The URL can be used to link to this page

DIR-2008-05b਍਍〱〳‰潔牲⁥癁湥敵਍畃数瑲湩Ɐ䌠污晩牯楮⁡㔹㄰ഴ吊汥灥潨敮›㐨㠰 㜷ⴷ㌳㠰਍䅆㩘⠠〴⤸㜠㜷㌭㌳ളഊ䌊呉⁙䙏਍啃䕐光䤢低਍਍佃啾䥎奔䕄䕖佌䵐久ൔഊ䄊牰汩㐠‬〲㠰਍਍片来⁧畂歮牥਍㌱㔷匠䐠⁥湁慺䈠癬൤䌊灵牥楴潮‬慃‮㔹㄰ഴഊ匊䉕䕊呃›䕄䥓乇删噅䕉⁗佃䵍呉䕔⁅䍁䥔乏䰠呅䕔⁒‭灁汰捩瑡潩⁮䥄ⵒ〲㠰〭വഊ吊楨⁳敬瑴牥挠湯楦浲⁳桴⁥敤楣楳湯漠⁦桴⁥敄楳湧删癥敩⁷潃浭瑩整ⱥ朠癩湥愠⁴桴⁥敭瑥湩൧漊⁦灁楲⁬ⰳ㈠〰㬸愠灰潲楶杮愠䐠物捥潴❲⁳楍潮⁲潍楤楦慣楴湯琠⁯灡牰癯⁥業潮൲氊湡獤慣楰杮愠摮攠瑸牥潩⁲湥慨据浥湥獴愠⁳慰瑲漠⁦桴⁥潣摮瑩潩⁮景愠灰潲慶⁬潦൲愊灰楬慣楴湯䐠剉㈭〰ⴷ㜲‬潬慣整⁤瑡ㄠ㜳‵⹓䐠⁥湁慺䈠畯敬慶摲‬捡潣摲湩⁧潴删獥汯瑵潩൮上⹯㈠〷മഊ倊敬獡⁥敢愠慷敲琠慨⁴晩琠楨⁳数浲瑩椠⁳潮⁴獵摥眠瑩楨⁮睴⁯敹牡ⱳ椠⁴桳污⁬硥楰敲漠൮䄊牰汩㌠‬〲〱മഊ䄊獬Ɐ瀠敬獡⁥潮整琠慨⁴湡愠灰慥⁬景琠楨⁳敤楣楳湯挠湡戠⁥慭敤眠瑩楨⁮㐱挠污湥慤⁲慤獹਍牦浯琠敨搠瑡⁥景琠楨⁳敬瑴牥‮晉琠楨⁳慨灰湥ⱳ礠畯眠汩⁬敢渠瑯晩敩⁤景愠瀠扵楬⁣敨牡湩Ⱨ਍桷捩⁨楷汬戠⁥捳敨畤敬⁤敢潦敲琠敨倠慬湮湩⁧潃浭獩楳湯മഊഊ䔊据潬畳敲㩳਍敒潳畬楴湯丠⹯㈠〷਍਍㩧汰湡楮杮䐯䍒䌠浯業瑴敥愯瑣潩⁮敬瑴牥䐠剉㈭〰ⵂ协਍਍牐湩整⁤湯删捥捹敬⁤慐数൲ DIR-2008-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 270 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE MINOR LANDSCAPING AND EXTERIOR ENHANCEMENTS AS PART OF THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR DIR-2007-27 SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR-2008-05 Applicant: Gregg Bunker Location: 1375 S. De Anza Blvd. SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Director's Minor Modification, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience: 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan and zoning ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application no. DIR-2007-05, is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application DIR-2008-05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of April 3, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein. Resolution No. 270 DIR-2008-05 April 3, 2008 Page 2 COMMUNITYSECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set submitted by Metro Design Group consisting of 4 pages attached to the staff report, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. SCREEN TREE SIZE The proposed London Plane screen tree along the De Anza Blvd. frontage shall be upsized to 48 -inch box minimum. 3. CASH DEPOSIT An architectural/ landscaping enhancement cash deposit in the amount of $10,000 shall be submitted to the City prior to the release of final occupancy for the condominiums. Said deposit shall be released after the architectural and landscaping improvements are complete. The applicant is responsible to consult with the Building Department to obtain any necessary building permits to install the new architectural features. In addition, a letter from a professional licensed arborist shall be submitted to the City confirming that the new screen trees have been planted at the approved locations and are in good standing. 4. TRELLIS ON UNIT C The proposed trellis on the rear facing balcony shall be optional at the discretion of the property owner. In the event if the balcony is going to be proposed then appropriate Building Permit approval must be obtained from the Building Department prior to construction. 5. COMMERCIAL BUILDING Additional architectural features shall be introduced along the north elevation of the Wolfe Camera building. Said architectural features shall include but not be limited to pre -fabricated metal trellises, green screens or similar features painted at a complimentary color to the existing building and shall be approved by Staff prior to installation. 6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Resolution No. 270 DIR-2008-05 April 3, 2008 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Commissioner Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department /s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chair Design Review Committee ਍䑃倠䥒呎䑅਍਍❦⹗ധ⤊晲഻⸊ㄭ਍ㄮ਍਍⁾屾‮⴬Ⱜ⹟✠∮縠⸮∠✠≾⸧昢∮䤢⸮മഊ瘊℺਍Ᵽ਍⸺റ㬊ഩ爊ഡⴊഢ⠊ഩഊ䌊਍䐺਍൯ഊ⤊ാ椊䨺਍∢ര㨊ര㈊਍㸩਍⵲਍਍ൾ縊਍ൾ氊਍਍⹉਍൜ഊഊ∊਍൨唊਍䥉਍ൈ渊਍❬਍ൾ䤊⵴琺栮楾✮Ⱞ繬张⸮⸮⸭⸮✮✧⸧Ⱞ⸮⹾∠਍਍⸮മഊ㬊䤠✠⁕楕琠䤠⁩楉䨠䱮ㄠ倠䤠൩⸊‮⁩楦楬⁩❉䤠❴匠ㄠ㩉縺䤠਍繉䤠䤠⁩楈搠椠汾❬樠⁦⁲⁾⁉⵾ⴭⰠ਍⁉⁊✮映䤠❉䨠⸠਍⁉繾മ✊≉⁩ⅉ⁉橴䤠楕氠瑩映側氮椮椱൴㬊䤠✠⁉䩩㭤栠ㄡ䤠•ㄡㄱ਍‡ㅢ畢䩉歧䤠‧䥊‬ഭ㬊爠䤠⁩楉‡•❩⁮䥉Ⱐ✬䥉਍਍∧਍਍൉椊਍൉椊਍൉㈊਍਍਍⁾‭䥾⁾尨縠⁩繵⁭൥椊椠䴠縠䤠⁩椡楨⁬ഡ椊縠Ⅹ樠⁴䥉渠繩⁨൉縊縠⁨⁾繉㬠汾楬മ椊洠縠䤠⁾繤繾൩䤊䤠›⁺⁮啮൨ℊ栠縠䤠⁾繾搡൬㬊椠⁾汩⁬䨮㬠繕൉㨊䤠⁾䩃‧繥✠繡൩椊✠⁩楉䤠摕਍⁩繩縠‡縡℮ൾ㨊縠⁾⁕㩬൭縊⁾ㄱ渠繧മ縊⁉‬縮繾਍⁉⁾副൯洊汩ㅾⴠ䠠⁉‭䩩楾ⴠ℠ⴠ縠⁩‭繩㨠唠⁉㬻椠‡㨻⸠਍瑩汊繾⁾⁩楾⁾⁩ⅾ⁾⁩⁩⁩⹩椠㨠⁾⁾繵䤠縠⁉橾椠਍ㄬℱℱ‡汉Ⅼ䤠Ⅹ䤠❉ㄠ⸱ㄱ℠䤠Ⅹ䤠⁩楪✠਍䤡浾⁾敾⁾汬㭾縠栠䤠‡⁩楉⁩䥉椠൬䤊找繾※桉搠⁩⁾⁕⁩繩縠搠਍䩩繬楾⁢繾⁾縻⁉‡楾縠椠‡繩഻縊䥉縬繾縠⁨摾縠⁬汩栠㌠℡਍⁾縵㡾縠汾縠⁾㽾⁩‾繾਍縻汉縠縠楾縠⁾‡⁾楾縠縠൉縊⁡繾縠‮⹉㬠‮汾縠椠മ縊⁾⁲✼氠⁾⁾⁾⸮縠椡਍縡瀠⁩䥉縠⁅⁾湉㬻ൾ䤊⁴䥾㴠ⅾ⁾⁾⁾ⅾ椠縠ൾ⸊縠㬠㭾⁾⁾⁾繾愠縠൩縊縠椠⁾㠱縠縠⸠⁾⁺潾਍‮⁾⁧›ℶ縠വ㰊⸠਍਍汲汬汬⁬⁩⁩ㄱㄱㄱㄱ℠䤠℠ㄠㄱ䤠䥉䥉樠縠਍਍‿⁾⁾⁾繴❾爠礠縠縠⁩⁾⁾椮⁩⴩਍⁩⁩⁩⁩䤻⁕䥾℠‮楾唠⁾ൾ椊縠縠›繾⁉⁩繾椠縠椠㕾縠਍⁾⁾‭⁩縧⁩⁾⁵繾⸮മ樊䤠℠䨠䤠⁾⁩楉縠栠⁩䩃ധ縊‡繾縠䤠⁾縧൉㼊 愮㌠䤠⁩繩਍⁾⁾繩椠朠縠ദ椊縠縠⁾‡⁾縬਍⁉⁳繾※⁾楡਍⁾⁉楾縠縠縠ൾ縊℠⁾⁾⁾ൾ縊愠縠਍਍⁾മ⸊਍਍䥊਍⸮⸠മ✊䤢Ⅼ਍楬繾਍⹾縮਍琭㨻ൕ漊繸਍繧਍⸮ⴠ഼稊਍਍‭൉尊ൎ縊楾⁩䥉൉戊❡਍⸮縮਍൮爊਍਍൩渊਍ൔ䤊氢汉⸮⁄❰⹉伮≬敬汦⁴㩣漮晕瑬ൔഊ䤊⸩മ∊✭⁖瘭∠൜⸊繾ⴠ㰬‱⁔ൾഊ䤊楉‡縮ⴠ繾縠ⴭ⹾縠縠਍਍縻楾繾Ⱐ繾找漮縠张张张张张縠ൾℊ⁩晐䰮⹶ㄱ縠䩑✮縠氠癬愠ൾⴊ⁾縴‮ㄧ縧⁾⁾⁉ⴧ਍繩⁬‮⁾縧ま㨸縠渠⸠⸮縮⸺縠⸮※⹾‮⹾਍楈椠⁴⁕䤧汕牬℠楾縠ㄠ‱繾楴縠⁬䥉渠汕਍唡縠⁩䝾縠楉繾䠠㨠☠※⁾䥉縠縠⁳無縡椠ഡ椊⁬楾ⅾ縠氠繾㨠縠⹾ⴠ⸮縠䤠爠Ⱝ䥊•⁈⁉⁮楾਍⁾楩縠縠䤠ⵉ挠䨠⤨焠✠‰ൾ縊䤠䤠䰧⸠⴬⸮⸬䤠‭⁾⁾⁾⁉※⁾⁾‮⁾⁾഼䤊ⱌⰠ繾⸮䤠⁉啾⁜繾縠਍⵲㬠⁾潯⹬‮繾縠⵾਍⁮晩椠橩孬✠繴‱⁾⁾繾椿⁉氧物⁷⸩਍℻⁾汩⁾楬⁬楾⹬䤠‬⸮‮䥉爠縠汩搠℠൤戊⁾‮〮氠⸠唠椠⁾絏⸠⹾਍⁨繩Ⱐ縠Ⱐ⁾‮⁾縮氠‮繾਍⁾Ȿ⁾楾爠Ⱝ㨠縠⼠㨧琽癩ㄭ公䡴爠縠⁾縺਍‼⥉䤠㨠橯䤠椠䤠⡉晩⁩⁾潾਍❑縠䤠縠䤠⁉‬⁾繾਍⁾縦縠橩縠氠啥删縠⁲ⴧ唠਍⁈㹾縠縠‾⹮⠠⸠娠縠‾‾⁉‹ൾ㤊汩縠汩椠≬汩椠汩㰠㰽⹦㴠⁬椬⁬汩✠縠਍⁕物䥈ⴧ※⁉⹾㨠縠⁩⁾ⱅ❉䤠⼠റ縊ⰮⰠⵉ縮甠⸮张⭟爮‭浶਍਍繾渠⁮慲汊樠⁾⵾⁾汕※湩ഡ✊‰⁉〧縠›⁈縴縠渠⼬椠吠瀠਍⁅⁾⁉㩾縠ⴠ✽਍㨺✠䤠縠⁾ⁱ✩ㅌⱅ⁪⹾氮彜彟⁖繾਍⁾⁾⹩⴮‮⁦⁾⼯⼠㨧‮›ⵌ繾਍‸⁾⵴縭戠ⵊ椠縠縭椠ൾ縊縠䜮㨠⁾縮❐‬✢⁁㭪䤠ⅴ℠楏਍砺⁬㰾䤠⸬⼺ⴭ‧繦ㄠ‱湾ൾ㘊縠爠帠樠縠椠縠⁾⁺⁩⁾繩㨠ൾ椊縠縠⸠⹾⸠㩾⁾䥾ⴻ浬橭椠㬠⁾䤧汬਍⁾⁾繾㨧㬺›氢㭊縧Ⱞ㬻楾湩繾汬⁾⥉਍⁾〰Ⱐ⴩縠縠琠✭⸺䤠㬻椠⁾繩縠㩆⁾楩Ⱐ∮縠縠਍⁺⁧⴬ℼ∠⸬縺⁾奉縠⁾Ⅹ搠搮繮⸮㬺‡⁾稢ഭ縊縠椠縠ㄠ‱䝰℠汴汩⁴‥⁾⁾⁥灻㨠汦൴縊䠠ⴠⴭ‮㨧Ⱒ䤠椠‡⁉繾⁉⁾⸮䤠縠縠਍※⁲氡繪‿⁾瑲⵭㵲㨺椠䤠⁾ൾ縊⁾™椠㩾⸠瑾績尠മ䔊椠✠❐ⰠⰮ䤠匭䤠⹉⸠縠⸮⸮⸮മ椊㨠牾繪繩縠㩭⁾繾਍਍⁉⁾⁾楩✮ㄠ嘮橉䩩ㄭ⁬牔吠✠告琧ㄠ⁬䥔਍⁾⁾‭椧ⴠ‭昭㨠‮  〮⸰⸮✮⸭縠尠‭റ漊ⴠ⸠‮䩅䤠⁩䥩匠‮汴ⅬⰡ尮婎孁⁐ഭ䨊唠縠啾汾浬䉉繮⁰䱂嘮汴‮⁾繾灭਍⁉⁉⁐晩ㄠ昵汩楾楬䡬汩摬⁾⁾楾繭椠਍⁉⁨楾縠湾摾楂縠楩⁾⁾⁾⁮൉縊尠縠䔠縠䠠⁾⹩唠縠㨠‮ൡ縊映縠縠⁩⁾⁾⁾⁾※⁩ൾ弊张⁬₷ⅾ张ㄱ爠张张뜠樠椠਍਍മ⸊ഭഊ⸊⸮⸮⸮⸮਍〵〰‰㈴ㄧⅉഺഊ⸊਍⸮਍਍穾਍⹣൐ⴊ൉洊਍ㄢൊ爊਍⸺ഭ稊਍਍†⁾⁾✨⁉䩜縠尠⁊≉佒䨮䍅ⱔ縠ㄱㅟ㸺䘠⹊伮䕾⁒䥖⹊䨮⸮䝁䕲䤠孾㬻†縠਍⠠汊砠䨠⁉⁾⁾縠灾縧楲਍䨠›ⴧ砠瀠›⁾†縠縠縠縠桨䤠⸬਍㹬‭ㄱ‱⁾琽縠娠⸠‮⸮††ൈⴊ〠†佇䥎㸺䵏义啉卍縠䨠⁉⤱繾≾㸱㉾縠⁪ൾㄊㄱ⸠⸮瀠›䩜縠縠⸠‮縠㰠⸠椮⹪瀮㬺ഡ㬊攠⁩㨺‧ⴢ∠‭⸠縠਍⁉⁺⸮‮⁾‰㬻⸠‮†氠‮⁴⁩⁾楬ⅾ楩楩洠ൾ ⸮⠠ 潴⸠〠†‱ⱓ匠匠漠⁥✢婎∧㘠⹌嘠⹏⸠⸠縠⁲⁇〰〰Ⱝറ縊㤠ⴠ㨠⁴‧ⴢ†⹉⸠䌠㩈汸਍漠⸠‮∠ⴢ⠠ †⸠䤠⁉⁾ⅾ繯挬琠縠繾⁳〧✢ര ⸠‮⁲焠⸠⸮†啇䕐楦呴义ⱏ䜠⁁卑㄰‴†‮楦⁾楾捩⁩繲縠稠਍†⸮⠠ ††松㭮㭬൧ ⴠ✭㨠潊††′′′㠹縮਍†⸮稠††††㩾氧⁡繬ⴠ∮਍ ਍⹹㨺縧⸺㑬✮∮ⴢ⸠∮਍❦਍❩ഡⰊㄬ਍൴∊റ✊൉爊ധ琊❣഻⼊ൾ⸊മഊ⸊㬮Ⱝ⸮∮⸮⸮‮⸭⸮‮⸮⸮⸮⸮Ⱞ⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮✮⸮繾਍਍晃ഩഊ漊਍䤺൉漊਍਍潴⤭਍਍✻✬਍਍⸬മⰊ⴮൴倊ൊഊ縊氠਍਍റ⸊਍മℊ਍ൾഊഊ縊൪椊ഴ✊縮਍⹦ⰺ਍਍൩琊ⰺ਍⸺഼尊਍❾❾昢䥉⸬⸮⸢‮⹾楬ⰻ⨢਍਍ൾ∊䩴਍〺਍ല㨊㩸ഭ氊਍਍਍⤺਍਍਍繉⸢ബഊ縊മ䤊਍൩琊ബഊ椊਍൴⸊਍ഡ尊਍਍⸬਍਍✧※牒縱ഢഊ縊਍൲漊਍∮਍൲漊਍ൾ洊਍䩬਍ൾ氊ാⴊ഼ഊഊ⠊⥉਍൯漊਍਍敾ㄸ਍਍㤡਍℡മℊ⹡䤠ⴠര ⵲਍縠ⴠ⤰ാ ⵲㩺਍⸠⤠ⴾറ ⁾⵺਍稠ഺ 䜠ഩഊ朊㌧椠❬縠縠䡕楬❬汦縻਍物✠⁛⁾‱繨Ⅾ⸡汾繩਍㬭縠儠‮桩松䩾栠਍⹾㔠㬱䰼嬠㙾㨢繾牬渻਍楩⁬⁾晾繲䡾汩捾਍⁨Ⅹ潧∶繪椠汬਍汴㙩爢℡縡਍⸱㰳繕സ㨊⁵⸬Ⱐ汬ⴠ≪਍繦‮‮⁨Ⅷ‵⁦ൾ㬊縠✢䡾氮婦਍⁾⁬松杘縺㬻楾椠汩਍橲楩㭕഻縊樠繬㌮匧㬠氭਍⁧⁾慩繾楬繦਍਍繾਍䥾℡਍㭾਍਍਍ൾ漊਍਍⹓䐠⁅乁䅚䈠噌⹄਍਍‮∢楊汬•⁐™⁉Ⱒ⁰Ȿ縮Ⱐ琮ℭ琧∧਍਍縨 ‡汕℡⁾椻Ⅼ⁩啉䤠䤠⁉⁉⁾汩⁬䥉縠਍汬楬繬氮䥾䥈椭汬Ⅼ⁨ൾ䤊❉䤠⁉⅕⁾⁾䥾䥉愠❬‡⁉⁐䥉⁉ⅉ਍⁾⁬朡縠瑦㭬䤠⁾⁡⁾⁾⁬⁩⁉繩搠਍⁉⁩繉氠杩汩䨠椠⁮楩䤠⁉⁩繾䤠൩䤊縠⁾楾汩繬縠䥉⁐❉焠縠縠⁩縡਍䥉⁉汩繬※㬡ⅾ椠椠㬠縠椠℠※楾਍਍‮⁉⁾ഥഊഊഊ縊਍਍ⴺൾഊഊ✊机਍਍⸮਍਍⁾⁾ൾℊ䤠縠਍਍縠਍ⵯ堠਍畣‮⁊繾縠ൾ∊∠†㨺〺਍启❬ഢ㬊‰晃吢⁬⁩捾Ⅾ汩൭縊䤱⁬⼨ 氭਍❺∠㸠⁧〰਍〹映吢⥬‾⴮䘠㭩‡ⰿ㸻਍启⁬⁩ⴰ‱晾⥊਍✨㸩ⴠ牯‭‭繾㬠㸾〰਍稾縠㈠≩〠ര㰊乯㨠㨺⡯⤯℠ⱉ縠楲繬൏∊㸬〠‭⁴挾汮汬ാ縊㹡挠⸮⴮൉∊∧‼≦汔≦汔ㄠ㬺‱Ⅳㄭ਍㭭㸾൭㼊⠠ ⁉浾汃ഩ 氭਍਍਍∧਍൉縊縠਍ ਍਍ㄬⰱ›Ⱞ✧✧✻㬺⸠⸮‮‮Ⱞ佇瀠牡汈䔧ൄഊ爊਍楦਍਍ഢ夊ധ⠊縧਍਍ⰺ഻✊℮਍਍⸻਍൴縊✠਍਍縨਍※❾਍ⱟ⸮⸮⠠✰਍繬椠⸬‧൲✊‮മഊ䤊മ䤊䤠਍਍ൾⰊ਍ⸯ਍൴⤊Ⱗ਍ൾ尊഻昊縺⁾ഢഊ縊਍ൾ縊਍㸩਍⸬മഊ⸊മ尊਍਍楛扝⁊楛⁝‸‸䥅縠〠䔠൬䤊⁉⁉⁉偩⁾⁉⁩⁾഻✊⸮⸠縠汩椠⁬⁾‧⁾ൾ縊⁮縡⸠⁾⁾⁾⁾⁧ൾ渊䤠‡⁾⁾ൾ縊縠縠⸠਍‮⁩൩ഊ䔊縱䩅਍湾਍⁪䥉മ縊椠⁩ൾ⸊ⰠൾⰊⰠ਍⁾⁩൪ഊഊ㠊਍൭縊楾൬椊汬ൾ愊਍ൾഊ⸊縠਍⁬മ縊⸠਍‮൩縊氠਍⁩ൾ䤊਍汩氱਍⸺ഭ⠊❊਍䤭਍ㄱറ爊਍ㄱറ㰊਍⸺ഭⴊ൉⠊ഩ娊਍਍㘭Ⱐഺ縊⁾繩㨠㨠਍楾⁬汩䤠൉⸊⁾⁉ㄱ਍⁾楾繃਍䥉焠਍മ⸊਍ൾഊ∊਍汩਍晏਍⹙਍ൾ氊਍䤧਍൬紊਍ൾ䤊਍਍ബഊ洊繬敬繬⁾⁾汉縠縠⁕⁾繕汰㬠※⁭繾⁩₷繾繭縠洠⁵㬻縠浾⁾㬻朠਍繕繾縡繾⁬ㅩ縠⁾⁾繾縠縠繨繴뜠縠⁤ⅾ⁾⁾繾⅕⁾⁾縮繾⁾⁾繾瑏縡縠攠਍汩⁬楩汬氡‡‱氡‡䤡汬椠摬⁬‡湉㨠ⅉ椠ㄠㄡⅉ䤡氠氡䤠⁩‡汉汬椠汬℠਍䤡楾楾浾䤠‡⁩汩⁬℡椻氻ㄠ氡⁩湩‡汩ㄡㄱ縠汩汬椠䤠㭉繩⁭൩ഊ縊‮㩾⁾㩾⁺縪椠⁾繪‧⁴∵愠ㅾ縠栠㨧‧⁾繾攮縠縠繾℠਍繉縠繾画縠⁾楩ⰠⅩ椠⁩繾ⅉ䥉縠樠啩⁾楩⁕乾楪ㄠ਍䥉䤠䥉䤠䥉℠⁉ⅉㄠㄱ椡椠汬椠汬‡汩℡‡汉氡䤠楬汬椠਍⁾ⅾ⁾⁨繾朠縠⁾繾洠猠⁩ⅾ繨縠縡⁾桾㭾縠਍⁉⵩繾‧繴〠‴椬㘠‧繊⁾㍾縠❾楏縠汾⁾縧縡⁉ൾ椊縠繾椠⁾繩㬠‱䥾椠⁩繾⁾繾⁩㭩找椠汕椠桬⁾ൾℊ椠⁤繩縠搠縠椺椠⁾⁗慬≡⁳慾縡䤠楾⁨ൊ縊縠⁾䥾縠縠‡⁩繾縠⁾縮⁾繎汾⁩縧繡䤠繊縠਍⁾⁾⁾⁾繾⸮攠⁩⁾繾縠縠਍਍ㄺ਍ㄱറ⠊❊਍䤭਍ㄱറ爊਍ㄱറ㰊਍⸺ഭⴊ൉⠊ഩ娊਍਍൉䤊਍൉䤊张਍⁾㨡椠繩縠਍⁉⁾繾縠਍›⁾繾縠਍‮⁾縬攠਍⁉‬㭾㬺㔠਍⁉䤻㩉縠⸮‮䤻ഺ䤊椠縠ൾ縊縠縠਍繤਍ⱉ਍൤䤊਍൉椊਍ബ䤊਍൩䤊਍൉䤊਍਍繾਍਍䥉൉⸊਍ൾ縊਍਍മഊ縊ൾഊ縊਍൩ℊ਍਍ൾഊ弊张椠⸠਍‮‭൩縊縠䤠縠਍⁂❉縠਍‬⁾⁊ൾ氊縠椠✠਍⁾摾਍⁾䥾਍⁾‬൩縊൉縊മ⸊䤠਍൉Ⰺ਍ബ䤊਍൉䤊਍൉䤊਍൉縊ൾഊ∊洠啾繉਍氡∠縡‾繾਍⁾ㄮ䨠⸮椺弡屣਍‬‮⁾縮㭾ഺ䤊⁩⁾繾椢റ椊椠⁾縮ⅾ਍䤼縠繾ൾ䔊攠縠繾ൾ縊㬠⁡摾൴㨊縠⁉⁾繾਍⁅繾椠‱楥਍䥉縠⁉⁾繾਍䤼愠⁾⁥楾਍⁴楾縠椠繩਍‵䥾瀠ൾ縊ⴠ⁉⁾繾਍⸮㌠䤠儠ൾ椊楬•മℊ⁬❉縠樠ൾ㸊縠椠縠ൾ⸊‮⁹⁾⹾਍⁩⁾繾਍⁾繾ഢ縊縠⸠਍਍∢ⴧ䥏✢䵾≾∢ഢഊ縊繩⁾‭繩⁾‭浾楕㨠攠ⴠ䤠⁉₷ㄧ≾坩䥾•䤡縡繩∠䤠啉⁾‮⁩⸮㸠⸠‮繬繩楎⁐₷縡⸠‮繉∠䤠偕ⴠ縠਍⁩兩℠椠汬椠䤠䤡ⅉ℡䤠椠䤠楩䤠ㄠㄱㄱㄱㄱ‱⁉楬Ⅼㄱ䤠椠汩Ⅼ䤠汬‡汉䥉椠汬䤠⁉氡ㄠㄱㄱ䤠䤠椠䤠楩䤠℠‡䥉⁉ൾ椊汬䤠樠汬楬繬ㄱ椠汩渠ㄡㄱㄱ•楩汩汬楬汬⁬䥉椠楬⁬⁉䥬汩汬楬⁬Ⅹ䤠⁉汩汬椠਍ㄱㄱㄱ楩汬‡䥉‡ㄱℱㄱ‱縡Ⅼ‡牬汬縠楾汬‮⁉楉䤠⁦⁉⁩汉Ⅼ䤠❉縠਍䥉渠℠䤡䥾椠℠椠氡灬氠汬Ⅹ椠汬⁬楉℠汬䤠汬汬䤠ⅉ䤠⁉ൾ䠊縠縠渠繾⁩楉椠※繾繾⁉繾䤠⁩⁾敾縠䡰㬠⁾楰਍⁩⁾㭩ⴠ椠氧縠⁾繾Ⱐ楩‧繾縠⁾繾縠縠⁾㭾ൾഊ ⸠‮⁾⁾䥉尠䨺℠倠⹾䕊呇›❙ㅬ⸱䐮琠ㄽ⸮夰氧剅嘠ㅉ⸮⸱䄮片⁅†††縠਍氠汊縠⸠‮††繾獱椡楆਍㨠琺›⸮⸠‮⸮⸮†䤠ⁱⁱ⁮ൾ ⸮⸮㨠㩉䌠⁜•⤡⁉†縠繾⁨決†മ氊‾⁭⸮㨠㬺縠稠⠠ †䠠‧⁮‮ഢ䌊⁜⸮†佃䑎䵏义啉卍甠⁢⸬繾‮〠਍⁭⸮⸮䌠⁜㩜⁊㄰✠•⸠縠縠縠琠攠縠瀠倬產‱繬䤠਍㬭稠⸠⸮‮⁾⁾⸮⸮਍⁉‰㨺‬∧††‮氡縠⸠⸠⸠䤠ⅉⴠㅟ‧‮⁤洠ൾ稊†⸮尠䨺⠠ †琠℠稠℠䤠⁩ൾ 〠琠‼ㄠ㬵‵Ⅵ⤺ℱ‡乁䅚匠⹌⅖⤺‮‮㹉䤠‾椮⹨啩椠†㱯㹮൩縊㤠†⁸⸮⸮†楉⸠㬠縠⸠⁡⁾⁾ㄢ朠⁾⁉牾†㩃䠺㸺റ ⤨䤠❉†⤨††′繾⸬松繾‭繾⁾✢✧〧਍†∧琠⁜⸠⸮†畣数呒义ⱏ䌠⁁晃〵㐱††⸠縮㬠捾㰺⁧ൺ琊䨮†⸮਍ⴠ•⴩††⁓⁾′′⁓⁓⁓′ℼ䠩楲氧縮縠് ⸮稠†††汾⹴⁬楩਍਍䥉਍䤯縠⁾繩਍䤯氠汩਍䥉縠਍楩†⁾൉縊⁾൉椊ൾ縊繾縠਍䤯਍縰਍਍൉䤊਍‬൉ഊ䐊⁮湾ഺ刊繾縠⸡䤠਍汉⥬縠繾椠਍⸬縠⸠縠䤠਍繾椠椠繾਍਍൉ഊ䤊਍䜰〾〰〰〰〰縠਍砺⵵ⴠ⁉⹬═ⴠ繴縠⁒❓•永✱⸠⸮⸮ㅕ‱決❊⸠⸮‮汑汊椠楪ഺ縊⁾㬡※繾唠縠⁾楬湨⁾繩㬠縠⁾䨺ഺ㸊⁾㨺‡汲‧業⁬✢‮椢Ⅹ∠‰✢楬∠‸≯⁾ൾ縊⁾⁾繾㬠 繾縠⁾㨳氡縠℡縠․‰⹓‮ㅮ਍繩縠縠⁾⁤繩縠楐唠縠⁩⁩繾縠਍䤺∠繏縠⁲⸮‮∰縠⸮⸠⸮⸮栠•⁾松爠਍⁾⁾氺⹾牯縺縠稺⁾汩縠⁾楊⁾楾䜠਍⁩‶繗縠甠‮繾縠⁾⁾繾㨠繴਍⁯⁂縸縠縠㼠〠㘠縠⁯繾਍‸⁢浾縠匠縠㼠⁩ⅾ縺縠ൾ氊⁩⁾牾匠ⴠ椠縠縠縠⁾㨡ഺ㬊‭⁾♾爠℠㤠‧偩椠楪縠橩⁩牾਍⤨縠䤠※‰笭ⴠ㬺‮⁾⁾✡潰⁘ൾ䜊縠⁾✷⠠⁜稺縠ㄺ縠਍瑕ⴠ⹴⹬⁐‰മ㨊‱⹾‮㬨਍楩䨠ൊ∊਍ W 46 To: Design Review Committee Date: April 3, 2008 From: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Subject: Application: DIR-2008-05 Location: 1375 S. De Anza Blvd. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Director's Minor Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-03) for minor landscaping and exterior enhancements as part of the condition of approval for DIR-2007-27. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee: 1. Approve the Director's Minor Modification to allow additional landscaping and architectural enhancements at a previously approved condominium project with the staff suggested conditions in the resolution. BACKGROUND: On July 14, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a use permit (U-2003-03) to construct six residential condominiums and add 1,825 square feet to an existing retail building (Wolfe Camera). On August 28, 2007, the Planning Commission granted an approval to allow the developer to phase the retail portion of the project with the following enhancements: 1. Provide additional architectural embellishments to help screen and enhance the east elevation of the condominium building and the wing walls of the rear facing second floor balcony as viewed from the De Anza Blvd. 2. Provide additional landscaping enhancements to the help screen the building mass of the condominium building along the north and east elevations. The applicant is required to submit revised plans reflecting the above enhancements to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of final occupancy of the condominium building. DISCUSSION: Architectural Enhancements New architectural enhancements have been provided as follows: • New wood trellis feature over the garage entry on the east elevation. • New wood trellis feature at the rear balcony facing the north and east elevation. DIR-2008-05 4w April 3, 2008 Page Landscaping Enhancements Four trees have been added to the project site. Three Arbutus Marina (24 -inch box) are added in the existing planting stripe along the Wolfe Camera drive=thru. One London Plane (24 -inch box) is added in front of the Wolfe Camera building along the project's De Anza Blvd. frontage. DIR-2008-05 April 3, 2008 M ZI *4CO TT, 134 1:3 0 OYAWOM Page 3 The proposed architectural and landscaping enhancements satisfy the intent of the Planning Commission's condition. Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project with the following minor modification/condition: 1. The proposed London Plane screen tree along the De Anza Blvd. frontage shall be upsized to 48 -inch box minimum; and 2. An architectural/ landscaping enhancement cash deposit in the amount of $50,000 shall be submitted to the City prior to the release of final occupancy for the condominiums. Said deposit shall be released after the architectural and landscaping improvements are complete. The applicant is responsible to consult with the Building Department to obtain any necessary building permits to install the new architectural features. In addition, a letter from a professional licensed arborist shall be submitted to the City confirming that the new screen trees have been planted at the approved locations and are in good standing. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner -4/ C. dij Enclosures: Model Resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6484 Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2007 Plan Set L7 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6484 • DIR-2007-27 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (U-2003-03) TO PHASE AN APPROVED MIXED-USE DEVELOPENT (WOLFE CAMERA) SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a referral for Director's Minor Modification, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Director's Minor Modification is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR-2007-27 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 2007, are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II• PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR-2007-27 Applicant: Greg Bunker Location: 1375 S. De Anza Blvd SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on plan set titled: "Mixed Use Project, 1375 S De Anza Blvd, Cupertino CA 95014" consisting of tivrteen sheets dated 5/21/03 labeled A-0 to A-9, C-1, L-1 to L-2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this Resolution. ow Resolution No. 6484 August 28, 2007 Page 2 2. PHASING SCHEDULE/ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS The project shall be allowed to phase the project and occupy the condominiums prior to the commencement of the retail building provided that revised plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of final occupancy for the condominium building indicating the following: • Additional appropriate architectural features (i.e., trellis, arbor or similar features) to screen and enhance the east elevation of the condominium building and the wing walls of the rear facing second floor balcony from the views of De Anza Blvd. • Additional landscaping trees and/or architectural features to help screen the north elevation of the wolf camera building and the north and east elevations of the condominium building. Including but not limited to upsizing (48 inch box and evergreen) the originally proposed landscaping trees along the north side of the condominium building. 3. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL This approval of the modification is effective August 28, 2007. The ten calendar day appeal period will expire on September 28, 2007. 4. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Kaneda, Wong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: / s /Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development F:\PDREPORT\RES\2007\DLR-2007-27.doc APPROVED: /s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 4W Cupertino Planning Commission 15 August 28, 2007 Com. Wong: Suggested that he would like to see a eena ion cone of vision for any second privacy cern. Since the Commission is particular about shrubs and trees, we w see a specific pl and encourage the applicant to use more mature trees especiall ' the rear, given the feedba Bard from the rear neighbors. Steve Piasecki: • Suggested that the lication be continued to the Oc er 9�' meeting to enable the applicant to make the changes. recommended re-noti ' to the neighborhood for the October 9`h meeting. If the applicant incorporate th anges into a plan set early enough, send the plan set out to the neighbors so kno actly what it looks like and how it has changed. Chair Giefer: • Said she supported it; and sa at even thou hey were not comfortable telling the applicant to reduce the overall ho size, they encourag to look at the interior space. It is a prescriptive R1 ordi ce and the applicant is within ' right to every square foot they are presenting. Motion: on by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to continue 'cation -2007-01 to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. ote: 3-0-0; Com. Kaneda absent) air Giefer declared a short recess. Com. Kaneda returned to the meeting. 4. DIR-2007-27 Director's Referral of a Minor Modification to a Use Permit Gregg Bunker (U-2003-03) to phase an approved mixed-use 1375 So. DeAnza Blvd. development (Wolfe Camera). Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Director's referral of a minor modification to a previously approved use permit to phase a mixed-use development at the Wolf Camera site. The applicant is now requesting to phase the project by selling the condominiums first and postpone the retail portion of the project for another year to gather his finances for the project. Staff is not opposed to the phasing of the project, but has concerns and alternative suggestions to the terms of the phasing. • He explained that the city has not previously approved phasing of projects because in reviewing and approving projects, if there are different components, it is treated as a whole. The applicant came in and we worked hard with them to make sure that the building transitions nicely from the front proposed retail expansion to the taller condos building in the back. The concept of providing, having the retail being taller and enhanced, and improved upon being able to .screen some views of the taller condos building in the back was a key component to the prior approval. • As part of the original review of the project, neighborhood concerns were received about ongoing construction activities. A general rule of thumb is to try to minimize the duration of construction to the maximum extent possible, which applies to both the commercial and residential neighbors in terms of minimizing the construction activities. • Staff originally recommended that the applicant be given a year to start the retail portion of the project from final occupancy; and within that timeframe he submit a performance bond in a • `J Cupertino Planning Commission 16 August 28, 2007 specified amount. The City Attorney advised that the performance bond idea is not enforceable and is not a good idea; it will be hard to get a handle on it if we end up using it. • It should be required of the applicant to come in and submit plans to be approved by the DRC to string that elevation. Also, the applicant prior to final occupancy release of the condominium shall identify ways to also architecturally screen the stair elements shown on the back rear elevation of the rear facing balconies. • If the Commission approves the request for modification, the approval will have an expiration date of two years; which will give the applicant sufficient time to carry out his original request for retail expansion. That is the revised recommendation from staff. • Another issue not related to this particular project, that came up recently, is that it has come to our attention that two large Ash trees were recently removed by the Public Works Department; one of which was the 20 inch large Ash tree that was required to be preserved in front of the condominium building and prior to its removal, both Ash trees set the gateway. A brief discussion ensued regarding the removal by Public Works of the two large Ash trees. It was noted that there should be consistency in dealing with the improper removal of protected trees, whether by residents or the City. • Staff recommends that the use permit modification request be approved with staff's suggested condition and staff be given direction on the tree replacement. Com. Wong: • Referring to the communication from the Wildflower Court neighborhood, he asked staff to address some of the concerns regarding construction, trespassing on property, damage by commercial truck on many trees. Ciddy Wordell: • Staff will look at the concerns and see what can be done and how they can be addressed. Steve Piasecld: • Said that staff would work with the Building Department, contractors and bring the concerns to their attention. He said he had not heard of the concerns before. • Relative to construction violations, they work with the contractors to stop the behavior and constrain themselves to their own site. He agreed that the site needed to be cleaned up and said they would work with the Building Department to follow up with the contractors to get the site cleaned up. The applicant can be asked to address what is going on with the construction activity. • Sometimes people have the