Loading...
PC 02-26-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Harris, Chairman Roberts. Commissioners absent: Doyle, Mahoney Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner APPROVAL OF M]IWtJTES: Minutes of the February 12, 1996 meeting: Chairman Roberts requested the following corrections to the February 12 minmes: Page 6, No. 4: "Steeling Road" should read "Stelling Road" No. 4:".9 acre" should read "0.9 acre" Page 7, Second Story Setbacks: First two sentences should read: "Ms. Wordell said that there was an item that needed clarification. She stated that the existing ordinance was always fled to front and back, and staffattempted to separate it, noting it was not always the case." MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Feb. 12, 1996 meeting minutes as emended. Com. Harris Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3 -0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Roberls noted a let~ar from R. J. Jasmin pertaining to a consmsction project on Phil Lane. He noted that the issue would be agendized for a future Planning Commission meeting. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-Z-95, 1 I-TM-95 & 35-EA-95 Rodger & Ronamae Wooley Same 11593 Upland Way Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 26, 1996 Rezoning to zone an approximately .5 acre parcel to PHS-10. Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately .5 parcel into two lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April l, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 25, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 4. Application No: Parking Ordinance Location: Citywide Zoning amendments to Chapter 10.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 15, 1996 REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 25, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-EXC-95 Janet M. DeCarli Same 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive Exception to Chapter 19.40.050 J, Residential Hillside Zones to allow an addition to a residence on a prominent ridgeline. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 11, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 6-EXC-95 to the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application Nos. 13-Z-95, 11-TM-95 and 35-EA-95 (Item 3); and Application for Parking Ordinance Amendments and 1-EA-96 (Item 4) to the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-U-95 (Mod.) John Fry Byer Properties 20588 Stevens Creek Boulevard Planniag Commission Minutes 3 February 26, 1996 Administrative approval for a 2,313 square foot mezzanine for Whole Foods Market with a recommendation rom the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Cowan explained that the applicaat was requesting a minor amendment to the approved use pemait to recognize the 2,300 square feet of mezzanine space, which was omitted fi.om the original plan submittal. He stated that it did not change the architectural drawings. Mr. Cowan reported that the two conditions relating to the modification were the approximate 5 parking space deficit, which is not a major problem because of the reciprocal parking easement for the entire shopping center; and the allocation of 2,300 square feet to the site. Mr. Cowan explained that it was unlikely that problems with the parking spaces would occur as the shopping center properties were owned by one owner, and in the event the ownership changed, there are reciprocal easements recorded among the different owners. Mr. John Fry, Project Manager, Whole Foods Market, stated that the omission for the mezzanine was an oversight in the original plans. He said that the primary use of the additional space was for restrooms, and an employees' lounge, and noted that the additional space does not increase customer service. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application No. 8-U-95 with the deletion of the text on Page 14 "except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution." Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-U-95 (Mod.) Community Housing Developers Community Housing Developers Southwest comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantan Avenue Administrative approval for minor site and architectural changes with a recommendation from a Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the proposed changes to the front elevation of Building E, as outlined in the attached staff report. She explained that to comply with district fire requirements, the applicant was proposing to provide a "mirror image" smell on the west side of the building, duplicated by 2 single stairwells in the center and to the east as shown in Option C of the overhead drawing. Planning Commission iXrunutes 4 February 26, 1996 Ms. Wordell pointed out that applicant was proposing all stucco materials rather than the originally proposed wood siding. She explained the changes made to the west elevation as shown in the overhead drawing. Ms. Wordell explained that in order to comply with handicap requirements, the unit sizes had to be increased, which brought the units too close to the property line. Because the Plarming Commission objected to them being so close to the property line, they lost some of thc articulation seen in the drawing, rather than bringing out some of thc clements, they made a flat surface along the whole wall. She said there was concern about it being too blank. Gable effects were created and shutters added for a more interesting appearance. Ms. Wordell discussed the remaining changes which included change of distance between the buildings, changes in carport rooffines, addition of security fence, modifications to window placements, change in building footprint for building E, and elimination of the retaining wall. Mr. Matthew Thompson, Thacher & Thompson, architects, referred to the overhead of the prospective and outlined the modifications made to the front elevation of the building. He illustrated the use of the trellis area over the pedestrian entry that mimics the design of the one over the auto entry. He stated the 4 entry stoops used were suggested as a design feature in the urban design guidelines for Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Thompson explained that the original retaining wall was proposed by the architects because it essentially created an edge to the public way and created the effect of a setback being a landscape intermediate zone between the public and the private residence. However, it was concluded that the same result could be accomplished with a boxwood hedge with the qualifies of a wall defining the public way, yet is green in lush color instead of concrete. Mr. Thompson said that the common use of the stucco exterior for all the buildings was a sound idea and worked well with the neighboring office building. He pointed out that the original plan was for a stucco exterior, and it was modified because it was thought that there could be substantial savings using horizontal wood siding for the second floor. However, in the final bidding, no savings were realized by the wood siding, and the architect opted for the stucco ext~ior. Mr. Thompson discussed the change in the carport design from peaked roofs to flat roofs. He said that with the other minor changes, there is sufficient area to sustain a vine and some plantings to sot~en the effect of the flat carport roofs. Referring to the west elevation of the building, he discussed staff's concern with the starkness of the elevation and stated that applicant was willing to modify the plans to include the gables as recommended by staff. Mr. Thompson explained that the proposal was to have a redwood fence surrounding those portions of the site not akeady fenced. Referring to the site plan, he illuatrated where the security gates would be located. He pointed out that security gates are a requirement of the California Housing Finance Agency. Mr. Thompson reviewed the remaining proposed changes as outlined in the staffraport. Mr. Thompson answered questions regarding the elevations of the buildings. He clarified that the end wall of the front building would be espaliered, which would detract from the stark appearance. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Thompson stated that the change to fiat roofs on the carports was merely a cost saving factor. He said that there is a color differentiation between the staircase areas and the building, as well as a slight change in the cement plaster texture. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 26, 1996 Thompson reiterated that the stucco finish was more appropriate for a building on a major thoroughfare. Ms. Nancy Hendee, Project Manager, Community Housing Developers, said they were eager to start construction. She expressed pride in the project and stated that she hoped that it would be a model for future development. She discussed cost overruns encountered in the project. Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. As there was none, the public input portion of the meeting was closed. Com. Austin said it was aa admirable project and she approved of it. She said she had reservations about the security gate which would create more delay for the fire department, but realized that it was a requirement of the financing agency. Com. Harris stated that she was in favor of eliminating the fxont retaining wall; the window locations and footprints were acceptable; and she favored the security gate. However, she said that she could not approve flat roof carports, stating that every development runs into cost overruns. She said the project was designed with pitched roofs on the carports to match the master buildings which would raise the level of the low cost housing project. Com. Harris said that the building distances were acceptable; and that she approved of the two gables in the wall. Com. Harris requested that there be a condition of approval for an espaliered treatment on the large building, stating that presently reference was made to a certain sheet on the plan which does not show the building for approval. She stated that she approved of the window ixeatmants, pitch, overhangs, color differentiation, staircases, and said that the siding was homey and attractive, commenting that if it had a benefit to the interior for the residents, it would have a benefit for the community as well. She said she did not feel that housing projects were designed necessarily to look exactly like the commercial building next door, and that there should be design elements that relate them. Corn Hams commented that something was lost, and the fact that it was lef~ on the sides on the inside shows that it is a benefit, and she stated that she would like to see that benefit continued. She emphasized that design should not be sacrificed for financial or any other reasons. She clarified that her reference to design was relative to the carport roofs. Mr. Cowan said that staff was concerned about the siding vs. the stucco, and they requested a design consultant to address the issue. He said in terms of the Stevens Creek facade, the stucco makes the building look more substantial. The architects felt that the stucco was the better solution because it ties both buildings together harmoniously. Chairman Roberts stated the fxont siding was appropriate. He said the stairway trealments in the front were acceptable; and if the hedge was durable enough, it appeared to be an improvement over the retaining wall. Relative to the west elevation, he concurred with Com. Hams that the espalier condition should be written into the conditions. He said the gables on the west face were acceptable end building distances were acceptable. Chairman Roberts said that pitched roofs for the carports were an aesthetic element, not related to the function of the building, and in that respect, he would accept the flat roofs on the carports. Chairman Roberts indicated that more discussion was needed on the security gates. He noted that the use of secarity gates was becoming widespread throughout the City. He said that the window locations and building footprints were acceptable. Planning Commission ,Minutes 6 February 26, t996 Chairman Robe:ts summarized the outstanding issues xvere security gate, flat or pitched roofs for the carport and stucco or wood siding for the fi'ont of the building? Mr. Cowan responded that initially the secutity gate was a marketing tool, and that managers wanted to control security and have better and safer parking areas. He reported that the gener~ plan statement that Ms. Wordell eluded to, states that the City should discourage use of s~ufity gates. Security gates show do~a ~.~nergency response time. In response to Com. Harris' questions about the lender's requirements for security gates, Ms. Handee explained that the lender uses bond financing and uses standards that may be more urban in t~:ms of what the3, are favoring. She said she saw the security gates as a plus, and that they xvou!d keep the commercial parking out of the residential parking lot. She said the gates were not visible fi:om the street. Ms. Hendee pointed out fi:om the beginning stages of the project, there has been a concerted effort to keep the project from appearing ~;,ike a walled in community. She said that they work~ with the fire depaxaaent in design of the security gates. Mr. Cowan said that security gates are common in most developments and par,king garages. He said that the ,fire depar~'~-ent would have a key to the lock box to the gates and the entering process would take only about 30 seconds. ,Mr. Thompson stated that the gates are 6 feet high, black, wrought iron type fence, and made out of steel tubing. Residents would have a remote control device to open the gates. He said that the security gates are looked at positively by tenants and managers. He pointed out that there were a total of 3 gates in the complex. Com. Austin said that she saw the value in the security gates. She stated she did not oppose the flat carport roofs; that the3' w~e less obtrusive, and !ow cost. Chairman Roberts stated that he accepted the gates as described; Com. Hanq, s concurred. Com. Harris clarified that if the issues were separated, she ~vas willing to support the other issues with the exception of the flat carport roofs. She said that the flat roofs related to a question of quality; future look and value of the property; wlfich is a significant issue. £ke said that quality needs to be maintained in Cupertino, and quality should not be sacrificed to try to make up for losses in other areas, such as financial ovemms. She said that there were other ways to gM additional funding. Chairman Roberts stated that the pitched carport roof was an artificial element, and he did not see it as a function of the c2aport. He concurred with Com. Austin that the carports would be seen mainly by people entering into the back lots. In response to Chairmen Robem' question, Mr. Cowen stated that in Cupertino's Heart of the City Plan there was no preference for siding vs. cement plaster material. He said that the heavier, trim is more compatible with the stucco. Mr. Thompson clarified that the c,,nnent plaster material lent a more substantial and permanent appearance to the street; he felt it was a more appropriate material for the public side of the bu/tding; it retains/ts quality and wood siding develops a patina over time. He said he hoped it would be the decision to keep the cement plaster material for the building on the street side. Ch~.~rman Roberts ~.a/~d that he approved of the wood siding when first viewed, but the cement material was attractive and it was acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 26, 1996 Com. Harris commented that it was acceptable to have houses look like houses, end stated that everything that has been described about the interior also applies to the exterior even though it is on a residential section of Stevens Creek. She pointed out that other residential a~eas such as Summerhill have siding and that character is acceptable. It is a matter of taste and design. This is more solid, more massive and more industrial looking, fortunately broken up by the gables and overhang. Com. Harris requested that the issues be separated as she did not want to vote no on the entire package. MORON: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 10-U-94 with approval for the front elevation option C; the west elevation Option C with the addition of a condition that the espaliered area be defined; that the building distances be approved; the security gate be approved per sheet 2; the window locations and building footprint changes are acceptable; and the elimination of the front retaining wall acceptable. Com. Austin Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 MORON: SECOND: ABSENT: NOS.: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 10-U-94 with the above mentioned conditions in addition to the flat roof carports. Chairman Roberts Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Com. Harris Passed 2 - 1-0 On behalf of the applicant, Ms. Wordell questioned the intent on Item 2. Chairman Roberts responded that,it was the west and east elevation, Option C. Com. Harris clarified that the recommendation refers to sheet 12, but sheet 12 does not include the building. It is the addition of sheet 12 and the espaliered treatment. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chairman Roberts reported on his attendance at the recent Economic Summit Meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan reported that at City Council's request, he and Carol Atwood wrote a proposal for economic development. Council determined that it would be advantageous to have input l~om the business community as well. The purpose of the economic forum was to develop a structure to have the City Council, staffand business community evaluate the proposal. Mr. Cowan stated that the Ola's Restaurant issue was scheduled for the March 4 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 8 ~ebmary 26, 1996 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Chah-person Roberts noted the newspaper article on the Portofino development. Com. Harris distributed and discussed the newspaper arlicle regarding the closure of the Islamic Center. Mr. Cowan reported that the Santa Clara Valley ManufacWaing Association is concerned about the introduction of institutional and residential into the industrial centers. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, March 11, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Minutes approved as presented: March ll, 1996