Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASAC Minutes - 10-28-1976CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 1976 IN THE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA. SALUTE TO THE FLAG The meeting was opened by Chairperson Sallan at 7:14 p.m. with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Bond, Claudy, Ripplinger, Chairperson Sallan Comm. absent: Irvine Staff present: Senior Planning Technician Mark Caughey PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application HC -51,403.1 - Any Mountain, Ltd. (Eldon R. Hoffman) requesting approval of site and landscaping for a commercial building located at the southwest corner of the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Mari.ani Drive. Continued from H -Control meeting of September 21, 1976. Staff member Caughey noted the basic thing to look at would be the revised 25 ft. setback on Mariani Avenue. He advised the driveway would be counted as frontage. He referred to the "averaging" con- cept ruling of Planning Commission. Under this approach, 7,250 sq. ft. of landscaping would be required. The applicant is proposing 7,255. sq. ft. Mr. Caughey referred to staff's suggested means of obtaining two additional parking spaces. The trash enclosure area was indicated on exhibitedsite plan. Chairperson Sallan ascertained there would be the 5 ft. of sidewalk, leaving 10 ft. of landscaping. She noted the original intent of 20 ft. of landscaping. Mr. Cliff Petersen, 16298 Oleander, Los Gatos, said there would be closer to 12 ft. With regard to lighting, Mr. Petersen displayed a brochure of the type of fixture to be installed. He said the poles would have to be raised to 14 ft., rather than the originally proposed 10 ft., in order to cover the area. HC -178 Page 1 HC -51,403.1 Any Mountain Ltd. HC -178 Page 2 Public Hear- ing closed MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 In answer to Chairperson Sallan's concern that the black fixture would stand out too much, Mr. Peterson said they would probably use the bronze. Mr. Peterson assured the committee members that the 35 ft. strip would make a nice appearance. They needed the parking spaces this concept would allow. Chairperson Sallan alerted Mr. Peterson that the City Council had not yet approved this concept. Member Bond noted this did conform to the guideline as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. E. R. Hoffman, 21048 Bank Mill, Saratoga, said they would like to move the trash container to a location closer to the store. He pointed out proposed location adjacent to the loading dock. Chairperson Sallan advised them the container would have to be adequately screened and blend in with the buildings so it was not visually intrusive. It was ascertained the center planting strip would be continued on down between the two added parking spaces. Mr. Peterson said they would be bringing a landscape architect in to do the final plan after maintenance district was set. Mr. Peterson said they would like to propose a "non -lawn" strip right behind the sidewalk to keep people on the sidewalk and off the grass. The concensus of the committee was to require a lawn. Chairperson Sallan pointed out critical landscaping areas. She suggested some of the liquidambar trees should be changed to evergreen varieties. Mr. Hoffman asked about using dichondra in lawn areas, but was informed the lawn should be of grass. Member Ripplinger pointed out distance between trees proposed for Mariani Avenue. Mr. Peterson agreed that a cluster of trees should be planted at driveway. Mr. Peterson said they were hoping to post a bond in case the final landscaping plan was held up because of maintenance district plans. It was noted this has been done before. Chairperson Sallan advised him to wait until a decision on "averaging" was received from the City Council. The hearing was opened to public comment. There were none. Member Bond moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Ripplinger. Motion carried, 3-0 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 A brief discussion was held on the status of the maintenance district plans. Member Bond moved to approve Application HC -51,403.1, with standard H -Control conditions and the following additional conditions: (1) Committee approval is of conceptual landscaping plan that has been brought in and conforms to Planning Commission Guideline 2.7.3. (2) That the refuse container be moved to a point at which it is adequately screened. This location and screening to be subject to staff approval. (3) Bicycle parking as per prey-.ous Condition No. 8 is as submitted on Exhibit A 2nd Revision. (4) Condition would allow the applicant to begin construction of project be posting bond in amount of improvements and landscaping, and that the applicant would be back with final landscaping plan for permit within 30 days after maintenance district has been established for De Anza Boulevard street frontages. Seconded by Member Ripplinger. AYES: Bond, Ripplinger, Chairperson Sallan NOES: None Motion carried, 3-0 Chairperson Sallan advised the applicant that the conceptual landscap- ing along Mariani Avenue has been approved and would go before the City Council on November 1, 1976. At 7:50 p.m. a five minute break was taken, during which Member Claudy arrived. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. 