impression that something someone is doing is illegal, when in fact it is not. Parking on the street or turning into a driveway is part of the public right of way and anyone can turn in someone else's driveway. We need to investigate what is going on, and how much we can validate and get the applicant's contractor to comply. Com. Wong: • Suggested that the applicant come up with a construction management plan that if there was a route, it would affect other neighbors as well, instead of turning around on that busy intersection. He suggested going in one direction and out the other to avoid a tight turnaround. Steve Piasecid : • You can incorporate that into any decision you make on this application as well as if there isn't a requirement already, that the applicant prepare one right away to address these issues. • Cupertino Planning Commission 17 August 28, 2007 Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: • Said that a performance bond is not the appropriate instrument for this type of thing; it is not something the city would go and build if the developer didn't do it; they would not use the money and go add onto his business. • The city has been interested in the expanded retail because that provides sales tax and what we are looking for is lost revenue, but we don't have a city policy regarding how you would do that. What we are looking for now is to mitigate some of the development impact, perhaps by other improvements and not a cash outlay on the part of the developer. Com. Wong: • Asked if an incentive could be offered to the applicant to ensure that the retail portion is completed within a reasonable amount of time. Eileen Murray: • What we are trying to do now is to mitigate the impacts of the residential and still give him time to phase his project. That is the option the Planning Department has come up with. It is hard to force people to use the permits that have been issued, so let's get what we canand maybe some improvements on the retail building would be something we might request. Com. Wong: • Expressed concern that when he approved the project before, it was approved as a mixed use project and now the applicant is coming back four years later saying he is having financial concerns because the market is changing. He said that perhaps they should have put a condition to do the retail first, and then do the housing. How can they guarantee that the retail will get done first to produce the sales tax dollars for the city? Eileen Murray: • She said that several years ago there was a project when they insisted there be substantial performance on one project before they gave occupancy on the other project. In that case, the substantial performance was a foundation. Presently, they are talking about adding onto a building; what would substantial performance be? Com. Wong: • Suggested that if they could not do a $100K bond, could they say after a certain number of years they would give them a nominal minimum fee until the action was complete. Eileen Murray: • Said that the city did not have a policy to do that. Steve Piaseeki : • This isn't so much an issue of what we have a higher performing retail environment here; this was going to be second floor commercial space not likely to generate much in retail sales tax; it was more of a physical package you were getting where the front building was being enhanced and was blocking some of the views of the back building. We are trying to accomplish some of the blockage through other means that this applicant can perform on in a very reasonable period of time, two to three months, before he needs to occupy these residences; trellises, additional landscaping, additional screening for the north elevation; and then he would have two years to build the commercial. • There is no reasonable mechanism, short of putting some appliques onto the commercial building, trellises, but you won't get the effect that the second story addition. You could say that is not good enough, I want the package; you cannot occupy until you deliver; that is one Cupertino Planning Commission 18 August 28, 2007 option. You can also try to get as many of these appliques to both the commercial building and the residential building to provide the screening and then you may or may not ever get the commercial building built. Com. Wong: • Asked staff for their suggestion regarding screening. Gary Chao: • Staff is suggesting that the applicant submit plans to DRC to show solutions in the form of architectural feature, screening, trellis or arbor element on top of the garage elevation. The applicant could help identify and develop some similar features that would also screen the wing walls from coming down the second level balcony along the rear elevation. That should be softened as well with trellises, arbors. In conjunction with landscaping enhancements wherever possible, put in other trees if it is possible to do that screening purposes. Gregg Bunker, Applicant: • Said it was his understanding that the project was approved as a phased project and there were numerous discussions contributing to that, one being the continuing lease that needed to be expired with Wolf Camera. • He said he felt misled by staff that they would suggest that the project hasn't always been phased. When Planning Commission approval was received, it was his understanding that the project was phased, and he had always intended to phase the project. • Said the filing for modification was made after he was assured by staff that the only requirement would be to paint the front building and add some landscaping. He said he has worked on the project for the last 4 or 5 years with no income or profit from the project. • Said it was his position and the position of his attorneys that in the original approval there was no requirement that the projects would be built simultaneously. It has always been discussed that to build the entire project out simultaneously would be too much impact on the intersection and the tenants. • Said when they started the process, he invested large amounts of money in the design; certain concessions were expensive and were granted to the property owners and required phasing. He said he did not think it was appropriate or necessary to require him to put trellises on the building or go back to design review. . He said he should be allowed to complete the condominiums/townhouses and sell them and hopefully derive enough income to build the small amount of retail, which is only 1,800 square feet and will likely cost $2.5 million to construct. Said he has had discussions with staff that they are not concerned about his building the second story to the rear of the front building; however, he wanted to have another two years to do so. He said he felt it inappropriate to require him to build trellises and do other things to the rear building. He asked for staff support to allow him to move forward as he always indicated it was a phased project. Com. Wong: • Asked the applicant to work with staff and neighbors regarding concerns. Gary Chao: • Said that is action is taken, it constitutes a modification of the use permit for two more years to allow the applicant to complete or start the retail space. • Staff supports the two year extension period provided that there are tradeoffs to mitigate some of the impacts. 