PC 02-26-01 SpecialCITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF ~ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD WITH LARRY CANNON, CUPERTINO'S ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT
HELD AT 5:30 P.M., IN CONFERENCE ROOM A; ON FEBRUARY 26, 2001
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Auerbach, Chert, Patnoe, Chair Kwok
(Com. Corr arrived during Mr. Cannon's presentation).
Staff`present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior
Planner, Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City
Attorney.
Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained the format of the study session
with Cupertino's architectural consultant, Larry Cannon.
Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, distributed an illustration of three versions of the same design
of a proposed residence, which also illustrates the transition and relationship between homes on
the same street. He explained the different versions illustrated, namely the original proposal, an
attempt by the architect to lower the mass but in the process the roof forms became more
unorganized; and the middle version providing better transition to its neighbors with more
standardized roof forms. Mr. Gilli discussed the elements considered by staff when considering
applications, including ordinance requirements, design guidelines (building forms, compatibility
with neighborhood, scale, and minor issues with three car garages). Mr. Gilli said that relative to
compatibility issues, staff was fairly lenient on materials, recommending that the applicant try to
match what is already out in the neighborhood. There is no permit required Jo change a roof,
therefore, it is not effective to attempt to regulate roof materials. Recommendations are made fbr
the materials of the walls on the front elevation to provide a heavier base, with a lighter second
story. He said the guidelines are on the internet with the ordinance, as well as given to applicants
interested in doing two story homes or second story additions. The guidelines are also used as a
checklist for the application.
Mr. Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group, reviewed his career background, which includes design
review for projects in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dublin, Sunnyvale, Albany and Brentwood.
He provided an overview of what to look for in reviewing plans.
Mr. Cannon referred to examples of residential and commercial properties in Larkspur, California,
and discussed what elements he considered, such as what the predominant theme o1' the
neighborhood is. He said at times the architect attempts to have the project blend in and at other
times to have the project stand out. He noted that he considered inviting entries; that the garage be
subservient to the remainder of the residence; the edges of properties and what kind o1'
Planning Commission Study Session 2 February 26, 2001
landscaping appears in front; second story which is not bulky; and whether gables are oriented to
the street fat;adc or are the roofs parallel; and whether or not the landscaping is formal.
Mr. Cannon referred to examples of projects in Cupertino representing both successfi~l and less
successful projects. He analyzed what made them successful and what could have been done to
improve the less successful buildings. Successful projects included the Ernst and Young office
project on Stevens Creek Boulevard, near DeAnza Boulevard. Features of the successful.building
included: building turns the corner well; entry element has depth and substance; fagade has
variety, depth, visual interest and quality materials; variety of one and two story elements; good
variety of horizontal and vertical plane changes and entry is treated as a focal point. The less
successful project, the brick office building on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza
was also discussed. The building was a period piece, built in 1985 and is a boxy form which does
not invite a second look as no one fagade or area of a single facade is more interesting than the
other. The entry is dark with ribbon windows and the dark color of the building increases the
bulkiness of the building. Suggestions for improvement of the building included adding greeuery,
replacement of the dark glass windows, and addition of awnings.
Referring to the residential project, Mr. Caunon pointed out the undesirable elements of the
building, which were illustrated in the photo of the project, including awkward window
relationships; high base; and roof element over door which could have added emphasis to entries.
Mr. Cannon discussed the color wheel and color schemes.
Mr. Cannon said that as part of his checklist, he visits the project site to visualize the various
' elements of the project. He said that some cities are now requiring architectural models be built
for major projects; however, they are very costly. Staff also noted that 3D walkthroughs have
been available for some projects.
There was a discussion about longevity of design.
ADJOURNMENT: The study session adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to the regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chmnbers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: March 12, 2001