PC 01-16-85 I I
fI
CITY OF CUPERTINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; PC-457/A
10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca. 95014 I Page 1
telephone : (408) 252-4505
III MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1985
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : Ccmm. Adams
Com. Szabo
Com. Sorensen
Chr. Claudy
Commissioners Absent : Com. Mackenzie
Staff Present : Director of Plng. & Devel. Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
City Attorney Kilian
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
6. Application 29-U-84 of VITALIPJK CORPORATION (MCDONNELL-
DOUGLAS RADIO SERVICE CORPORATION) : USE PERMIT to construct
an antenna dish (maximum height of 33 ft . ) on an existing
industrial site . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is
categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. The
subject property is located on the north side of Valley
Green Drive at the terminus of Eandley Drive in a P (Planned
411 Development with commercial, industrial and residential,
4-10 dwelling units per gross acre intent ) zoning district .
First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -
January 21, 1985.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk, giving the Staff
Report, noted that the measurements of the dish had been
scaled down from those given in the Agenda. He showed
photographs of a similar dish in the Vallco Park area, and
slides of the proposed area. He advised that, even with
landscaping and chain link fencing, the dish would be
visible for a period of time .
It was established that the dish was to be situated on the
west side of the building, and Com. Adams wondered if the
northerly side had been consired, since it would be better
screened there.
Frank McCarthy, 673 Catamaran Street, Foster City, repre-
senting the applicant, explained there would be too much
interference from other signals and the dish would not be
able to operate on the north side. He also explained how
they had used a comprehensive data base prepared by the
F. C. C. , which projected locations of interference, and how
they could shield against some of this interference by
411 using the corner of the building. Further, they had
chosen a site that would not interfere with the Telephone Co .,
transmitters, but would give maximum local shielding.
1
PC-457/A 1PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 16, 1985
'age 2 ,dom. Adams established the applicant would not object to
�ainting the dish whilst landscaping; matured, and that a
111
fight color such as sand could be used instead of the
standard white .
uestioned by the Commission, Mr. McCarthy advised that the
ish would be fixed in a fairly tight semicircle arc,. but
l�aould probably hardly move within that arc, since it would be
inked to one satellite owned by A.T. & T.
I
por . Sorensen established that the building would be losing
Three of twelve surplus parking spaces .
1
rOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
pECOND : Corn. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com.. Mackenzie absent )
}'he consensus of the Commission was that it would be helpful
o have a Condition that the dish be painted to blend with
he surroundings and match the building.
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of Application
29-U-84, subject to Conditions 1-17, and an
additional Condition 18, that the applicant paint
I the dish a colcr to match the building.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen •
yOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
7 . Application 14-U-82 (Revised) of HEWLETT-PACKARD: USE
PERMIT to construct approximately 86, 000 sq. ft . more office
industrial space than the approximately 700, 000 sq. ft .
previously approved and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ-
[ ental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration. The subject property is located on the existing
jHewlett-Packard industrial facility consisting of approximately
1100 acres bordered by Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Pruneridge
Avenue and Tantau Avenue in a MP (Planned Industrial) zoning
district . First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -
IJanuary 21, 1985.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised the applicant had
}originally asked for 86,000, but Staff recommended locking
into the . 33 F.A.R. * in accordance with the recent General
lan change. He discussed Hewlett-Packard' s proposal to delay
installation of sidewalks to 1987 and 1989, and related Staff' s
Feelings that they should be installed as soon as possible.
1
'Tack Rominger, Architect, 4800 El Camino Real, Los Altos,
representing Hewlett-Packard, gave a history of their involve-
ment with the site .
111
'x F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio
PLANNING COMMISSION iIvLTES, JANUARY NUARY 16, 1985PC-457/A
• • Page 3
The Commission was satisfied with the square footage,
since they felt it was a minor change, but discussing
. the sidewalk issue, they determined the cost of the entire
sidewalk area would be roughly $45,000, if constructed
at the same time as the additional space, which it was
felt was a minor percentage of the construction costs .
Mr. Rominger explained that part of the project would
not be completed until 1989, and suggested that if the
Commission wanted to see all sidewalks going in earlier,
they should insert a Condition, which could be addressed
by Hewlett-Packard at City Council level, if necessary.
Wulf Reinhold, 922 Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, felt development in
the area was not to the benefit of residents, and that with
large industry came problems of traffic, accidents, pollu-
tion, inadequate water supply, radio and television inter-
ference and increasing property taxes. He listed problems
with Hewlett-Packard as noisy Saturday morning deliveries
starting at 6 : 00 a.m., helicopters coming in on Saturdays
and Sundays with deliveries, and lights on overnight with
no shielding. He felt expansion should take place outside
of a residential area.
MOTION: Co:n. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 44-0
• (Com. Mackenzie absent)
The Commission suggested Mr. Reinhold get in touch with
Hewlett-Fackard regarding his problems with them, and maybe
approach the City Code Enforcement Officer. They noted taxes
were not going up more than 2% a year, and also that Hewlet -
Packard could not be blamed for the fact that th area was
no longer agricultural.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that the
helicopter issue was controlled,since City Ordinances had
been amended as the result of a complaint from a neighbor,
to require notification procedures and restrictions on hour.
of operation.
Com, Adams thought it would be useful to arrange an infor-
mal tour of the Hewlett-Packard facility, since it was
completely fenced and the Commission would benefit by
actually seeing the facility, rather than just the paper-work.
The consensus of the Commission was that sidewalks should
be completed before 1989, and t} safety issue was mentioned
It was determined that no more elm trees would be planted
• on the Homestead Road side of the facility to replace those
thinned out recently.
PC-457/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 16, 1985
Page 4
MOTION: Corm. Adams, to recommend approval of Application
14-U-82 (Revised) subject to new and emended •
Conditions 1-4, as noted in the Staff Report,
and modification of new Condition 20, reflecting
that sidewalks be installed around the perimeter
of the site within two years, or at the time of
the occupancy permit request on the first
building,
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
Chr. Claudy, announcing the Item would go to City Council
on January 21, suggested that Hewlett-Packard be there
to address the Council.
8 . Application 29-U-84 of ALAN FIRENZI (SUBURBAN HOUSE) :
USE PERMIT to add approximately 1, 700 sq . ft . of warehouse
and retail area to an existing furniture store and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt,
hence, no -action is required. The subject property is
located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard appro-
ximately 300 ft . east of Blaney Avenue in a P (Planned
Development with commercial, office and residential intent
and office emphasis) zoning district . First Hearing.
Tentative City Council hearing date - January 21, 1985.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the addition •
had been made possible by the removal of parking stalls
and drew attention to the covenant that the building only be
used for a retail furniture store.
Al Firenzi., 534 Old Orchard, Danville, the applicant,
questioned the eleven trees required in front of the building,
since with those already there it would give a "forest"
atmosphere .
The Commission and Staff discussed the interpretation of
Condition 21 and determined the approved plan could be
deviated from, but that the Condition also gave the option
of upgrading, which did not seem to be necessary in this case.
Staff felt the symmetry of the street would be the only issue,
if indeed there was an issue .
Chr. Claudy could not see the necessity for more trees to
obscure such a fine building.
Asked by Com. Adams if he wanted to comment on Condition 18,
Mr. Firenzi said he had not restriped the parking lot for
compacts, and stated the existing building would meet present
office standards if he did that . Since he wouli like the
option later to give up the furniture store and convert it
to an office building, he felt the wording of the covenant
was too restrictive, he said.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 16, 1985 PC-457/A
Page 5
Director of Planning and Development Sisk confirmed the
building was close to meeting requirements for office
11, parking, and suggested the applicant should come to the
City t,o seek permission when and if he decided to make the
change.
Chr. Claudy suggested adding wording to the deed restric-
tion to make it apparent that the property could be other
than a furniture store if it met requirements.
MOTION : Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend approval of Application
29-U-84, subject to Conditions 1-22 as presented
in the Staff Report, with a slight modification
to Condition 18 reflecting the option for a
revised deed restriction in the future if the
furniture store owner may wish to change it .
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
9 . Application 14-TJi -84 of JAM ES ARNOLD: TENTATIVE SUB-
DIVISION MAP to subdivide 1. 9 acres into eight lots and
• ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the `ranting of a Negative Declaration. The
subject property is located adjacent to and easterly of
Stelling Road approximately 375 ft . south of Pepper Tree
Lane. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing
date - January 21, 1985.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk recalled the map
had been approved back in 1981 and advised the applicant
was reconstituting it . He drew attention to tYe Condition
that Mr. Arnold work with Engineering to provide access
in the Tula Lane vicinity, by approaching landowners
Miller and Hoffman adjacent .
James Arnold, 10314 South Stelling Road, announced his
intent to sell the property to Mr. Richard Childress, who
had a few questions to address. He indicated that he
would stay on Lot 7, and, regarding the map, he said
there were a number of homes in the Tula Court and Lane
area being serviced by a 20 ft . street, and wondered why
extra width was required in this instance for only four
homes.
