Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 07-08-1976CITY 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 JULY 8, 1976, IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened at 7:03 p.m. by Vice Chairwoman Blaine with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Members present: Bond, Claudy, Irvine (7:06), Vice Chairwoman Blaine Members absent: Chairwoman Sallan Staff present: Senior Planning Technician Mark Caughey INFORMAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT APPLICATION: None', APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 24, 1976 There being no corrections or additions, Member Bond moved to approve Minutes of June 24, 1976 as presented. Seconded by Member Claudy. Motion carried, 2-0-1 Abstain: Blaine POSTPONEMENTS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: A memo from Councilman O'Keefe relative to Application HC -51,002.4 was distributed to committee members and Mr. Appleberry. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Staff member Caughey said Mission Furniture Store was changing hands and the committee was being asked to informally consider proposed change of color. There would be no architectural changes. A colored rendering and samples of material were displayed. Member Bond moved to tentatively approve color proposed for staff's final approval. Seconded by Member Claudy. HC -169 Page 1 Minutes of 6/24/76 approved Change of color appro,, Motion carried, 4-0 IC -169 Page 2 EIC-51, 387.1 Ke-neth P. Elvin MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application HC -51,387.1 - Kenneth P. Elvin requesting approval of site, architecture, landscaping and grading for three duplex units located at Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Staff report: Senior. Planning Technician Caughey reiterated concerns expressed in staff memo. He referred to a modification to proposed site plan. Mr. Kenneth P.. Elvin, 999 Commercial Street, Palo Alto, presented and explained a revised plan for turn around area. He said he had adjusted the property line on Lot B so tree falls within one boundary. He said the landscape plan has been changed to show plants to provide privacy. He explained grading plan being proposed. Mr. Elvin said one change was a two story three bedroom plan which reduced size of building on lot. This gave more privacy to access of each unit and increased outside living area. He said he would be willing tame ande r wall,. _but would like t o.=.keep the wall on property line because of space restrictions. He pointed out the closer the sound wall was to the street, , the more effective it would be. Mr. Elvin said he intented to put in Heavenly Bamboo as landscaping between the units on .ektreme west- end of -site, and felt -this would screen the area effectively. In response to Member Claudy, Mr. Elvin pointed out location of property lines. Mr. Elvin questioned the condition requiring -a. 24 ft. driveway since 18 ft. was adequate according to the Fire Marshall. He would like to increase landscaping area and leave it at 18 ft. Member Claudy pointed out that Lot C flag is very long and a good distance from owner. He was concerned about maintenance on the far end of this flag lot. Mr. Elvin said this could be handled by a road maintenance agreement. Each owner pays $60.00 a year for upgrading of road and landscaping. This is put in the deed. Payment of water bill for this area was discussed. Vice Chairman Blaine pointed out that the olive trees proposed would be dropping olives which would increase maintenance. Mr. Elvin said he would be willing to change to flowering Cherry trees. MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Claudy said the concrete wall and fence would be exposed if something other than ivy was not used. He suggested some shrubs could be placed intermittently placed along the wall. Mr. Elvin suggested encouraging the ivy to grow up the wall. Site: Member Irvine said there was a lot of glass looking out across to each unit and the Nandino would not screen sufficiently. He said he felt the original proposal was the better solution. Mr. Elvin explained the private patios had to be at rear and Mr. Piasecki had suggested separating units and moving them around so the backyards would be at rear property line. Member Irvine felt a bunch of alley ways was being created. Mr. Elvin offered to move one of the buildings and after discussion, it was agreed this should be done. It was ascertained 18 ft. length would be acceptable for the garage driveway. Member Irvine felt it should be at least 20 ft. With regard to visual access to unit entrys, Member Claudy pointed out that sound access should also be considered. After discussion, it was agreed the driveway should be rerouted closer to the fence. Member Bond suggested moving the second building to the front rather than the back. Mr. Elvin agreed. With regard to fence along Foothill Boulevard, Member Claudy said he would like to see some pockets in it. Three panels set in approxi- mately 2-3 ft. were agreed upon. Mr. Elvin said he had agreed to put in timed sprinkler system. This would be included in the road maintenance agreement. Vice Chairwoman Blaine asked to have the broken fence line explained. Mr. Elvin said shrubbery would be adequate screening in open sections and provide interest. It was ascertained the blank walls had been eliminated. Architecture: Member Irvine determined there would be a 2 ft. over- hang on the roof. Member Irvine questioned alternative proposed for Lot A. Mr. Elvin said this was not firm; he felt they probably would not go through with this option. HC -169 Page 3 HC -169 Page 4 Public Hear- ings closed MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Irvine ascertained there would be wood siding under the windows. Vice Chairman Blaine asked about type of garage door being proposed. Because of space restriction, she felt a "roll up" type should be used. Mr. Elvin suggested a separate sliding doors as another possibility. He would prefer to use the overlapping sliders. It was stressed the doors should be the type that would not project out. Mr. Elvin said he would like to use heavy asphalt shingles on the roof rather than shake. Staff had samples of shingles which were displayed and discussed. Mr. Elvin agreed to use the Class A fiber glass Woodlands roof. Vice Chairman Blaine ascertained all floors would be slab on grade. Landscaping: Vice Chairwoman Blaine asked about protection of trees during construction. Mr. Elvin proposed wrapping them with a wire enclosure. He said there would be no trenching in areas around the trees. Mr. Elvin said they would receive a revised plan for Unit A. Vice Chairwoman Blaine wondered if a light at Arco station would be a problem to the residents. Member Irvine felt a revised proposal should be submitted in view of all the revisions discussed. Mr. Elvin said he would be working closely with staff and since he had a time schedule for purchase agreement, he would appreciate a conditional approval. It was agreed the revised plans could be prepared prior to presentation of application to City Council. Staff member Caughey asked for actual configuration on Lot A. It was agreed to give tentative approval but if there was any problem, staff should refer it back to this committee. Lighting: It was agreed several low landscaping lamps should be included which could also go on the road maintenance agreement. The meeting was opened to the public for comments. There were none. Member Irvine moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Bond moved for approval of Application HC -51,387.1 with the standard H -Control conditions and the following conditions: (1) Proposal to protect trees shown to staff prior to grading. (2) Landscaping on north wall to be subject to staff review following rerouting of major driveway. (3) Option of Unit A is deleted. If developer or purchaser wish to add option at later date, it must be approved by this committee. (4) Class A shingles, colors subject to staff approval. (5) Three planting pockets on wall facing Foothill Boulevard subject to staff approval. (6) Some landscaping on north wall to break the strong, long expanse of wall, subject to staff approval. (7) The lamps along major driveway to be below the fence line. Number and size to be subject to staff approval. (8) A road maintenance agreement among the owner shall include the planting on Foothill Boulevard side of wall as well as the northern side of the major driveway and the lighting. (9) Join two units on Lot A which would place the driveway to the north. The final location to be subject to staff approval. (10) The architecture of the buildings to have approximately 2 ft. overhand subject to staff approval. (11) The major driveway redesign is subject to staff approval. (12) The garage doors will not protrude into the outside parking lot. (13) All of these revisions should be approved by staff prior to presentation to City Council. Seconded by Member Claudy. AYES: Members Bond, Claudy, Irvine, Vice Chairwoman Blaine NOES: None HC -169 Page 5 It was announced the application would now be heard by the City Council at its July 19,1976 meeting. HC -169 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING 2. Application HC -51,218.2 - Gene Pinkston (A & W) requesting approval of the modification of architecture and landscaping for an existing restaurant located at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. Staff report: Mr. Caughey ascertained the committee members had received copies of Ms. Sallan's comments. He briefly reviewed background situation on the site. Slides were shown which contrasted previous and present roof colors and landscaping. The applicant also distributed photos. Member Claudy clarified that nothing was specified in the original proposal with regard to the roof color and use of artificial turf. Exhibit C 2nd Rev, was displayed. Mr. Gene Pinkston, 5458 McKee Road, San Jose, said he was not sure a permit was required since it was a continued use. He had received this legal opinion. He pointed out that top two rows of tiles on previous roof were mismatched. Mr. Pinkston referred to statement that at least one citizen had indicated concern over color of roof. He said he had pages of signatures of addresses of people who.approved of this color. These were displayed. He said the opposition to the roof color was a matter of personal opinion. Member Claudy ascertained the tile was a standard clay tile. Staff member Caughey reported the City Attorney had ruled that changing the color constituted a major architectural modification and the "City has said he must have a permit to change color of roof and also land- scaping material. Member Bond pointed out he had seen A&W roofs of a more muted orange. Mr. Pinkston said he had driven around town and seen other buildings with quite bright colors. He felt the orange roof was pleasing to the eye. Vice Chairwoman Blaine read Section 3.06 from ordinance Mr. Pinkston said it was his contention that it was not the painting of the roof that was under question, it was the color. Member Irvine pointed out this application had been before the committee several times and to paint the roof this bright orange was a mistake. It should have been brought to the attention of the City prior to being done. He felt it was too strong an orange. MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Claudy said he liked orange, but he agreed this shade was too bright. Vice Chairwoman Blaine agreed a more muted orange would be better. Mr. Pinkston admitted that after the roof was painted, he felt the City would not approve. His choice of either appealing recommendation to City Council or reapplying were explained to Mr. Pinkston. With regard to the artificial turf, Mr. Pinkston displayed a sample of the turf used. He said this was an expensive material with a guarantee of 20 years. Both Members Irvine and Claudy felt it was an attractive covering for a small area such as on this corner. Member Irvine cautioned that seams might split and this would have to be maintained. Vice Chairwoman Blaine said she had checked the lighting in the parking lot and this was the brightest light in all of the City. Mr. Pinkston said they had not installed new lights. Mr. Piasecki had questioned neighbors and there had been no complaints. Vice Chairwoman Blaine asked if the lights could be turned down rather than outward and Mr. Pinkston agreed to check to see if this were possible. The hearing was opened to public comments. There were none. Member Bond moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Claudy. Motion carried, 4-0 After a discussion on most expedient way to resolve partial approval of application, Member Claudy moved for continuation of Application HC -51,218.2. Applicant to return by meeting of August 5, 1976. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Staff member Caughey pointed out banner shown on photo and advised the applicant this was a temporary sign and would require a permit. HC -169 Page 7 Public Hear ing closed HC -51,218.2 continued At 9:05 p.m. a recess was taken with the meeting reconvening at 9:15 p.m. iC-169 ?age 8 ?ublic Hear- Lng closed iC-51,254.3 approved MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING 3. Application HC -51,254.3 - Marianist Novitiate requesting approval of the modification of architecture for an educa- tional and religious facility located adjacent to and westerly of the western terminus of Merriman Road. Staff report: Mr. Caughey exhibited samples of the shingles being proposed for use. He said the chief building official had indicated utilization of the fiberglass composition roof would eliminate the need for interior sprinkler systems in the buildings and would be more structurally advantageous due to its lighter weight. Slides were shown of the site. Vice Chairwoman Blaine referred to inconclusiveness of report on desirability of conventional wood shakes vs. asphalt shingles, relative to fire retardation. It was noted that shingles would not burst and spread embers like the shakes. Vice Chairwoman Blaine said it was important to think of fire safety, especially in the wooded areas. Member Irvine felt from an aesthetic standpoint these shingles would be fine. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none. Member Claudy moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Irvine. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Bond moved for approval of Application HC -51,254.3 with standard H -Control conditions. Shingles to be Johns Manville Woodlands roof, Shakewood blend as submitted by the applicant. Seconded by Member Claudy. AYES: Members Bond, Claudy, Irvine, Vice Chairwoman Blaine NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 Application approved and would be heard by the City Council at its July 19, 1976 meeting. MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING 4. Application HC -51,333.6 - Smart Clinic, Inc. Since the applicant was not present, it was agreed to defer this application to the end of the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Application HC -51,002.4 - Leland Appleberry requesting reapproval of a triplex in Tract 42769, Lot 51, La Cresta Unit #2, Alpine Drive. Staff member Caughey displayed plans that had been approved and explained the one year limitation had been reached in August, 1973. He referred to concern of visual privacy intrusion. Mr. Leland Appleberry, 22462 Salem, Cupertino, said there is only deck. He explained why the building plans had been shelved. He explained the proposal since all the committee members were unfamiliar with it. Member Irvine commented that since the deck was off the kitchen and dining rooms, it would receive active use. The letter from Councilman O'Keefe was referred to. Slides were shown of the area. The hearing was then opened to public comment. Mr. Paul Hardman, 10397 Vista Knoll Boulevard, Cupertino, said they were in the single family home directly behind the proposed building. He read comments expressing his concerns. He feels his rights are being jeoprodized by the closeness of the building to the property line and the balcony overlooking their home. Mr. Hardman said at time of original approval they were given assurance that this would be the last one. The fundamental question of invasion of privacy remains the same. They have now built a pool and spa for medical help for his wife. They have invested $15,000.00 on the assumption that this application had outrun its time limit. He gave several ways he would fight having his privacy invaded if the City gave approval. He urged all the committee members to come to his home to see for themselves the extent of privacy intrusion. HC -16 9 Page 9 HC -51,333.6 Smart Clinic, Inc. to end of agenda HC -51,002.4 Leland Appleberry HC -169 ( MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Page 10 Mr. Tom De Franco, 10427 Vista Knoll Boulevard, Cupertino, said his single family home is along same property line. He referred to some of the promises made on the treatment of the privacy intrusion and noted there have been other approvals given since that time. He said the balcony could be moved to the front without hampering design of the building. City Council had made a mistake in not tackling privacy intrusion at earlier time; they had been swayed by applicant's appeal. Someone also needs to enforce that landscaping will be exactly as required. Landscaping has not solved the problem because it is not being put in according to original approval and is not being enforced. He said Dumas has planted 3" shrubs where plans call for 15 gal. trees. He asked for some actual verification that this problem is not being solved by landscaping. The moving of building as far forward as possible and the balcony being on the front of the building could help. Mr. Dan Weinstein, 10407 Vista Knoll Boulevard, Cupertino, referred to the Dumas situation. He said the difficulty of that building was a lot of bay windows plus the balcony. Turning it around would have solved a lot of problems. The problem with landscape screening is that it is totally inadequate. He also invited them to come out to his property. Architecture is part of control solution. He referred to Sanborn application. He said there is a straight shot into his family room and kitchen. He pointed out that landscaping doesn't always grow. He urged them to explore some other solution than landscaping. After four years, he felt it was time that someone came out to investi- gate. Mrs. Yvonne Hardman, 10397 Vista Knoll Boulevard, Cupertino, said it was unfortunate for all of them to be placed in this situation. Her health made it imperative she have the spa and the pool. She told of her feelings in having someone watch her. All the houses in this area are effected by the privacy intrusion. There is no way to get landscaping that will give them privacy with a 22 ft. setback. Mr. Appleberry said he had looked at the bui saying is true, but his plans are paid for. why don't they enforce the landscaping. All is a final inspection on building. A 10 ft. would not have just anyone in his building. solid which will minimize visibility. iding and what they are He said the issue was that needs to be done shrub will screen. He He said the deck is Mrs. Hardman referred to fumes from autos at fence which would come right into their pool area. Councilman O'Keefe said visual intrusion is taking of property rights and he is working on an ordinance to alleviate this problem. MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Mr. Appleberry said this land was zoned for triplex before Oak Knoll was developed. Everyone should have known that their lots backed up to a hill and something would be built there. Mr. Weinstein questioned why all the property was not zoned for single family development. Mr. Hardman said even though it is zoned for multi -units there doesn't have to be a balcony or extensive intrusion. Vice Chairwoman Blaine read from the ordinance what this committee was to consider on this application. Mr. Appleberry answered Member Bond they were on the 20 ft. setback in the front so the building could not be moved forward. Member Bond moved to close Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Claudy. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Irvine said he could not see putting a balcony on the back of these units. The privacy invasion must be considered in the design, landscaping will not do it. He was also disturbed about the cars coming to the back so close to the fence. He felt the City had made a mistake in not addressing this problem before. Something has to be done to protect both developer and homeowner. He pointed out in this design the whole living unit 10 ft. in the air is addressed to the back. Member Bond said he felt windows are almost as great an intrusion as the balcony. Member Claudy pointed out this needs to be considered as a new application. He found it a problem to have the cars in the back yard because of noise and fumes. Theoretically the plants could block view but it would take time. Architectural design has to be the way to solve the problem. The design concerns him and privacy intrusion of balcony is a real problem. Vice Chairwoman Blaine expressed concern both for Mr. Appleberry and residents of Oak Knoll. She did not feel this was the best plan for this piece of property. A different siting of triplex can be done so it will not be so far back and will not intrude any more than necessary on the residents in back. She could not approve this application with balcony or this plan for this site. HC -169 Page 11 Public Hear- ing closed HC -169 Page 12 [IC -51,002.4 denied HC -51,333.6 Smart Clinic Inc. Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING Member Irvine moved that Application HC -51,002.4 be denied. Motion died for lack of a second. It was noted that due to length of time needed to enact an ordinance, a decision should be reached. After further discussion, Member Irvine again moved to deny Application HC -51,002.4. Seconded by Member Claudy. AYES: Members Bond, Claudy, Irvine, Vice Chairwoman Blaine NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 The applicant was informed of his right to appeal this decision at the July 19th City Council meeting. 4. Application HC -51,333.6 - Smart Clinic, Inc. requesting approval of a sign plan for a commercial facility located in the Valley Green Business Park adjacent to and northerly of Valley Green Drive approximately 350 ft. westerly of De Anza Boulevard. It was decided to review the application even though the applicant was still not present. Staff member Caughey exhibited colored rendering of sign proposal, noting the sign would not conflict with the provisions of the existing or proposed sign ordinance documents. Slides were shown of the building and the surrounding area. It was ascertained there could be a sign on the other end of the building for a future tenant. There was a consensus of the committee members that there was no problem with this sign but there was some concern about the total sign program not being more specific. Staff member Caughey suggested a general form that could be used to cover sign programs. Staff was asked to investigate and if there appeared to be an inadequacey, the developer was to be asked to appear before this committee for a more detailed sign program. The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none. Member Claudy moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1976 H -CONTROL MEETING IPage HC-169 13 Member Bond moved to approve Application HC -51,333.6 with standard HC -51,333.6 H -Control conditions. Seconded by Member Claudy. approved AYES: Members Bond, Claudy, Irvine, Vice Chairwoman Blaine NOES: None Motion carried, 4-0 NEW BUSINESS Drexel Furniture Store (HC -51,340.1). It was noted at last meeting that the sign supports were white while the building was a clay color. Colored exhibits of the sign were displayed. Staff member Caughey said he had a meeting with the owner of Drexel store on Tuesday and would discuss this matter with him. He was asked to notify the owner that the intent was to match the building color as nearly as possible. Mr. Caughey also was to check Exhibit B with regard to color shown. Mr. Caughey reported that with regard to the City not following through on conditions set on approvals, the staff had contacted Mr. Dumas about his plantings. Vice Chairwoman Blaine also asked staff to check what had been approved for the Sanborn property. Plotinia trees and Sandlewood trees were suggested. A tentative meeting to tour Vallco was set for Thursday, July 15 at 7:30 p.m. Member Bond to contact Mr. Ward. Staff was to follow up with regard to Brown Act. ADJOURNMENT At 11:50 p.m. Member Bond moved to adjourn to the next regular meeting on July 22, 1976 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Member Claudy. Motion carried, 4-0 ATTEST: APPROVED: Is/ Wm. E. Ryder Is/ C. Nancy Sallan City Clerk Chairwoman