PC 08-11-86CJ.".IY OF a.T.l:'l:Rl'INO I STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue CUpertino, CA. 95014
( 408) 252-4505
MINl1I'ES OF 'IHE REX3ULl\R ME.ET:lli'G OF 'IHE PI.ANNING CXMMISSION
HEID ON AUGUST 11 1 1985 Meetin;J Held in the Council Chambers of Cupertino city Hall
SAUJI'E 'IO 'IHE FI.AG; 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
cornmissionru.."S Present: 01.airman Szabo Vice Olainnan Mackenzie c.ommissioner Son>..nne.n
Staff Present: Robert ~an, Director of Plannin:J & Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planninq Di.rector Glenn Grigg, Traffic En;Jinoor 01arles Kilian, City Att.oni,e.y
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MJI'ION: C'.om. Sorensen, to approve the Mi.nut.es of the Regular .Meet~ of
July 28, 1986, as submitted.
SEOOND: Chr. Szabo
VOI'E: Passed, Com. Mackenzie abstainin:J, 2-0 ·
:rosrroN.EMENTS OR NEW AGENm ITEMS:
-IT.EM 5, Application 4-Z-86, 14-'IM-86, 22-U-86 <ll1d 20-F.A-86, Kinst
G:impany: Application is i.nccrmplet.e; staff :requests one rnon.th Continuance w the Meeting of Septerobm' 8, 1986.
MOI'ION:
SEO'.)ND:
VO'I'E:
cam. Mackenzie m:ived to continue Item 5.
Com. Sorensen Passed 3-0
-ITEM 7, Application 2-V-86, Pan Cal Investment Company, Inc. ~ Applicant requests withdrawal of application.
MJI'ION: com. Mackenzie rroved to withdraw Application 2-V-86 from Conse.nt
Calerrlar.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOI'E: P-o.ssed 3-0
-1-
' "
PLANNING a::MfiSSION MINUl'ES
Regular MBeting of August 11, 1986
PAGE 2
PC -499
FQSTroNEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITlliS (Cont'd)
-ITEM 8, ]\Wlicaticn 25-U-86 ard 23-EA-86, St. Andrew's Armenian
Church: Applicant requests a two week contin1-1ance to the Meetin;J of August 25, 1986.
MJI'ION: can. Mackenzie noved to Continue Application 25-U-86 an::l
23-EA-86 to the Meeting of August 25, 1986.
SECDID: Ccau. Sorensen
VOI'E: Passed 3-0
WIUTl'EN cx:t1MUNICATIONS
-None
ORAL cx::r-HlNICATIOOS
-Mr. I.asslo L. Nemeth, 1170 So. Stelling Rd., Apt. 8, CUpertino,
presented a written petition regard.in:J ITEM 8; 'Iha petition was acx::ept.ed by the O:mnission.
OJNb"ENr ~
-None
roBLIC HEARINGS:
ITEM 1
Application No(s) Applicant: Property ex.mer: location:
Parcel Area(Acres)
p-U-86
Robert H. ~ and_.ll§_SQQ.i<;,~------!'bbil Qil ~rat.ion ·----southwest corner of stevPJJS Gree;k Boulevard ~
Mill~rAv,~enu==e"""-~~-~~~·----~~-~~----
~gross
_.6 net
USE PERMIT (17-U-86)
To operate a snack shop within an existil~ service station arrl operate ~4 hours a day.
FIRST HEAF:iNG CON'rINUED FRCM THE MEE'l'ING OF JULY 14, 1986
El~ DETERMINATION: categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY CCUNCIL HEARING DA.'I'E: August 18, 19 86
PI.ANN".Ill'G a:M1ISSION MINUrES
Regular Meeting Of August 11, 1986
PAGE 3
PC -499
ITEM 1 (Cont'd)
Staff Presentation; Mr. Piasecki stated that this ItJ."'!ln w'aS continued
fran the June 9, 1986 Planning ccrmnission Meeting. 'Iha Commission
directed the applicant to incx>rporate larxisi::aping into the Site Plan; the Applicant has complied with this requast. Staff n'IOdified the Plan to reflect the street modifications on Stevens creek Blvd. which affect this site and a rei;:ositioning of the curb to allCM for a lxls turn-out on Miller Ave. In resp:mse to can. Mackenzie's questions, Mr. Piasecki state:! that the a:i;:plicant has not, to his knowledge, addressed. the issue of potential student loitering at the sna.C".k shop area; this station is currently being operated 24 ha..trS without prcper use Perntlt approvals.
