Loading...
PC 04-27-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 27, 1998 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Mic&elle Bjurman, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 18, 1998 Special meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of the March 18, 1998 Special Planning Commission meeting, as presented Com. Mahoney Chair Austin Passed 4-0-1 Minutes of the April 13, 1998 Regular meeting: Com. Harris requested that the word "baron" on Page 3, Paragraph 3, be changed to read "barren." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN.' VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, t998 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended Com. Mahoney Chair Austin Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted receipt of a conflict of interest publication from the Attorney General's office, and a communication relative to the Monica Villa residential development. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No. 11-Z-97 (8-EA-98) Amendment to R1 Ordinance Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendment to Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setback and height. Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 27, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 18, 1998 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MAY 6, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to postpone Application 11-Z-97 (8-EA-98) to the May 6, 1998, Planning Commission meeting Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. G. Pugh, Stelling Road, said he would like to see Application No. 11-Z-97, which was being postponed to May 6, put to a vote. He presented a petition signed by a number of residents, who agreed that it should be handled through a mailing and put to a vote, letting the people know what the specifics are. He said that they were opposed to any zoning regulations. CONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No. Applicant: Location: 4-ASA-98 Evershine VI, LP 19744 Stevens Creek Boulevard Modification to an approved landscaping and parking plan at an existing shopping enter (Orchard Valley Marketplace) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the request to modify an already approved landscaping and parking plan within the Marketplace Shopping Center. The center includes a number of shops, eateries, and other businesses; and the dense tree coverage on the site makes it difficult to see the businesses from the street. To increase the visibility of the businesses, the applicant proposes to remove 29 trees, and 41 24-inch box trees are proposed for replanting. The new trees Will grow with a smaller canopy and will not be as high as the existing trees. The Heart of the City Specific Design Plan recommends that properties along Stevens Creek Blvd. contain trees with open branching structures. Approximately half of the 41 replacement trees will be column-shaped and will not be open-branching trees, but the column shape will make for better visibility for the businesses. The applicant also plans to add another 89 parking spaces and change the traffic circulation by closing off the east/west aisle along Stevens Creek Blvd. If approved, this will cause a net decrease in landscaping by 576 sq. ft. Staff supports the proposed modifications to the center's landscaping and parking plan and recommends approval. The Planning Commission's decision will be considered the city's final decision, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, said that staffrecommends approval of the landscaping and the parking lot modification. She referred to an overhead drawing of the shopping center, and illustrated the proposed changes and answered Commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 27, 1998 Mr. Paul Reid, Reid Associates, explained the varieties of trees to be planted. He clarified the narrative of the video, stating that they were not looking to plant trees that were lower; but trees that could have the branching trimmed up so that people could see under them. He referred to the landscape plan and illustrated the areas to be removed, those to be planted, and the areas that would remain. Mr. Reid also illustrated the modifications to be made to the parking stalls. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 4-ASA-98 according to the model resolution Com. Mahoney Coms. Doyle and Stevens Passed 3-2-0 Com. Doyle said that he feltl,here was not a systematic approach to what was being done, and he felt they should try to save the area towards the front of the street, the green buffer, which he said was the appeal point. He said that the trees close to the building provide a canopy over the sidewalk; and the ones in the middle of the parking lot should probably be removed. He illustrated an area where it would be pleasant to sit under the trees in the shade, and presently only concrete exists there. Com. Stevens said that the new parking design for traffic flow is an excellent idea. He said the parking problem was not in the front, but in the back; when the restaurant is active there is no parking available during lunch. He said he agreed that the traffic pattern should be modified, but did not feel the problem was being solved. He also added that he liked the trees. PUBLIC HEARING Staff recommends that Item 7 be reviewed before Item 2, because a Planning Commission decision with respect to Item 7 will affect the decision on Public Hearing Item No. 2. Rem 7 will clarify the definition and criteria for what is known as amenity space in the City of Cupertino, because no consistent definition exists at the moment. Chair Austin moved the agenda to Item 7. NEW BUSINESS Modification of the Development Intensity Manual regarding amenity space TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 4, 1998 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that both the Apple and Honeywell- Measurex projects raised issues about what to count as amenity space, which prompted the Planning Commission's desire to agendize it. She said that staff has not been consistent about what is counted from project to project, and the Apple application raised the issue of existing space vs. new space; at what time should amenity space be counted; could it be applied to existing space or some combination of existing or new; and what kind of space should it be? Staff is recommending that existing space be counted, because they feel that existing space can be reconfigured, and by designating existing space as amenity space, it makes it impossible without Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 27, 1998 coming back to the Planning Commission for that space to be intensified. She said that reconfiguration was one of the reasons for the Apple tradeoff of changing amenity space in one area for amenity space in another. She said staff felt that the existing space and new space should be eligible. Ms. Wordell said that staff also recommends that there be a specific list of amenity spaces to consider. Ms. Wordell referred to the model resolution for the suggested spaces in categories of employee benefits, community benefits, and aesthetic benefits. In response to Com. Mahoney's question about community benefits for the auditorium, Ms. Wordell said that although it was not specified, a suggested usage could be 12 times per year. She said that 13 other jurisdictions of similar sizes were compared; two accommodated amenity space and removed it from the floor area ratio; and of those two, Sunnyvale allowed lobbies and atriums as a deduction. Mr. Cowan said that he was not certain if all cities required FAR; development intensities is based on parking requirements. Ms. Wordell said that the FAR was related to trips and still is with the General Plan. She said that the issue has come up before, wherein the concept of controlling bulk and massing with the Use Permit was discussed; even if the FAR increases because o~amenity space, there is still the ability to look at the building and say whether it is suitable or not. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that by making the threshold for declaring amenity space fairly Iow, it involved other types of criteria, making it a complex issue. If it was changed back to the original intent, that of making it a fairly restricted type of definition, and one with a single use, it simplifies the question and makes it clear to the development community what amenity space is, and what the city is trying to foster or create. Com. Mahoney questioned if that was the original definition, and said that the floor area issue was not currently a driver of the size and mass; it was done for trips in the General Plan. He said there have been major discussions about number of employees per square foot as a measure of traffic, and the concept was to allow additions as long as they did not generate traffic. He said that amenity space was non-traffic space, which is why fitness centers, cafeterias, and daycare centers are clearly counted traffic. He added that if it did not cause traffic, it was suitable. Com. Doyle said that if the piece of space is a single use that can never be converted, it is likely that the traffic will not be impacted; and if in the future it is redeveloped and something else is allocated t~ the new amenity space, it effectively creates more traffic. Com. Mahoney disagreed, stilting not if traded offone for one. He said he felt it was appropriate to move things around if it is a one-to-one tradeoff. Com. Harris said she agreed with Com. Doyle, when the building is developed, what is considered is the whole building, the whole project, the mass and the trips, and specific areas are defined as amenity space. Later it is appropriate if they want to convert an amenity space to a different amenity space. He said that he supported turning a cafeteria into a library, daycare center, or fitness center once the space is defined as amenity space. What was not acceptable was taking an amenity space for which a deduction from the floor area ratios was given to build a larger building, and converting it into office use. He said it was inappropriate to then go down the corridors searching for nooks and crannies that could have originally been called amenity Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 27, 1998 space; then all the existing amenity space should be defined at the outset and a conversion should be permitted, but it should be at the space it was originally allocated. Discussion continued about the conversion of amenity space. Com. Doyle said that a clear definition of amenity space was needed. He proposed that amenity space be defined as public viewable and public usable. He said the key point was to make the definition restrictive and try to make certain the space has some public benefit. Com. Harris pointed out that the city philosophy on development has changed since the original concept of amenity space in the General Plan, and it was appropriate to look at the definition of amenity space and make it more specific. She said she felt everyone would agree with the section of the General Plan that says the exempted floor space is not necessary for the building to function specifically; exterior, interior decks or balconies, mechanical places for equipment normally placed on a rooftops. She said the areas that have to be more specifically defined are the ones where there is a difference of opinion; do they want auditoriums, lobbies, cafeterias? It needs to be identified what category they fall into and do they want that category? She reiterated that it is presently too vague, and needs to be more specific. Com. Mahoney said that at the very least, spaces that do reduce some traffic, such as a daycare center, cafeteria, whether used by the public or not, or of overall general benefit to the community, should be continued. He said he was not supportive of making it more restrictive, noting that the design drives the overall size of what it looks like. He said he was not concerned with the extra square feet as long as the design comes through. Relative to the auditorium usage, he said he would want to assure that it was really booked for the public use; and lobbies and atriums for aesthetic benefit would remain. Com. Harris said that if there is a floor area ratio program for the buildings, it should not be manipulated. Every building has a lobby, public space, and he said he felt they should not be extra credit. She said she was supportive of a cafeteria, but less in favor of a daycara center as one was recently approved on Stelling Road. She said she was more supportive of excluding atriums, lobbies, and auditoriums than of the cafeterias. Com. Harris said that a decision needed to be made about defining what the exclusions are, not by name, but by type. Com. Doyle said that the criteria for atrium space had to be defined, if it reduced traffic, then it is a form offamenity space. He said there is amenity space that may have some public benefit. A survey of communities revealed none of the communities were doing this. Com. Harris said that it is a way to manipulate FAR to give people more space on the site, and Cupertino is moving away from that, which is why a change is needed. Com. Stevens said that he looked at amenity space as the difference in this community between the heavy industry of the 20s and the current industry that is college and university based. There is a different kind of people with different needs. He said he saw three different definitions stated for amenity space. He said that he agreed on cafeteria; break room possible; nursing rooms possible; showem possible; lobby, if it must be included it should be on a percentage because that is a business activity; and he said that pedestrian links have no applicability. He said neutral on mezzanines; fitness centers, definitely; classrooms, portions because classrooms can be used for business; basement, unless it is a wine cellar it should not be considered at all. He said that he Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 27, 1998 agreed that a clear definition was needed, and consistency was needed regardless of the company. Com. Stevens said that he saw diversity, not consistency. Chair Austin summarized staWs recommendation as set forth on Page 7-3 of the staffreport. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to what is to be considered amenity space. Using the Sunnyvale list of floor areas, a poll was taken: 1. recreational facilities - 4:1 2. cafeterias - 4:1 3. hazardous materials storage o 3:2 4. atriums or lightriums - 4:1 5. auditoriums - 3:2 6. child care facilities - 4:1 7. architectural design features not utilized for occupancy/storage - 3:2 8. bicycle support fac, ilities - 3:2 MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to propose modification of Development Intensity Manual and definition of amenity space to include child care facilities and bicycle support facilities The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE; Com. Doyle restated the motion to propose modification of the Development Intensity Manual, recording the definition of amenity space to include child care facilities and bicycle facilities only. Com. Stevens Corns. Harris, Mahoney, Austin Failed 2-3-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to amend the amenity space to include the change in definition to include space that does not generate employees, space that has the impact of reducing traffic and significant architectural features, including recreational facilities such as gym, showers, locker rooms, cafeterias, atriums or lightriums, child care facilities, bicycle support facilities, architectural design, features not utilized for occupancy or storage. Com. Harris Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Chair Austin moved the agenda back to Item 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: l 1-U-90(M) Apple Computer 4 Infinite Loop Use permit modification to convert 11,261 square feet of amenity space to office space in exchange for 11,261 square feet of undesignated amenity space in existing buildings. Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 27, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANN1NG COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1998 STAFF RECOMMENDS HEARING ITEM 7 PRIOR TO THIS ITEM Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell briefly reviewed the application to convert 11,261 sq. ft. of amenity space to office space in exchange for 11,261 sq. ft. of undesignated amenity space in existing buildings, as outlined in the attached staff report. She referred to the floor plan and illustrated the areas proposed to be redesignated as office space. Staff believes that Apple qualifies for amenity space credit and recommends approval of the item. A Planning Commission decision will be regarded as final, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Ed Stellingsma, Apple Computer, clarified that Apple was not seeking extra credit on the application, nor would they he adding a building in the parking lot. The proposal is to trade 11,261 sq. ft. of amenity space for 11,261 sq. ft. of usable space and record it as such. He said that the proposal will not generate additional employees or traffic, but does add architectural features, none of which are necessary to the function of the building. The categories for amenity space consideration are showers, pedestrian links, employee gallery/excess lobby, totaling 6,206 sq. ft., which is space well in excess beyond the lobby space. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Mahoney summarized the three options available: (1) Look at the site as a whole, in which case it is dramatically deficient of amenity space; the response being that they would not be permitted anything additional. (2) Option of including what is currently included in the new definition, giving 5,172 sq. ft. (3) Approve the Apple request 11,261 sq. ft. of amenity space conversion. Com. Stevens commented that the selection of the one building in conjunction with the other five appeared to be a convenience and them were additional spaces in the other buildings that could have been defined as amenity spaces, and said to go through the entire complex was labor intensive and much easier to pick one or the other. He said he did not object to what they were doing, but felt there has always been amenity space that they did not count and were only mentioning it now because they want to change one. He said as far as the overall concept of what the city is trying to do, Appl~ has met the test, in that there are areas that can be defined even by the new definition. He said he felt the concept was suitable, and that the original concept of designating one entire building as amenity space was less than appropriate. Com. Stevens said that he was supportive of the applicant's request. Com. Mahoney said that if the new definition is used, it should apply on a going forward basis, including the pedestrian link, showers and whatever that gives them, approximately 5,172 sq. ft. Com. Harris asked the applicant to clarify the comment that the office square footage would not add any additional traffic. Mr. Stellingsma explained that using the formula of 11,261 sq. ft. divided by 375 sq. ft., equaled between 30 and 40 employees. However, he pointed out that they are taking 11,261 sq. ft. of space in the other campus buildings, setting it aside and reporting it as amenity space and not converting it for other uses, thereby not adding employees. Com. Harris Planning Commission Minutes s April 27, 1998 said that she concurred with Com. Mahoney relative to the 5,172 sq. ft., the new definition with showers and pedestrian links. Com. Doyle said that under the new definition, the amenity space cannot be treated or destroyed, but only transformed. He said that he concurred with Coms. Harris and Mahoney relative to the 5,172 sq. ft. Chair Austin said that she concurred with Com. Stevens because it was something Apple applied for before and had more amenity space that was not counted. She said that the building has unusable space that would not generate traffic or create new employees, and would provide encouragement to Cupertino companies. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 1 l-U-90 with the amount of amenity space that fits under the new definition, Com. Doyle Com. Austin-s- Passed 4-1-0 Ms. Wordell noted that the application and definition of amenity space would be forwarded to City Council, at which time the applicant could show the City Council what, if any, additional space could be counted toward the deficit, and the City Council would make the decision. Chair Austin declared a recess. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-EA-98 City of Cupertino. Citywide Amendment to Heart of the City Specific Plan to provide for an exception process. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 18, 1998 Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the purpose of the item to incorporate an exception process in the Heart of the City's plan to provide for design flexibility with respect to smaller properties'/dong Stevens Creek Blvd. for which guidelines were not designed. The Heart of the City's Specific Design Plan was created in 1995 to provide a positive and memorable image of Cupertino by developing a Heart of the City on or near Stevens Creek Blvd. He said he felt the City has traditionally used a planned development zoning tool to regulate development and everything is approved on a contractual basis based on a case-by-case discussion with guidance provided by a General Plan or an area plan. In the case of the Heart of the City Plan, there was a statement that required the city to strictly adhere to standards and to guidelines. Staff believes that the present Heart of the City guidelines are too rigid for small sized parcels and believes that an exception process is needed for a single parcel to combine his or her parcel with an adjacent parcel, and in doing so, create a better development plan. In response to Com. Mahoney's questions, Mr. Cowan said that relative to the implicit or explicit requirement or encouragement for consolidation, he was unable to find the terms in the document itself to address that. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 27, 1998 Com. Harris suggested the following changes to the staff report language. On Page 3-4, delete the word "an" in the first line; change the word "made" to "make" in the second tine. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 15-EA-98 according to the amended model resolution with the changes in the first paragraph, the addition to Item I and the addition of Items b and c. Com. Doyle A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the appropriate language for the exception for design standards (Exhibit A). Following the discussion, Com. Harris restated the motion. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 15-EA-98 according to the stated exceptions in~_Exhibit A, B and C. Paragraph A to read: "In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or a unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards, and where all efforts to meet the standards, including lot consolidation have been exhausted, an applicant for developmen£ may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards. This exception process shall not be used to increase land use intensity or change permitted land uses." Item 1 of Exhibit A, is also revised as follows: "and meets one or more of the criteria described above" added to the text. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 Monica Sun 19028 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to demolish an existing retail building and construct a 3,769 sq. R. retail and 6,208 sq. ft. residential (4 units), mixed-use building and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 1998 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing retail building and replace the building with a 9,977 sq. ft. building consisting of 3,769 sq. ft. building on the ground floor for retail space and 6,208 sq. ft. on the second and third floors for 4 family size condominiums. The property currently lies within Santa Clara County jurisdiction and will require annexation into the City of Cupertino. Land use and architectural design were the two fundamental issues discussed when last reviewed by the Planning Commission. The item was continued until this evening so that the architect could integrate the following four requests into the project: (1) To center the building on the lot; (2) To reduce the building height and square footage; (3) To integrate certain Heart of the City design recommendations into the building's Planning Commission Minutes l0 April 27, 1998 design; and (4) To locate a minimum of 8 parking spaces and 2 additional guest spaces in the rear and the architect will detail each request. Staff requests feedback from the Planning Commission on the architectural and building site modifications and that this item be continued to a future meeting. A future recommendation when reached by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the Heart of the City Standards proposed for modification, as shown on Page 5-22 of the staff report. Ms. Bjurman reported that the architect previously reviewed the alternative site layout studies and the Planning Commission gave direction to modify the plans consistent with scheme 3. As noted in the staff report, the architect is seeking a compromise on the Planning Commission requested items. The applicant has submitted revised plans illustrating the original site plan on the left side and the proposed revised site plan on the right side. The differences include a decrease in building area on the second and third floor for the residential portion of 153 square feet, a slight decrease in landscaping of l~i0 square feet, and an increase in 4 feet in building height. Other changes include 2 additional parking spaces for the residential units in back, and the residential parking has been separate by an arbor. Staff supported scheme 3 for the building layout because it created a rear guard area for the residential properties. Ms. Bjurman noted that the building architecture has been modified to a contemporary design. Staff still feels there still needs to be some modification to the building design in order to eliminate some of the 2 story vertical wall plane and also to integrate the Heart of the City elements that were originally commented on the first structure and are still applicable, and any new comments or new issues that arise via a new review· An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan would be required and would include any elements of design that are not integrated and/or these specific standards. The applicant is also asking for an exception to the side setback; the requirement is for a minimum of one acre for the type of land use; there was minimum landscape requirements adjacent to the residential parking that were not provided; and the common area for the residential properties was going to be encumbered and there was not enough private outdoor area provided on the balconies. Staff recommends that the building location be supported, and feels that the architecture needs to be revised to be more consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Ms. Bjurman summarized the issues of concern: (1) relocate the building on the lot; (2) should the building be reduced in height and square footage; (3) integrate the Heart of the City design elements; (4) should 10 parking spaces be relocated to the rear of the building? Ms. Wordell clarified that staff is dealing with a similar item on the Jakob apartments item and have a condition of approval ~that if the Planning Commission wants to approve the project, it can be based on the exception process should it be approved. Staff would include the findings of the exception in the resolution for the Jakob project. Mr. Thomas Liu, architect, reported that his firm took over the project from Mr. Chung following the last Planning Commission meeting. He said that he discussed the rationale for the site plan with Mr. Chung. He asked that the Planning Commission accept the proposed site plan as the best alternative, shifting the building toward the comer of the site to allow for large openings to provide circulation and a landmark at the corner. He reviewed the modifications to the plans which included the location of the building on the lot; reduction of the building height and square footage; change in roof design and architectural design, as outlined in the attached staff report. Residential parking spaces have been increased from four to five spaces in the front and from four Planning Commission Minutes 1! April 27, 1998 to six spaces in the rear. Mr. Liu answered Commissioners' questions regarding the roof eaves, roofing, awnings, building materials, and proposed landscape plan. He referred to the revised site plans and illustrated the location of the pedestrian walkway, the residential access and retail access, and trash receptacles. Chair Austin expressed concern about the privacy issues relative to the location of the windows. Mr. Liu indicated that the use of tall trees could serve as a landscape buffer on the south side of the building. He noted that the floor plan for unit 4 was revised so that the window did not face the entrance staircase. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Dr. Ben Chung, project owner, said that he pumhased the property a few years ago to help a friend in crisis. He said that he has heard stories about teenagers conducting activities on the comer and destroying property in the area. He said that he decided to rebuild the building in support of the Heart of the City plans and give back to the city. He said that he first hired Mr. Chung, architect, and many changes had to be made; he then hired Mr. Liu as the architect, who has made modifications to the plans. Dr. Chung said that he felt the building would add to the attractiveness of the city and provide needed housing for some of the residents. He added that he has attempted to purchase the adjacent property but has not been successful. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the project in its present form and was willing to approve it. She said that it was an immense contribution to the neighborhood; the setback from Stevens Creek Blvd. was suitable. She said that it provides both housing and retail which is needed in Cupertino. Com. Harris said that they had done an excellent job on the design, and she did not feel it needed to go back to Freedman, Tung & Bottomley because the applicant dealt wiih the issues that were required in terms of breaking up the wall plane with the awnings. She suggested that awnings be placed on the ends as well and that the application be returned to the Planning Commission for landscaping. Com. Mahoney said that the design was appropriate, and given the size of the building and the size of the lot, it is squeezed in and everything is too tight. He said that he was not ready to approve the application as the building size had to be reduced or enlarge the lot by consolidating. Com. Doyle said that there was a question of whether there could be mixed use on the site less than one ~/cre. He said if possible, it would be a challenge. He said that they should try to maintain at least a 1:1 ratio between the residence in the back and the height of the building. He said that it was important t~ conform to the Heart of the City standards and maintain some flexibility on the side street, but in front needed to keep it as close to that as possible; no rear commemial use of the first floor doors; and have some offsets on the sides of the project also. He said landscape plan details are also needed, as well as a material board. Com. Doyle said that without those changes, he would not approve it. He pointed out that the project is very large for the site and difficult to accommodate. Com. Stevens said that the concept was excellent, the design was interesting, but too ambitious for the area it is located on. He said that the restriction of parking area to compact cars was not appropriate as residents would park on the streets. The access to the trash area through the parking area would not be workable. Com. Stevens said that he could not support the project as it is too ambitious for the area. He suggested having three residential units instead of four. Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 27, 1998 Chair Austin said that she agreed that the architecture was an improvement; but that decreasing the size by 150 square feet did not solve the problem; the 4 foot height was appropriate; the 2 space increase was an improvement; landscaping was an improvement. She said that scaling the building back might have been an improvement. She said that the Planning Commission suggestion to center the building was not taken into account. She noted that only one unit has 60 square feet of private outside space. She said that it could be scaled back to one bedroom units or reduce the retail area to make it fit the area. Chair Austin urged the applicant to continue to work on the project as it was a worthwhile project. She recommended that the item be continued for the applicant to work on further modifications. Ms. Bjurman summarized that the building location is good, the design is suitable, with the exception of needing some awnings; a landscaping plan is needed; a decrease in building size is needed. She said it was the applicant's choice to continue the application or receive a denial. Mr. Liu stated that he would prefer that the item be continued so that they could work on further modifications. ~ MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application 12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 to the May 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 15-U-97 and 40-EA-97 Robert, Steven, Ronald & Marvin Jakob 19160 Stevens Creek Blvd. To construct an 11,137 sq. ft. 10 unit apartment building and demolish an existing single family residence including amendments to the Heart of the City plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1998 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 1998 CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1998 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct an 11,137 sq. ft. 10 unit hpartment building and demolish an existing single family residence, including amendments to the Heart of the City Plan, as outlined in the attached staff report. Because the property is located on Stevens Creek Blvd., its design must comply with Heart of the City Specific Design Plan guidelines. It was noted that the key issue for the project is its amhitectural and site design. Another design plan was submitted to the city prior to the public hearing, which did not accommodate the setbacks specified under the Heart of the City guidelines. The plan under review tonight does accommodate the required setbacks. Staff recommends that the project be evaluated under the Heart of the City Design Plan exception process, discussed under Public Hearing Item 3. Staff will also provide details on the major issues including the proposed apartment design, parking plan, front entry and wall design, and landscaping. If evaluated through a Heart of the City exception process, staff recommends approval of the future 10 unit Jakob apartments project. The Planning Commission decision will be forwarded to the May 18 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 27, 1998 Ms. Wordell distritiuted the color renderings and material board to the Planning Commissioners. She referred to the site plan and illustrated the relationship of the proposed apartment building to the surrounding area and the street. She noted that it meets the setbacks on the sides and the rear and is also set back significantly from the apartment to the west, with parking in front. Referring to the Heart of the City Standards and Guidelines shown on Page 6-2 of the staff report, Ms. Wordell highlighted how they fit and what is proposed. She said that an exception would be required if not in compliance. The standards require exception, the guidelines do not. She noted that a double row of ash trees is required; the standards require direct pedestrian access and staff feels it needs to be modified to have some distinctive paving; the main lack of conformance is with parking in front. As was explained by the video presentation and staff report, there was a different design which did not meet the side and rear setbacks. By doing the proposed design it meets the setbacks, the tradeoff being that the building is not up front and the parking in back. Staff felt it is an appropriate tradeoff; that by getting the setbacks that conform in the side and the rear, there is much better open space without having the parking in the back and without the driveway on the side. She said the parking in the front will be shielded quite a bit by the entry way and the wall and will be visible as the apartment building is set back so far. Relative to the guidelines, distinctive paving again; the guidelines talk about wanting entries and stoops but staff did not feel it was an issue; floating stairs is not an issue; staff feels they are handled. Ms. Wordell summarized the issues: Heart of the City conformity; parking in front, staff feels the exception is appropriate; distinct paving can be provided; the ash trees can be changed; exception findings will have to be made for the parking in front; the design issue is related mostly to the front entry and wall and visual impact of it. She noted that the ash trees do need to be changed and there is a new condition related to the paving. She said that a condition of approval is included that staff would like to see a smoother transition between the masonry wall and the wood walls; that the masonry wall would actually wrap around the corner, so that when seen on an angle, more of the masonry wall would be seen. Mr. Bob Hightower, architect, representing Robert and Martin Jakob, said that the wall was placed as a result of the requirement of the Heart of the City Plan that if the building isn't located at that location, there is a wall there in lieu of a building to create a uniform appearance of the street. He said that the rendering did not show some of the plantings that would be included in front of the wall in question. Mr. Hightower said that the design of the building was not planned to be inte~ated with the Swenson building adjacent to the other apartment. He said that the proposed building was more distinctive from the building next door, the proposed building is a tan color and the Swenson b.uilding is a pink tone; the roof pitches and detailing are different. Mr. Hightower answered Commissioners' questions. Discussion continued wherein Ms. Wordell answered Commissioners' questions relative to issues outlined in the staff report. Following a discussion, it was suggested that Condition 4 be changed, to add the wording following "is not needed." "However, they will continue to allow access from the subject through their property for emergency access." Com. Doyle expressed concern about the wall on Stevens Creek Blvd. and the trash dumpster. Mr. Hightower explained that the location of the dumpster was primarily responsive to the setback requirements that needs to be a minimum of 20 feet from the property lines. He said that the dumpster is enclosed by a brick wall with a trellis. Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 27, 1998 Com. Mahoney said conceptually he was concerned with the entire project. He said he felt the building resembled barracks. He said he would like to see a model. Com. Stevens said that it was consistent with what was next door. The setback even though it may be a requirement for parking, which he considered objectionable, allows a step function to an open area on the comer. The comer is a commercial building which is also set back and complements the building structure. He said that he was in favor of the project, and particularly the removal of the billboard. Com. Harris said that she supported the project; there is a need for apartments, there is one below market unit; it is new and an improvement over what now exists and is set back from the street. Com. Doyle said that the project is an improvement over what exists there now; however, he was concerned with the wall on Stevens Creek. He said that the Stevens Creek setback requirements should be adhered to which is 20 feet to the parking. He also expressed concern about the trash dumpster location. ~ Chair Austin said that she was in favor of the project; it was simple, clean, and an improvement, and included the removal of the billboard. Com. Stevens referred to Page 6-5 of the staff report, tree planting and removal, and expressed concern about the reference to the condition of approval stating that the elm tree is to remain; but that it may be removed if the arborist finds that construction damage renders the tree unsafe. He said that he would rather bond the tree to ensure that it stays or say it goes. Ms. Wordell explained that the arborist had noted how close it was to the construction, and one of his recommendations was to inspect it to assess the construction damage. In the tree ordinance, staff has the ability to remove it if the arborist says something is unsafe. Com. Stevens said that on other projects, staff has made sure that the contractor did not damage the tree, and they had to bond the tree. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the Negative Declaration on 40-EA-97 Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 15-U-97, with the addition of a $10,000 bond on the elm tree; that the applicant work with staff to change the location of the trash enclosure; that the language be changed on Condition 4 to say that the neighboring property will not have ingress and egress but this property will through the other property; including the conditions that were presented tonight and will come up again; specifically that ash trees will go on the landscape easement; the arborist's recommendation will be followed, except that the elm will be bonded; and the distinctive paving for pedestrian path will be provided from the sidewalk; the apartment entry area to be approved by staff. Com. Stevens Com. Doyle expressed concern that they were getting rid of the front green buffer that is supposed to be part of the Stevens Creek Plan and turning it into a wall, shortening up the green area and putting up that wall. He said he felt they were setting the standard for that end of town which is going to be significant and different than Stevens Creek Ms. Wordell said that parking Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 27, 1998 was the problem, as far as being too close. Com. Doyle said that there was to be some way of mitigating the parking, but not a mason or stucco wall. Com. Mahoney said that he understood that there would be landscaping in front of the wall. NOES: Coms. Mahoney, Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-2-0 Com. Doyle said that the Stevens Creek Plan has certain setbacks, certain design criteria and this one does not meet them, and they should have worked harder to come up with a compromise. He said he felt it was just shortcutting that end of town compared to other parts of Cupertino in setting precedents that have to be supported in the future. Com. Mahoney said that his issue was that they tried to set high hurdles this evening and the hurdles are very low for the things coming in. Com. Harris said that she felt4he lot should have been developed at the same time as the Swenson property, which would have been an appropriate consolidation. REPORT OF THE PLANNUNG COMMISSION: None REPORT OF TI~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLI~PENGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 1998. Approved as amended: May 26, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary ~