HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes 03-04-1976CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino
Telephone: 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON MARCH 4, 1976, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
The meeting was opened at 7:13 p.m. by Chairman Koenitzer with the
Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Blaine, Irvine, Sallan, Chairman Koenitzer
Members absent: Dressler
Staff present: Assistant Planner Piasecki
INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 19, 1976
On page 10, Member Irvine moved to approve Application HC51,341.3
instead of Chairman Koenitzer.
On page.,,-, second line, second sentence should read: "...The U -Save
part of the ground sign...."
HC -160
Page 1
Member Blaine moved to approve Minutes of February 19, 1976, as Minutes of
amended. Seconded by Member Irvine. 2/19/76
approved as
Motion carried, 4-0 amended
POSTPONEMENTS: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Assistant Planner Piasecki reported a
request from Allstate Realtors for a change of copy on sign.
The committee agreed to hear it at the end of the agenda.
HC -160 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Page 2
HC -51,362.1 1. Application HC -51,362.1 - De Anza Storage (Bruce Edwards)
De Anza requesting approval of a six months extension of time for
Storage a mini -storage facility located at the southwest corner of
Mary Avenue and Freeway Route 280.
Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to letter dated February 10,1976
in which the applicant had asked for a six months extension for
obtaining the building permit and an extension of use permit and
architectural site approval. Mr. Piasecki said the use permit had
expired in November so applicant would be required to file for
another.
Mr. Piasecki answered Chairman Koenitzer that the applicant had
indicated construction would be underway within the year.
The Assistant Planner answered Member Sallan that it was an unusual
situation, but that it was legitimate. If the use permit was
modified in any way it would come back to this committee.
Chairman Koenitzer then opened the meeting to public comments.
There were none.
Public Hear-
ings closed
HC -51, 362.1
Extension
granted
HC -51,218.2
Whitevale
Company, Inc
(A&W)
Member Sallan moved, seconded by Member Irvine, to close Public
Hearings.
Motion carried, 4-0
Member Sallan moved to provide an extension of the architectural and
site approval for Application HC -51,362.1 for a six month time frame.
Seconded by Member Irvine.
Motion carried, 4-0
Chairman Koenitzer advised the applicant this would be heard at the
March 15, 1976 City Council meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No item will be initiated after 11:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Application HC -51,218.2 - Whitevale Company, Inc. (A & W)
requesting approval of the modification of landscaping for
an existing restaurant facility located at the northwest
corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue.
Continued from H -Control meeting of February 19, 1976.
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Assistant Planner Piasecki referred to exhibited site plan, pointing
out it had been modified according to recommendations from the last
meeting with the exception of the parking arrangement. The applicant
has stated closing curb cut would not be acceptable.
Staff recommended a very low "exit only" sign be installed at the
Portal Avenue -Stevens Creek Boulevard corner.
Mr. Piasecki answered Member Sallan that the Traffic Engineer had
indicated his preference would be for the curb cut to be closed
but it was not a necessity. It was ascertained the Traffic Engineer
had not worked out a plan showing traffic circulation, which had
been requested by the H -Control committee.
With regard to positioning of sign, the applicant had indicated
there is a grease trap clean out tank underground which would prevent
the sign from being moved back.
Mr. Raymond Bartels signed in. Member Sallan said she wanted to
pursue the question of modifying site by closing of ingress -egress
point. Mr. Bartels said this had been discussed with Mr. Piasecki
only, but he understood the Traffic Engineer had said it would just
as well with the traffic circulation as proposed as with this point
closed. Member Sallan asked his reasoning for not closing it since
it would work as well and would add aesthetics to the site. Mr.
Bartels said traffic -wise it would work but that he did not agree
it would work as wellwith regard to operation of their business.
He pointed out the traffic flow would affect the business greatly.
Mr. Bartels said he was amazed they wanted to disturb a nice traffic
flow that had worked well for five years. Member Sallan pointed out
the Traffic Engineer had said the modification would work. She said
it was the intent of this committee to upgrade the site and it was
consistent with what they were trying to do at other sites.
The placement of the parking spaces was discussed Member Irvine
said he did not have any problem with the way the parking was
striped; what was being addressed was: whether the curb cut should
be closed. He felt the Traffic Engineer would have said it was a
hazard. The curb ,cut on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be exit only.
Member Sallan said she had hoped to have a plan from the Traffic
Engineer. She felt this was a major issue.
Mr. Bartels explained why a decision tonight was necessary. This
was the deadline for their option. He reiterated the site had
worked well for five years without an accident being reported.
HC -160
Page 3
HC -160 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Page 4
Mr. Piasecki suggested a compromise modification and exhibited a
drawing to the committee members and Mr. Bartel. This was discussed.
It was noted this was the type of thing the committee had hoped to
receive from the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Piasecki explained the
Traffic Engineer was more involved with public rather than on -site
planning.
Member Sallan said she did not feel the staff had worked with the
applicant sufficiently.
Mr. Bartels said there was no need to discuss the landscaping
proposal. He said they had been coming in since November. They
felt they were upgrading the site aesthetically but since they
could not please some of the committee members they would just
withdraw their application and not waste the committee's time any
further.
Chairman Koenitzer said the proposal tonight was essentially what
they had had at the last meeting. The committee would act tonight
i and it would then go to City Council, so the landscaping would have
to be discussed. Mr. Piasecki clarified for the applicant that this
portion of the application had not been acted on by the City Council
since it had been continued.
With regard to landscaping, Member Sallan said her only concern was
around the sign area.
Chairman Koenitzer said one section of raphiolepis on Portal Avenue
between the two driveways should be of a taller variety, something
that would grow to four or five feet in height.
Member Sallan said the plants on the back wall would improve the
site greatly.
Member Irvine questioned having the sign moved to the other side of
the sidewalk. Mr. Bartels said it would be hidden there.
Member Sallan referred to the parking light that had been discussed
at previous meeting. Assistant Planner Piasecki said it could
remain as it was since the property owners had said it did not
bother them.
Member Sallan ascertained they could ask for another light standard
if they wished and if they felt it was necessary. She said the
lights were very bright. Mr. Bartels answered her they had no plans
to change the lights. He said it would look totally different with
the building upgraded and the landscaping in.
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
A picture of the light standard was shown. Member Sallan ascertained
the angle of the light could be changed. Mr. Bartel agreed it should
be of a more downward angle.
The meeting was then opened to public comment. There were none.
Member Blaine moved, seconded by Member Irvine, to close Public
Hearings.
Motion carried, 4-0
Member Sallan moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,218.2
Whitevale Company, Inc. (A & W) with standard H -Control conditions
and the following additional conditions:
(1) That the approval is granted for the specifics of the land-
scaping and that the only modification made is to the site:
to close the exit only egress point as noted on C 2nd Revision
and that area is to be a landscaped area consistent with what
else is proposed on the site.
(2) Subsequent to this, they suggest that the City Traffic Engineers
provide an appropriate on -site flow of traffic and parking to
be consistent with the recommendation for closing that exit.
The site proposal should flow as acceptably as the existing one;
(3) Change the Raphiolepis Indica Rosea on the Portal Avenue
frontage to a type of Raphiolepis that will grow to a maximum
height of six or seven feet.
Seconded by Member Blaine.
AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine, Sallan, Chairman Koenitzer
NOES: None
Motion carried, 4-0
Chairman Koenitzer advised this would now go before the City Council
at the March 15, 1976 meeting.
Mr. Bartels said this started last October and they were now out of
time so they could not go to City Council. He said he had tried to
explain this to them at the last meeting.
HC -160
Page 5
Public Hear-
ings closed
HC -51,218.2
approved w/
conditions
HC -160 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Page 6
3. Application HC -51,075.43 - Watkins -Johnson Company requesting
approval of landscaping and signing for the first phase of a
three building light industrial complex located adjacent to
and southerly of Pruneridge Avenue approximately 500 ft.
westerly of Tantau Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting
of January 8, 1976.
Staff report: Assistant Planner Piasecki said staff had reviewed
the sign and it was consistent with the existing and proposed sign
ordinances.
The critical areas of concern regarding the landscaping include
those areas along the perimeter of the property. He referred to
landscaping plan as exhibited. Staff suggested the Coast Redwoods
be increased to 15 -gallon size to ensure more rapid growth and
form to this area.
A complementary lawn portion located on the east side of the entrance
to the Hewlett-Packard facility to enhance existing lawn area was
suggested. Also that the Algerian Ivy be placed at 12 inch on -
center.
Mr. Piasecki referred to Exhibit C-3. It was suggested some
landscaping shrubs be placed along this area to diminish the
"open field" effect.
Referring to Exhibit C-4, Mr. Piasecki said staff was suggesting
the Coast Redwoods be increased to 15 -gallon size and that the
shrubbery proposed to highlight the base of the Redwood be increased
to 5 -gallon size, additional landscaping or mounding on area between
the parking lot and southerly property line.
Elevations of the building, colored rendering of sign, color chips
and slides of an identical sign were displayed.
Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, 2470 El Camino, Palo Alto, said the photo is
the new company sign and the one that will be used on this site.
Slides of the site were shown.
Mr. Ehrlich said they were looking at 14-1/2 acres of landscaping
at this time, not including trees in parking site. It will cost
approximately $200,000. He described the way this plan was
formulated. He said every plant, tree and shrub has been individu-
ally considered. He gave the number of different plants included
in plan.
With regard to suggested lawn area, he said this might occur as the
site develops but they have tried to keep lawn areas contiguous for
easy maintenance.
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Mr. Ehrlich said he felt it would be costly and inappropriate to
put inlawn at the other end now.
Referring to Algerian ivy, Mr. Ehrlich said ivy depends on care
and maintenance rather than spacing for good coverage.
Changing to 15 -gallon trees would add $8,000 - $10,000 and would
still not screen adequately in 9 or 10 months. In two or three
years, the 5 -gallon trees would form significant screen.
Mr. Ehrlich said they do not function on a "come in and negotiate"
basis. These plans have been professionally prepared to relate
to the company and he would request they be approved.
With regard to existing Redwoods along fence, Mr. Ehrlich answered
Member Sallan they were not on automatic irrigation and this has
been a dry winter.
It was ascertained there are 152 Redwoods on freeway frontage.
Mr. Jim Coleman, landscape architect, answered Member Sallan's
question about rate of growth, noting the 5 -gallon size would
surpass in height and growth the 15 -gallon size in just a few years.
He explained this tree does not like to be in cans very long.
Sometimes the 1 -gallon size would grow faster than the 5 -gallon.
He said the existing Redwood trees would be growing within the
next few months.
Watering of trees was discussed. The advantages and disadvantages
of 5 -gallon and 15 -gallon plantings were discussed.
In answer to Member Blaine, Mr. Coleman said the fumes from the
freeway traffic could damage the trees. The Redwood tree was note
the best tree for freeway as they preferred foggy weather. These
trees will be on automatic irrigation and would be a spray type
of watering which would get them going.
Chairman Koenitzer said he was pleased with the landscaping around
the tank and utility building.
Mr. Coleman explained the concrete pattern used to protect plants
from automobiles and also to protect the sprinklers. He explained
the choice of plants.
The meeting was opened to public comments.
Mr. Bill Lester, Vallco Park, said he had planted over 2,000 Redwood
trees in Vallco Park. He said the Coast Redwood tree is a shallow
rooted tree with a tendency to blow over. It is best to use 1 -gallon
size as it will overtake 5 and 15 gallon ones within 5 years. The
1 -gallon size gives them a chance to grow tap roots and prevent them;
from blowing over.
HC -160
P age 7
HC -160
Page 8
Public Hear-
ings closed
HC -51,075.43
approved
Allstate
Realtors
Change of
Copy
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Mr. Lester said he had planted 1 gallon and 5 gallon trees to test
their rate of growth. He displayed photos and described the find-
ings indicated in this experiment.
Mr. Lester answered that the mortality rate of the 5 gallon size
was 3% and the 1 gallon was 1%. He said if they have a choice they
will always plant 1 gallon size. Within three years the 1 gallon
size will outgrow the 5 gallon.
Member Sallan thanked him for his presentation and indicated her
hope he would be available for future consultation.
Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member
Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
Member Sallan moved to recommend approval of Application HC -51,075.43
to the City Council with the standard H -Control conditions.
Seconded by Member Blaine.
AYES: Members Blaine, Irvine, Sallan, Chairman Koenitzer
NOES: None
Motion carried, 4-0
The applicant was notified this would now be heard by the City
Council at its March 15, 1976 meeting.
The Assistant Planner exhibited rendering of building and referred
to display of sign as it exists. The copy had been changed without
the benefit of ASAC approval or sign permit. He gave background of
the free standing sign. There had been other signs on the building
that were not approved. These had been removed. The applicant is
now requesting change of copy in free standing sign.
Mr. Piasecki said the sign was 18 ft. per side which is in existing
3%; will also be within the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission
has been recommending all new signs that were approved under
exceptions be allowed to stand unless sign is changed or there is a
change of tenant.
Assistant Planner Toby Kramer reviewed Planning Commission's thinking.
When coming in for change of copy under new ordinance, this sign
would be non -conforming and would require a new sign. It could
be reviewed again and excepted. She clarified this sign would be
allowed to stand under new ordinance until another change of copy
was requested or it was significantly modified.
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Color chips were displayed.
Mr. Dale Applegate, 20940 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, said
at the time they applied for application to submit to ASAC, they
were informed there was a new ordinance forthcoming. The ASAC
would reject it because it would be in violation of the pending
ordinance. This was the reason they had changed the sign without
approval. It might not be a valid excuse to the committee but as
a small businessman, it was financially valid to them.
Chairman Koenitzer questioned staff saying they would reject proposal
He noted there had been little input from businessmen to the pending
ordinance. The committee is now stuck with something that has
already happened.
Mr. Applegate said they are willing to comply but they want a
realistic ordinance.
Assistant Planner Piasecki said he was the one who had talked with
Mr. Applegate and he would never make that type of prediction. He
noted the sign was up before the City contacted the applicant. Mr.
Applegate said he had contacted Mr. Piasecki before the sign was
put up.
Member Blaine ascertained the reason for the exception was that the
building could not take a building mounted sign.
Member Sallan said it was frustrating for this committee not to have
had the opportunity to decide for or against this proposal. In most
cases in the past year they have dealt with applications under the
existing ordinance. In some cases the applicants have compromised.
Mr. Applegate said experience of last 45 -days has not been normal
and he apologized.
With regard to sign itself, Chairman Koenitzer said it used too much
of sign area for the letters, but they are stuck with something
that is there.
Member Sallan spoke to some type of penalty to be paid by person
erecting an illegal sign. She did not object to sign but she has
trouble approving it because this would appear to be approving a
sign that was erected illegally.
Mr. Applegate said in normal times this would be proper but in this
period of turmoil the businessman did not know what to do. Chairman
Koenitzer advised them to come in and follow the channels. The
committee tries to judge each application on its own merit.
HC -160
Page 9
HC -160
Page 10
Public Hear-
ing closed
Change of
copy approve(
Texaco and
Goodrich
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
Member Irvine said if this is the feeling of the businessmen of
Cupertino, they should realize there is an existing ordinance
that must be adhered to at this time. It could be another year
before the new ordinance is approved or it might not ever be
approved. They are not against the businessman. This is a public
body and he would like this conveyed to the business community.
The hearing was opened to public comment. There was none.
Member Sallan moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by
Member Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
Member Blaine moved to approve Application of Allstate Realtor
change of copy on existing ground sign. Seconded by Member Irvine.
Motion carried, 3-0-1
Abstain: Sallan
Mr. Applegate was informed this would not go to City Council, but
he was advised to get a building permit.
Assistant Planner Piasecki said he had had an oral communication
from Texaco and Goodrich for a 3 -day tire sale display. He had
notified them to be present tonight to present additional informa-
tion but no representative had come.
NEW BUSINESS:
A discussion was held relative to changing H -Control meetings to
Wednesday instead of Thursday. It was agreed to leave the meetings
on Thursdays. It was noted Member Dressler will not be able to
attend the Thursday meetings for the next three months.
Assistant Planner Kramer then reported to the committee what had
transpired at the Planning Commission hearings on new sign ordinance.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to do without the
amortization period. Any sign that did not have a permit and did
not conform would be required to become conforming immediately.
With regard to self regulating ordinance, the Planning Commission
favored this. The ordinance should be basically written so staff
could enforce it and the Planning Director approve all signs other
than exceptions, Planned Developments and appeals. She stressed
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING
emphasis would be placed on sign application being made at same time
as site plan presented. _
Member Sallan said she felt having staff approve signs was a drastic
change. She questioned "discretionary" aspect of ordinance. Ms.
Kramer pointed out most of the applications would be PD.
Member Blaine suggested someone from the committee should attend
the Planning Commission hearings and explain the SRC's point of
view. Chairman Koenitzer and Member Sallan both indicated they
would try to attend.
Member Sallan said her concern was that staff would approve the
maximum that 5 people would want to study before it would be allowed.
Ms. Kramer said conditions would supercede ordinance. Member Sallan
said this was where the problems came in. Ms. Kramer pointed out
there was no way of writing ordinance that did not require judgment
by somebody at some point.
Member Sallan presented a written suggestion to staff that a
penalty be levied for signs erected illegally. A discussion
was held on what fines could be levied on violations and the
due process that would allow violators to follow procedure.
Member Blaine questioned signs that have deviated from what was
approved. Mr. Piasecki suggested requiring a sign bond to be
posted. Member Irvine said if the City wrote a letter to licensing
board about any contractor who erected an illegal sign, this would
carry some weight.
.ti
Member Irvine reviewed situation at Horse Ranch which indicated the
parks should come through ASAC so character of parks could be
maintained. The other members agreed.
Chairman Koenitzer noted the City had trimmed Monterey pines at I
corporation yard. He would present this at the next Mayor's meeting.;
ADJ OURNMEN T
At 10:45 p.m., Member Sallan moved to adjourn to the next regular
meeting of March 18, 1976 at 700 p.m. Seconded by Member Blaine.
Motion carried, 4-0
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Wm. E. Ryder /s/ R.D. Koenitzer, Jr.
City Clerk Chairman
HC -160
Page 11