Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 01-09-1975CITY OFCUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Toleph one: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL CO124ITTEE HELD ON JANUARY 9, 197.5 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman Sallau with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Dressler, Koenitzer, Rogers, Weinstein (7:15), Chairwoman Sallan Members absent: None Staff present: Associate Planner Cowan Assistant Planner Kramer INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION 1. 27-tJ-74 De Anza Racquet Club .(Donald 0. Bandley): Construc- tion of a commercial racquet club consisting of club house, restaurant, pro shop, Olympic swimming pool and twenty tennis courts located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. HC --:129 Page 1 27U-74 2. 31-U-74 Equity Development Company, Inc.: Construction of a ;31-U-74 residential cluster development containing sixty- eight units located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Associate Planner explained these two applications should be consid ed at the same time. The committee agreed. ... 25 ft. minimum setbacks along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Boulevard to allow for more landscaping ... Adequate parking space for restaurant and tennis courts ... Parking space with 9 ft. clearance for each residence ... 20 ft. setback from curb along Alves Drive. .,, Something other than Olive trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road; could intersperse with tree having I�umbre.liatr top. I ifC-129 ';'age 2 .'_-U- 74 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING 3. 32-U--74 Sobrato-Berg-Russo: Construction of three industrial buildings totaling approximately 60,000 square feet located approximately 800 feet west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the corner of Bandley and Valley Green Drives. Associate Planner Cowan noted there was 25 ft. of landscaping from curb indicated on plans. Staff had suggested closing off driveway on Beardon Avenue side. ... A concern was expressed regarding loading dock facing south with the question of what will develop to the south and how it will integrate. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chairwoman Sallan expressed appreciation to staff on report from City Council on privacy intrusion problem. Member Weinstein commented on Oaks Center theatre sign. He felt it was a satisfactory design. Assistant Planner Kramer indicated the questions for the Citizen Survey should be submitted no later than January 17, 1975. Chairwoman Sallan directed staff to agendize the discussion of Grasscrete for the next meeting if the agenda was not -too long. Chairwoman Sallan asked that a letter be sent to Mobil station on corner of St.elling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard expressing appreciation for a most attractive job of landscaping. Chairwoman Sallan noted Bumbleberry Restaurant had added requested land- scaping. Chairwoman Sallan noted discussion on removal of trees from property before filing applications should be agendized as soon as possible. Member Rogers referred to beauty parlor sign .on Brentwood Market pole. Assistant Planner Kramer explained situation, noting this would be on the next agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of August 29, 1974. Since these minutes had not been included in the packets for this meeting, it was necessary to continue to the next meeting. UE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 Fl -CONTROL MEETING POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from Mr. R. J. Dempster relative to Application HC -51,318.211 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Chairwoman Sallan pointed out no item would be initiated after 11:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I -IC -129 Page 3 4. Application HC -51,058.7 of Home Federal Savings and Loan Associa- HC -51,058.' tion of San Diego requesting approval of signing for a temporary Home Feder - bank building located at the northwest corner of the intersection '.al Savings of Scofield Drive and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Continued from ;and Loan H -Control meeting of December 19, 1974. Staff report: Ms. Kramer pointed out the main concern had been with the proportions of the main sign. The committee had requested sign be revised so it. would be in proportion and drawn to scale. She displayed exhibits of two revisions being submitted; one on a single pole and the other on two poles. The area of the sign would remain the same, but would be 9" higher. Mr. Brett Bayne of Home Federal Savings and Loan answered Member Weinstein there was a difference in proportions. Ms. Kramer pointed out staff had tended to favor the double pole. Member Dressler said he preferred the single pole, but would like the four corners of the sign rounded. Member Weinstein also preferred the single pole. He objected to the addi- tional 9" height and did not care about corners. Member Rogers also preferred single pole and was agreeable to increase in height. She had no preference with regard to corners. Member Koenitzer noted the bottom of the sign was only 6 ft. off ground. He would like to see it higher, but was agreeable to this proposal. In answer to Chairwoman Sallan, Mr. Bayne said the pole would be set in planting of nandina. Chairwoman Sallan said she liked the single pole design and had no strong feelings on rounded or square corners. The hearing was then opened to public comments. There were none. rlC-129 Page 4 Public Hearing Closed HC -51,058. approved w/ condi- tions HC -51,318, 211 Fisherman' Village MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H -CONTROL Member. Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to close Public Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 The Assistant Planner pointed out the motion should include elimination of hardware store sign and clarify this sign is temporary for a 3 year period. Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of HC -51,058.7 to the City Council with the standard conditions, single pole exhibit of tonight and with the following special conditions: (1) That an exception be granted to permit locating sign in corner triangle on basis that the building to the north of it protrudes into street right-of-way and therefore restricts visibility of sign to the north, a condition which would not exist if building conformed to setbacks. (2) That the sign is considered a temporary sign and is permitted for three years or whenever the temporary building is reconsidered, the sign will also be recon- sidered with the building. (3) Ground sign for the hardware store be removed. Seconded by Member Rogers. AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Rogers, Weinstein, Chairwoman Sallan NOES: None Motion carried, 5-0 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council at its January 20 meeting. 5. Application HC -51,318.211 of Fisherman's Village (Alfredo Scardina) requesting exception to Section 7.021 of the Sign 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. Continued from H -Control meeting of December 19, 1974. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING 1129 (Page 5 The committee took a few minutes to read letter from Mr. Dempster, copies of which had been distributed by Ms. Kramer. Staff report: Ms. Kramer said the letter from Mr. Dempster was self- explanatory. It answered the committee's request for additional findings that would indicate an exception should be granted under Section 10.4. Chairwoman Sallan thanked Mr. Dempster for his response and explained why the findings were necessary. Mr. J. Robert Dempster, 20325 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, said he felt the meat of the. issue was that the boat was in no way offensive, it did not advertise and it did not harm anyone in Cupertino. People had commented on appropriateness of boat. The sign is the real question - the City would like it to be removed. This will not happen because the owner cannot operate without sign. Mr. Dempster pointed out the owner has put in extensive landscaping and is entitled to some consideration. Chairwoman Sallan pointed out the City Council had determined the boat was part of the signing and that is the mode under which the. committee is operating. In order to allow the boat to remain, the applicant must present findings to support an exception. Mr. Dempster answered Member Koenitzer that the boat had not been placed before being reviewed by the City Council or this committee; it had been brought in and left on wheels. Member Weinstein asked Mr. Dempster if there were any plans to do anything to the boat. Mr. Dempster said there was nothing else planned. Member Weinsteinsaid the boat needed attention; there are rusty nails, etc. which make it a hazard. He said he would not find any reason to grant an excep- tion. Member Weinstein pointed out old horses were shot and old boats were burned: this boat needed to be burned. Member Rogers said she was glad to see some rationale from the applicant to support granting an exception. She had not viewed the boat as closely as Member Weinstein, but she did not find it objectionable. If there are rusty nails, however, this should be taken care of as a matter of course. Any necessary repairs should be done to it. Mr. Dempster said it had been painted but the applicant did not want to put any more money into it until its fate had been decided. Member Koenitzer said under Section 10.4 (a) he saw no special conditions on this restaurant that differed from other restaurant properties. Mr. Dempster said the boat was particular to the theme of the restaurant. Each piece of realty is unique in itself. What is being talked about is opinions. Each person looks at it in his own way. Ile referred to a number of citizens who had come forward in favor of the boat; only a handful of people in the City seemed to be against it. . -129 "age 6 ublic searing losed MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 11-CONTROL.MEETING Member Koenitzer continued that under Section 10.4 (b) the hardship had been brought by the applicant himself; 10.4 (c) he agreed with Mr. Dempster's contention; 10.4 (d) was not applicable and 10.4 (e) was a minimum modi- fication. In answer to Chairwoman Sallan, Ms. Kramer read Section 10.4 and gave her interpretation. A discussion ensued on other restaurants wanting something of this nature to typify theme. Mr. Dempster said each case should be considered individ- ually. Chairwoman Sallan pointed out if an exception was to be granted, it must be determined it is a unique situation and worthy of an exception. Member Rogers said she felt there is something special here in that there is some imagination used and she thought it was novel. She would like to see more of this in the future and would like to see an exception granted. Chairwoman Sallan said in light of the City Council's decision for a waiting period for citizen input and the response, .the community seems to have made an expression of desirability of keeping boat. From that point of view on, the application was considered to be unusual. She referred.to testimony of citizens in favor cf the boat. She said she could be comfortable in granting an exception. She felt Section 1G.4 (a) did apply. The committee should speak to modification of existing ?.gn. The other two sign cans on pole should be removed. The hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were none. Member Koenitzer moved, seconded by Member Weinstein, to close Public Hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 Member Weinstein said he thought they were all wrong in interpreting what was heard. He didn't feel there has been an expression of public feeling. He could not go along with it and he thinks the ordinance is clear. He would not be in favor of granting a sign exception. If applicant were willing to do some compromising and come back with integrated sign plan, then he might be agreeable. Member Weinstein moved to deny application HC -51,318.211. Seconded by Member Dressler. Member Rogers said there is an ordinance to follow and methods for grant- ing exceptions. The committee members are expected to, and have in the past, used their discretion to allow exceptions. This committee is concerned with aesthetics and if something is acceptable and there is a method for approving it, then it should be done. MINurES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1.975 H -CONTROL MEETING HC -129 Page 7 AYES: Members Dressler, Koenitzer, Weinstein 1211 HC-51,318. NOES: Member Rogers, Chairwoman Sallan denies Motion carried, 3-2 The applicant was notified this would be heard by the City Council at its January 20, 1975 meeting. At .9:00 p.m. a recess was called, with the meeting reconvening at 9:11 p.m. 6. Application HC -51,002.9 of Ronald L. Dumas requesting approval .of site, architecture, landscaping and grading for a triplex located in the La Cresta Subdivision, Alpine Drive, Lot 52. Continued from H -Control meeting of December 19, 1974. Staff report: The Assistant Planner reviewed that the application had not been heard at the previous meeting. A Minute Order had gone to the City Council asking for guidelines. She referred to staff report. The City Council discussion resulted in two points. They sympathized with, the situation and directed staff to look into developing an ordinance. As far as this application was concerned, the City Council suggested using previous applications (Appleberry and Zubrecky) and Member Koenitzer's guidelines as points for discussion. Alleviating measures were landscaping, solid balcony and setbacks - all of, which had been included in this applica- tion. Chairwoman Sallan pointed out ordinance would not be only for triplexes but for all zonings with mixture of two and one story dwellings. Member Weinstein said City Council didn't say to use Zubrecky guidelines. They said to consider this application on its merits. Several Council members said probably the main problem is the balcony. The Assistant Planner continued the staff report by advising this is a 18,500 sq. ft. lot but because of the PG&E tower easement there is space enough for only three units. There is a 30 ft. setback in front and 35 ft. setback in rear. The building is 23-1/2 ft. in height. There are windows on both sides but at present time there are no buildings on either side. The balcony is completely enclosed. She referred to line -of -sight drawings. There are 12 ft. trees planned for rear fence. The property is almost level with' property to the rear. The possibility of ground cover being planted on easement was suggested. Letters have been sent out to adjoining property owners. Slides were shown of the site. HC -51,002. 9 Ronald L. Dumas --129 •e 8 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1.975 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Weinstein pointed out there are other houses than his being affected by visual intrusion. He then excused himself from the dis- cussion of this application. Mr. Ronald Dumas, 2570 El Camino Real, Mountain View, answered Member Rogers the setback from the front was 5 ft. more than required. Member Rogers suggested moving building closer to the street. Mr. Dumas explained this could not be done because of steep grade in front and easement line. Mr. Dumas pointed out there is a 35 ft. setback from the rear property line. According to light -of -sight drawing, 10'ft. trees would be needed. The trees being planted will grow to 12 ft. or. 15 ft. With regard to architecture, Member Koenitzer said he could not see having triangles on three corners and a flat roof on the fourth. Member Dressler reiterated his question from the last meeting as to why the house could not be designed so second story was over garages. Mr. Dumas said it would change the design completely and this particular design was his choice. This plan seems to be very efficient. Mr. Dumas pointed out this plan conforms with most of them on the street. He felt they had complied with every City ordinance. Mer_ber Rogers asked if changing living quarters to the front would alleviate visual intrusion problem. Mr. Dumas said it would then create noise problem of traffic for them. Member Dressler ascertained the roofs would be shake, the walls an off- white and the beams would be dark. Mr. Dumas answered him that there were two fireplace chimneys. Referring to landscaping, Chairwoman Sallan asked about staff's suggestion of ground cover for easement area. Mr. Dumas said he was working with PG&E on this. After discussion, it was agreed staff could be given directions on this in conditions. Chairwoman Sallan also pointed out taller growing plants are needed on sides of the property. The trees along the rear should be 15 gal. size and the choice of trees should be something quite dense. Mr. Dumas said the landscaping architect had said photinia was an extremely tall growing plant. Type of plant did not matter to him as long as it looked good and was dense. Chairwoman Sallan ascertained the pittisporum would be on 5 ft. centers. She suggested it was better to plant something that would grow to 20 ft. It could always be pruned back. It was agreed to have 1.5 gal. containers planted at rear property line. Mr. Dumas said the nursery said there was about 6 to 9 months difference MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H-CONTROt MEETING With reference to grading, Member Koenitzer felt the front bank should be of a 2 to 1 ratio and planted. The hearing was then opened to the public for comment. Mr. Daniel Weinstein, 10407 Vista Knoll, Cupertino, said this was the fourth time he has approached H -Control and City Council and since he has never gotten any point across, he thinks he is crazy, wrong or both. He pointed out there are different solutions; there is the ideal and there is what can be accomplished. The first solution would be zoning which in this case was a disasterous mistake. The next solution was that which he had asked for 1-1/2 years ago, to limit these properties to duplexes. The ideal solution for a triplex would be to have the single story part on the back. This would allow for balcony, moves the unit back and still allows the view to be enjoyed. He questioned the right of a developer to put in a balcony that will affect three residences. He showed slides of other triplexes in area. Mr. Weinstein said the ease- ment needed more than groundcover. He spoke to what use would be made of windows on rear elevation. Ms. Kramer spoke to Zubr_ecky'site, noting he had had to post bond or get approval for smaller trees. It was noted the trees had only been planted since May and some were already above the 6 ft. fence. Mr. Weinstein pointed out the left elevation is exposed, also right side from the balcony. There should be landscaping on sides also to mitigate intrusion. He did not think it was possible to do this with landscaping. With reference to windows, Mr. Weinstein said there were too many windows involved in the rear elevation. Ile urged a fence be built adjacent to the existing one which was falling down. He thought it would help to move structure 5 ft. to the front of the property. Chairwoman Sallan asked him to summarize what he solution. Mr. Weinstein said it was to turn the With proper design of triplex, it is possible balcony with Bay view. felt would be the optimum structure around 180 degrees: o do this, and still have I Member Dressler asked him what visual intrusion he objected to and Mr. Weinstein said to some extent it was an individual thing. Some people might not give it a second thought, but he doesn't want people watching him in his backyard. HC -129 Page 9 C--129 Wage 10 a ublic Hearing closed MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Paul Hardman, 10397 Vista Knoll, Cupertino, said he did not object to development of property; he did object to the invasion of his property. He said Mr. Dumas had been kind to let him have access to put new pool in. However, the triplex would not allow them any privacy in backyard or around pool. He felt it was up to the committee to protect all rights. The ideal solution for them under the circumstances would be to have the main living areas of the house facing the other way. The size of the plants should be considered rather than size of the container. Plants should be planted on same centers regardless of size of plant. From his point of view, he would recommend that the living area be reversed so that high activity would be at other side of house and glass areas reduced at rear of house and some minimum height be set on screen. He said as long as there are large bay windows on the second story at the rear the problem will exist. Mr. Hardman pointed out they had tried to forestall this situation by coming down 1-1/2 years ago. Mr. Tom DeFranco, 10427 Vista Knoll, Cupertino, said he agreed with Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Hardman. The easement leaves.his house with nothing to obstruct view. The proposed landscaping is inadequate. He thought there should be landscaping inside the easement fence. Chairwoman Sallan asked if he had planted on his side of the fence. Mr. DeFranco said there was no need for. it. It was noted there is a certain height restriction on the easement. It