0 % Cupertino Planning Commission 19 August 28, 2007 • Said that Mr. Bunker did not specifically request at the original approval to specify a timeframe to have the condominium constructed, to be allowed occupancy first before he came back with a timeframe to start his retail building. Plans showing Phase 1 and Phase 2 do not mean anything except it tells which part of the project would start first. Com. Wong: • If he cannot complete Phase 2, then staff is suggesting some mitigating factors so that the city can get some community benefits as well too. • It appears to be a disagreement, each person has their own understanding. Steve Piasecki : • Said it was always a major thing when projects come forward like this and staff is correct in stating that, unless the city is very explicit, unless there is a condition by the Planning Commission saying yes this is going to be phased in this fashion and these are the dates you can build the residential only and never build the commercial; just putting words on a plan doesn't lock that in. The Planning Commission can interpret it differently, saying that it locks it in. He said he was acceptable to him if they explicitly approved it, but he found no evidence of that in the discussions. • Relative to the $100K, the city attorney pointed out that this is private property and we are trying to find a way for Mr. Bunker to provide the benefits of the building through landscaping, trellising, enhancements to the building that are going to cost something, but they are practical and can be done within a reasonable period of time so that he can finish his residential and occupy those units. He said he would have preferred to see the commercial building, because it is better looking than the current building, but there are practical realities to getting that done and unless we insisted that they make substantial progress toward that construction, which was not done, it is unfortunate that we lose out on that. Gregg Bunker: • Said he chose to build the second story office building; he hoped to build it and take the equity from other properties, because in and of itself it is a poorly performing addition. It will likely take 20 years to get my money out of it. Com. Wong: • Said his concern was that it was a business decision for Mr. Bunker to negotiate with his adjacent neighborhood. He said he felt if the process was quicker and they made the agreement closer, they could have started construction a lot faster and they wouldn't be in the present situation. Gregg Bunker: • Said he hoped the city would fulfill their agreement with him; and he was asking not to be required to do anything to the rear building; but was requesting another two years' extension on the approval to build the second floor addition. Chair Giefer: • Said when Mr. Bunker came in for the original approval of the mixed use project for both the housing and addition to the Wolf Camera building, he presented it as a package for a phased project. The city at that point gave permission to add housing to the site, rezone the parking lot, and make concessions to the property owner to allow him to fulfill his financial goals. • Said that Mr. Bunker was now saying that because of the cost of construction significantly increasing, he may or may not elect to fulfill that portion of the obligation within the next two year period. .ft Cupertino Planning Commission 20 August 28, 2007 Steve Piasecki: • Said if the application was denied, the applicant would have no choice but to build the commercial building before occupying the residential structures. He explained that the applicant was asking to memorialize a definite phasing schedule where he would occupy one before beginning the other, and wants that to come into the conditions and the approval very explicitly. He said it was fine, and we could have done that four years ago, but it didn't happen then. He wants to memorialize that. with or without the mitigations we are talking about; he prefers not to do. and we think they should be done. • The Planning Commission could do the substantial progress option but you would have to define what that is and I don't know what that is. Another option is to go to the applicant and ask him to define substantial progress; tell us where you want to be to get this occupancy. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Lynn Sereno, Borrel Private Bank and Trust Co., Trustee of Yamagami Nursery Property: • Said they did not object to a phased project and were concerned that if it wasn't phased, if worked stopped on the back unit and then work on the retail unit; it should be cleaned up as soon as possible so that it has the least amount of impact to their tenants and the neighborhood. • Said their interest was to get the full project done as quickly as possible to minimize the impact to their tenants. Jiandong Cao, Wildflower Court: • Expressed frustration since the project started the quiet neighborhood has become stressful. In the morning, driveways are blocked; the owners and contractors did not communicate with the neighbors and do whatever they want. The dust and noise are an inconvenience for the entire neighborhood. Hopefully the project will be completed as soon as possible, so the neighbors don't have to suffer any longer. • Said that the city should have more control over the project. The homeowners association told them to go to the owner, and he got no response from the owner. It is no longer a nice neighborhood. • Said the property owner should be responsible for fixing the damages to the neighborhood. Preston Oka, Owner/Operator of Yamagami's Nursery: • Concurred with previous speakers about trying to speed the project through to completion so that everyone could go back to their normal lifestyle. • Asked if a two year extension would mean that the project needed to start the Phase 2 project within 2 years or does it need to be completed within 2 years. (Answer from staff. `started') It could mean another 3 three years and he did not want to see that happen. Khushroobanu Shaikh, Wildflower Court: • Said she wrote a letter about her concern about the tree which was causing damage to the sidewalk. She said there was no prior notice to the trees being cut down. She attempted to contact the city to report the illegal tree removal, but it was late Friday afternoon and the city offices were closed. She said her letter also covered other concerns, such as the trucks blocking the street for long periods of time when they unload. • She said the other homeowners on Wildflower Court have the same concerns and are willing to sign a letter opposing the application. She said that another four years is too much hardship on the neighborhood; the project has created negative impacts on the neighborhood properties and the owner needs to finish, clean up and repair the damages. of r Cupertino Planning Commission 21 August 28, 2007 • She said the city has to fulfill their promises to mitigate the existing and potential parking problems. Jack Chin, Wildflower Court: • Expressed concern about the heavy construction and considerable damage it has done to the road along Wildflower Way, which is considerably scarred and pock -marked. He said they understood that construction was disorderly, but they hoped that the developer would repair the roads to their original condition; it is the right and responsible thing to do. • Opposed the proposal. Com. Miller: • Said that based on comments received from the neighbors and Mr. Bunker, he felt it was in everyone's best interest to resolve the issue and allow Mr. Bunker to finish the project. • He said it was important that the applicant work with staff to address the violations that have occurred, and prevent them from occurring for the duration of the project; and also to address any issues with respect to damages that may have occurred from delivery trucks or others. • Said there appears to be some confusion over whether the project was a phased project or not; and it is not clear if the city has a clear policy that applicants can read and understand and that it also appears that the applicant thought he was phasing and the city did not think he was phasing. It is a concern that should be addressed as a city to prevent the situation from occurring again. There is still the issue of how to move forward. • There was a suggestion on staff's part and also the applicant that additional landscaping would be appropriate, not necessarily trellises, but landscaping. He said there were likely some agreements that could be reached between the applicant and staff over that, and part of the landscaping improvements should be done by the city just because of the removal of the trees that were done without proper due process with respect to that. • He said the neighbors have said they would rather not see the additional commercial structure built and it is not clear that the applicant wants to build it. • The project is about 21,000 square feet of residential and 1,800 square feet of commercial; the commercial is the, minor part of the project and not a major retail space. It is on the second floor and most likely will be office and wouldn't contribute to tax revenues. He said he was not opposed to not making that a requirement as part of the project in the interest from a practical standpoint of allowing the project to be completed so that people could go on with their normal lives. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed with Com. Miller, but had mixed feelings about whether or not the commercial part of the project should be completed. • Said he was opposed to a two year extension. Com. Wong: • Staff is asking for tradeoffs in landscaping, trellises, and enhancing the existing retail building if the new one is not built. • Addressed the two Ash trees that were removed; Ash trees are a key signature for the city and they should be replaced. He said the city may have to pay to replace with 48 inch box; however, he felt because of the error in removing the trees, the city should not be exempt about the replacement. He recommended that the tree replacement be done within 90 days. • Asked the applicant to work with staff regarding the neighbors' concerns and suggested the applicant be more courteous in working with the neighbors regarding the issues and to alleviate the ongoing existing friction. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 August 28, 2007 Said he hoped staff would work with Code Enforcement and the Sheriff's Department to fix some of the short term problems; construction site housing will be finished soon; he would like to see the office space going up but said realistically he doubted it would go up. Relative to Phase 2, he said he supported staff's recommendation for landscaping mitigation, some trellises, and some enhancements. Said when he approved the project, it as approved as package and he agreed with staff that it was a mixed use project; the plans do read `mixed use'. Things happen; the market changed, prices go up; again there was an opportunity to negotiate with the adjacent neighborhood to start construction early; it was a private matter and the city attorney advised us that we cannot get involved regarding the private matter regarding the parking. It is a business decision that Mr. Bunker had to make. Said he supported staff's recommendation. Chair Giefer: • She said that Com. Wong summarized her thoughts succinctly. She emphasized that the business and residential neighbors were tired of the construction. She said that she had experienced traffic delays on Wildflower Way when going to the Summerwinds Nursery and she called Code Enforcement about her concerns. • She said she felt it was unlikely that the front building would ever be improved, and she would like the applicant to go to the DRC with specific improvements to the look of the front building and work with staff on the improvements on the rear building. • Suggested the native Califomia Buckeye which is a large, faster growing tree on the approved street tree list, that would also frame the neighborhood. She said