Applicant's f'resent?tiQill Mr. Lawrence J. Izzo, Robert H. Lee, Assoc., stated in response to Can. Sorensen's question that the Shall Sm:.vioa station acroas the street does have a snack shq> which operates 24 hoors a day and is much larger than the one proposed in this application. 'nie Applicant has no abjections to the. chan:)'es requested; hooever, final approval rests with M:lbil corporation.
'Iha rublic Hearir:g wa..<J cpened. '.Ihel:s ~ no speake.ra.
MJI'ICN: can. Sorensen m:JVOO to close the Public Hearin:]. SEXX>ND: can. Mackenzie vom: Passed 3-0
can. Sorensen stated that since there have been no carplaint.s from the Shell station Snack Shq> with regard to students loitering in the area, this station may not encounter problems in this regard. She noted with approval the security measure& am the proposed larrlscaping plan. 'Ihe 24
hour operation will be of service due to the proximity to the freeway an:i
the new hotels fo the area. Orr. Szabo OOl1Clll"S.
MJTION: can. Sorensen m:::ivied to :recamrend approval of Application 17-U-86
subject to the f.f.n:iims and subconclusions of the Staff Report
and this Hearill3'.
SE<DND: can. Maclcmzie
'VOI'E: Passed 3-0
ITEM 2
Application No(s) AJ;plicant:
Property OWner:
Location:
Pan:el Area (Acres)
.12-'IM-86, 5-Z.::§6 arrl 18-f,.l:\-~8~6 _______ _
H. W. and Associates ;rnvei;Jtmen:t Cgmp.-my Marvin and Patricia WebP-r arrl Dina.h Dushek I5l.rmOO
arrl Jennie l).lshek
North side of McC~ Road, 150 ft, east oL_
St;.glliro Road
PI.l\".'!NING CU1MISSION MINUTES
Regular Meetinj of August 11, 1986
PAGE 4
~ -499
IT.EM 2 (Cont'd)
REZONING (5-Z-86)
From Rl-10 and Rl-lOag to RJ.-7. 5 or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Plruming Carnm:i.ssian.
TENrATIVE MAP (12-'IM-86)
To subdivide 4 parcels into 11 pa.reels with lot sizes rangir:q from 7,500 sq. ft. to 8,500 sq. ft.
FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENI'AL DEl'ERMINATION: Negative Declaration
TENTATIVE CITY CDUNCIL HEMUNG DA.TE: September 2, 1986
.Staff ?;resgntation: Mr. O:M.m pre.sented a map to odent the a:nluniasion
to the site and. stated. that the area bordering McClellan Rd. , Stelling Blvd., DeAnza Blvd., and st.evens Creek Blvd. is of interest due to questions of circulation and. land. use intensity of this area. '!he.re is an emerging development pattern in the semi-developed a:t.""ea west of Tula
lane; recent development ha.CJ oa::urred in the forn.; of flag lots •
. ;
One of the major issues in developir:q this area concerns circulation; staff have reviewed a number of plans. 'Ihe issue of circulation is ur..der considerat.ion in this application. 'lhis plan does not provide Clocess to properties to the north an:l provides a less tl'l.an desirable access at the McClell.m Rd./StellinJ Pd.. inte.rsectior:.. 'Ihe project involves 11 lots, one of which has access to Stelli.m and. the roma:irrler of the prq:ierty will be served by a new cul-de-sac from McClellan Rd. Staff proposeo that a median be placed on McClellan Rd. to prevent left ru~·
~/egress.
Staff presented an alternative prq:osal featurir.q access from StellinJ Rd. to service t.'1is subdivision. 'I.his plan provide.s ao::::ess at a less
CONJested int.f>..rse...."tlon than the applicant's proposed plan and provides
better a!X'...ess for owners of Tulc. I...ane property if this section develops
in the future.
Disadvantages include:
-I.ots that back up to Ni:::Clellan Rd..
-'lbe possibility that a ~ion of the Tentative Map could be withdrawn
arrl therefore limit the flexibility, forcin:J the City to allow access
off of McClellan Rd. ·
-ReirDval of an existin";J structure would be required, leav.irq a lot which due to siz~ would be very difficult to devl?.J.op.
P.U\NNING c:x:t1MISSION MrnU1'ES Regular Meetin;J of August 11( 1986
PAGE 5 "
FC -499
ITEM 2 (Cont'd)
, '
In response to cam. Soranse.n's question, Mr. COwan stated tltat the fire department has received copies of both plans for review. In response to
Chr. Szabo 1 s question, Mr. CcMal1 stated that the isaue of grading may be difficult to resolve; althalgh the Planning Depa'l;"\.:mP..nt does not usually
deal with gradin:;J assessment, in ttJ.is case, the topogra!IDy arrl the City requirement that all water in a developroont be intercepted an::i not
overflow adjo.ining properties, a 6-7 ft. wall or berm would be required to properly drain the water. Proper drdinage ~d baa better solution to this issue than a 6-7 ft. wall or bel."lll which would be unattractive.
_ Mr:. Jim Jackson, representing H. w.
Investments, oammanded Mr. cowan for accurately represent.in:] both plans.
He stated that Ms. ~ is known for davelopin;J quality projects. Mr. Jackson related the assembli.N] of the paroel of property in question and
stated that the final decision on deve).q;.roent of this property has not
been made lJy his client.
'lbe disadvantages of the proposed Staff plan are:
-'Ihree lots backOO up to McClellen Ave. 'Ihese are less desirable lots,
and may create security pr-.iolems for L'1a neighborhood.
-st.reetsc.ape on McClellan Rd.; tl1e t.hree lots badked up against MoCJ.eJ.:i .• an Rd. with a back fenoa or wall disrupt the streetsc.ape of landscaped front yru:ds.
-Creation of one lot 50 ft. wide and 200 ft. deep; this unusual size is difficult to develop. -.Loss of an existin:J house. -Inability to divide this property into ten ldt:.."3; only nine lots can be
made with the ci'langes in roads and cul-de-sac.
'Ihe advantages of tllP. Staff proposal do not outweigh too disadvantages. With rec.:fcil'd to traffic &"ifety, the applicants do not crppcse the use of a ne:iian on McClellan Rd.; Mr. Jackson suggested that the traffic: count in
the rrornings would be 10 cara mak.in';T a right tum . . .
In response t.o cam. Macl<£mzie's questions, Mr. Jackson stated that drainage is a problem rega.rdless of which plan is adopted; the erqineers
will address this issue. One of the i:ossibilities for developin:J lots 5
arrl 6 with the limited square footage, is to build smaller houses on
these two lots.
Mr. Bcyce carroll, ~ineer, state::l that this property has an overlam drainage release problem with lot 4.. which is at the loo errl of the project. It does have positive draina.ge release with the storm system devised for this project which will accornmodat.e the anticipated flCM of a
ten year event. Any failure of the system would require an overlarrl
release; walls would not be ~'ldeq:uate. An interim SI11t."\ll wall to aocamocdate some flooding could be devised if required.
,.
PI.ANNING a::MMISSION MINUI'ES Regular Meeting of August 11, 1986
PAGE 6
PC -499
ITEM 2 (Cont'd)
The Public Hearin] was then opened.
.,, .. , '
I '.1 • ~
M..c;. Pat Weber, 10420 So. Stelling Rd., CU:pertino, stated that. her
property 'INOU!d be adversely affected if the Staff plans are adopted; her propnty 'WOUld became 50 ft. wide a:rxi 200 ft. deep. 'lbe property c.ould not then be divi<.led :into ~ parcels.
'Iha traffic an Stelling Rd. i.s ore of the problems; t.he right turn lane is a problem especially_ during the morning commute ti.ma an::l whe.n De.Anza
College is in session. She expressed concern with a proposal which would
funnel lOCll'."e traffic onto Stelling Rd. an::1 sh.a suggests tbat the City continue the right turn lane on McClellan M. to Bonnie Way. Acceptance of the Staff recamnerx:1ation \IKJUld be a financial disaster· for her property.
Mr. F. A. Hill, 20915 McClella:1 Rd., CU:pe.rtino, stated that he wishes the proposed developrent to be a quality project; this project will .inq;>act his hane arrl property. ·
-From an econ::mdc standpoint, Mr. Hill urderstan::3s the division of the
prcparty in+-....o lots; 10,000 square foot lots were agree:i to in the
Master Plan and the need for two story hou..c:;es in a one story neighborhocxl. Howeve.r, he is concerned abot..t the size of the proposed lots and would like to see larger lots.
-Access is a problem. staff requi.!.etnE>..nt of a right turn only lane would
be app?:q?riate arrl installation of a I~an is desirable. 'lhe esthlate of 10 trips should be doubled to accurately reflect the probable use of this accessway. -Drainage has been a problem in the past.
-I.Dss of privacy. Two of the proposed lots back up to Mr. Hill's lot.
He requested a soun:l barrier. -Water supply for hemes on Stelling Pd. cames frorn McClellan Rd.
Mr. Hill st.nnma.rized his conce:rns that the proposed proj~:.-t be a quality
devel0fl0011t, that the privacy of current homeowners re prota-""t.ed arrl that the safety of the Clcx:::ess ways be insured.
Mr. Eric Lind, 10417 'I\lla Lane, CUpertino, stated that his main abjection is similar to Mr. Hill's; namely that the city incn>..ases the density while ignoring the traffic, property ar:rl crime problems. Density is increased becai.J.Se roney is be-hirrl the growth. ar. Lind stated. that he
has no plans to develop the lot in question; he prefers to keep his horre
· an:i yard as they are ncM. He re.que.sted a 7 foot high concrete wall
installed as a barrier ar:rl is not in favor of either of the propcx...ed
plans.
Mrs. G. Tan:Jen, so. Stelling Rd., a.:tpe.rtino, suggested tliat the whole drive<.-ray re taken to place an access to Stelling Rd. rather than only a portion of the propP..rty (Lot 35) • 'lhough realizirq that the property behind tl'lE!m would be . developed, ta.klrq 20 feet of their property is unacr...eptable. She re{:_ruested. that the entire property be bought from
them.
PI.ANNING a:t1MISSION MINUI'E.S Regular Meeti.rq of August 11, 1986
PAGE 7
I?C -499
rrEM 2 (Cont'd)
Mr. J. Macy, 10400 so. Stelli.n:r Rd.,, CUpertino, (Lot 37) favors the concept of flag lots, and does not wish to lose his lot t.o the proposed
cul-de-sac or have lots in the davelq:tOOnt back up to his property. He wiBl'1.e.s to retain his privacy.
In response to Chr. Szabo' s question, Mr. O::Mru1 stated that the proposed. staff plan was to explore options for future CMnerS of these lots. The Clairman stated that Staff's proposal did not imply a forcible take of any pi-operty. Mt·. o.:Man ~ to quest.ions ~ set.back requireme..nts ask.00. by the Ccmmissioners.
cam. Mackenzie favors the applicants proposed layout; he expressed his conce.m regard.ir:q the size and shape of rota 5 and 6. He favors aw.r.ovaJ. if the drainage issues can be solved. c.cm. Sorensen ~~ she favors the median on McCl.ellan Hd. and suggested if approved, the use of a ooncrete fence to ensure that privacy needs are addressed. Si» noted that there \IJOJld be a loos of specimen b."OOS.
Cllr. S:?:abo stated hia reluctance to approve either plan; he stated th.at this parcel of prc:perty is a vary difficult canf.'iguration. '!he ChainMin
suggested that if Mrs. Ta..'X)'en, owner of Lot 35, was willirq to sell oor property, the resulting project would .be of better quaHty. Ha ~avorn a
contirruance of tltls Application. cam. Mackenzie stated that ~ iswa
to be reviewoo cturjn:; the continuance are:
-Tree preservation -Soun:i walls to ensure privacy for homeowners. Note: walls C'.fofflr 6 fi, in height and masonru:y/ooncrete walls are not in lina with City policy 1 in sin;;Jla family zonirq, an 8 ft. 'Wall can be c.onst.:ructad with tMi permission of adjoillln;J p:roparty C1tll'llar'S. -Posaible acquisition of Lot 35 to reconfigure the proposed davelq;:ment
-Traffic concerns.
Mr. CC1Nan stated that the drainage issue am the installation of a median have been tec±mically resolved; however, if the o.:m.tinllivice is used to
consider design alternatives, the Staff will work with the applicants on this issue. Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant 'v.'OUld prefer not to continue the Application; hew.ever, he will not object to the eontinuance.
MJI'ION: cam. Mackenzie recormnended approval of 5-Z-86 per the findings of the Staff Heport.
SECOND: Com. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
MJI'ION: cam. SorP..nsen moved to Continue Application 12...flli-86 and
18-F..A-86 to August 25, 1986 Plannin:J Commission Meetirq.
SEOJND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
I'-•
i. ' . I\
.
~
PLJ\NNING CX:MMISSION MINtJI'E.5 Regular Meeting of August 11, 1986
PAGE 8
PC -499
ITEM 3 . ;
llf:plication No(s) llpplicant: Property ONner: I..ccatian:
Parcel Area (Acres)
TENTATIVE MAP (13-'IM-86)
'I'C resubdivide 3 parcels with lot sizes rangi.n;J from .52 acres to
3.28 acres.
FIRST HEARrnG
ENVIOONMENrAL DT!."T.E'RMThl'ATION: categorically Exempt
***PI.ANNING a:t1MISS1 ACTION FINAL UNI.ESS APPEAI.ED*O
Staff Pre.sentati_o.n;_ Mr. Piasecki sta"t:ed. that this application is a request to sul::di vide 6. 5 ac::rea inf::o 3 parcels to aCCCll'i~te a future hotel site. 'Iha awlicant..q have 11\-J.de applicatfon for re.zonirq the 3.28 acre pru.""Oel, labeled l?a.rcel 3. 'Ihis is a joint a-pplication by the
affec..tad p:r:operty owne:rn; the only is..."!Ue is whether the irqress/egress access should .be extended to all pa:rx;W.s as well as to the off site a parcel to the west; O:mdition 3 will ne..ed to be rewol"decl to state that V
provisions for easement will be placed in escrow arrl recorded sinn.lltanec::iusly with arry transfer of CMnersl"up.
&::Plicant's Presentation: Mr. Charles Newman, Director of Real Estate
for Vallco Park Limited, presented. a map shCMirY;J properl-y owne::l by Vallco
Park arrl the M.i..ne family. Vall co Park a:rrl the Mine family have l:::een negotiati.n;J an a~..nt to enable better planning arrl deve.lopment of tlw property. Vallc:o Park has been unsuccesst'ul in acquiring all of t.he Mine family property; however, an agreement has beP •. n reachF..d to proceed with
the acquisition of a portion of this property. 'Ihe objective of the
ag-.cee.ment is to assemble this port.ion of the Mine property with Vallco Park to create a parcel to lease to the Marriott Corporation .. 'Th.us, the
application for Tentative Map approval.
Mr. Newman stat.00. th.at the applicant.a have a difflcul ty with c.oncil tions 3
a.rd 4 as written in the Staff Report. 'Ihree years ago, when application
was n.dde with :r:egar.d to the Rusty Pelkan Restaurant, a C.Ondi.tion of the
application was that Vallee Park file with the city a reciprocal aCCP.ss
agreement with 'the Mine family; this Corrlition was appealed unsuccessfully. A copy of the agreeID1?.nt was submitted for review. It is
the intent of Vallco Park Limited to cooperate with t.h;e Mine family on any needs for easement that wouJ/l be pe.rtine.nt to any specific application in the future~ Mr. Newman requested approval of the Tentative
Map, deJ.etinq C.Onditions 3 and 4.
PI.ANNING a::MITSSION MINUl'ES
~<.tr Meet:'.,;ig of August 11, 198G
PAGE 9
FC -499
ITEM 3 {Cont'd)
Mr. Wan--en Mine, 10630 Bedoor Lane, eupertino, stated. that he i-epre1s<mtS his parents at t..~s Hear:in;J. Mr. Mine abjected to ConclJtio:-i 4 that th!:tra
be no access fran existing structures pa.at the property line. 'Ihe Mines have lived on the proparty for 35 years; the imposition of the restdcted
access alor.g the property line seems unnecessary at this ti.ms. 'lltls Con:l.ition restricts entranCEj to ;:lecker L'lne; by Deed., the family has had freedcm of access. 'Ihie residential Uoo will not '\.ncrease traffic; th'LlS Co!'ld.ition 4 is an unwarranted restriction.
Mr. O:hla.n stated that tlle intent of the coniltion is to restrid. fub.t..':'e
~'trial/office development from using Bocker lane; the Condition only
:tpplies to these Uees and does not resb:-ict present residential Use. The applicants requested deletion of the wording, 11 existirq n1sidential" to
rooiet the ~est of the Mine family. Mr, COW'dl1. suggested t.he word.in;y, "However, residential structures on said parcels not to e:x:cei:::l a density
Of 5 units per acre.•• II Ir" r'eSIX'!!Se tC' a:nn, Mackenzie 1 5 questfon, Mt', ccwan stated that tl'le oonoern was hew to i~ssure acc.eiss to Parcel 2 ; Mr. Piasecki stated that them are t\vo aspects to the question of 1:."eCiprocal access to Parcel 2 and to the off site tri~ar parcel to the wast.
'!he O:m.:litions cover the iasue of access to Pat'C21 2 adequately and·
acknowledge an already recoroed covenant to aco:.1roplish it. 'Ih.e question of access to Be::ke.r L~me/Ll.nnet Lane is addressed in COrrl.i..tion 4.
'l1le question of the property to the west needs to be addressed by the City. Mz·. Newman stated tbat tl'l.e:Oe Contitions are i11app1."'0Pr.:i.ate
m·etrictions at the time of application of 'I'entative Map Approval~ this
parcel is not part of the application. Vallee Park J.J.mite::'l will not proceed. with davelorxnent until owne.mltlp is acquired fran the Mine
family. In resp:mse to au.·. Szabo's commsnt.~, Mr. Ne;.nnan stated that
Vallco shared the same conce:rn; nan:iP-1.y that if VaJ.lco chooses to sell
either p:ror-ertY, they de not want uncea.sanable or restrictive Con:litions on the property. He asSt.U.'"Erl thE-. camruiooion that, as a licensOO. real estate broker, he would raveal to any p:rt.ential buyer ex.isti.n; or
p:issible :restric..tions on the property. In resp::Jn..c;e to can. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Kilian stated tP..at the City has a covenant with pa...-t of the
property un.:'ler discussion; there is no agree:nent that. requires a~s to
the property to the west. 'Iha COmmission may .impose conditions if these
corrlitions are possible to implezoont.
'Ihe Public Hearin;] was then opened. 'Ihere WP....re no spe,;lkers.
M:YITON:
SEa:>ND~
VOIE:
Ccru. Mackenzie IIDVOO to close the Public Hearing. can. Sorensen Passed 3-0
PI.ANNING c:x:MMISSION' MINlr.rES Regular Meeting of August 11, 1986
PJ'l.G.E: l 0 R: -499
ITI:M 3 (cont'd)
com. MackenZie favors awrovai of the Tentative Map application·witll the Coniltion requiring' W1 e.ase.me..nt arrl 1.::hang.ing condition 4 to state no niore
than 3 living' units on Parcel 2. Com. Sorensen ooncurred statirq that
the City is re:JU.ired to protec'~ the ingroos/E:greSS easc'ltlent. Cllr. Szabo concurred.
MJI'ION: o:n. Mackenzie moved to approve AJ.::plication 13..JIM-86 subject to
the findirq of the Staff Report: Condition.'3 1 and 2; corx:liti,on 3 m:xti.fied to delete the won'ls "Parr-el 2 11 to read "'111.e
in:Jrass~ss easement from Prur1eiidge Avenue to Parccla 1 ar.d
3 shall be e.xt.er:rled to provide ac::c.2SS to tho adjoining westerly property (APN 316-27-~8)" addin;f the sentmloa, "if said p::cparty
is under tha same ownership as subject property, the above
refe.t"f'..nced agreement to said p:r.op&ty shall be placed in escrcM
and. .cecorded t.l};Xll1 i?.tale of either parcel at no cost to the City."; Con:.litian 4 modified to read, 11Howaver, livin:J units on
said parcel shall be exempted fran reatr:l.c.ted access am ... 11
SE<r.ND: can. Sorensen
VOTE: Passed 3-0
Bn.aak: 9 ..... 2 -9:35 P.M,
rr.EM 4
Application Ho(s) Applicant:
Property OWner: Lccation:
21 "'.'l:J-86 and 19-EA-86 Q.rosve.nor Inter:nati9na~i.f.Qrnia, Ltd. !1!', ar.d Mrs. Will J:,est.er ___________ _
~east og_pwr of stevens Q,"\Slek f3alleyard and '.rant.au Avern.1e
Parcel Area(Acres) 10.4 gross _9,5 net
USE PERMIT (?.l-U-86)
'lb oanstruct two 2-story buildings and one 1-story l:.uilding with a total of approximately 152,300 sq. ft.
FIRST HEARING
~ DETERMINATION; Negatiw~ Declaration
T.ENrATIVE CITY CCUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 18 I 1986
Staff Presentation: Mr. CcMan stated that a companion application has
been filoo with the city of Santa Clara arxi noted that this prcpercy is a gateway to the cannnunity. 'lhis awlica.tion proposes an office complex with H. & D potential. 'I'he only issue raised by staff is the la.rdscaping
setback starrlard .:or Stevens Cl-eek Blvd.: a revis-e:l diagram is includOO with the Staff Report i11ustrating how the applicant will comply with this stan::lard.
'PI.ANNilK; ro1MISSICN MINUI'ES Re;JU.lar Meetirq of August 11, 1986
Pl\GE 11 Fe -499
ITEM 4 (C.Ont'd)
'Iha General Plan R:>licy describes the 50 ft. landscape setback; ho:\11....~er, the ca.m::il did not adopt a zoning plan with a. sped.fie 50 ft .. requirement for Vallco Pw::k. Staff fooJ.s that the concept is j.nportant
to the comnunity and thia AI;:plicant has been asked to achieve the 50 ft. landscape setback. If the COrnmission credits the front t.ri&03Ular spa.ce .in rr.eeting the criteria for averaging space within the 50 ft. landscapinq
setback, the prcposed plan meets tlw stan:lard.
Mr. Cowan noted. the amerrled Hep::>rt 's minor change stating that tlie right tum lane does mitigate the traffic congestion at Stevens Creek Blvd. ru"Xi Tantau Ave.. 'lbe Barton-Aschman Report also notes that the intersect.ion moves frcm a level of Sexvice ratirq of c to a Ievel D; Staff anticipated this level of intensity of developnent in conjunction with this plan.
Am;l.icam; 's Pr;e..,en~jgm_ Mr. Frank ,Juczyck, representing Grosvenor International California Ltd., :related the history of Mr. I.ester's property statirq that in 1981 the Lester )?roperty had a permitted density of .37 FAR an this site arrl the OWl'l!1t' transferred sane of his development rights to thEl Grosvenor; the balance of the development rights were
transferred to develop the final phase of the Tandem World Headquarters.
'Iha result was that title prop=>..rly had no fUrther denrf>...lop:ner.t potential.
In 1983 Vallco returned to Mr. Lester the dens:l.'b.1 potential of 1981; the
scheme presented today reflects that d· ;, ·:. ty. 'lltls strategic location should have greater density than per..litted at present. Si.noa acqu.irirq
these rights, Gl.-osvenor has negot i.atsd with a potential user for this site; tr.e prospective user was attr•.'icted to the. sin<Jle st-..ory site.
'Ihe Applicant ccinunentsd on the Conditions of approval:
1. Property Use Constraints: he questioned the preclusion of manufacturing uses an the property even though the applicant does not intend. to have :manufacturing wo.:-k, asking if this referred to
assembly tyi::e uses. Mr. O:::Man state:i that the General Plan for the area does allow office, oammercial arrl Wustrial Use. If industrial is plaoa:l on the site in question, the awlicants will need to negotiate with Vallee for clarification an:i a lesser square footage.
2. steve.'1.S cree.!c Boulevard Sidewalk/I.and .. c;caping Plan: the applicants and
Valloo are int.ereste:::l in starrJar:dizing thfo requirement. Vallee would like to see the C.Orrlition worded cliffe..""e.ntly; the a:pplicant
aslced to r.ieet wit.'fi. staff to n>..solve this issue. Mr. Cowan acknCMledged that there is ambiguity in this aspect of the plan: there is a question of the definition ot' Vallee Park. 'Ihis issue
shoulct be J::-e.solve<l ctt. the Council level.
" .;,
:-'\ '
Pil\NN:NG o:::M1ISSlON MINUTE..S Regular Mooting of August 11, 1986
PAGE 12
f' ,,£ F ~ •' •
i_. ,
FC -499
ITD1 4 (Cont'd)
3. Shift Drivaway: tha reason for this Conditiw was questioned. Mr. Grigg atat:OO t.11.at the driveway off Stevens creek Blvd. has a VerJ
short throat \>.hlc.h will cause cars to back up on Stevens creek Blvd, A driveway leading into an aisle parking lot will prevent the back up of vehicl~.
Mr. Eric Stuer, Architect for Grosvener International, addressed the question of relocating the enb:y driveway by introducing Mr. David Nclson.
Mr. David Nelson, MPA Design, larrlscape consult.ant, stated. that the concept used. in designi.n:;f this entrance was to give equal aa::eas to both sides of the build.i.n:J; nruooly, pEdestrian access to tile spaces :botweP..n
ttle buildin:Js arrl e.qual access to both parkin:J lot.CJ. If the driveway is
IOCJVed further west, ans will have tc an:;;le into the bay or turn right: the right turn lane oon:iition will not he alleviatf.rl.
'Iha Public Heari.n3' was then opened. 'Ihe.re were no spe<lkers.
Mr. waiter ward, Manager of Valloo Park, presented the Val.lea I.and.scape
Plan designed by Lawrence Halperin tw.-... 1ty years ago. He urgOO. the
Co!rr:uissfo.1.1 not to grant a Variance for Mr. Lester' s propert.-y but to retain the Halperin design for Vallcx: Park. L'1 addition, the curving
walks are urrlesi.i:a.ble for savP..ral l."\?.asons and emphasize the need for retai.nin:J the original Val.lee design plan. retained.
IDI'ION: Com. Sorensen lllCl\Te::l to close the Public Hearing.
SECDND: Com. Mackenz::.e
VOTE: Passe::l 3-0
cam. Sorensen favors continuity in landscapirq design an:l wishes to see
the placerrent of the driveway negotiated between the applicant and Staff, maintai.!U.JB the proposed place:rr.3.nt if sUfficient depth can be reached to prevent the back up of cars on Stevens Creek Blvd. cam. Yi.ar..kenzie
concurs on continuity of larrlscap~. He stated that in the design of
the d=iveway entrance, a clearly visible parkli"q lot will avoid poteritial confusion causin;;J m:>torist.s from stoppin:;r at the entrance. The Use constraint as 'W'Orde::i is appropriate.
MJIION: can. Sorensen IOCIVed to grant a Negative Declaration for
Application 21-U-86.
SEmND: c.am. ¥..a.ckP..nzie
VOTE: Passed 3-0
. PIANNING o::MMISSION MINUI'ES Regular Meeting of August 11, 1986
PAGE 13
FC -499
ITEM 4 (Cont'd)
m;rION: Com. Sorensen m::ived to reoanmond ai,:proval. of Applicati<.m. 21--0-86 subject. to the findings of this hearirq arrl th.a staff Repo1:t, COn:litions 1-13; o:m.iition 14 to refer to the Exhibits p:i:escnted at this hearin;p Condit.ions 15-24; Condit.ion 25 to require n¥Xlification of de-pt.h axu vis.ibilit.'Y of the driveway subject to
Staff approval.
SEro-ID: Can. Mackenzie
VOI'E: Passed 3-0
NOrE: 'Ihe city Council will hear this application on August 18, 1986 not
Septe.mbe.ir 2, 1986 as stated in the Agenda.
ITEM 6
Application No(s) Applicant: Zl_-U-86 an;], 21-E.A·-86
~ Smit.b29-D..r_I.D£~. (Pi~a POOfll..§.t') Property CWner: Location: 'Illorrrwood rl5~.es ·---------·----SQutheast CQ~..Qf H~~.ng:_
Road·-----
USE PERMIT (23-U-86) T' nro!.fy an existing sit-down re;taurant to a predcnninate.ly· tak.e-,out restaurant.
FIRST HEARING
F.NV.IRJNMENTAL DEI'ERMIN.ATION: Ne~ti ve Declru.-ation
TENTATIVE C".CTY a."UNCIL HEAP.:lliG mTE: Augu.~t 18, 1986
~ Presentation: Mr. Piru.;ier.Jd stated that this application requests a
change from a sit down restaura.rit to a take cut restaurant; this entails a reduction in size of the restat.:."Cal1t arrl a1 reduction in s€'.ating. 'Ihe staff Report notes that the cond.:i.Li..ans on the zon.i..ng all~ up to 25% of this Center to be non-recreational Use; a take out .resta.urdl1t is co:n.sidered to be a non-recreational Use. Staff recommends approval.
~cant's Presentation: Hr. Ron Smithson, president R.G. smiths.on, made himself available to'questions.
'Ihe Public Hearirq WrIB then opened. 'Ihere were no speakers.
MJI'IO~~= cam. Sorensen m:wed to close the Public Hear~r. SECDND: Com. Mackenzie
V01'E: Passed
MYI'ION; Com. Sorensen m:wed to grant a Negative Dt..:..clardtion
SECOND: CC!l.n. Macke.'1.Zie
VtJI'E: P-assed
3-0
3-0
1. I
PI.ANNING C01MISSION KINCJI'ES Regulr.u-Meeting of August 11, 1986 'PAGE 14
PC -499
ITEM 6 (Cont'cJ)
. ,;
MOTION: earn. Sorensen lOClVed to rec.orrrmend approval of Application 23-·U-$6
subject to the . findings and conditions stated in the staff recommendation. SECOND: earn. Mackenzie
VOI'E: Passed 3-0
OID BJSTh1ESS -None
NEW BUSINF..SS
9. Selection of a representative to serve on a Hott.sing Cormnittee to review RFP's for the City's Housing P'.t."CX)r.:Un.
MJI'ION: Com. Ma~1zie m:ived. to aP,Peint Com. Sorensen to Stave on a Committee for the City of Cupertino Housing Prag.tam,
SE<X>ND: Chr. Szabo
VOI'E: Passed · 3-0
REFDRI' OF THE PLANNING OJMMISSION
-None
REFDRI' OF' THE PIANNING DIRECTOR
-·written Report submittErl
Having concluded its bus:lnBSs, the Plan..11inc.; Cqmmission adjourned at 10:20 P.M. to the ne..xt Regular Meeting of August 25, 1986 at 7:30 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED: ~·
\\ ·, t . ~,... . ..........---.
I ' /, J . { .)u Lu:11 cPt c/d J , ,,
Chairperson
. ~-