was ascertained to be 15 ft. Member Rogers asked Mr. Dumas what had been done to alleviate intrusion of privacy. Mr. Dumas said it sounded as though these men thought every- one would be standing around looking at them. He.sn.d they. had designed the structure to take advantage of view of the Bay. He had not contacted neighbors. He pointed out there is single family dwelling with much higher elevation and many more windows and there have been no complaints. He pointed out the additional setback, enclosed balcony and dense land- scaping. Mr. Hardman said he did not see any difference between balcony and window view. Member Dressler moved, seconded by Member Koenitzer, to close Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Koenitzer said the second story visual intrusion is not peculiar to this area. He could see why residents wanted to take advantage of the view of the valley.. He could not see that without specific ordinance they could ask too much of the applicant. The building has been set back MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1975 H -CONTROL MEETING from the property line further than had been required and at the moment, without an ordinance, with some modification to the landscaping, the proposal is at least acceptable to him. Member Dressler said he did not favor Member Koenitzer's opinion or Mr. Dumas's comments about people not looking. You are always more conscious about what you are doing if you feel somebody is watching you. He thought there was more creation that could be done. He suggested restructuring design by moving second scory over garages and putting single story to the rear. Member Rogers also thought it would be well if applicant put second story to Alpine side of house. The applicant has known of this situation and the problem his neighbors anticipated for some tima. In any event land- scaping should be modified to provide screen that is effective immediately on all portions that intrude on the neighbors. Chairwoman Sallan said one thing that is different from Zubrecky application in that rear use of the property is a great deal of living area. It also makes it different from 90% of subdivisions. She pointed out there is a difference in "up people" looking down and "down people" looking up. They are dealing with living area looking out over neighbors.. Chairwoman Sallan said landscaping along both sides of the fence can go a long way in solving problem; it is a two sided picture. She urged the applicant to redesign that particular part of unit so that it is reversed or moved back over garages. Member Koenitzer suggested continuing if Mr. Dumas wanted to redesign. Mr. Dumas asked to have a decision made tonight. Mr. Dumas said there were two balconies and a living room on the Zubrecky application. Ms. Kramer exhibited elevation of Zubrecky application showing the windows were half covered by the balcony. Chairwoman Sallan said she felt a combination of architecture and landscapin; should be tried. There were ways of making modification to the architecture that would not penalize the applicant and at the same time, alleviate intrusion problem. Member Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of HC -51,002.9 to the City Council with standard conditions, Exhibits A, B, B -1, B-2 and C and the following special conditions: (1) That small trees of Eucalypt Zubrecky property be planted property and along north and 35 ft. in from east boundary planting of Eucalyptus trees property to the east) . is family similar to ones used on along entire east boundary of this south boundaries a distance of (making a very broad U-shaped to prevent visual intrusion into [C-i. 29 $age 11 c .�;-123 ?age 12 C-51,002 denied MINUTES OF TOE JANUARY 9, 1975 H --CONTROL MEETING (2) That the bank along the west edge of the property be sloped to at least a ratio of 2 ft. horizontal of 1 ft. vertical and planted with suitable ground cover to be approved by City staff. (3) In same area, that applicant add on top of slope 10 to 15 shrubs again to be approved by staff. Shrubs to be within 15 ft. restriction or, height. Seconded by Member Rogers. Chairwoman Sallan said she felt redesign was called for. AYES: Members Koenitzer, Rogers NOES: Member Dressler, Chairwoman Sallan Motion failed, 2-2 9 Member Dressler moved to deny Application HC --51,002.9. The reason being he felt architecture of the project can be redesigned so that the applicant can achieve the desired end of view vantage of Santa Clara VaJ.ley and still not visually intrude upon adjoining neighbors. Seconded by Member. Rogers. AYES: Members Dressler, Rogers, Chairwoman Sal).an NOES: Member Koenitzer Motion carried, 3-1 Chairwoman Sallan advised the application had been denied and would go before the City Council on January 20, 1975. As it was now 11:30 p.m., Chairwoman Sallan advised the remaining applicants they would be first on the agenda at the next regular meeting on January 23. NEW BUSINESS In response to Chairwoman Sallan, Ms. Kramer advised provisions for handicapped is now part of building code and is handled at staff level. ADJOURNMENT At 11:32 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeL-in g on January 23, 1975 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Is! Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk APPROVED: Ts/ C. Nancy Sallan Chairwoman