Loading...
PC 04-25-88 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 APRIL 25, 1988 Meeting Held irt 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 Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Steve Piasecki, Assistant Planning Director Travice Whitten, Assistant Oty Engineer Charles Kilian, City Attorney Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988, as presented. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 2: Application l-U-88 and 7-EA-88, Richard Sutherland. Applicant requested Continuance to the Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988. ITEM 4: Application 7-U-88 and 13-EA-88, Ken Day Associates Application incomplete. Staff requested Continuance to May 23,1988. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to continue Application l-U-88 and 7-EA-88, Richard Sutherland to May 9, 1988, per request of Applicant and continue Application 7-U-88 and 13-EA-88, Ken Day Associates to May 23, 1988, pending com- pletion of the Application. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - Letter received from St Saba Orthodox Church. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ~ Mr. Vern Deto, 2140 Stebbiuns, Santa Clara, requested information of whether Item 3, Application 3-U-88 and 8-EA-88, Ken Kay Associates, would be heard at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 2 PC - 542 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM 1: Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-U-87 (Revised) SRI Services Rao S. Gullapalli West side of south Sarato~a-Sunnvvale Rd. ap\1roximate!y 350 feet south of Rain bow Dr. Parcel Area (Acres): .36 net .46 ifoSS Requesting interpretation of a minor amendment to an existing Use Pennit to allow architectural modifications to a mirti-market MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Consent Calendar. SECOND: Com. Adams yarn: Passed 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 3: Application No(s) 3-U-88 and 8-EA-88 Applicant: Ken Kay Associates Property Owner: Tandem Computer Location: Tantau Ave. between 1-280 and Pruneride Ave. Parcel Area (Acres): l::1LA USE PERMIT (3-U-88) Application to refine a previously approved Master Use Pennit for the Tandem Computer campus, including transfer of development credit between building sites, establishment of shared parking allocations between various buildings, establishment of street and public open space/landscaping standards and expansion of the Master Use Permit boundary to include sites on the east side of Tantau Avenue. The site area is generally located on Tantau A venue north of Interstate 280. FIRST HEARING: CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: TENTATIVE CTIY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 2,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application and presented an aerial map. The proposal under consideration would allow an opportunity to transfer the F ARs to Buildirtg 55; in that sense Items 3 and 4 (Application 7-U-88, Continued to May 23, 1988) were related. However, specific building concepts are not established irt this Application. Staff had reservations about the request for exclusion of the lobby; the Sobrato buildirtg on No. De Anza Blvd. was cited as an example of allowance for an extraordinary lobby discount since such was an architectural element (atrium) of the building. Applicant had presented a comparison to other Tandem facilities; however, a demonstration of an ordinary lobby for an industrial/manufacturing/office complex was unavailable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of Apri125, 1988 Page 3 PC - 542 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Paul Barber, Ken Kay Associates, commented as follows: Described the project proposed and reviewed the background of the Application Noted Tandem's interest in creating an environment different from isolated buildings Cited the architectural improvements connecting the buildings; namely, walkways, lighting, trees and a coherent signage program which create a campus identity One aspect of the Master Use Plan was an upgrade of Calabazas Creek: - Plan to create a year round surface water body enhancing the view corridor - Recreational amenity: recreational and aesthetic elements would be incorporated with functional plans of Santa Clara Water District. Letter of the SCWD cited. - An inflatable dam would be placed under the No. Tantau Ave. underpass A second element of the Master Use Plan was the addition of a recreational building Improvements along No. Tantau Ave., upgrade of Buildings 200 and 201 referenced Tandem wished to establish development rights irt the Master Use Permit; specific configuration of Building 55 was part of another Application One issue was the circulation between buildings; plans to address such reviewed Discussed the uses of the proposed lobby In response to Com. Adams, Mr. Piasecki suggested a Condition stating that the specific site layout of Building 55 was not approved and was subject to Use Permit approval. Commissioners noted concem regarding safety and potential liability of the Creek area; Mr. Kilian stated that standards utilized to ensure safety would be the same as applied to any other open body of water in the Oty; he cited the statutory immunities that would apply. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Vern Deto, 2140 Stebbiuns, Santa Clara, commented as follows: Represented neighbors adjacent to Tandum Computers Differed with the City Attomey on liability for Calabazas Creek unless a hold harmless agreement were reached with Tandum and placed in Conditions of Approval Questioned the "mirtor modifications allowed at the discretion of the Director" Questioned use of the recreational center and parkirtg required by off duty employees Mr. Richard Wintz, 320 Howard, Dr., Santa Clara, commented as follows: Concurred with concerns of Calabazas Creek and cited safety hazards to children Questioned whether a public resource was being convened to a private area Other concerns related to Application 7-U-88 to be heard May 23, 1988 Ongoirtg maintenance and communications problems included: - Landscaping had not been property maintained _ Questioned the appropriate person to contact at Tandem when problems arose Requested irtformation on Building 55; Mr. Piasecki provided necessary irtformation Mr. George Woodward, 260 Howard Dr., Santa Clara, commented as follows: Adjacent parking lot allowed users to look into kitchen windows; however, he noted that the parkirtg lot preceded his occupancy of the house Parking areas were not policed since Tandem occupied the site, resulting in car races, noise, throwing trash out second story windows, trash removal trucks shook his home Cited increased impacts from the proposed expansion Cutting/destruction of fencing adjacent to residential area Calls to Tandem were ineffective; felt that Tandem was not a good neighbor · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 4 PC - 542 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Doug Spilman, Tandem Computer Facilities Manager, commented as follows: Tandem did not employ a full second shift; such would not impact parking Parking ratio was 1 :360 sq. ft. at full occupancy; such had not yet been reached Use Permit approved of the Calabazas Creek project involved several stages Issues surrounding the Creek included the necessary approvals, cost and liability Tandem was looking to - Improve the working environment for both employees and the community - Insure its own growth in Cupertino With respect to concerns raised by neighbors, he offered to be the contact person Tandem wished to collect unused development rights and transfer such to Building 55 Mr. Glen Nobinger, 290 Howard Dr., Santa Clara, commented as follows: Noted the attractiveness of the present site improvements Requested information on the transfer of credit and the proposed Building 55 Questioned impacts of an industrial/manufacturing building adjacent to residential use Mr. Vern Deto questioned the purpose of a Planned Development as applied to an adjacent , site; he suggested consideration of a continuance of this Application, noting that once the credits were transferred they no longer existed on the former site. Mr. Kilian provided irtformation on the irtterpretation and application of Planned Develop- ment in the City of Cupertino. Com. Claudy stated that he intended to propose a Continuance of this Item. He noted concern regarding a transfer of development rights to a substandard site which could not meet the 100 ft. required setback from residential use. Transfer of development rights would only exascerbate substandard features of the site. Com. Mackenzie concurred and added that the additional square footage of irtdustrial/office use was being moved closer to residential use; in addition, no review had been completed on the specific design of the proposed building. Com. Claudy noted that such would be only about 20 ft. from the residential use. Mr. Barber noted that the Application under consideration was the Master Use Permit; final siting and configuration of the proposed building was not fully determined. Consideration given to approving the Calabazas Creek portion of the Application; Consensus reached that the entire Application would be continued to May 23, 1988. Com. Adams asked that when the Creek improvements are approved, a hold harmless indemnity agreement would be reached; Mr. Kilian submitted language to that effect. Com. Adams was favorable to the recreational area and the Calabazas Creek improvements with the addition of a Condition requiring a hold harmless agreement; however, he was undecided regarding the Applicant's request for exclusion of the oversized lobby area. Com. Claudy would be favorable to the exclusionary request if in fact the lobby functions a passive space; Com. Szabo concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 5 PC - 542 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Mackenzie was favorable to the Calabazas Creek improvements; he had some re- maining questions regarding the exclusionary request for the lobby area. Chairwoman Sorensen concurred with the above and favored a pedestrian bridge. The Public Hearing remairted open. MarION: Com. Adams moved to Continue Application 3-U-88 and 8-EA-88, Ken Kay Associates, to May 23, 1988. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 Break: 9:05 - 9:17 P.M. ITEM 5: Application No(s) Applicant: Property Owner: Location: , Parcel Area (Acres): 5-U-88 and ll-EA-88 Worthin~on Chevrolet Paul Weiss North side of Stevens Creek Blvd.. aDDroximately 200 ft. east of Stellim! Rd. 5.3 acres USE PERMIT: (5-U-88) Requesting the following modifications to a previously approved use permit for an automobile dealership: - Adjusted phasing of future construction of storage garage and related improvements - Relocation of 150 sq. ft. closing office building in Phase I - Revision of pavement textures and on-site lighting equipment - Re-siting of structures internal to the site FIRST HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERM1NA TION: Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application; Staff recommended that a Noise Study be prepared in conjunction with the first phase of the project. He added that he approved a "polish and get ready area" as stated in Staff Report, Internal Buildinl! Shifts. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Kenneth J. Abler, commented as follows with respect to the Model Resolution, Recommended Conditions of Approval: 2. DisDl~ Pavinl!: Applicants had asked ASAC to use a stamped concrete process in lieu of tile pavers. They preferred asphalt and concrete in the Stelling Rd. display area rather than the stamped concrete ASAC recommended. This frontage did not have the visibility of the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage. 11. Transit Shelter Location: Noted that County Transit wished to place a larger strucmre on-site, which could not be accommodated; requested assistance on this issue 17. Parkin~: Requested a two hour parking limitation be placed on Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage; such was appropriate for customer usage rather than long term parkirtg Mr. Cowan stated that such a request be directed to the Oty Council for review. 18. Noise Smdy: Asked that such be deferred until second phase improvements were put in place; complaints regarding noise had been mitigated. Specifics cited. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 6 PC - 542 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Abler, continued as follows on the Recommended Conditions of Approval: 21. Si~n Pro¡µ-am: Questioned language, understood that such had already been approved Mr. Cowan concurred that language should be amended to reflect approval given. 25. Li~htin~ Controls: Proposed change of lighting fixtures and extension of lighting on Stevens Creek Blvd. Asked that lighting plan and the photometric study be reviewed by City Engineering Staff, not ASAC on this item 30. Improvement A¡µ-eement: Noted cost irt terms of removal of cash from a business; he cited the good faith of new owners who intended to complete required improvements. Mr. Mac Middleton, Worthington Chevrolet, commented on Noise Stucly and Li~htin~ Controls: in Improvement A!!reement bond requirement was an unnecessary expense. Mr. Kilian stated that this was imposed by the Council and should be addressed by them. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Larry Burriesci, 20900 Alves Dr., Cupertino, noted the lack of problems; specifically: Unnecessary traffic and noise had ceased Cited efforts to mitigate lighting impacts; only one new light fixture impacted his home Noise Study: since the parking garage was not to be built at this time, there was no noise impact to measure Questioned Condition 16, Architectural and Site Approval Committee Review. Land- scaping Plan did not reflect screening trees between the dealership and the neighbors. Mr. Abler responded that there was no Exhibit nor Resolution requiring landscape screen- ing along the Church property line; however, such had been planted but not maintained by previous owners. Currently approved landscape plans did not include such a requirement. MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to close the Public Hearing SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Mr. Cowan asked that in Conditions of Approval, 22. Vehicle DiSDh\V Restrictions. reference to "truck" be deleted to read, "new display" and that" 1 st Revision" be stricken. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 5-U-88 subject to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing; Con- ditions 1-17; Condition 18, modified to indicate that Phase I building pennits could be issued without a Noise Study being completed; such to be required before issuance of Phase II building pennits or if the Commission detennined that conditions required a Noise Study; Conditions 19-20; Condition 21, delete second sentence; Condition 22, delete "truck" to read, "new display" and that "1st Revision" be stricken; Conditions 23-24; Condition 25, delete "and photo- metric study;" Conditions 26-30. SECOND: Com. VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of ll-EA-88 (Negative Declaration) SECOND: Com. Claudy VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 7 PC - 542 PUBUC HEARINGS Continued ITEM 6: Application No(s) Applicant: Location: Parcel Area (Acres) 81.004.18 (RI). 81.004.l2HA. AI). 81.004.8 eRHS) 2-EA-88. 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88 Ci(y of CQpertino Citvwide WA AMENDMENT OF THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCES: Rl Residential, Sirtgle-family RHS Residential, Hillside Al Agricultura1-Residential A Agricultura1 Said amendments may include revision of the requirements pertaining to setbacks, height, building area, bulk, lot size, landscaping, definitions and uses. FIRST HEARING CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: No action taken at this time. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: May 16,1988 Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report and called attention to exhibits on Front/Side Setback Surcharge, Hypothetical Second Floor Configurations for R-l Zonirtg and Application of Proposed Setback on Existing Homes, April 25, 1988. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Richard Childress, Debcor Corporation, commented as follows: Noted the objective of reducing mass and bulk, particularly the second floor area New plans were somewhat better than the Interim Ordinance which tended to give new residents less rights than existing owners; that proposed was fairer .5 FAR was reasonable; such allowed larger houses on some larger lots Felt strongly that two and three car garages with storage space, should be encouraged Staffs concept of credit for third garage was a reasonable approach; asked that 150 ft. be substituted for the 200 ft. suggested; alOft wide stalls left a 5 ft. storage area Continued to not be favorable to first floor offsets; some offset was automatic Suggested consideration of remodels with respect to setback offset Snmmarized, that Staff proposal was quite good; favored the FAR proposed Surcharge would add to confusion and would not obtain a much better product Intent was not beirtg met by the above; suggested the FAR be used as the primary tool and the setback offset as a secondary tool to meet the intent--reducing mass Mr. Bob Hoxie, 22337 McClellan, Cupertino, commented as follows: Felt that the origirtal irttent of the Ordinance amendments were not beirtg accomplished Did not see significant differences between recent proposals and existing regulations With respect to setbacks, rear setback had been increased from 20 ft. to 25 ft; setback minimums remained the same In addition, there were no real restrictions on the second floor Questioned the effect of these proposals on reducirtg mass and bulk Was concerned that such would not address the needs of Cupertino; examples cited PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 8 PC - 542 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Com. Claudy stated that he had reached the same conclusions as Mr. Hoxie; he felt that the City would continue to see very large houses. Com. Mackenzie cited the Palo Alto Report and noted that FARs corresponded with per- ceived mass; however, they conceded that regulating FARs did not fully address the issues, namely, breaking up wall planes and creating open spaces around houses. He concurred with Staff suggestion of a 15 ft. second story setback offset and suggested con- sideration of regulating roof pitch and measuring the daylight plane as tools to address the mass and bulk of houses. Com. Claudy noted the two-story development on Foothill Blvd., sited on a 10 ft. hill. Com. Adams suggested consideration of a .45 FAR rather than a.5 FAR. Mr. Piasecki stated that Staff felt that a combination of surcharge and F ARs would make a significant difference; the question remained regarding the numbers. Com. Szabo favored the 15 ft. surcharge, .4 FARs (excluding garages), prohibit three car garages in R -1-6 zoning districts. Com. Claudy favored a .4 FARs with some consideration for garages; however, he did not wish to see unlimited garage space. He wished to see more than a 15 ft. surcharge. Com. Adams favored .4 -.45 FAR (inc. garages), curved driveways and a 20 ft. setback. Com. Mackenzie favored a.5 FAR (inc. garages), curved driveways; he would accept 20 ft. surcharge, but preferred the 15 ft. surcharge and favored a 200 sq. ft. two car per garage with a bonus for the third car stall. Com. Claudy stated that he would not accept the 200 sq. ft. two car garage stall. Chairwoman Sorensen favored 4.5 FARs (with 200 ft. two-car garage), curved drive- ways, 15 ft. surcharge, 20 ft. setbacks. Mr. Childress commented that the above did not reflect the market place; he objected to penalizing development for a siting problem as Com. Claudy's example demonstrated. He noted the difficulty of addressing the issue without irtdividual design review of houses as done in an adjacent city; however, such was extremely lengthy for everyone involved. Mr. Hoxie favored a height limitation, perhaps 26 ft; he cited recent development and remodelling completed in his neighborhood. Mr. Jan Stoechenius, 22386 Cupertino Rd., Cupertino, felt that zoning may be causing problems; such could not be addressed by general restrictions; examples cited. Direction given to Staff on the Proposed Ordinance Regulating Residential, Single Family (Rl) Zones to be incorporated into the draft presented to the Commissin May 23, 1988. MOTION: Com. Claudy moved to Continue Applications 81,004.18 (Rl), 81,004.121 (A, AI) and 81,004.8 (RHS) to May 23, 1988. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1988 Page 9 PC - 542 NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Commission asked that Stafflook into the Trilogy Building roof construction Com. Adams reported on the City Council Meeting of April 18, 1988. Com. Mackenzie reported on the recent Mayor's luncheon. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: Written Report submitted DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :31 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission At the Regular Meeting of May 9, 1988 .i~j¡1&h, vJ. (~1i'1IÆfA- , alee Sorensen, ChaiÌ'Woman Attest: