PC 07-27-98CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
DRAFT SUBMITTED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 27, 1998
SALUTE TO ~ FLAG
RO! ,L CALL
Commissioners present: Corns. Doyle, Harris, Mahoney, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin
Staffpresem: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Developmem; CiddyWordell, City
Planner; Michele Bjurman, Planner II; Veto Gil, Planner II; Carmen
Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 13, 1998 regular meettng:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved m approve the .July 13, 1998 Planning Commission
minutes as presented
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted receipt of a letter from the law
fn'm of Atkinson, et. al. relative to Item 3 on the agenda, and a communication related to a
future meeting on two stop additions and concern for privacy.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
5-U-98, 11-EA-98 (construction of new service station)
Hossain Khaziri
10002 DeAnza Blvd. (northeast comer of the intersection of
DeAnza Boulevard & Stevens Creek Blv~[)
To demolish an inactive service station and construct a new 778 square foot service station
and 648 square foot car wash.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUG. 10, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI2qG
Planning Commission Mitlut~ 2 July 27, 1998
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
7-EXC-98 (21-EA-98) (expansion of Hillside home)
Thomas Hutton
22820 San Juan Road (west of intersection of San Juan Road
and closed portion of Cordova Road)
Hillside exception to locate a 2,500 square foot addition to a residence on a prominent
ridgeline in accordance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO AUG. 10, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
10-EXC-98 (parking exception)
Kanisha (Sobrato Development)
10351 Bubb Road (Approximate mid-block between Stevens
Creek Blvd. and McClellan Road)
Parking exception to allow a shared parking agreement for an existing office building.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEAT.ED.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to continue Applications 5-U-98, 7-EXC-~8,
and 10-EXC-98 to the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
CONSENT CAI.ENIIAR: None
.,
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
6-U-98, 8-Z-98(M), 16-EA-98 (construction of 8
townhomes)
Judy Chen
7359 Rainbow Drive (easterly most apartment lot on north
side of Rainbow Drive, next to freeway)
Use Permit to demolish an existing apa~'tment and construct an 8 unit townhouse
development on a .34 acre parcel.
To rezone a .34 acre parcel from P(Res 20-30) to P(Res 10-20)
CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 7, 1998
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish a 6 unit
aparmaent building and construct a 7 unit townhouse project on the northwest comer of
Rainbow Drive and Highway 85. The application was first reviewed on June 22, 1998
when the Planning Commissioners noted the six concerns as outlined in the attached staff
Planning Commission Minutes ~ July 27, 1998
report. The applicant has resubmitted plans addressing the commissioners' concerns
which were: (1) General Plan conformance; (2) Homing Cormnittee recommendation
regarding mitigation; (3) Comprehensive landscape plan; (4) Parking requirements; (5)
Building height; and (6) LoR element. Staffrecommends approval ofthe application.
Ms. Vera Gil, Planner 11, said that the plans presented to the Planning Commission did
not include a loft element, and that the applicant was requesting that the Planning
Commission reconsider the plans submitted at the prior meeting which did include the loft
element. She reviewed the site plan and building elevations to illustrate that the applicant
has addressed building height, parking requirement and the landscape plan. Referring to
the overhead site plan and elevation plans, she discussed the architectural changes which
reduced the height of the buildings to 34 feet, the equivalent of the Landmark building.
Relative to the parking requirement, Ms. Gil reported that by reducing the total unit count
from 8 to 7, they were able to pick up a parking space, and are able to meet the same
parking requirement of the neighboring Landmark development of 3 parking stalls per
unit. She noted that staff feels that 3 parking stalls per unit is adequate for the
development. Ms. Gil explained that staff placed a condition of approval in the model
resolution relative to locating the trees to increase privacy between the two developments.
Relative to the General Plan conformance, Ms. Gil said that the corrected copy of the map
shows that the adjacent property Landmark development had a General Plan amendment
and the argument could be made that the boundary could move and cover this property as
well. That was not clear at the last meeting, the map showed that it was still a higher
density property neighboring this site. Relative to the housing mitigation, she clarified
why the developer was being required to provide more affordable housing units than
required. She explained that orJ~nally it was an R3 property, rezoned to a planned
Development; and since the units were already existing on site and it was being rezoned to
PD, staff felt that there was going to be a loss of rental property with the existing units and
that is why the Planning Commission and City Council in 1991 required that four of the I0
proposed umts should serve tow and very low income families. Since that time the
applicant has reapplied and requested that those units no longer be requfl'ed and the
housing mitigation be waived for her site. The Housing Committee was concerned with
the loss of.rental property and are requiring that two units be reserved for medium and
moderate income households, either rental or ownership units.
In response to Com. Mahoney's question about staff's position on the lofts, MS. Gil said
that staff felt the height was too high with the lofts, and recommended that the applicant
remove the lofts.
Mr. Mark Hines, attorney for the apphcant, 660 W. Dana Ave., Mountain View, clarified
why they were asking that the Planning Commission revisit the loft issue. He said that at
the last meeting, staff was concerned that when they looked at the elevations presented,
there appeared to be a 4 foot difference between any height, whereas the elevations were
in fact 4 feet higher than the adjacent buildings, and there was concern from the Planning
Commission that it was too high. He said that with the lofts the buildings were 35 feet
Planning Commi~on Minutes 4 July 27, 1998
high as they have been redrawn, and the staff said they were 34 feet in height, which is
only 1 foot difference, and they believe that while thc height would not be identical, it
would only be a 1 foot difference. He said that they felt the only thing that was creating
the heights were the peaks of the lofts themselves and the overall appearance of thc
project would not be that it would appear the buildings in the development were towering
over the adjacent properties; and the additional space created by thc lofts would make the
units more marketable.
Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, referred to the various building elevations, and said that
the previous uppheation had a 35 foot height which matched the buildings next door and
then were asked to drop the height and they did so by a foot. He said that the owner of the
properties was requesting the height be raised to 35 feet again because she felt it would
increase the market value of the properties and would look better with the modulation of
roof heights. Mr. Sloan answered questions about the design of the development. He
said that they would be willing to modify the design of the side of the buildings.
Discussion continued regarding the height of the buildings, wherein Com. Stevens
clarified that the Planning Commissioners' previous concern was they were pointing out
that fi.om DeAnza Boulevard (because their project was closer to DeAnza Boulevard) the
same height would accent it like a cliff coming further out; and the Planning
Commissioners' recommendation was to soften it so it would have a step function;
considering the aesthetics of driving up De,An?a Boulevard.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comments; there was no one present who
wished to speak.
Com. Hams questioned how taking off the loft off would only save 1.5 feet. Mr. Sloan
clarified that the loft was about 7 feet at the peak, graduating to 3 feet above the ceiling
fi.om the third level, and without the loft, it is attic space of only a maximum of 6 feet. He
said the loft was more usable space. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the loft would not be
counted as square footage as it could only be used for storage, and was not really livable
space for a bedroom.
Com. Hams said she felt the 3 per unit parking was appropriate for townhomes because of
the bedroom counts. She said she agreed with staff about moving the trees so they mass
the other building better. Relative to the housing mitigation, she expressed the need for
this kind oftownhome, because 1200 apartment units have been approved and they are not
all occupied yet, but there is not many 'for sale' moderate properties, and this would be
beneficial to the community. She said she did not feel this property should be subject to
any different rules than anyone else coming in for a new development, they should pay the
fee that the Council set. Relative to the lofts and the height, she said she felt the apphcant
did not meet the spirit of the request at all. It is a four story property; with a garage, 2
stories over it and almost a full story above that. It is visible fi.om Rainbow and DeAnza
Boulevard and 100 or 200 will set it in the hills and mask the hills fi.om the area which is a
problem; by omitting the lofts they should have reduced the height and not put 6 feet of
attic space for people to stand in, they should have brought the height down so that there
Planning Commission Min.t~s ~ July 27, 1998
would be a stepped look toward the hills instead of it looming. She said she felt more
work should be done on that issue; otherwise she supported the project.
Com. Doyle said that relative to mitigation, they should require the two umts; try to
upgrade the north elevation on building two; he still was not comfortable with the parking
situation, but 3 per unit is livable. He said he would like to see the garages used for
parking and not storage, and would like it included as a condition. Com. Doyle said that
the landscaping plan was appropriate, but he was concerned about the validity of whether
or not them has to be a General Plan change. He said he was not satisfied with the quality
of the materials used in the project as they did not match more recent projects. He said the
height should be reduced as much as possible and he was not supportive of the loft.
