Loading...
DRC 02-06-2014 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED (WITH AMENDMENTS) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMI7rTTEE HELD ON February 6, 2014 ROLL CALL Committee Members present: Winnie Lee, Chairperson Don Sun, Commissioner Committee Members absent Alan Takahashi, Commissioner Staff present: Stephen Rose, Staff Planner Gary Chao, Assist. Dir. of Community Development Colleen Winchester,Assist. City Attorney Winnie Pagan,.Associate Civil Engineer Staff absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 18, 2013 Minutes of the July 18, 2013 Design Review Committee meeting were-deferred to another meeting for approval after being able to confer with the prior Committee members WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Staff received a presentation from Kenneth Rodrigues &Partners (applicant) POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): ASA-2012-15 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (500 Forbes, LLC) Location: Main Street—southeast:corner of Vallco Pkwy and Finch Ave Architectural and Site approval for final refinements to the previously approved Shops 1-5, 7& 8, Pads 1 — 3 & 6, Town Square, incubator flex space, park & street system, Office space 1 & 2 and the parking garage for the Main Street project: Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed. 1 2 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Staff Member Rose explained that the application for the Main Street project was originally approved by the City Council in January 2009 and has gone through several site and design revisions during the last three years. In September 2012, in Condition #35 of the approved Resolution, the City Council deferred the final approval decision for the overall Architectural and Site elements of the project to the Design Review Committee. The applicants were asked to make revisions to the final design; Revise the Town Square; enhance the architectural and site features for the Office buildings; revise the design of Pads 1 and 2 and make enhancements to the parking garage and overall site. The Design Review Committee will be evaluating and reviewing these revisions at this meeting per Council's direction. It should be noted that the design of Building Pad 6, the public art and tree removals will be discussed at future meetings. The applicant has a presentation for the Committee outlining the changes they made to the design of the project in order to satisfy the Council's requests. They have created unique Commercial Districts with greater storefront glazing to promote a more active and vibrant downtown, modernized the feel of the buildings, created tenant spaces with more floor area and flow to make it easier for prospective businesses and they have varied the architectural and material elements to vary in theme. Additionally, Staff has requested that the applicant revise some of the roofing materials and add decorative elements to the parking garage and stair towers. With these revisions, Staff supports the application. Commissioner Sun asked for clarification of the Design Review Committee's approval role per Condition #35 of the Resolution.. Staff Member Chao explained that the Council's Resolution had been included in the informational agenda packet, but that the Design Review Committee was to make sure that the project revisions meet the specific directives of the Council's approval from 2012. Commissioner Sun reiterated that some of the design changes were because the applicant studied the market demand and trends. Staff Member Chao said that one of the delays in getting this project through the approval process was that the applicant was researching what kinds of building changes they would need to make in order to accommodate the needs of their future tenants and the current market trends.. The applicant, Kevin Dare (Sandhill Properties) addressed the Committee. He said that the plan changes from the original 2012 approval were done to incorporate the comments they have received from the Council, the public, marketplace studies and from the Planning Staff. He addressed Commissioner Sun's comment regarding the market research they had done. He said that there were two main comments they heard from the public, tenant groups and the Council. People wanted a project that created a "downtown" feel — that is different kinds of uses. So they have the retail, office, resident lofts and open space. Additionally, the "downtown" needed to have a variation on design and architectural style to make it feel as though the downtown had grown and evolved over time even though the construction will all be happening at the same time. Also the agrarian history of Cupertino should be reflected in the design of the site through the use of natural materials. With these ideas in mind, the applicant has designed the space to include several different architectural styles and landscaping elements to provide unique experiences and opportunities for the future tenants and their patrons. Kevin Jones with Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners Architects and Gary Layman with Guzzardo Partnership gave a Power Point presentation to the Committee. Kevin Jones let the Committee know that they have been working diligently on the re-design of the project over the past year to incorporate all of the design elements and features. He went over each of the distinctive Commercial Districts, explaining the different architectural features and proposed building material finishes. Gary Layman 3 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 explained the different landscaping plans and scopes for each of the building sites/districts. The overall landscape site plan allows for lots of outdoor seating, gathering areas, open space areas with gardens, pathways, lighting elements, trellises, trees and planter boxes. The presentation demonstrated how they have addressed the specific comments they've received throughout the evolution of the project. Commissioner Sun asked how the applicant was able to address all the different Community desires regarding architectural styles. He asked for an explanation of the comparisons between the original architectural concepts for Buildings 1, 3 and 4 with the current submittals. The Applicant explained that Building 1 was not part of the original submittal. A lot of things changed at that City Council