PC 09-18-85 meeting w/ ASAC Pc q -is r
380
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL COMMITTEE
(ASAC) OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FOR SEPTEMBER 18,. 1985. MEETING
HELD IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM OF CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA.
4 The meeting was called to order at 7: 10 PM by Chairman Miller.
The ASAC was joined by the Chairman and members of the Planning
Commission, which body also convened in formal session.
ROLL CALL (ASAC) :
Present: Committee Members Chapman, Mann, Jackson, Chairman
Miller
Absent: Vice-Chairperson Nobel
ROLL CALL (PLANNING COMM. ) :
Present: Commissioners MacKenzie, Adams, Sorensen, Chairman
Claudy
Absent: Commissioner Szabo
Staff Present: R. Cowan, Planning Director
S. Piasecki , Asst. Planning Director
M. Caughey, Associate Planner
ITEM 1: PRESENTATION BY SEDWAY/COOK ASSOCIATES REGARDING
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW.
110 Planning Director Cowan explained that the objective of
this meeting is to gain a better understanding of the
general principles of physical design review, and thus
increase the effectiveness of all participants in the
review process in meeting the city's development goals.
Toward that end, therefore, Tom Cook, Principal in the
firm of Sedway/Cook Associates, has been invited to make
a presentation illustrating these concepts and their
relevance to the unique circumstances of the community..
Mr. Cook is already acquainted with Cupertino through
his firm's participation in the Monte Vista Design
Guidelines study.
Mr. Cook began his remarks with an overview of the
design review process.. He noted that case-specific
design review is most effective when preceeded by a
well-defined and predictable definition of community
design values. The ASAC and Planning Commission should
be concerned with shaping and articulating physical
design policy as much or more than with critique of
individual projects.
ti
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 i; -,ti
Page - 2 - ii
Design analysis begins ' with the identification of major
0
concerns -to the community and the "driving forces" which
influence the resulting form and substance of a
development proposal ' street views, major gateway
features, hillside and watercourse views and historic
structures are representative of these influential
elements. • II '
Mr. Cook then presented' a case study concerning Downtown
Portland, Oregon. The objective of the study was control
of building height and bulk so as. to preserve view
corridors to the Cits waterfront park and landmark
highway bridge. By ',identifying a 33 degree optimum
viewing angle landwardllflrom the waterfront, a terraced
. building height allowance formula was derived.
I
Discussion followed : : regarding the detailed design
control methodologies ',used in preparing the Portland
study. Planning Commission and ASAC members expressed
concern regarding the adequacy of Cupertino 's existing
development controls ito address the implications of
height, bulk and material composition associated with
.
il
more intensive urban-scale projects. . Mr. Cook cited the
newly adopted Downtown Plan for the City • of San
Francisco, the provisions of which militate against
' -certain architectural syles such as the post-modern and
"Cubist" formats. While agreeing with the plan 's
objective of encouraging greater visual interest in
building form and HOaterials, he cautioned against
incorporating excessive ' constraints in design policy
documents when the result may be to disrupt the creative
process.
Mr. Cook then presented a second case example of a
design controls approach developed for the City of
Honolulu. In that context, he noted that a community
can be classified into three geographically-defined
• categories, each of which demands different levels of
intervention in the Design Review process:
a) Stable Areas: requiring minimal intervention
because land uses And physical characteristics tend
to retain undisturbed levels of visual quality.
b) Enhancement Areas: characterized by generally
stable patterns of ' d nsity, use and character, but
subject to some ' degree of blighting influences,
such as high traffic levels. Greater intervention
• is justified here, provided that appropriate
objectives are defined.
410 '
•
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1985
Page - 3 -
Ilk
c) Opportunity Areas: affected bythe pp y greatest degree
of change, and which would benefit most from
precisely defined design parameters in advance of
incremental development.
As a general principle, therefore, he stated that where
change is occuring or is anticipated to occur, the
community must clearly articulate its concerns prior to
defining solutions; where no significant. change is
taking place or expected, emphasize maintenance of
physical resources 'and existing visual charcter.
In response to a question from ASAC member Chapman, Mr.
• Cook noted that while he is not completely familiar with
Cupertino 's regulatory structure, self-administering
guidelines are most likely to attain the community 's
physical design objectives. A discretionary system is
less effective and may even prove counterproductive.
This observation engendered debate between. Mr. Cook and
Mr. Paul Sedway, also a Principal in the Sedway/Cook
firm, regarding the organization of the public review
function. Planning Commission Chariman Claudy noted
that controversial projects are subject to early review .
by the Commission and ASAC both, and that this approach
has been effective in limiting the scope of review to
those matters most worthy of concern. Mr. Cook agreed
with this approach and suggested that a variation
thereof be considered for all projects of major scale:
that is, to allow a sketch book review of the project
before the Board, using only concept drawings. By so
doing, the designer is spared the expense of refined
presentation drawings at the early review stage, and the
City 's boards are relieved from the sense of obligation
that a finished submittal sometimes creates.
In response to questions from both the ASAC and
Commission, Mr. Sedway cautioned against inspecific
criticism of design submittals. "Compatibility" may in
fact prove less important than the ,project 's functional
relationships, such as to surrounding built-forms.
"Harmony" is an indistinct term, unless related to
matters of color, texture and materials. Specific
critique should be based on definitve information,
rather than speculation. Mr. Cook explained several
techniques which can be used to help visualize a
development proposal within its physical context. These
techniques include photomontage and scale model video
tapes prepared by the UC Berkeley Simulation Laboratory.
Shading and Solar orientation diagrams can be useful
also to guage the impact of a proposal on nearby public
aspaces.
In summary, Messrs. Cook and Sedway suggested the
following questions as precedent to public policy
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1985
Page - 4 -
Aft
development on matters of design control : Does the area .
in question merit Design Review? Are the City 's
objectives articulated and predictable? What are the
aspects of - the given area that are most highly valued,
and are these values realistic?
After discussion with staff , the ASAC and Commission
agreed to follow-up thisII discussion of principles with a
• field tour of certain siib-areas in Cupertino to assess
the effectiveness of Hvarious regulatory documents and
area-wide Specific Plans now in .place relative to actual
field results. These areas will include Vallco Park, N.
•
De Anza Blvd. and Morita' Vista. The field tour will take
place on October 9th, ibeginning at 5:00 PM at City Hall .
OTHER BUSINESS II
Director Cowan asked the Planning Commission to consider •
a possible zoning ordinance. revision to provide more
effective control ovefl the loaction of restaurants in
close proximity to residential zones. It was noted that
• the Commission will be; asked to consider such a case at
their next meeting in oahich a former convenience grocery
store on Bubb Road ' jis proposed for conversion to a
restaurant use. • Following brief discussion, the
Commission adopteda ijelsolution authorizing staff tto 411,
schedule a public hearing to consider amendments to the
General Commercial zoning ordinance.
•
The adjourned regular meetinglwlas then adjourned to the next
regular Monday evening meetings of the ASAC, beginning at 6:30 PM
and Planning Commission, beginning at 7:00 PM, respectively, on
• September 23, .1985.
•
ATTEST: • APPROVED:
/s/Doroth.Z Cornelius /s/John Claudy
CITY CLERK CHAIRPERSON