Com. Mahoney said the parking was appropriate; housing mitigation should be today's
standard and should not be tied back to a 1991 standard; staff idea on landscaping is
suitable. Relative to the loft and architecture, he said if the concept was to have it more
consistent with the neighborhood, and ff a foot will make the traits more marketable, he
would not object to that, but if the direction was to lower as much as possible and not
exceed the neighborhood, then he felt the loft should not be there.
Com. Stevens said that the parking trend seems to be to make fewer and smaller parking
spaces, and he did not like the lxend. He said he felt the letter from the attorney on the loft
indicated that extra space will be available for residents for storage purposes, home office
use, play area for children, etc., which would indicate it is not the direction to go, as they
are planning to use it for livable, habitable area. He said he di~agr~d with the statement,
and that if the municipal code requires a vacancy rote of 5% or greater, it could not be
changed unless the rule was changed. He said he was opposed to the lofts, because it
made it loom over. Com. Stevens said that mitigation was suitable, down to 7 units and no
rental, at today's standards.
Chair Austin said she was in agreement with Com. Harris, that it should be the fees since
there is only 7 of them. She said she felt the General Plan conformance was suitable, the
lower end. She concurred with staff relative to landscaping, 3 parking spaces per unit
were suitable, and she opposed the loft. She said she agreed about the architecture.
There was consensus from the Planning Comrai~ion that the architecture and height
change was to return again with changes; lower the building height to the current plan and
remove the loft. It was noted that the architecture should be streamlined, especially in the
front where it slopes out, creating some interest along the side.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 6-Z-98, 5-U-98 and
16-EA-98 to the September 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 27, 1998
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
12-U-97 and 37-EA-97 (mixed use retail/residential)
Monica Sun
19028 Stevens Creek Blvd. (southwest comer of the
intersection of Brett and Stevens Creek Blvd.)
REPORT TO COUNCIL: Use Permit to demolish an existing retail building and construct
a 3,769 square foot retail and 6,208 square foot residential (4 units), mixed-use building,
and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to development
requirements.
CONTINUED FROM MAY 26, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL lv~.ETING DATE: August 3, 1998
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an
existing retail building and eonsu-uct a 3,414 square foot retail and 4,866 square foot
residential mixed-nse building, and an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
related to development requirements. In June the City Council referred the application
back to the Planning Commission for the applicant to address the 7 concerns listed in the
staff report. To date only 3 of the concerns have been addressed, those being: Increasing
the size of the trees to 36" box; remove the gate separating the residential parking area and
increase the residential parldng setback to the public sidewalk to 5 ft. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission discuss and comment on City Council directed
modifications, which comments will be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a
minute order.
Ms. Michele Bjurman, Planner 1~ noted that only three items of the City Council's
recommendations have been acted upon by the applicant. She reviewed the applicant's
proposed modifications to address the other concerns, as outlined in the attached staff
report, Page 4-2. Referring to the landscape plan, she illustrated the applicant's proposed
modifications, which included introducing the landscaping and design changes in order to
address the privacy issue and to address the massing issue. No changes have been made
on the rear portion of the building, it continues to remain at 3 stories. Staff suggests that
the Planning Commission use the items as a basis for providing input to the City Council.
Mr. Thomas Liu, architect, presented un arehitectoml model of the development. He said
that they had worked hard to increase the quality of the project. He reviewed the
modifications made to respond to the City Council concerns, as outlined in the attached
staff report. Relative to increasing the landscaping in the rear yard area, he said that for
this building compared to the last proposal, they reduced three feet overall; one reason is
they wanted to add 5 feet from the property line to Brett Avenue because the
councilmembers felt they needed to have more landscaping area next to the parking. He
said the setback was increased 3 feet because the original proposal was 2 feet, total of 5
feet, and in order to do that the building was reduced, and kept 10 foot setback on the other
side next to the gas station, increasing the landscape area.
Plan~ Commksioa Minut, s ? July27, 1998
Relative to the recommendation to have ail evergreen trees, Mr. Liu said they were
presenting options, because the landscape architect felt that because of the tree in front of
the retail, the Planning Commission reconsider that this not be all evergreen trees became
they would like to have some color change for the different seasons and add to the interest
of the front facade. He said an option would be to include the semi evergreen Chinese
pistache. Other than thi~ one, all the trees would be evergreen.
Mr. Liu discussed the changes to increase the privacy to the single family residentiai home
located to the south of the site, which included changing the rectangular portion of the rear
windows from clear to obscure glass, use of downward angled awnings for the third story
rear windows; increase of railing height with lattice by 2 feet; and inclusion of an arbor
over the patio as outlined in the staff report. He said that he visited the home owner of
the home located on the south side of the site, and tried to address his concerns. He
distributed photos of the property to the rear of the proposed development which
illustrated how the tree coverage would adequately obscure views from the adjoining
property. He pointed out that the home owner signed a letter of support for the
development.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who
wished to speak_
Com. Stevens addressed the City Council's 7 concerns. No. 1, relative to increasing the
landscaping in the rear yard area, he said that he felt what was proposed was adequate;
No. 2 has already been addressed; No. 3, comment requiring color in front is appropriate
and he said he did not feel that the City Council was referring to the trees in the fi'ont of
the property, but mainly in the back, therefore felt it had been stated. No. 4 - completed;
No. 5 - already covered. No. 6 - He said he felt going to obscure glass in the third story
area addresses the privacy issue. No. 7 - He said the limit of the rear portion to two stories
was not applicable with the window changes. He complimented the applicant, and said he
felt they had met the intent
Com. Mahoney concurred, stating that they had improved in dealing with many issues.
Com. Harris said they addressed the privacy issue well although done in a different way
than asked.
Com. Doyle said the intent is to have a visual breakup on the front face of the second and
third floors, and he felt the front trees should be evergreen, although not necessarily pine
trees. The issues the City Council brought were addressed appropriately; frosted windows
or glass block is an appropriate way to eliminate the privacy impacts. He expressed
concern about the patio side, even though some modifications have been made, some
people are still being put on a platform above the adjoining property, and the trees are
being relied upon and are not a good source of privacy in developments in the city. He
said the hours of operation and type of bminess should be also be reflected. He concluded
that overall, it was a good project, with some limits that have to be reconciled.
Planning Commission ,Minutes ~ Jllly 27, 1998
Chair Austin said she concurred with the Planning Commissioners.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to send a Minute Order to City Council stating that
the Planning Commission reviewed the changes to the plan and feel that
salient points brought up by the Council have been addressed, and
recommends approval of the application
Com. Harris
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Austin declared a recess from 8:28 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
ARCtI1TECTURAL REVIEW
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
10-ASA-98,11-EXC-98 (modify Hilton Gardens Hotel
Plans)
Taisei Construction
10741 N. Wolfe Road (southwest comer of Wolfe Rd. &
Pmneridge Avenue)
Architectural and site approval to modify the colors and site plan of an approved hotel and
a sign exception to exceed the allowed wall sign height in accordance with Chapter
17.24.060 of the Cupertino Muncipal Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for color plan and site
plan modifications to the Hilton Garden lnn The sign exception will be discussed at a
future meeting as Hilton Hotel is changing its logo. Ori~nally the applicant planned to
paint the buiJdlng two colors, one for the first floor and one for the remainder of the
building. The modification calls for one color, but using a contrasting texture between the
base and the remainder of the building. The site plan calls for elimination of 4 parkSng
spaces to. accommodate an outdoor patio area to the south of the main entrance. Staff
supports the modifications and recommends approval.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, discussed the color changes and modification to the site
plan to accommodate the outdoor patio, as outlined in the attached staff report
Mr. Dave Rossi, Talsei Construction, said them was an original proposal to increase the
islands he illustrated, and the islands were widened to accommodate tree root growth for
the Wolfe Road trees and the original parking overflow was for 12 spots, and was
increased to 14 spots, which was filed with the county. He said with the changes in the
building, they have changed 12 rooms to 6 suites, thus adding 6 spaces, and eliminated 4
from another area, but increasing them to accommodate 3 handicapped spaces. It is
actually a net savings of space after taking into account the suite revision. He discussed
Planning Commission Mb:lutes 9 J'oly 27, 199g
the proposed changes to accommodate the outdoor dining area, and the proposed color
change. In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Mr. Rossi said that the overflow
parking was available m Cupertino Village.
Mr. Scott Kathomsen, Hilton Hotels, said that Hilton Hotels supported the site plan
modifications and color changes. He said that the proposed color change was a significant
upgrade from the previous color and speaks to what mission style building is supposed to
be. He said the outdoor dining area was proposed to the hotel because of the anticipated
overflow particularly for breakfast.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. There was no one fi'om the public who
wished to speak.
The issues were summarized to be building color, parking, dining area addition, design of
the wall.
Com. Doyle said that the building color was appropriate. He said he was opposed to the
overflow parking spaces being offsite. He said the dining area addition was a good idea,
but would like to try to soften the front walls if possible and not make it look like a
fortress. He said he was not opposed to the proposed changes, but was not happy with
how the compromise on parking was worked out.
Com. Harris said the colors were appiopriate, but felt the base should be differentiated;
stating it is richer to have the base defined and is included in the city policy about
thoroughfares throughout the city, which is being lost here. She said she felt that staff
should work with the applicant on that issue and come up with something more than a
darker color. She said she concurred with stuff that there should be architectural features
on the wall and especially on both walls. Com. Harris said she supported the outdoor
dining area.
Com. Stevens said he concurred with Com. Doyle's comment relative to parking. He said
parking is an issue and wanted to make sure that the parking in the front handicapped
remain, which it did. He added that offsite parking is always going to be a problem. He
said he felt the wall does have a fortress appearance and could be softened with vines,
texture or ornamentation. Com. Stevens said he agreed with all other aspects.
Com. Mahoney mid the parking was appropriate even with shared parking, lie said he felt
after heating the architect's input, that the color was appropriate, but agreed that the front
of the development needed work, which staff could handle.
Chair Austin said she was in favor of the color change; offsite parking sites were
appropriate; the outside dining area was a good idea. She said that relative to work on the
front, such things as vines and txellises could come back to staff for approval. She said she
felt it was an upgrade and she supported the application.
planning Commi~on Minutes 1o July 27, 1998
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 10-ASA-98 according to the
model resolution with architectural changes to the front walls at staff's
discretion; and intent to intensify the base color for the building
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 10-EXC-98 to the
August 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Harris
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Locatio~
2-ASA-98 (M) (increase sq. footage by adding mez?anine)
Houeywell/Measurex
One Results Way (the specific building site located at north
end of Measurex site, east of the Olive Avenue terminus.
IVlodification to add a 4,786 square foot mezzanine to an approved building
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEAl
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to add a 4,786 square
foot memanine to an approved Houeywell/Measurex building as outlined in the attached
staff report. The addition will link building I0 to buildings 6, 7 and 8. The approved site
plan contaln~ an ample amount of surplus parking spaces, therefore there will be enough
parking spaces to accommodate the additional 17 spaces that the change will generate.
The change will also result in 15 to 19 more employees driving to and from the
HoneywellfMeasurex campus. Staff recommends approval of the application.
The applicant did not speak. There was no one from the public who wished to speak.
Com. Mahoney commented that the project kept coming back to the Planning Commission
in parts and he would prefer it not happen in that manner in the future. He said he
supported the applicatiom
Mr. Cowan clarified that fast tracking is a universal problem throughout the county and
the company was trying to fast track their expansion.
Com. Stevens said that he concurred with Com. Mahoney's concern about the number of
times the project appears. He said it was noted the traffic study would be done in the
future, and felt the fast track was being pushed in this instance. He said he felt it should
be addressed very soon.
A discussion ensued regarding FAR transfers, wherein Com. Hams expressed concern
about devising a way to capture all the nuance~shifts done that should be considered when
the General Plan process occurs. Com. Mahoney said he felt FAR is what captures it and
Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 27, 1998
if changed there is more development potential. Com. Harris stated the rule is 33%, and
this already exceeds that on this parcel. She said she felt that they would over-improve
the property with the idea of a balance elsewhere and later totally develop that other parcel
and this would stand at being over-improved b~ause of the way it was done, and she was
opposed to it. She said she did not feel density should be transferred to another parcel.
Mr. Cowan said that FAR is primarily used to control waffle generation and controls mass
as well, but there arc 2,500 housing units in addition to the adopted office industrial retail
and some of those 2,500 were not assigned. Com. Mahoney said that now that he
understood that the housing doesn't impact the denominator, he was more concerned
about it. Mr. Cowan suggested that when the FAR things comes out in the development
intensity manual, the rules could be more precisely defmed for the next General Plan. He
said theoretically the next round of General Plan changes would begin in 1999. Com.
Harris said that what is needed for this kind of arrangement is a development plan which
speaks to thc applicant and to thc city for a long period of time, and this situation would
not occur and the possibility of intens~ development on a parcel that you thought you had
had transferred this industrial density to; because it would all be agreed, it would be in
writing, and would be long term. Com. Mahoney suggested returning to the fundamentals
of why it is there, and note ff that was the driver the last time for certain, in which case on
a citywide basis you can sprinkle the housing in on top of that and it shouldn't matter.
Com. Doyle suggested a staff report be given on a running list of when the development
transfers occurred or a development agreement came about or something that captures the
essence of this situation.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 8-ASA-98 according to the
model resolution
Com. Stevens
Corns. Doyle and I-Iams
Passed 3-2-0
Com. Doyle stated their reason for opposition was there was not a good mechanism for
the future of how to track this situation for the future or howto reconcile it.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
8-ASA-98 (modification of beight of approved addition)
Berg & Berg Developers
10460 Bubb Road (parcel is located east of railroad tracks
and fronts McClellan and Bubb Roads)
Architectural and site approval to change the height of a previously approved addition to
an existing building from 22 to 30 feet
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNI,F. SS APPEAl
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to increase the height
of an approved addition to the GSI building from 22 feet to 30 feet. The addition was
Planning Commi~on Minutes 12 July 27, 1998
previously approved by the Planning Commission on July 14, 1997, as outlined in the
attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and illustrated the area of the previously approved
addition, with the proposed 30 foot height. She passed around a color board and explained
that the top half of the building would be white, with a cream band, and a purple band
around the existing base of the building. She indicated where staff felt them could be
additional landscape screening which the applicant is amenable to.
Mr. Clyde Beck, architect, said that the UCSC building was a two story structure, and
estimated it to be 32 feet high and was on a lower elevation than the applicant's building.
He pointed out that the height of the addition was quite a distance away and m the back
part of the parcel screened by mature planting. He answered questions about the height of
adjacent building.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; them was no one present who wished to
speak.
Com. Hams said she was opposed to the increase to 30 feet, which would be the highest
building in the area, surrounded by residential. She said that the potential use of Bubb
Road is undetermined at this lime, but that it is General Plan for residential and there is a
General Plan that to maintain the two story nature of the town, and this would be a
negative impact and a precedent for future height increases.
Com. Doyle said that putting in the landscaping is an important improvemem that needs to
occur; he said he supported the 30 foot building because he felt it was at least three times
the height from any other buildings, therefore the 30 foot building is at least 100 feet from
another structure, and that type of ratio is reasonable.
Com. Mahoney said he supported the application; he felt it was not the biggest building in
the area He said the trees along the residential side are well developed.
Com. Stevens said he agreed with the conditions presented; the building will not be that
dominant; the existing buildings with the college and univemity extension dictate what
will occur, therefore he did not object to the proposal.
Chair Austin concurred.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Stevens moved that Application 8-ASA-98 be approved according to
the model resolution
Com. Mahoney
Com. Hams
Passed 4-1-0
Planning Commir~4on Minutes 13 July 27, 1998
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
9-ASA-98 (restore fire damaged building)
A.R.M. Design
10341 Alpine Drive (Located on the Southwest side of
Alpine Drive approximately 450 feet from the intersection
of Alpine and north Foothill Blvd.
Architectural and site approval to restore and architecturally modify a 4-unit apartment
building damaged by fire.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to restore a 4 unit
apartment building which was damaged by fire, as outlined in the attached staff report.
The changes to the project were listed in the staff report. Staff is concerned with the
potential negative impact of proposed balconies on the north side of the building, and
suggests that landscaping be allowed to gxow to 20 feet along the fence separating the two
properties to correct the problem. Staff is also concerned with the placement of the fast
floor patios and finds them awkwardly placed because they are not adjacent to their units.
Staff will work with the applicant to evaluate design options. Staff recommends approval
of the building restoration project.
Ms. Wordell referred to the proposed lower/upper floor plan and illustrated the
relationship of the different units to the outdoor areas to understand how to better relate
the outdoor space to the units. She noted a correction, stating that the B apartment unit
had a second floor balcony. She said there was a problem equating the outdoor areas with
their respective units. She noted that unit A was located in fi'ont, unit B on the second
floor, unit C is on the north, both first and second floor, and d is in the rear, first and
second floor.
Mr. Art Martin, ARM Design, said that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation
about the landscaping, and was willing to explore options regarding location of the patio.
Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve Application 9-ASA-98 according to the
model resolution.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
10.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
9-ASA-95(M) (minor modification for storefrom)
Cupertino Village Associates (Alan Wong)
10821 N. Wolfe Road (southwest comer of intersection of'
Wolfe Rd. and Homestead
planning Commi~on iV~lnutcs 14 July 27, 1998
Director's referral of a minor modification to an approved architectural plan for a
storefront in an existing shopping center in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the
Cupertino Muncipal Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a minor
modification a jewelry store storefi-ont located m the Cupertino Village center. The
architect proposes to replace the dark bronze aluminum fi-ames and glass windows with
showcase display boxes, accented with stainless steel and brass, with a dark green marble
tile creating the storefi-ont. Staff recommends approval of the application as well as the
shopping center's trend toward individualized storeffonts.
Mr. Cowan said that the request is to provide some opportunities for individual
architectural facades for stores within the shopping center. He said the trend in shopping
cemers is for each storefi-om to have its own unique character, and cited some examples.
In response to a question fi'om Com. Mahoney, Mr. Cowan said that the signs presently in
the center were within the sign guidelines for the center.
Mr. Francis Chan~ architect, said that Mr. Cowan did an excellent job describing the
position and needs of the applicant, and the video presentation did an excellent job of
demonstrating how prominent the roof and colonnade is in terms of what the overall
center is, and how it is consistent with all the Town and Country centers throughout the
Bay Area~ Mr. Chan explained that the proposed showcases will provide better security
and privacy for the palxous of the store.
Mr. Peter Pau, representing the shopping center owner, said that the Jade Galore Jewelry
store is a quality merchant and is not adverse to spending money for upgrades. He said
they had discussed the proposed improvements with the applicant and they are in keeping
with the character of the center. He said that security is a legitimate concern bemuse of
the location of the store.
Com. Doyle questioned what changed to make the individualized storefi-ont the preferred
method vs. what the organiTafion spent a lot of money to create. Mr. Pau said that the
center is 90% occupied, and originally Jade Galore Jewehy was going to occupy a space in
the interior courtyard, but with the addition of the restaurant, had to relocate to the space
facing the parking lot. He said that when the center was renovated, the tenants were so
anxious to move in they left their storefronts as is.
Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Mr. Cowan said that another interior jeweh-y storefront was staff approved became it was
not seen by the public, but the Jade Garden storefi-ont is seen from the outside of the
center. He added that the purpose of the review was to decide whether or not to consider
individual storeftonts for the particular shopping center.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 27, 1998
Com. Doyle said that he felt there was not enough information to indicate whether it
would cause a lot of issues and problems. Mr. Cowan said it was subjective in terms of
architecture. Com. Doyle said he was supportive of the proposal, but said he was
concerned with the unknown, as it is a huge change to a different look.
Com. Hams said she supported the application for a number of masons. She said the
proposal was similar to the San Francisco model, and there was a security issue for the
jewelry store and privacy issue for the purchaser that were being addressed. She said that
the center has difficulty attracting patrons, and the storefront would be a good
enhancement and marketing device.
Com. Mahoney said he concurred with Com. Com. Harris. Com. Stevens said it was a
step in the right direction moving away from the center which previously looked the same.
Chair Austin said she concurred with all the Planning Commissioners.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Hams moved to approve Application 9-ASA-95(M) according to the
model resolution
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Harris requestod that an
arrangemem be made for lighting on the dais prior to the be~nning of the meeting so that
they could read materials handed out prior to the meeting. Presently the dais is not lighted
until the commencemem of the meeting which makes it difficult to read material prior to
the meeting.
Com. Doyle requested that copies of prior approved material be included in the agenda
packets when discussing items that were presented to the Planning Commission before.
Discussion ensued regarding a suitable meeting date with the City Council. August 26,
August 31 or September 2 were chosen as the most suitable options.
REPORT OF ~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING S: None
AI)JOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. to the regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting on August 10, 1998, at 6:45 p.m.
ReeoRling Secretary