because the two trees were removed illegally, when they were protected trees, she recommended replacing them with two 48 inch box size trees. • She supported sending a Minute Order and planting whatever tree made most sense. Ciddy Wordell: • Suggested using the wording "if feasible as determined by Public Works or Planning." Chair Giefer: • Said she disagreed, and found it interesting that at Cupertino Square they figured out how to elevate the sidewalks; and on Stevens Creek, Public Works has figured out how to build around the roots of the Ash trees, but they could not apply that to Wildflower Way. She said she was surprised that they were not sharing that public knowledge that they have interdepartmentally. Com. Wong: • Suggested opening the public hearing on that and have that discussion; one is suggesting Ash and one is suggesting Buckeye trees. Bring in Public Works for more discussion. Chair Giefer: • Said she would rather make a decision and provide direction to them because it is too much of a lag and if nothing is done, it will get lost. The neighborhood .has been without their trees for some time. Steve Piasecki: • Suggested the 48 inch box, either tree. Staff is concerned that they may have to tear up the sidewalk to plant the tree, and if so, they could raise the sidewalk as they have done on perimeter roads. • t Cupertino Planning Commission 23 August 28, 2007 Gregg Bunker: • Said as stated in the original approval, they were repaving the street. He said the landscape plan was approved with trees in the rear which will grow and screen the areas that are discussed as well as additional trees in the front. Chair Giefer: • Staff is concerned with the north elevation of the front building on DeAnza Boulevard. She questioned what could be done to improve the visual aspect as well as the screening of the residential building. Gregg Bunker: • Said he hoped he would be given the ability to build it if he chose to, since the goal is to sell the units in a timely manner considering the market conditions; reduce the debt, and free up the property to borrow to potentially do the second floor. He pointed out that it was his understanding that staff supported him, and the preponderance of the Commissioners suggested that they are going to allow him to make that decision. Chair Giefer: • Said the concern is if economically it is not viable for him to do that and he makes the decision not to improve it; and if they don't condition improvements now for both the rear and the front buildings, the front building will remain in its current state. Gregg Bunker: • Said he would agree to paint it to match the rear building. The entire length of the north side has trees. Chair Giefer: • Said the Planning Commission would add conditions to the project moving forward for Mr. Bunker to satisfy, based on staff's input relative to items such as the trellis, and their suggestions regarding the rear building. If the conditions were satisfied, once the project was concluded the occupancy permit would be granted. Steve Piasecki: • We wanted them to come to the DRC and satisfy the DRC and the condition that staff will put on the screen would satisfy that; it adds language on the front building about the north facing wall of the Wolf Camera building; otherwise it would be DRC's job to work with his landscape architect and come up with a comprehensive plan, which could be some type of green screening on the residential; trees on the front along Wildflower on the commercial and possibly a trellis treatment on the north side of the commercial building. • He said it would be suggested that under Condition No. 2 Phasing Schedule, the wording presented in the staff report be removed and replaced with "the applicant is allowed to phase the project and occupy the six residential buildings prior to commencement of construction of the retail building." The new Condition No. 5 would be the one that is on the screen, and would need to be fulfilled prior to occupancy. Com. Wong: • Said he would like to see a construction management plan presented to the Planning Commission, and instead of submitting it to the DRC, submit it to the Planning Commission. f ft Cupertino Planning Commission 24 August 28, 2007 Steve Piasecki: Suggested adding "The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with a construction management plan prior to construction to address the issues that have been raised in the public testimony and in the letter". Said a separate minute action regarding the replacement of the two trees was appropriate. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application DIR-2007-27, based on the following recommendations: (Condition No. 2, modify it to read ..."Phasing Schedule: The applicant is allowed to phase the project and occupy the residential units prior to commencement of construction of the retail building; fulfilling the other conditions in this approval." It would be added as Condition No. 5. Steve Piasecki: Suggested that when the Planning Commission takes action on the project, it should be indicated that the last bullet on Condition 5 will be agendized for the next meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0) Minute Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to forward a Minute Order Order: regarding Wildflower Way, to replace the two trees that were removed with two 48 -inch box trees and direct Public Works that the sidewalk needs to be maneuvered, likeness for likeness, Ash trees. (Vote: 4-0-0) RM -20076-14 Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee a of a Reza Rafii Minor Residential Permit for a second -story rear on a new 4894 Byrne Ave/ 1,794 square foot residence. Gary Chao, Sem lanner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the ap . ation for consideration of an a of a Design Review Committee approval of a Minor sidential Permit for a sec -story rear deck on a 1,794 square foot residence as outlined in taff report. The b i of the appeal is that the existing privacy will be lost due to the proposed s d story b ny and the balcony would have control over the property. • He reviewed the city's policy on story balconies, which is that the R1 ordinance allows for second story balconies pr ed that y come in for minor residential permits which is the case of this approval RC. He empha ' ed that the goal of the requirements of privacy impact is not to requ' a complete visual lie r protection; it was clearly written on the policy but we