Loading...
PC 05-27-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-330g DRAFT SUBMITTED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 27, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Maboney Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Coraraunity Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 12 Regular Meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of the May 12, 1997 Regular planning Commission meeting as presented. Com. RoberL~ Com. Maboney Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the May 17 Adjourned Meet~ng: h was noted that Mr. Greg Barton from Peninsula Architecture should be added to the attendees' list. Chair Harris noted a correction to the 3rd paragraph, under "Field Trip;" the last sentence should read "to be proposed by the 0 'Br~en Group." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 1997 Adjourned Planning Commission meeting as amended. Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-EXE-97 El Molino Taco Grill The Voit Company 19656 Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 27, 1997 Staff~: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the Historic Demolition Ordinance was continued from the May 12 meeting, and said that the ordinance was attempting to protect hisWric sites and structures presently on the list from demolition until a historic ordinance is in place. She defined demolition as "50% removal of the structure." She explained that if someone applies for a demolition permit through the city and thee are on this list, thee would need to provide a hiswrical report as part of thc permit request. If the report determines that it is not of historical value using the criteria in the ordinance, then the demolition permit would be issued. If it is determined by the report that it is of hisWric merit, then the property owner would need to go to the Planning Commission who may grant the demolition permit if thee could show economic hardship as to why thee would need to do it at that time, which is subject to appeal. Ms. Wordell reviewed the changes outlined in the staff report, and said that the main change was that it was entitled an Urgency Ordinance to allow it to be effective as soon as the City Council adopts it, if thee do. She pointed out that since it is an urgency ordinance, the negative declaration prepared for the prior ordinance would not be required. MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to remove the Negative Declaration Application 12-EA-97 from the calendar SECOND: Com. Austin ABSENT: Com. Mahonee VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Ms. Eilcen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, explained thc reason for the change in wording on Page 2-4 of the staff report. She pointed out that thc public safety, health and welfare were the police powers of the City. She said that the original paragraph was not sui~cient because it did not coDt~ain ~clin~n; and thc public safety, health and welfare includes the general welfare, which is the historic, educational, and cultural welfare of the people. Following discussion, there was consensns to re-insert the senence as sentence 2: "It is important to safeguard the heritage of the City by pro*qding for the protection of irreplaceable historic resources representing significant elements of its history." Chair Harris opened the hearing for public comment. Father Michael Mitchell, representing thc Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, said hc was addressing the issue raised by Com. Austin, that the Planning Commission is considering reversing its previous thinking. He pointed out that it was previously agreed that there was no finding in the record that any of these buildings thtmtened the safety or health of any Cupertino citizen, and a tentative ordinance was constructed to that end. However, be stated that the Planning Commission is now claiming they do. He said he felt the only site, in the hisWrical resources, is that if the palm trees on Palm Avenue were ~ they may be a threat to thc health, welfare and safety of the Cupertino citizens, but in effect the rest of them were not. Father Mitchell said that other historical resources were moved into a restricted group, such list being composed with no governmental commission, but only a volunteer list provided by a non-profit entity, with no civil warrant, yet every site on it is being restricted. He said he felt it is something that the non-profit organization and the city may want to consider in its liability because a group of volunteers have said the ownership of these places ought to be restricted. He said as a consequence, he felt there is considerable liability to the city, and contrary to popular opinion that the Roman Catholic church does not pay taxes in Cupertino, it doe~ so on several properties. He expressed concern about the Plaiming Commission Minutes s May 27, 1997 SECOND: Com. Austin ABSENT: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Cowan reported that the item would be presented to City Council June 2, 1997. NEW BUSINESS Thc agenda was moved to discussion of special Planning Commission meeting dates and postponement dates for Items 4 and 5. The June 12 meeting will begin at 7 p.m. including general plan amendments; building heights and thc a.m./p.m, peak hours. The geology workshop would be completed on June 12 if Mr. Cotton is available. If he is not available, it will be scheduled for a later date. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Items 4 and 5 to the special June 12 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Mahoney Passed 3-1-0 Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 3. Application No.: Applicant: 15-U-96 (Mod.) Sand Hill Properties (Tandem) 10741 No. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Use Permit Modification to modify the site and architectural plans of an approved hotel to increase the number of rooms from 160 to 171, to relocate parring from the central building on the west elevation and other modifications related to the site plan, floor plan and conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff vresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for Use Permit Modification to modify thc site and architectural plans of the approved hotel to increase the number of rooms, relocate parking from a carport area in the front to both the north and south sides, thereby reducing the number of space~; and shorten the length oftbe building by 40 feet; and to locate a generator in the southwest corner. Staff recommends approval of the application with further ~__n_ention to the hotel center section lo~t~l on the east side. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Word_ell explained the proposed changes as outlined in the attached staff report. She summarized that the issues were: increase of rooms from 160 to 171; relocating and reducing the parking; shorUming the building; a different f~r~,l~ that may need more interest provided; creating five levels of part of the building; and changing standards relative to some of the car overhang not being over a paved area. Referring to the site plan, Ms. Wordell answered questions about the setbacks and parking spaces. There was a brief discussion relative to the proposed parking stall overhang, wherein concern was expressed about appearance of the vegetation and the watering techniques to be used. Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 27, 1997 which fell outside the previous approval. Mr. Anderson responded that 47 feet was the top of the roofline of the building and no habitable space existed beyond 47 feet. Chair Harris questioned if the previous approval was changed by the new application. Mr. Anderson responded that it was possible to show the roofline without the architectural treatment for the c~nter portion. Com. Roberts asked staff for clarification of their recommendation of more interesting treaunent for the facade. Ms. WordeH said that staff explored the possibility of canopies for the windows below; wrought iron treatment above or below, possibly a faux iron balcony or metal awning between the first and second levels. Mr. Anderson said that some balconies could be moved to a lower level, but flint the canopies would create problems. He said that the balconies were ornamental and not usable. Referring to the landscaping, Com. Doyle noted that it appeared there was no greenery around the actual footing of the bu/Min~,. Mr. Anderson explained that there were parking stalls facing the building and parking stalls facing the access road, but there would be trees planted. He pointed out that with the present trees, the building when constructed would barely be visible from the setbacks. He said that there was mid-rise, low-level shrubbery around the perimeter of the building. Ms. Wordell said that a detailed landscaping plan would be submitted as part of the approval of the original pwject. Mr. Anderson said that the request for an additional 2-1/2 feet was to ensure that as much landscaping as possible could be provided. He noted that the drawing did not reflect the additional 2-1/2 feet. Chair Harris opened the heating for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Roberts asked for the length on the facades on drawing 3,3 and how it compared with the Stevens Creek Specific Plan guideline. Ms. Won/eH explained that the Stevens Creek plan referred to 25 foot fa~tl~s to be bmksn up into segments, but that she would have to measure them. Chair Hanis asked the architect bow long the building was, including the two setback sections and the one protruding section. Ms. Woniell stated that each segment was approximately ll6 feet, which included A to E, E to J, and J to N on drawing A3. Com. Roberts pointed out that the plain was higher than those contempl~t~ along Stevens Creek, and was in fact a bigger area. Mr. Scott Lee, architect, Hill Glazier, referred to the artist's rendering, and clarified that on the top of the original building, the center f~d~ was 140 linear feet, and the same section on thc lower ~eade was 116, which indicated each one of the three legs from the previously approved design had be~m short'ned. Com. Roberts said there was no way to break that visually without changing the fundamental design. Mr. Lee said it was enneeivable that for each of those Wwer elements, it was possible W let them _rrna as strongly as possible and as vertical elements, but as far as undulating the facade any mom than it is already shifting, it would be very di/]Scult in that particular building type. He pointed out the vertical line on either end of the building, lower level, to accentuate the tower at the left and tower at the right. Mr. Lee said that the rendering illustrated the change in plain; however, it was not shown on the current floor plan. He said that the current A2 plan did not currently reflect the change. Com. Roberts said it was disturbing to have sets of drawings which are inconsistent with one another and when the Planning Commission questions how it could have happened, the remark is made to the effect that is what was approved. Com. Roberts said it occurred before, but not in Sand Hill's ease because the building had not yet been built. Mr. Lee said that the current Planning Commission Mmugs 9 May 27, 1997 alternative for an upscale hotel. He recommended tree protection along Wolfe Road that is not prcsently in existence az part of thc proposal. Ms. Wordell said that the original plan showed saving the trees along Wolfe Road, and when the applicant ~tums with a detailed landscaping plan, it will be reinforced. Com. Austin said that she felt the increase in rooms was practical; but she was concerned about the parking. However, she concurred with staff recommendation az guests could use the airport shuttle or ride with fellow workers, or walk ~o nearby companies. She said that she did not like thc faeade with thc Los Angeles appearance and would like to see the final ~a~ when the landscape plan is presented, using wrought iron, stucco or two-Wno archee. She said that although the trees will shield most of the view, the appearance should be a class act so that people would want to stay there. She said that whether or not the overhang waz einninated was not of utmost importance to her. Com. Austin concluded by slating she was in favor of the proposal; however, would like to see the f:mal landscape plan and peripheral facade. She also asked that the color palette be presented Mr. Cowan concun~d with Com. Austin, stating that Com. Roberts was not clear on the architectural design; and said that perhaps there, was a way to approve the basic architectural form and then return with the landscape plan. He added that the applicant could submit the construction plans for the foundation design and return with the architectural details on the outside facade. He said he felt because it was a significant building, it was important that the recommendation be forwarded to the City Council. Com. Roberts said it would be helpful if the architect showed a willingness to submit the Chair Harris said she understood the need to please the real operator of this fimction; and did not oppose the roonl size Cl~n~, m~nine addition, or parking overhang. She said that she was opposed to parking ratio less than 1:1, and would not vote for approval unless it was I:l. She said she would also like to see what the building would look like before approving it as the changes discussed wore vague. She said she felt the building was big, blocky and looked like the back of the building and felt it should look more like the front of a building. She suggested decorative balconies be added on all but the first 2 stories which are circular windows. She said that decorative balconies; and wrought iron balconies with planter boxes containing blooming plants in all seasons would go a long way to make it attractive and it could pa~ of the landscape plan requiring that many hotels have that. She said that the suggestion to make the base more prominent, changing the color and texturing more heavily with the sod would also accomplish that; and that the 6 inch change of plain were all good iel,~u but not yet seen. Chair Harris said that had never been in favor of the carports, felt they wore a Iow cost eletmmt, and was happy that they were eliminated. However, she said that they should be replaced with something attractive. Com. Hams suggested a continuance of the item because she felt she could not approve the application in its present state. She said that she was not opposed to the parking overhang, but the parking issue still had to be resolved. Mr. Cowan questioned whether Com. Austin's suggestion to approve the fundamental basic form of the architecture, the heights, setbacks, was acc_~table. PIagning Commission Minutes u May 27, 1997 Chair Harris suggested marking in the existing overlay so that the Planning Commission could see thc existing landscaping which can be envisioned by a drive-by of the area, and use an overlay to indicate the proposed sizes for the landscape envelope. She said that the third issue is the parking ratio issue, noting with one commissioner absent, the vote would be 2:2. Mr. Anderson pointed out that they had conducted the city-requested study and the city's traffic engineer had reviewed it and completed their cosite investigation. He said he felt he complied with all the requests and studies and was requesting .93 parking ratio which is greater titan what Mamott's had been approved for. Mr. Cowan suggested exploring additional offsite arrangements with the adjacent shopping center. Mr. Anderson reported that there was a strong mandate from certain council members to maximize the number of rooms, as the approximate room tax for each ~aaifonal room was $10 per day per room, which is a sizable inereaso in tax revenue for thc city. He said they complied with the request. A discussion ensued regarding the applicant's options for a continuance or denial. Mr. Anderson read the contents of the traffic study completed in December 1996. Ms. Wordell said that she had a statement from Barton-Aschmun that .77 was typical for those types of hotel development. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Anderson said that the hotel was similar to a courtyard hotel, with similar room sizes and identical amenities. He explained that thc Marriott Residence Inn was designed for families in transition or a person moving from another area with the need for living quarters for I0 days to a month, and resembled a small apa~'Ussent. He pointed out that the Courtyard was designed for a limited stay, with no kitchen facilities, and used by consultants or computer programmers who were in town for a short period. He said that there were not party rooms for recepfione or weddings and the parking demand was in the .7 to .8 ratio and not over the 1:1 ratio typically associated with more traditional hotels. Mr. Anderson noted that it rarely happened that the parking stalls were filled, but if it did occur, the apartment spaces could be used for overflow, where there is a 2:1 parking ratio. Mr. Lee submitted a ch-awing indicating the ex. ut of the changes suggested by the Planning Commission: showing the s~moval of the pamper on the top; making it clear there is the 6 tach offset to offset the individual towers at thc end; and adding balconies. The issue of the parking ratio of 1:1 was also discussed. Com. Roberts said be objected to being fled to previously approved exhibits when in fact there are si?ifieant changes. He noted that care should be taken against approving a combination of new drawings. There was consensus that a new sci of drawings needed to be provided for approval, showing the architectural features, the offsets, the parking distances, which is merely providing drawings for what is being done. Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. from 9:40 p.m. Mr. Anderson expressed his desire for a continuance of the application to June 9 to allow time to work on architectural upa~6ng, a site plan showing the laadse~ping illustrating thc existing and new areas, with dimensions and a dotted area showing the existing and new and further evidence related to the parking study. It was stipulated that the parking engineer provide input following the study; and Hilton Inn staff explain what occurs when there is 100% occupancy; and also tree proteetion be :~d~lress~. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 27, 1997 Mr. Ko discussed the proposed landscape plan for the intersection, and said that the proposed 5 Crepe Myrtle trees would provide color to the comer and not impede the view. Mr. Ko stated that the monument sign presently existing at the comer would be changed to read "Welcome to Cupertino." Mr. Ko discussed the use of milk white spandrel glass and the use of thc glass for display purposes for banners or posters because of the limited space. He said he did not recommend the use of wired glass in shopping centers because of its institutional appearance. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished speak. Chair Harris expressed concern about the location of the traah enclosure and the corrugated metal material. Sbe said she felt it should open to tbe back pa~-E lot and be constructed of similar material to the building. She added that the Crepe My~le tre~ would enhance the site. Chair Harris summarized that the issues were: whether or not to approve the plan; the back facade; the trash enclosure; and the Crepe My,lc trees. Com. Doyle said that the plan was appropriate, although he would prefer that the 6,000 sq. ft. area was smaller; parking was appropriate; landscape was appropriate; and the proposed orientation was preferable to backing into the street; he said he would like to control the display windows, which would be difficult; therefore the use of trellises and overhangs with ample planting would be preferable. Mr. Cowan said that conditions could be stipulated for control of the display windows. Com. Doyle said he agreed with Clmir Harris that the doors oll the trash enclosure should open to the back of the lot, and that the material should be simila~ to the buildings. He said the Crepe Myrtle trees were appropriate, although be was not opposed to tbe ash trees. Com. Austin said she approved the plan, but was opposed to the milk white glass, or any type of glass. She said she did not favor the display windows and would prefer to have trellises, and use wood material or match materials used in thc center. She concurred that thc trash enclosure should open to thc back and also reflect the materials used in the building. Com. Austin said that she preferred thc ash trees already ~stablished on the street, with Crepe Myrtle on the inside. Com. Roberts said that he preferred a smaller building for the site; the trash enclosure should open to the back lot and should be tbe sam~ material as the building. He said that the Crepe Myxtle was suitable, and also suggested Redblood which is a hearty tree. Com. Roberts said that he did not favor the expanse of plate glass for the back facade, and would prefer something more functional such as the display windows, but on a smaller scale. He said he would prefer a different architectural tremment such as trellises or varied textures to achieve an attractive facade with some sign,age. Chair Harris said she would prefer that the building was smaller which would have provided real windows and real landscaping; however, she would approve thc plan at 6,000 sq. ft. She said she prcferred flowering trees for thc comer; howcvcr, thc ash trees were there and formed the commumty interest which differs fi.om highlighting thc center and the Welcome to Cupertino sign. She reite~t_,~l_ that thc trash enclosure should open to the back of the lot, and be constructed of the same building martial. She expressed concern that thc display windows would become reassive signs. Chair Harris said that a solid massive wall with no interest would not attract people fi.om the center. Mr. Cowan said that a condition of approval could control the advertising in the display May27, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes is July 28 will be the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. August 11 will be the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Com. Robert~ distributed a book on architecture. Mr. Cowan said that he would purchase another copy for the City and distribute a copy to the Planning Commissioners. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 9, 1997. Resp~lly submitted: Recording Secreta~