Chr. Claudy said the was no way to get from the existing
Tula Lane right of way without crossing another property,
• as things stood.
C-457/A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 16, 1985
'age 6
Mr. Arnold understood there mi;^.ht need to be some modification,
but not as much as was being required, he felt . -
Director of Planning and Development Sisk suggested the problem
be worked out with Public Works Department .
Chr. Claudy established that the reason for redrawing the lot
lines was to save the existing dwelling, because the appli-
cant wanted to remain in his home .
Richard Childress, 10701 Regnart Canyon Drive, confirmed he
was buying the land and advised the houses had already
been designed. Regarding the Condition that tY Tula Lane
extension be installed and completed prior to building permit
• approval, and the same on other improvements, he would
prefer to see permits issued before final paving, etc . because
it would be destroyed by construction, he said. He pointed
out it was standard practice to do it the way he suggested.
Chr. Claudy suggested a change in wording for Condition 18
which Mr. Childress agreed to.
Mr. Childress continued that he understood the Hoffman map
would be coming before the Commission very soon, and wanted
to work out something acceptable with Mr. Hoffman, but in
the case of Mr. Miller, he wanted to know if they had to
cut off the back of his property, since he was jealous of •
his domain. He understood that Staff would help if neces-
sary, but wondered if a 30 ft . entrance into the area was
really needed.
Chr. Claudy commented that the Commission only wanted to
see adequate access.
Mr. Childress advised they had looked at a couple of
possibilities to get corners, and if it became necessary,
he would seek alternatives, but liked Mr. Arnold ' s
suggestion that they worked with 20 ft . to get two lanes
of traffic in.
Ther was a short discussion on the Tula Lane culdesac,establishin:
that Mr. Childress hoped to reach a compromise with Central
Fire District with Staff' s help, since it seemed unneces-
sary to have a full width street and a full City culdesac
for just four houses. He descf'ibed overcoming the same
problem with his Monta Vista Development .
Dill Sowell, 20862 Sola Street, Cupertino, spoke in favor,
did not see any traffic or noise problems, and felt Mr. Arnold
would insist on nice homes being built .
MOTION: Com. Adams, to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: . Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent)
PLANNING COii; ISSION NI1:UTES, JANUARY 16, 1985
PC-457/A
MOTION: Com. Szabo, to recommend acceptance of the Page 7
Negative Declaration of the Environmental
11, Review Committee
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Corr. Mackenzie absent)
MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to recommend approval of Appli-
cation 14-TM-84, subject to Standard Conditions
1-15; Condition 16; Condition 17; with Condition
18 modified to read "Prior to obtainin; building
permit approval, applicant shall obtain right of
way, and prior to occupying buildings on lots 1,
2, 3, and 4, the applicant shall instal necessary
street improvements as determined by Public Works
Department , Conditions 19; 21; 22 .
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
(Com. Mackenzie absent )
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
10. Discussion of development form for properties in the
residential 10-20*dwelling units per gross acre density
range - Blaney Avenue and Price Avenue .
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained Staff wanted
some guidance on residential development in the range 5-10
since the Commission had been reluctant to maximise
private lots in townhouse developments, yet Staff had been
advised in the past that when higher density housing
was to be next to single family homes, a single family
concept was preferred.
The consensus of the Commission was that housing should blend
with the neighborhood, and where intensity was greater, the
developer might have to construct attached dwellings or
condominiums. Further, the existing neighborhood and
adjacent property should be reflected in the density and
community character aspects.
Discussing the Price Avenue area in particular, the
Commission felt the perimeter could reflect single family
homes, since there were single family homes to the north
and higher density could be concentrated towards the back,
since there were duplexes and townhouses in the area, and
that the same development form did not have to be used on
the entire site, though the overall density had to fit with
the Plan.
110 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
*mistake on the Agenda - should be 5-10
PC-457/A PLAITING CO=ISSIOf i•iINUTES, JALUAEY 16, 19E5
Page 2
Com. Szabo wanted to explore making Planned Development
Use Permits final at Planning Commission level,
. sion le el, since he
did not see they were different from other Use Permits,
and wondered if there was a reason the Planning Commission
did not have final authority in thise case, so that City
Council loads could be decreased and the applicants less
inconvenienced. He also pointed out the savings in paper
work, time and money.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk suggested sending
a request to the City Council from the Planning Commission
to examine the matter, since City Council participation
seemed more a matter of tradition than anything else .
Adjournment 9 : 27 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Dorothy Cornelius /s/John Claudy
City Clerk Chairperson
•