Loading...
DRC 01-15-03Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON JANUARY 15, 2003 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Committee Members absent: Staff present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 18, 2002 Marc Auerbach, Chairperson Taghi Saadati, Commissioner None Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Vera Gil, Senior Planner Minutes of the December 18, 2002 Design Review Committee were approved with the following corrections: Page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 1 should read '... that he is open to suggestions...' January 2, 2003 Minutes of the January 2, 2003 Design Review Committee were approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter of concern received from Mr. Daniel and Lilian Cheung, 18956 Tilson Avenue, dated January 15, 2003 regarding application R-2002-19. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None 2 PUBLIC HEARING: Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 Application: Applicant: Location: R-2002-19 Peter Ko (Wong Residence) 18964 Tilson Avenue Residential Design Review for a new 611 square foot first floor and 600 square foot second floor addition to an existing 1,065 square foot residence. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, briefly described the project. Staff's only concern was that the exterior stair wall and the ground floor roof element along the east elevation must be lowered to fit under the City required day light plane. The applicant is aware of this concern and has submitted revised plans to reflect the change. Mr. Chao presented a letter of concern to the Committee that had been delivered prior to the start of the meeting. Mr. Cheung was concerned about the height and location of the chimney. He is also concerned about the second story windows along that same side. Mr. Chao explained that the applicant has lowered the height of the exterior stair wall in the new plan set and now it meets the City's day light plane. As a result, the window was lowered as well and opaque glass could be used. There is also a condition that states that the applicant is required to submit a landscape plan that shows privacy protection trees prior to building permit issuance. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Auerbach asked Mr. Chao if the chimney was cosmetic. From the plan set, the chimney is a direct vent chimney and it uses natural gas that vents directly outside. The windows on either side of the chimney will look over the fence into the backyard. Mr. Chao explained that currently there are no privacy planting requirements for trees on ground floor windows. Mr. Peter Ko, applicant/architect, stated that he worked very closely with Larry Cannon, Architectural Consultant, and he felt that they reduced a lot of the elements. Lillian Lum Cheung, 18956 Tilson Avenue, was most concerned with the chimney. Ms. Cheung has a health condition and she is concerned that the location of the chimney will cause the smoke to blow directly into her bedroom and bathroom would be a further health hazard. Daniel Y. Cheung, 18956 Tilson Avenue, stated that the top chimney is directly in front of the master bedroom and bathroom. Ms. Cheung explained that her home also uses a gas fireplace and she has heard that there is still a gas build up in the chimney. This has caused her family not to use their own gas fireplace the last several years to help prevent the residue from burning and releasing into the air. She has no objections to the fireplace; she would just like seeing it moved to the other side of the house. Mr. Cheung also explained that another concern is the sunlight. The home on the other side 3 Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 of his property is also very large and sunlight is already very limited. The new chimney will further impact the sunlight. Mr. Auerbach stated that the since the fireplace has direct vent gas and a log cannot be used. There is no vent that goes up the chimney because this is very similar to a gas stove. The chimney is only cosmetic. Mr. Ko stated that he could remove the chimney all together because it is not functional, only cosmetic. He would not like to move the fireplace to the other side of the house because that is the living room next to the dining room. He would like to keep the fireplace where it is in the family room next to the kitchen. The Cheung's agreed to this change. Mr. Auerbach asked the Cheung's if they agreed to the opaque second story windows and Mr. Cheung replied yes. Mr. Ko stated that all three second story windows on the east elevation will be opaque. Mr. Cheung is still concerned with the two windows on the first floor. He explained that the eye level of the fence is about five feet and the proposed windows are six feet. Mr. Saadati asked where the floor level was relative to the ground. Mr. Cheung explained briefly that the floor level is about six inches above grade, about 18" above the proposed property. Mr. Auerbach asked Mr. Ko if he plans on replacing the fence to a six foot fence with a 2 foot lattice. Mr. Ko responded that the owner's budget was very fight. If this were to be a condition of approval they would build it, but he didn't want to commit to something that he wasn't required to build. Mr. Auerbach suggested that typically a replaced fence is shared between homeowners. Mr. Cheung explained that he has already paid the entire cost of the fence on the other side of the property. But, they would not be opposed to discussing the idea. He is currently unemployed and money is also tight. Mr. Saadati feels that the removal of the chimney has been resolved and the privacy issue with the second floor windows has been resolved with the opaque windows. Mr. Saadati is not concerned with the windows on the first floor because there is an existing fence that will eventually be replaced with a six-foot fence. Mr. Auerbach concurred. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Commissioner Saadati moved to approve R-2002-19 with the removal of the chimney and making the second story windows on the east elevation opaque. Chairperson Auerbach None None 2-0 Application: Applicant: Location: EXC-2002-12 Scott Architectural Graphics 20350 Stevens Creek Boulevard 4 Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 Sign Exception for a master sign program for the Cupertino City Center mixed use development. Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed Staff Presentation: Vera Gil, Senior Planner, briefly described the project and stated that the applicant was also requesting an additional exception to place directional signage. Ms. Gil explained that directional signage can be no larger than 4 square feet and cannot be visible from any public street. Some of the directional signage is visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard and exceeds the maximum size allowed. Staff recommends approval of the exception. Ron Standard, Prometheus, introduced everyone that was present for the sign exception. Jim Burch, Scott/AG, explained to the Committee that a lot of research went into designing the signs including wooden models. Mr. Burch stated that since the two towers in Cupertino City Center are not actually the Cupertino City Center, as it had been named for so long, the building is being renamed as the Towers at Cupertino City Center to give it it's own identity, similar to Verona at Cupertino City Center and the hotel Cypress at Cupertino City Center. A new logo is being given to the Cupertino City Center (CCC) in the form of 3 C's. Mr. Burch described the locations and materials of the main CCC icon, the directional signs and the multi-tenant monument signs. He also explained that there are new parking signs. He described the locations of these signs at the entrance to the Verona apartments driveway and one located near the garage. There are also new light poles that are part of the street furniture for the property. They have two stretched banners, one being the CCC icon and the other containing retail graphics. More interior signs include the new Towers monument sign. These signs are not lit. The signs are showing where visitor parking and permit parking is allowed. Mr. Saadati asked if there was any parking provided for the park. Don Bragg, project manager, stated that there was no specific parking adjacent to the park at this time. However, they are working with the City for any events that would take place in park and earmarking the surface lot on the other side of Verona for parking. Mr. Standard followed up explaining Scott/AG's concept and the importance of moving people through the site. It had been fairly easy and open so far. However, with the complex filling out, it is very important to imagine the flow of traffic, the majority of it being from Stevens Creek Boulevard (SCB). Mr. Saadati asked if the entire sign program was glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) or just the base structure. Mr. Burch stated that they might be concrete. They know the 5 Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 finish that they are going for and so they are going to run a set of samples for the owners to review. Discussion continued regarding the light poles. It was noted that the landscape architect is the same as used by the park, the Kimpton Hotel and the Verona Apartments. Mr. Auerbach stated that he was not concerned about the number of signs. His main concern was with the signs at the base level and getting people in and out efficiently. Mr. Auerbach asked Mr. Burch if they had thought about a more unifying sign plan rather than highlighting the different architectural qualities of the properties. Mr. Burch stated that he had thought about that, when you have a property with users such as this, it is very important for these companies to have their identity and design to be able to market themselves. Regarding the tower element at the back of the City Center Plaza, Mr. Auerbach asked if they had considered using that icon closer to the street to make a stronger visual identification. He was concerned about visibility of the signs being low to the ground and the aggressive planting strategy in the area. Mr. Burch explained that after time, with marketing and after the educational process, people would know where to go and park. Mr. Auerbach asked how would a visitor know where to park and how to access a particular building. Mr. Burch explained that the addresses are visible and a visitor would park in the visitor parking. There is another garage/parking structure sign program that is not visible that has all the breakdowns. Mr. Auerbach asked if any of the interior streets had names. Mr. Standard answered no and replied that all of the addresses are visible and directional signs will help with the flow of traffic. In order for retail to be successful, Mr. Auerbach stated that the consumer needs to know that parking is available. He was concerned if there was enough tie-in visually from the shop ID and the parking ID that is around the apartment image. Mr. Auerbach mentioned in general the possibility of more pedestrian oriented signage on where to walk rather than where to park particularly related to retail. Mr. Standard stated that there are more elements that are not visible to the street related to benches, landscaping and furniture. There will be a small kiosk with the history of Cupertino and the CCC. On this kiosk there will be a map of the retail and businesses. In regards to the banners, Mr. Auerbach expressed concern about making sure they are used for retail. He suggested making that a condition of approval or at the approval of the Community Development Department that those banners could be used for a special event. Mr. Standard stated that they had thought about seasonal banners, but equally felt that the tenants were very important. Without more detail regarding the materials and being such a large element at the center of Cupertino, Mr. Auerbach suggested that perhaps the entire Planning Commission should hear the sign exception. Mr. Saadati stated that overall; his first impression was that there were a lot of signs. He liked the variety of materials and 6 Design Review Committee January 15, 2003 shapes. He also expressed that the fountain is a very nice feature. Mr. Saadati believes that with the proper materials, the sign program will compliment Cupertino. Mr. Saadati asked the applicant what the time frame was for building and installing the signs. Michael Burch, Scott/AG, stated that the Verona project, being a critical element with the retail and new residential, would be opening the first part of the residential use in April or May. Retail would be opening shortly thereafter. That would be the critical timeframe. Mr. M. Burch stated that he has listened to the Committee's comments and feels that some compromises could be made. He is open to bringing back some elevations of the concerned areas, bringing back the park plan to show how the pieces work together with the park. The material board being presented to the owner could be brought back to the Committee for review. Mr. Auerbach stated that the application was well presented. An option would be to deny the application and the applicant could appeal to the Planning Commission. Or the project could be heard again at the Design Review Committee level. Mr. Saadati explained that the Planning Commission would be receiving a report from this meeting anyway and feels that a lot of thought and high quality has already gone into this project. Since these signs are mainly internal, Mr. Saadati felt comfortable with the sign exception being approved by the DRC. Mr. Auerbach concurred. MOTION: SECOND: Commissioner Saadati moved to approve EXC-2002-12 with the condition that the Director of Community Development to approve the materials. Chairperson Auerbach with the following addition: Property owner shall coordinate with City staff (Public Works and Planning) on the installation of parking signage and the color or the banner light fixtures and that the applicant provide an elevation of SCB showing the signage for the Director of Community Development's approval. And an amendment to add the language regarding the additional parking signage proposed by the applicant. Mr. Saadati accepts these amendments. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None VOTE: 2 - 0 Respectfully submitted: Kiersa Witt Administrative Clerk g:planning/DRC Committee/Minutes011503