de th what is reasonable to try to k as much as possible the views from the balconies. • Staff feels e proposed balcony is modest in size and not essive in design and that the privac tigation issue has been reasonably addressed const t with the intent of the T recommends the Planning Commission consider the options of uphol the decision of DRC; uphold the appeal; or uphold the appeal with modifications. Fetekh Vergason, Byrne Avenue, Appelant: 0 Opposed to the application. WCUPERTINO 1, 10300 Torre Avenue 408 -777 -CITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino will hold a public hearing on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and speak. APPLICATION NO. APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: HEARING DATE: ADDRESS: DIR-2008-05 Gregg Bunker 1375 S. De Anza Blvd. APN :366-19-081 Director's Minor Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-03) for minor landscaping and exterior enhancements as part of the conditions of approval for DIR-2007-27 April 3, 2008 beginning at 12:30 p.m. Conference Room A, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue If you challenge the action of the Design Review Committee in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino. at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Design Review Committee policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. The agenda for this application will be available on the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting. The file and plans are available for viewing/preview during normal hours of operation. Questions concerning the application should be directed to Gary Chao, Project Manager at (408) 777-3247. NOTE: Agenda may be subject to change. If interested in an item, or have questions, please call the Planning Department at 408-777-3308 prior to the meeting date to verify that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted. NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified. Steve Piasecki Community Development Department 366 19 044 366 19 047 366 19 080 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE BOREL BANK & TRUST COMPANY BUNKER GREGG C 4680 TARENTELLA LN 160 BOVET RD 15554 ON ORBIT RD SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2464 SAN MATEO CA 94402 SARATOGA CA 95070 366 19 081 BUNKER GREGG C 15554 ON ORBIT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 366 19 084 366 19 082 366 19 085 372 22 021 372 35 999 366 19 083 tl l&plllm. . City of Cuperti, o i http-.//gissvr/cupertinoassessor/home/mapFile.aspx Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:00 PM County of Santa Clai ca Office of the County•Clerk-Recorder Business Division County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, F. Wing, V Floor San Jose, California 45110 (408) 295-5665 ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION For CLERK -RECORDER'S USE ONLY POSTED O F N 2 5 200 HROUGH JUL 2 5 2008 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COON T Y CLERK -RECORDER REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, COUNTY CLERK BY ---- —- DEPUTY NAME OF LEAD AGENCY: NAME OF APPLICANT: CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DO NT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION 2, (V� NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 550.00 COUNTY CLERK FEE REQUIRED 3. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: FOR CLERK -RECORDER FILE STAMP ENDORSED JUN AS 2008 REGINA ALCOMITI AS, C y Clerk-Rewdei Sony Clara County By - CLERK -RECORDER FILE NO. E-14882 CA Dept. of Fish and Game Receipt 3V�M NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 5 21080(C) ( ) $1850.00 REQUIRED ($1800.00 STATE FILING FEE AND $50.00 COUNTY CLERK FEE) ( ) A COMPLETED "CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM" FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH GAME, DOCUMENTING THE DFG'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON FISH, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, OR AN OFFICIAL, DATED RECEIPT / PROOF OF PAYMENT SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE SAME PROJECT IS A'i TACHED: 550.00 COUNTY CLERK FEE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE $ 21152 ( )• 52550.00 REQUIRED ($2500.00 STATE FILING FEE AND $50.00 COUNTY CLERK FEE) ( ) A COMPLETED "CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM" FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, DOCUMENTING THE DFG:S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON FISH, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, OR AN OFFICIAL, DATED RECEIPT / PROOF OF PAYMENT SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE SAME PROJECT IS ATTACHED: 550.00 COUNTY CLERK FEE REQUIRED I NOTE: "SAIAE PROJECT MEANS NO CHANGES. IF THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED IS NOT THE SAME (OTHER THAN DATES), A "NO EFFECT DETERMINATION" LATER FROM THE FISH AND GAME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OR THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE REQUIRED. 4. Other: NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR DAYS. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE (INCLUDING COPIES) SUBMITTED FOR FILING. CHECKS SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO: SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER. Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras, Jr. 0-5-02-2007 0 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Notice of Exemption To: County Clerk -Recorder 70 W. Hedding Street, 1St Floor East Wing—Business Division San Jose, CA 95110 Project Title: DIR-2008-05 Project Location - (be specific): 1375 S De Anza Blvd Project Location - (City): Cupertino Project Location - (County): Santa Clara Description of Project: Director's Minor Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-03) for minor landscaping and exterior enhancements as part of the condition of approval for DIR-2007-27 Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Cupertino Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: Gregg Bunker Exempt Status: (check one) — Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15304 (b) _Statutory Exemption. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: minor landscape and exterior changespreviously approved project Lead Agency Contact Person: Gary Chao Area code/telephone number (408) 777-3247 Signature. Date: June 18, 2008 Title: Senior Planner G: IPlanninglERClExemptl2008exemptl dir2008O5. doc