2. Application HC -51,339.3 - University Property Management (De Anza Center) requesting exception to Section 6.042 of of the Sign Ordinance No. 353 to allow more than one ground sign on a single parcel for a commercial development located on the east side of De Anza Boulevard approximately 130 ft. south of Silverado Avenue. Continued from H -Control meeting of September 21, 1976. HC -178 Page 3 HC -51,403.1 approved w! conditions Recess HC -51,339.3 University Property Management HC -178 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTO.BER 28, 1976 Senior Planning Technician Caughey referred to staff memo of October 15, 1976 which gave background of the application. Mr. G. Wayne Eggleston, University Property Management, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, distributed photographs taken of the site under consideration. Mr. Eggleston said he represented the owners of the shopping center. He referred to his letter of October 14, 1976 which gave their reasons for requesting exception. Noting they had started managership of the property in June, Mr. Eggleston said they were not responsible for the extraordinary circumstances created by the exclusion of a center sign. He said the Coco's sign does not identify the center. Slides were shown of the site from different viewpoints. Mr. Eggleston pointed out location of proposed center sign. Member Bond felt it would be better in front of Satisfied Ear. Mr. Caughey pointed out there are two issues under consideration: the granting of the exception and the proposal for the sign. Chairperson Sallan advised they would be considering the exception first. She reported on a California League of Cities meeting she had attended at which it had been pointed out that it is now necessary to be specific about findings for exceptions. The hearing was opened to public comment. The following tenants spoke. Each said they had had complaints of how difficult it was to find the center and received phone calls each day asking for directions. Each submitted a list of names to verify complaint. Ms. Stella St. Amour - Merrie Bee Shop Mr. Walter L. Sargent - Satisfied Ear Mr. Tom Gargano - Investment Company Mr. Eric Bench and Mr. Michael Breslin - Wallpapers to Go Ms. Linda Furton - Pic -A -Dilly Each of the above answered questions from the committee members, noting that the optimum solution would be a center sign with address. They felt the change of name from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to De Anza Boulevard was an added problem. Mr. Eggleston said he could not emphasize enough the importance of having a center sign. Chairperson Sallan asked each merchant if Exception 10.4d 'w'ould apply to them. Mr. Bench of Wallpapers to Go said no; the others (with the exception of Ms. St. Amour who had left) said yes. Mr. Gargano said he preferred not to comment. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Chairperson Sallan gave a brief history of the signing of this center. She noted Mr. Sher, previous owner of the center, had been given many opportunities to decide whether Coco's would be the ground sign for the center. One of the issues of this situation was whether when a restraint is placed on property, the developer has to make a decision and then honor it. The issue now is whether, taking into account the background, an exception is warranted. She explained the reason for planned developments was to get uniformity of building and to reduce signs. Chairperson Sallan said the alternative of putting a number in place of the sign seemed a reasonable solution to her. In answer to Chairperson Sallan, some tenants said they were unaware of the restriction placed on a ground sign before moving in. Mr. Tom De Franco, 10427 Vista Knoll, Cupertino, said he thought the center was beautiful with good signing. He did not think having the name De Anza Center would help them. He suggested putting a map in their advertising. Mr. Eggleston clarified for Member Ripplinger that Coco's owned the building but leased the land from his company. He said they had talked to Coco's about different signing but Coco's did not want to change. Member Claudy moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairperson advised the committee would have to find that 10.4a applied, or 10.4b, 10.4c, 10.4d and 10.e all applied. She read these items. Member Bond said this was a real problem. He did not feel the ground sign should have been approved without some contingency for future tenants. He said he had a hard time accepting that they couldn't have identification necessary to their livelihood. Member Claudy agreed there was a problem. He noted the speakers had made a good case to change the street back to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. They have also made a good case for a street number sign on center and a weaker case for a shopping center sign. A sign should not have been approved the way it was knowing what has happened would occur. HC -178 Page 5 Public Hear- ing closed HC -178 Page 6 Sign excepti granted MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Chairperson Sallan noted it was difficult for her, but she also was inclined to feel that the Coco sign was a mistake. She felt there was merit for some identification. She felt the least modification would be the monument type numerical sign. It is a situation she doesn't want to see happen again in the City. She pointed out if identification continued to be a problem after the numerical sign was erected, then the situation could be reviewed further. Member Claudy felt the findings could be that the exception was granted under 10.4a since the sign that was there was not set up with the current owners and the City did not use proper consideration. Also because of the change of street name to De Anza Boulevard. Member Ripplinger said he felt the applicants needed identification and needed more than a number. They needed the name. Member Bond agreed. It was agreed to take a vote on the exception and then discuss what type of exception would be allowed. Member Claudy moved that the sign exception requested under Application HC -51,339.3 be approved in light of Section 10.4a of the Sign Ordinance which states that "special conditions and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and which do not apply generally to other property with the same land use". There are three such conditions: (1) Change of name from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to De Anza Boulevard (2) Previous ASAC approval did not give due weight to under- lying effect of signing approval. (3) Current owners were not parties to the decision when it was made. Seconded by Member Bond. AYES: Bond,. Claudy, Chairperson Sallan NOES: Ripplinger Motion carried, 3-1 . f the then a held. d A discussion of proposed sign was �. to cia uc l.u. Member Claudy said there were several problems with the sign as proposed that would preclude its approval. There were no samples of materials, the sign is too big and would be maximum modification of prescribed regulation. He would prefer to see a sign with the number. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Member Bond agreed with first part of Member Claudy's statement. He could not accept proposed sign but would be willing to go for a smaller sign with the address below it. He suggested one the size of the McClellan Square sign (top portion only). The slide showing the McClellan Square sign was exhibited. Member Ripplinger agreed with Member Bond regarding a smaller sign. Chairperson Sallan said she would be willing to go with a number only sign. She referred to intent of the City Council recommendation that numbers would be an adequate identification. The City is moving toward having numbers for all signs. Mr. Eggleston said they would be making a mistake in not 'Letting them put identification as focal point to the sign. He noted the City would not identify itself by latitude and longitude. Member Claudy pointed out there was a fifth member to the committee and perhaps they could take a continuation and design something that would be pleasing to the entire committee. After Chairperson Sallan advised him of his three choices, Mr. Eggleston chose to take a continuation to redesign the sign. He asked the committee for guidelines. Chairperson Sallan advised him to check the West Valley Industrial Park signs. She stressed this did not guarantee that the next time they came in, their sign would be approved. Mr. Eggleston was also advised to bring in samples of the sign materials. Member Claudy moved to continue Application HC -51,339.3 to the November 18, 1976 meeting. Seconded by Member Bond. Motion carried, 4-0 At 10:20 p.m. a break was taken, with the meeting reconvening at 10:34 p.m. 3. Application HC -31,002.41 - Leland Appleberry requesting approval of modification of site and architecture for a triplex in Tract #2769, Lot 51, La Cresta Unit #2, Alpine Drive. Continued from H -Control meeting of September 21, 1976. HC -178 Page 7 HC -51,339.3 continued to 11/18/76 Recess HC -51,002 .41 Leland Appleberry HC -178 I MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Page 8 Senior Planning Technician Caughey referred to staff report of October 19, 1976. City Council had directed the applicant, staff and Committee to follow the rear setback standard suggested in the draft "R3 Ordinance". The applicant has provided a 32 ft. rear setback distance on the revised plan, meeting the City Council's specification. Mr. Caughey also pointed out the westernmost dwelling unit above the garage is in excess of 30 inches into the 9 ft. side yard and would have to be changed. Chairperson Sallan ruled the meeting would be opened for comments from any one at any time. Member Ripplinger noted 35 ft. setback would be required instead of the 32 ft. being proposed. Mr. Leland Appleberry, 22462 Salem Ct., Cupertino, said the City Council had agreed to accept the 32 ft. setback. The reason he did not want to come any further front was because of the driveway being so short. He would have to have an electric garage door opener. This would cause a disturbing racket under his living unit. He did not want the garages in the front but with heavy doors and a silent opener, he could live with it. Mr. Paul Hardman, 10397 Vista Knoll Drive, Cupertino, said there had been a discussion at City Council about requiring 40 ft. or greater, but since there was an ordinance pending, they had asked Mr. Appleberry to work with 35 ft. and now he is coming in with 32 ft. The trouble is that Mr. Appleberry is trying to build a certain type of triplex without consideration of his neighbors. Mr. Hardman asked if the Committee members had received an amended staff report. He believed this application was put on agenda after deadline. He said they had had difficulty getting people down here on such short notice. He had called staff and had hoped that it would be brought out by staff. Mr. Caughey said after he had talked to Mr. Hardman, he had spoken with the Planning Director who said the City Council would allow the 32 ft. setback. L of the City Council tang be listened to it was suggested the tape of the City Clouncill meeting �c 4, Mrs. Hardman said that section of the ordinance that applied to this setback had been approved and the tapes would verify that 35 ft. setback was the minimum. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Member Claudy ascertained the current setback in front was 20 ft. It was noted City Council had said they would consider a varianceonthe front if automatic doors were put on the garages. Mr. Appleberry said this would only give an 18 ft. driveway which is standard car length. He repeated his objection to the noise of the garage doors opening and closing under his residence. He said there would only be two people involved in the 32 ft. setback and he was also proposing dense screening. Mr. Hardman said they felt a 40 ft. setback should be minimum, but they would accept a 35 ft. setback. It was suggested the two buildings could be moved closer together, but Mr. Appleberry preferred to keep the 10 ft. breezeway between them. Member Claudy said he would like to know exactly what City Council had said as he would like to operate within those restraints. After discussion, it was suggested that the Committee could send this application back to City Council and ask for a clarification. The issue that has to be settled is the number that will meet the setback requirements. Member Claudy pointed out an electric roll up garage door would be required even with a 20 ft. setback. Mr. Appleberry reiterated his opposition to that kind of door because of the noise. With regard to architecture, Mr. Appleberry explained some of the revisions made to meet the recommendations of the Committee. Member Claudy pointed out the 10 ft. wrap -around planting would not now provide the screening intent because of the building being moved forward. Mr. Hardman said he had investigated privets, the plant chosen for screening the rear. According to Sunset Garden Book this type will grow to 15 ft. It is semi -deciduous. It does not do well in this area and will drop its leaves. It was discovered after referring to letter from Boething Treeland Nursery that the plant was wrongly denoted on the plan. It should have been Ligustrum lucidum (glossy privet). This type would grow to 35 ft. Mr. Appleberry answered further objections from the Hardmans that the plants had been moved in from the fence and with pruning three times a year, there would not be any fruit. HC -178 Page 9 HC -178 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Page 10 The overhang on the second level garage was discussed and Mr. Appleberry said his architect would correct this. Staff member Caughey asked if there wasn't some way that the second level window area could be minimized. Mr. Appleberry said he did not want to go back and rake up any old bones. He felt this was a petty argument over a mere 3 ft. Chairperson Sallan said she could make a decision; if the others could not, it could be sent back to City Council with the notation that more definite criteria was needed. Member Bond said he could not make a decision without more information. Member Claudy noted the basic design had been approved. He would feel awkward to say it was not architecturally satisfactory now. The shrub and plantings of taller growing -privet with extended wrap around were all right. The side yard -problem could be worked out. The only problem was the rear yard setback. He would rather make a decision and send it on to City Council for a final decision. His present feeling was to approve it. Chairperson Sallan said because a literal interal interpretation of guidelines would require 35 ft. -setback and there was only 32 ft., she would be forced to deny it. 40 ft. or even 60 ft. setback would be better in these situations. Member Ripplinger agreed with Chairperson Sallan. He noted setback requirements are usually the minimum. Mr. Appleberry said he felt he had been caught in the middle of ordinance changes. This has been very expensive. He said he had been approved at 20 ft. setback and has now come in with 32 ft. He has done all he can. The applicant answered staff member Caughey that he intended to use California tile for the roof. With regard to lighting, Mr. Appleberry said there would be a light installed over the trash enclosure area. Chairperson Sallan advised that no light should be intrusive to the neighbors. A discussion was held on procedural process to follow. The consensus of the Committee was that all portions of the application could be approved with the exception of site. Chairperson Sallan expressed some concern over the landscaping. It was ascertained the shrubs would be extended into the sideyards another 5 ft. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Member Claudy moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Member Ripplinger. Motion carried, 4-0 Member Claudy moved that the following findings with regard to Application HC -51,002.41 be submitted to the City Council of the City of Cupertino: (1) That parking requirements as set forth under the revised site plan are adequate. (2) That the architecture under the revised plan is acceptable with the exception that the sideyard setback intrusion evidenced on westernmost dwelling unit above garage is not in conformance with building codes and shall be brought into conformance at building permit stage. Californiatiles to be substituted in place of shakes. (3) That landscaping is found acceptable with the condition that Ligustrum licidum (glossy privet) be substituted for plants of California Privet as shown on plans and that side yard plantings of this shrub be extended another 5 ft. from prope line. (4) Grading is in conformance with the requirements. (5) That lighting fixture be installed in trash enclosure area and that final selection of the fixtures be approved by staff. (6) However, it has been determined that the minimum rear yard setback for this piece of property is not in conformance with the policy established, by the City Council which would require a minimum of 35 ft. setback for the rear yard. Therefore, this application No. HC -51,002.41 has been denied. Seconded by Member Ripplinger. Member Bond said he would be voting no because he did not think there was enough information to make a decision. AYES: Claudy, Ripplinger, Chairperson Sallan NOES: Bond Motion carried, 3-1 HC -178 Page 11 Public Hear- ings closed HC -51,002.41 denied HC -178 Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED H -CONTROL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1976 Chairperson Sallan advised the applicant this would now be heard by the City Council on November 1, 1976. ADJOURNMENT At 12:15 a.m. Member Claudy moved to adjourn to the regular meeting of November 4, 1976 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Member Ripplinger. ATTEST: Is/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk Motion carried, 4-0 APPROVED: Is/ C. Nancy Sallan