meeting. The idea for the future inspiration for Building 1 was, in that design district, from the office buildings. This corner is the 'Gateway to the City'. People coming into the City see the Spanish-style architecture. They then created juxtaposition to the office spaces with the retail district. The same materials were used, but in a different style in keeping with the mass of the building. There will be different users to the site so the Applicant wanted to design the space so that different people (users to the site) would have different experiences within the same spaces. For Buildings 3 and 4, they received a lot of feedback. The original design was modified to allow for more indoor/outdoor feel, a more sophisticated style with less of a strip mall visual effect. So the new design has variations in roof elevations and materials, outdoor spaces and natural materials. The Planning Staff also asked for more glass transparency so that people can see the interior of the site from Stevens Creek Boulevard so to be able to draw people into the shops and restaurants. Commissioner Sun asked about the garage. He wanted to know what architectural features will be on the garage wall facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicants said that the 'flex buildings' would be visually in the way of most of the garage face and from the ground in front of that space, you wouldn't be able to see over the building to see the exposed wall above. Commissioner Sun asked about the intended use of the flex space building. The Applicant said that they would prefer a farmer's market or some other siunilar open concept use, but it has not really been decided. The open concept look was in response to a:request to simplify the space and tie it into the glass elements from the hotel. If there are other options available, changing the design of this building by extending the facade, would not be that difficult. Chair Lee asked about the landscaping plan. Staff Member Chao explained that the landscape site plan was being presented to the Committee for the larger-the site features; the walls, planters and plazas. The Director has the authority to approve the specific plant species. The Director will make sure the plantings are drought tolerant, pest resistant and ineet the water efficiency usage requirements. Staff Member Chao said the Committee's focus should tie on the larger features; such as the architectural features, decorative features, plaza designs, trellises and paving materials. From the packet, Chair Lee asked for clarification of page 14 of the model resolution to Council, Attachment 3, Number 37 (C), (D) and (E). Does the proposed landscaping along Stevens Creek Boulevard and N Tantau Avenue meet the streetscape design requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan? Staff Member Chao said it does. The trees proposed "orchard" inspired and are appropriate for the climate. She asked if (part D) the requirement to plant two specimen Oak trees flanking the driveway along Stevens Creek Boulevard was still included in the design. The Applicants said it was. They would be also doing similar plantings along the other site entrances as well. She asked if the existing Ash trees (part E) would be being saved as well, per the Resolution. The Applicant stated that they were saving a number of existing Ash tree mad would be planting additional Ash trees per the 4 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Arborists recommendations. Staff member Chao added that the site is currently being assessed for trenching and utility upgrades so some of the trees may be compromised. If that occurs, the applicant will be required to come back and obtain City approval to remove replace those trees. Chair Lee opened the floor for Public Comments: Lisa Warren, resident—She said her comments from last week are only a portion of her feelings and that there is more going on. She wanted there to be a spirit of compromise, to soften the look and to get it closer to the look of what .people think the project should be and what she understood they were surprised about. Her list of suggestions does not represent everything she thinks could be improved. She appreciates that the latest design does reflect some of the changes she suggested,however, the comments on the flex space have not been met. She commented on the harsh look of the colonnades and that was addressed, but not the other things. She doesn't feel like the Art Deco design goes with anything else on the site. She is very concerned about the treatment of the tower element that houses the elevator and stairs on the garage along the south elevation . She also didn't see that much change occurred with the roof elevations. Something more is needed to break up the visual. Building 1 looks good. She thinks her comments regarding Building 6 were applied to Building 1. Shops 3 and 4 show an improvement, but the entryways need more variety. Shops 7 and 8 look more like what the Retail 1 and 2 should look like. The darker terra cotta color is a concern. She would like to see more color brought in, everything is too neutral in.color. She thinks that Shops 3 and 4 should have more of a delineation to provide the interest and look like separate buildings since that's what tenants want. Ruby Elgen Elbogen, resident- she feels like the applicant has been doing a great job. She would like for the project to be wrapped up. She said that people forget that this is a downtown, not a shopping center. In a downtown, the buildings are not supposed to be matchy-matchy. She said that the building should be different from each other and it looks like they are. She likes the plantings and feels that the applicants have done everything they have been asked to and more. She would like to see the project get moving along. Jennifer Griffin, resident- her concern was Building 6, so will be interested in seeing what that design looks like. She asked if canopies or trellises could be added to the flex buildings to break up their verticality and soften the look. She likes the improvements to 3 and 4 in terms of trying to break up the frontage along Stevens Creek. She asked if the signage and art could be elegant and refined, like a fountain. She didn't want a very large and ultra modern structure. Staff Member Chao said that a resident, Al, needed to leave the meeting early but wanted to express his support for the project. He also mentioned that Al was concerned with revised Flex 1's glass design. He didn't like the lack of articulation with the glass on a blank wall. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Staff Member Chao said that.the site signage requires the approval of a Master Sign Program. Any signs shown in the plan set were for conceptual purposes only. A Sign Program is a separate application, with a separate review and approval process. This application does not include any sign approvals. Any public art has to go through a separate approval process'as well. The Fine Arts Commission will review any proposed art with final approval by the City Council. Chair Lee asked about the street system. She didn't see where it was in the presentation. Staff Member Chao said that the Design Review Committee should only be reviewing the aesthetics (color and material) of the site features for the project. The City Council had already decided on the circulation, street framework geometry of the project at their approval in September 2012. It would be 5 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 appropriate for the Committee wanted to discuss pedestrian circulation and crosswalk paving materials or enhancements. Staff Member Chao spoke about the flex building design. He understands from comments from the public that here th ere is a desire is to soften the verticality of the building. The revised elevation provided by the applicant new for the Flex Building has enhanced siding material (from aluminum to a wood finish). He also acknowledged that the revised plans were only received today for the Flex building, and that there are other potential design options to address the concerns from the colonnades to the glass elements. For example, perhaps the plaster siding portion of the building could be changed to IPE to help soften the look. Or awnings may be introduced to break up the verticality of the building. The applicant pointed out that the elevation plan did not show the trees that would be in front of the building and that would help visually break up the mass of the building. He indicated where the trees would be. Staff Member Chao reiterated that-the Design Review Committee was meeting at this time to approve the designs of Shops 1 including the architecture and treatments to Office 1 and 2, the refinements for Shops 3 and 4 including 6, the Clock Tower, 5 and Pads 1 and 2 within the Square as well as 7 and 8 adjacent to the park. Additionally, discussions on the materials and palettes of color, the site plaza and pavements of the street are within the purview of the Design Review Committee. The applicant is here to discuss options. The applicant would like a decision at this meeting, but if the Committee s not comfortable with making a decision, Staff member Chao could provide them with other options as well. Commissioner Sun commented that in general he is okay with the project. He shared the original concerns about spaces 1 through 4, the garage, the flex buildings and the roof line. But with the changes to the plan, the street side along Stevens Creek Boulevard has improved. He still doesn't like the look of the Flex 1 building. He wanted to know if the applicant could do anything different with that space within their budget and timeline. He acknowledged that this was his opinion and that he was not asking the applicant to go over their construction budget for this building. Chair Lee thanks everyone for their time and work on the project. She said that architectural approval is very subjective to individual tastes. She would like to see stone veneer on Shop 1. It looks very different now that with the prior plan submittal. She is glad to see the slate back on Shops 3 and 4, but wondered if the stone veneers match the green tile. She asked if the board battens could be different colors so they wouldn't match—maybe paint them red. She thanked -the applicant for providing the revised plan sets in such a short notice. She feels the revised plans sets are very different from the original submittal. She likes that Building 5 doesn't have a lot of plaster, but she prefers the pitch roof to the flat. She also prefers the original stone veneers from the original plan set as opposed to the current examples. She likes the Newport Cobblestone and Roman Travertine. She would like to see less plaster and more stone veneer. On Pads 1 and 2, Chair Lee again mentioned stone veneers. That it was hard to really see the detail in the exhibits. One of the pad buildings had a. lot of plaster painted red. She would like to see more warm colors rather than the proposed taupe palette. Office 1 and 2 she liked the curved window treatments that were on the prior plan set as well as the Roman Travertine siding features. The flex 1 and 2 spaces have been talked about a lot, but she thinks it has a very linear look. She would like to see more curved features and stone veneer. She didn't care for -the revised plans for these spaces at all. She isn't an architect, so she doesn't know what to suggest. As for the parking garage, the previous plan set showed 4 different wall areas for artwork or decorative features. She was disappointed that the revised plan shows only two areas for such features. She doesn't know if the open air requirement has something to do with it, but she would like to see more screening options. The most difficult thing for the Committee is that the design plans in front of them today are very different from what was approved by the City 6 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Council. The model resolution asks for the Design Review Committee to approve the final refinements. She said she was very uncomfortable with approving something that is so very different from the approved plans. She asked Staff Member Winchester for clarification regarding Condition 35 of the City Council's approved resolution: ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL A. The buildings, site development and architecture shall substantially conform to the site plan, elevations and details as shown in the approved exhibits, unless otherwise noted below. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a separate Architectural and Site Approval application for each of the buildings by the Design Review Committee; each Architectural and Site Approval application shall provide a detailed site plan, full elevations (all four sides), floor plans and any other details as required for Architectural and Site Approval applications. Building colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the Architectural and Site Approval. Minor amendments to approved Architectural and Site Approvals for buildings and/or the site plan, including minor changes to the layout of the site plan, building forms and building sizes, may be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. Staff Member Winchester explained what options were available for the Design Review Committee. She reminded the Committee that it has the power under that Condition to: 1) Vote on the plans and specifications that have been presented to determine whether or not they substantially conform to the designs and plans as submitted to Council as modified with Condition 35, 2) Continue the hearing to another meeting date to receive further revised plans, 3) Refer a question to the City Council to ask for more guidance on what it means to "substantially conform to site plans and specifications c . Staff Member Winchester said the options the Committee wanted to take at this point were up to the Committee depending on what they were comfortable with. Chair Lee said her inclination is to refer to Council provide more clarity. She feels that the new designs don't conform to what was previously approved. Staff Member Winchester reiterated that Chair Lee was looking for clarity on "What is the Design Review Committee's role under Condition 35?" That the Committee was looking for direction on Condition 35 as opposed to not believing that the plans don't conform. If that is the case, the Committee should continue the application. Staff Member Chao also stated that if the Committee wanted to get clarification on Council's intent, they could refer the item to the Council to see if some of the specific changes proposed, for example if a pitch roof changed to a flat roof was within the intent of the Council. If the Chair desires, you could ask the applicant to make some changes at the meeting to help make you more comfortable with Condition 35. If Chair Lee and Commissioner Sun are uncomfortable in navigating the changes on the plans and specifications, they can refer the final design decision back to the City Council. Chair Lee confirmed that she could refer the whole application to the Council for final decision. Commissioner Sun consented. Staff Member Winchester said procedurally, the Council would have to amend their Resolution to reflect that the final decision was theirs to make. Commissioner Sun asked Staff Member Winchester that if they referred the issue back to the Council, would the applicant have to go through the whole procedure with the Design Review Committee again? And then the City Council would vote on the amended plans? Staff Member Chao explained the noticing and agendizing process to the Committee and clarified that if the Committee is not able to make a decision, it is the applicant's desire to get the application heard by the Council as soon as possible. Staff Member Winchester again went over the Design Review's option to continue the meeting if they felt the applicant could make design changes that would satisfy their concerns about approving the application. She encouraged the Committee to ask the applicant how they wanted to proceed. Commissioner Sun stated that if Chair Lee was uncomfortable making a decision, then he felt the best option would be to refer the 7 Design Review Committee February 6,2014 project to the Council. Staff Member Winchester clarified that the Committee was not making the decision to deny the project, but was making the decision to ask for additional guidance and input on Condition 35 or referring to Council to amend.Condition 35. Staff Member Chao stated that the next regular City Council meeting was March 4t", but the Mayor could call for a special meeting and the item could, potentially, be heard at the end of February. Staff Member Chao suggested that the Committee ask the applicant what they would like to do. The applicant stated that they would prefer it if the application were referred to the Council for final decision as soon as possible and not come back to the Design Review Committee. Staff Member Winchester stated that it is up to the Council to decide the review and approval process. The Council would either provide direction and clarification or amend their resolution to become the final decision makers on the project. The applicant said that they have listened to all the comments and have tried to do the best they can to be sensitive to everyone's concerns. They would like the project to move forward. He asked if they could come to some agreement with the Design Review Committee concerning the colors and awnings and other building treatments. They want to make these changes to get an approval now from this Committee. They are willing work through and discuss design changes to the flex buildings. Staff Member Winchester suggested taking a break in.the proceedings so each group could confer. Chair Lee re-stated that the design changes she is looking for could not be achieved at this meeting. She has more concerns than just colors and design eleme'rits. The applicant said that they wanted to reach a consensus and obtain a decision at this meeting or be referred to the Council for the final decision. Chair Lee called a 5 minute break. Staff Member Winchester re-capped the meeting. Chair Lee made a motion to refer the application (A.,SA-2012-15) and the Resolution Number 12-098 to the Council to review. Commissioner Sun asked if the proper term should be "forwarding" rather than "referred". Staff Member Winchester clarified that motion Chair Lee was making was to defer making a decision on this application and referring the matter. to Council. Council can then make the decision on whether or not to amend the Resolution or to clarify t:he Resolution. Chair Lee agreed that that was her motion. Commissioner Sun seconded the motion. MOTION: Chair Lee moved to defer ASA-2012-15 and Resolution 12-098 to the City Council for clarifications and/or amendment SECOND: Commissioner Sun ABSENT: none ABSTAIN:none VOTE: 2-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Respectfully submitted: g Design Review Committee February 6,2014 Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk