Loading...
PC 06-13-88 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 13, 1988 Meeting Held in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Ave. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: 7:30 P.M. Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Sorensen Vice Chairman Adams Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Szabo Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director Mark Caughey, Associate Planner Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Staff Present: Com. Adams asked that the Minutes of May 24, 1988, Page 6, second paragraph from end include a statement that the anechoic chamber shall not be changed into office use. Chr. Sorensen noted that the time of her arrival was 7:50 P.M., not 7:20 as stated. Com. Mackenzie asked that the vote on Application 7-U-88, read 3-1. MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to approve the Mirtutes of the Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988, as amended. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed, Com. Claudy abstaining 4-0-1 MOTION: Com. Adams moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meet- irtg of May 31,1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 4: Application 7- TM-88 - Bruce and Debbie Bonfield - Applicant requests con- tinuance to the Meeting of July 11, 1988. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 7-TM-88 to the Meeting of July 11, 1988, per request of the Applicant SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter submitted Re: Application 13-U-88, Tandem Computer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 2 PC - 546 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: CONSENT CALENDAR: - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 1: Parcel Area (Acres) 14-U-88 and 21-EA-88 De Anza Colle~e State of California Route 85 Ri!!ht-of- Way adiacent to De Anza Colle~e campus south of Stevens Creek Blvd. 7 acres Application No(s) Applicant Property Owner: Location: USE PERMIT (14-U-88) To construct and operate a temporary parking lot of 630 spaces on the Route 85 Right-of-Way adjacent to De Anza College. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki presented the Item and noted Staff Report, Discussion. Com. Claudy asked whether granting this request would delay construction of Route 85; he stated that he did not wish to take any action which would jeopardize the building of this freeway. He added that the parking on De Anza College Campus was woefully inadequate. Mr. Piasecki responded that the irttent of the Contingency Plan (Staff Report, Discussion) was to prevent any such occurrence. Com. Mackenzie requested further information on the construction schedule for Route 85; Mr. Whitten provided information available. A.1!plicant's Presentation: Mr. Don Perata, Vice President, Student Services, commented: - Lease with Ca1 Trans ran to February 1989, thereafter a month to month lease existed - A sizable penalty clause was contaÌl1ed for failure to vacate the land with 30 day notice - College had no irtterest remaining on the right-of-way once a parking facility was built Mr. Perata addressed Recommended Conditions of Approval as follows: 2. Annroved Use/rime Limit: Construction time would be approximately one year; how- ever, due to possible construction over run, asked that a two year period be allowed 4. Parkin!! Area Stripin!!: Poles were currently used in place of striping; such seemed to work well irt the temporary lot. He asked that such be considered irt this Application 5. Landsc1\Pin~Site Review: When the Application was prepared, base rock was to be used on the surface, which was dusty. However, asphalt grindings already stockpiled on-site by CaI Trans would now be used; such would eliminate the dust and concurrent- ly, the need for landscaping. Existing trees would visually break up the parking area Mr. Perata answered questions on parking lot access and lighting of the area for safety. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 3 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Mackenzie concurred with Com. Claudy's comments and suggested that approval be given on a one year basis with an amendment to the Use Permit. The Public Hearing was then opened. There were no speakers. MOTION: Com. Adams moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Claudy reiterated concern that the Commission not take any action which would impede construction of Route 85. He had no objection to allowing the use of the right-of- way by the College during the interim period; the College required the added parking. Com Mackenzie suggested consideration of an added Condition stating that the Applicant agreed to do nothing to hirtder development of Route 85; he added that he wished to cir- cumvent any possibility of delay of the freeway project. Ms. Lopez assured the Commission that an automatic return to the Commission for review or adding a Condition as suggested above could be done. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Applicant had anticipated a contingency plan before application was made; Contingency Plan would be formalized before permits were issued and would be reviewed by the City Attorney to ensure protection of the City's irtterests. He suggested wording, "The Applicant shall have the option of requesting an extension of the Use Permit prior to its expiration." Consensus reached by the Commission to allow the poles requested in place of striping the parkirtg lot, removal of requirement for landscaping and wording suggested by Staff addressirtg the extension of the Use Permit. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved approval of Application 21-EA-88 . SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Application 14-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolu- tion: Condition 1; Condition 2, amended to add sentence, Applicant shall have the option of requesting an extension prior to the expiration of this Use Permit through the informal review process; Condition 3; Condition 4, amended to allow the parkirtg poles in place of strippirtg of the parking lot; Condition 5, delete landscaping requirement to read, Site Review, The Developer shall sub- mit comprehensive lighting details and an irtterim landscape plan for ASAC formal review, prior to construction of the facility." Conditions 6 - 7 as stated. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 4 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 2 Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Parcel Area (Acres): 13-U-88 and 20-EA-88 Tandem Corr¡puters. Inc. Valleo Park. Ltd. Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. 5 5 +- net acres USE PERMIT (13-U-88) To construct an 8 story office building equalling approxi- mately 300,000 sq. ft. FIRST HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan presented the Application and discussed concerns stated in Staff Report: D. Remaining Build-Out of Valleo Park; E. Building Heights on Stevens Creek Boulevatd; F. Sandpile and V. Site Plan Review. An aerial map was presented. Mr. Cowan called attention to Vll., Recommendation, citing issues needing to be resolved: 1. Final design of plaza/parking structure; Staff concern, as well as Architectural and Site Review Committee, was the creation of more open space along Stevens Creek Blvd 2. Santa Clara Valley Water District's concern re: flooding in excess of a 100 year event; Staff suggested berming the driveways as had been done at a regional shoppirtg center; District asked that the Applicant demonstrate the degree of flooding occurring down- stream as a result of burmirtg. Staff questioned the measurability of this difference. 3. Fire District's concern for access on the south side of the building by landscaping the area; Staff suggested turf block or other pavement treatment to obtairt access 4. Expanded study assessing traffic impacts per request of the City of Sunnyvale: Barton- Aschman Traffic Consultants had been asked to address this issue. He noted for the record that the City of Sunnyvale had asked that the jobs/housing ratio be addressed; Report completed by the City of Cupertino in 1983 was referenced. With respect to Recommended Conditions of Approval Mr. Cowan commented as follows: 12. Valleo Parkw!\y: Cited potential traffic problems and suggested street improvements 21. Fire S¡¡ppression: F) Cited the 1983 General Plan; Council will review this Condition 26. Permitted Uses: Delete the 340,000 sq. ft. figure and add 325,000 sq. fl 31. Transfer of Develo.pment Credit: Condition added for consideration 32. Develo.pment Fee: Condition added for consideration; Council will review such Com. Mackenzie requested information on alternative sites for the bonus office property; Com Szabo questioned whether another access onto 280 were being considered. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Michael Kelly, Stone, Marroccini and Patterson Architects, presented the Use Permit Application, Supplemental Materials and called attention to the series of graphics and exhibits showing the project design and exterior materials. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 5 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kelly continued as follows: Project was intended to make a statement of Tandem's commitment to the City Project included quality enhancements with respect to the character of the architecture which was complimentary to the Valley and made of statement of duration Proposal for the structure was reviewed with reference to the graphics and exhibits Noted the need for disposition of parkirtg in a manner utilizirtg the site as well as res- ponding to building's occupants and those visually impacted from Stevens Creek Blvd Multi-grade parkirtg structure would be orientated to the south of the office building openirtg onto a so called private yard for outside activities of the Tandem community Major issue irt terms of architecture was in response to comments already received on the proposal submitted; namely, the Stevens Creek Blvd. facade Redesigned elements of the open area adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd. were explained In response to Com. Adams, he confumed that roof equipment would not be placed on the flat portion of the roof; window washirtg equipment would be screened by a parapet With respect to the Staff Report VII., Recommendation. issues needing to be resolved: 4. Applicants had responded with the Use Permit Application: Supplemental Materials; and a letter dated June 9, 1988. Mr. Cowan responded that analysis of traffic information submitted by the Applicant and their Traffic Consultant was determined to be consistent with the City's information. Mr. Kelly stated that VII Recommendation 1. Revised Conditions 30. Modified Site Plan already addressed item; continuance of the Application was not required on this account. With respect to Revised Conditions of Approval, he commented as follows: 24. Landsc!\pe Review: stated that there was an error in Staff Report; area was 25 ft., not 35 ft as stated; Applicants proposed a 33 ft. distance to accommodate the design 11. Bus Turnout: Applicants felt they exceeded the 25 ft. landscaping distance required and asked that the bus turnout not be added to the setback required Break: 925 - 9:35 P.M. Consensus reached that Items 5 - 8 be Continued to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on June 16, 1988 (Item 4 previously Continued) MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Items 5 - 8 to the Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 16, 1988. SECOND: Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 The Commission returned to Item 2: Application 13-U-88, Tandem Computers. Ms. Jane Bierstedt, Barton-Aschman Traffic Consultants, reviewed the process used in completing the Traffic Report and presented the data contained in the Report. The Public Hearirtg was then opened. There were no speakers. The Public Hearirtg remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting ofJune 13, 1988 Page 6 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kelly responded to Com. Adams' question, stating that support services (weight! exercise facilities, food service) were available on-site and would reduce traffic; in addition, building entrances and elevators were placed at locations such that people were proximate to the necessary intersections of Val1co Parkway and Tantau Ave. Mr. John Boyes, Architectural Design Manager, addressed Com. Claudy's question, stating that the Human Resources Department had an active program for the entire Bay area to research, develop and implement a day care program; he stated that he had no reser- vations about presenting a specific program, perhaps at the building permit stage. Mr. Kelly concurred with Com. Adams that the service yard turn around area was limited; however, there was space available that trucks could be pulled directly in, to provide com- plete turning capability. He did not object to conditioning the Application to require such. Com. Claudy commented as follows: Noted his ambivalence on the project as currently proposed Parkirtg structure did not adequately address the problem; the proposed Tandem Build- ing and the adjacent Marriott Hotel would be placed in close proximity to each other In Per!¡pective of Stevens Creek Blvd. lookin~ west, he noted the visual impact of the corner and suggested that a portion of the parking structure be removed Noted that the public was visually excluded from the lawn area facirtg Stevens Creek; he was concerned about building open space being visually screened from the public and stated that the view scape belonged to the public Felt that too many structures and amenities were being placed on site; he asked that an open visually irtviting area be provided Had some objections to the varying design on the north and south facade Com. Mackenzie commented as follows: Asked that more activity occur at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Ave. Was favorable to the Office Building proposed and its placement on the site Com. Szabo commented as follows: Was favorable to the Office Building proposed Had some reservations about the parkirtg structure Questioned whether could be channeled or altered to facilitate traffic flow Com. Adams commented as follows: Proposed design of the Office Building was acceptable for this location Noted reservations on the height proposed; however, the taller Marriott Hotel cited Asked that the south east comer of the parkirtg structure be altered Noted the traffic impacts at Val1co Pkwy. and Stevens Creek Blvd. and the proximity of the entrance/exist of this site to the irttersection Confirmed that the Applicant would study the service yard area Chr. Sorensen commented as follows: Was favorable to the Office Building as proposed Was concerned regarding the north east entrance to the parking structure, citing its proximity to the Marriott Hotel entrance Had some reservations about the landscaped setback area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 7 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chr. Sorensen continued as follows: Asked that further review of traffic impacts in this area Favored the proposed day care operation Mr. Kelly responded to the comments above as follows: Development of the site had to be viewed in the overall context of scale of the site There was more sensitivity to parking issues on this site than presented on other sites Question of whether Tandem space should visually be part of the activity of the entire community was a subjective one Careful disposition of Tandem space was required to enable individuals to use it Sound from Stevens Creek Blvd. needed to be addressed for the site to be usable Parking structure was carefully developed and noted apprehension that if displaced, the environment may be jeopardized for other people as well In addition, parking must be dispersed internally in order to work With respect to Staff Report, VII. Recommendation: 4. As previously addressed 2. Ongoing conversation with the Water District; more definitive study regarding the protection and impacts downstream of burming the Tandem site 3. Ongoing conversation and evaluation with the Fire District regarding required access With respect to Recommended Conditions of Auuroval: 10. Intersection Imurovements: Condition described the existing condition; asked that the working of final sentence be revised to be mutually acceptable to Applicant and the . Director of Public Works 1 i. Bus Turnout: As discussed; Condition described the alignment of the curb which en- croached the setback while not amending the setback as it related to the landscaping 12. Valko Parkwav: Asked that Condition be worded in a manner that would allow con- tinued study on a left hand turn lane rather than precluding such at this time 13. Stevens Creek Blvd. Drivewav: Condition should not preclude requirements of getting into the Tandem parking structure and having their own access; however, Applicants were not opposed to entering into a dialogue with Marriott Hotel 21. Fire SuuDression F: deferred to other speaker on this item 23. Reciprocal Access Al!reements: Refers to dialogue with Marriott Hotel 24. Landscaœ Review: As stated above on 33 ft. setback distance and Bus Tumout 26. Permitted Uses: Noted the 325,000 square footage figure 30. Modified Site Plan: Revised plans to satisfy requirements of this Condition 32. Develoument Fee: to be deferred to next speaker Ms. Josie Perry, Counsel for Tandem, addressed Condition 21. F. as follows: Cited the participants in the acquisition of the aerial ladder truck Questioned the logic of Tandem contributing the cost in a decision already reached Reimbursement would not be an unacceptable position, if better understood Questioned the potential number of other participants in development of the area Questioned the protection of the building lower than the 60 ft. stated Recommended that the concerns about prevention of safety hazards be addressed; Tandem was willing to explore other options irt addition to that stated in Staff Report Intent of the Condition was to have the Applicant fund extraordinary equipment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 1988 Page 8 PC - 546 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Perry addressed Condition 31. Develonment Fee as follows: Questioned the provision noted in the second sentence If the Development Fee were required to mitigate impacts of development, previous Conditions had addressed such; she noted Tandem's willingness to work with Staff Mr. Kelly summarized the Application of Tandem and requested approval of this Item; he noted time constraints and asked that project approval be given for the Office Building, with revised plans for the parking structure to be submitted at a later date. Consensus reached by the Commission that revised Conditions be presented at the Regular Adjourned Meeting, June 16, 1988; conceptual approval of the Office Building given. Conditions 21 and 32 to be deferred to the Meeting of the City Council June 20, 1988. Parking structure would require a redesign with submittal of revised plans at a later date. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to send a Minute Order to Staff directing them to pre- pare a Report to the Council indicating the approval of the Planning Com- mission of the proposal. SECOND: Com. Szabo VO'IE: Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 3: Application 80,002.44 - Tanner Bill - Request for comment, Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Siting Map. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20, 1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Caughey presented the Staff Report and answered questions asked. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to send a Minute Order to Council approving a Reso- lution of the Planning Commission that a Finding of Consistency with the General Plan be made for the Draft County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Siting Map. Com. Szabo Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:25 P.M. to a Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 16, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting ofJune 13, 1988 Page 9 PC - 546 ADJOURNMENT Continued Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of June 27,1988 ;; ¡/~::s~~~ri~~~ ~ Attest: