- The developer will include in the deed restriction words to indicate that the maintenance of the area outside the fence along Vista Drive, Forest Avenue and Lazaneo Drive is responsibility of the individual property owner. This wording is to be approved by the City Attorney (6) The developer is to be responsible for maintenance ot landscaping between fence and Vista Drive est Drive for the-_ fJ r ---t: year. - Seconded by Member Rogers. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Rogers, Weinstein, Chairwoman Sall an NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council at its December 16, 1974 meeting. (1) Application HC -51,318.211 - Fisherman's Village The applicant still was not present. A discussion was held on whether or not to consider the application without the applicant' being present. Ms. Kramer said she had asked the applicant for a letter stating why the sign exception should be allowed but she had not received it. Member Weinstein moved to consider the application at this time. The motion died for lack of a second. Member Koenitzer moved to continue Application HC -51,318.211 to. the next regular meeting. Seconded by Member Rogers After further discussion, Member Weinstein moved to amend the motion to include the following: That this application he heard at next regular meeting regardless of the presence or absence of the applicant and the applicant should be so informed. The applicant is to be requested to submit a list of reasons under Section 10 as to why he feels he is entitled to the exception. Seconded by Member Rogers. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Sallan NOES: None VOTE ON MOTION AYES: Members Dressler., Kocnitzer, Sallan NOES: None Rogers, Weinstein, Chairwoman Amendment passed, 5-0 Rogers, Weinstein, Chairwoman Motion carried, 5-0 HC -127 Page 7 HC -51,353.1 approved w/ conditions HC -51,318.211 Fisherman's Village HIC-51,318,21 continued to next regular meeting r 0-427 Ige 8 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 1974 H -CONTROL MEETING NEW BUSINESS Assistant Planner Kramer said the City is getting involved in a "citizen's survey" to be taken early next year. They are requesting the coninittee and commission members be informed and if there are any questions they would like to have included on survey that these __ be su nu.tte�c . 1e explained le tn.en c o iraf nraii Sallan asked the H -Control committee members to submit their questions to her by January 15, 1975. Member Weinstein asked Ms. Kramer about progress on Alpine Drive study. Ms. Kramer reported the Planning Director had instructed work be started on ordinance modification. She noted the application for Alpine Drive would be on the agenda for next meeting. -m e-�Ro = rte- - szai zh�--o-tp.-d--the saap�ox-tle Counter T ran s i t _ System ---- did not show any had attended a meeting showing prototypes for street furniture. The County is receiving applications from cities. There will be standards but cities will be allowed to design own furniture as long as it meets County requirements. The County will have final aroval and will be responsible for maintenance. Chairwoman Sallan inquired as to where the committee would prefer to meet: Council Chambers or Library Conference Room. The committee agreed to hold the regular meetings in the Council Chambers and t -he study sessions in. the Library Conference .Room.