PC 05-24-88
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 MAY 24, 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 Mackenzie
Commissioner Szabo
Staff Present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development
Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plannirtg Director
Glen Grieg, Traffic Engineer
Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 9,
1988, as presented.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen absent 3-0-1
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
ITEM 1: Application 42-U-87 - St. Joseph Church - Minor Amendment for a 465 sq. ft.
addition to an existing kitchen located at the intersection of N. De Anza Blvd.
and Stevens Creek Blvd. (10121 No. De. Anza Blvd.)
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 42-U-87.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen absent 3-0-1
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ITEM 2:
Application No(s)
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
Parcel Area (Acres):
l-CDPR3-88 and 3-V-88
Scott DesÌ!m Associates
Mrytle Chelbay
Southwest corner of Salem Ave. and Aloine Ave.
.3 ¡¡ross
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 2
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (I-CDPR3-88) To construct a residential
triplex (3 units) consisting of approximately 5,100 sq. ft.
VARIANCE (3-V-88) From Section 10.2 of Ordinance 779 to allow a three story
structure in lieu of a two story structure.
From Section 10.7 of Ordinance 779 to allow a 20 ft. fIrst floor rear setback in lieu of
the required 27 ft.
From Section 10.7 of Ordinance 779 to allow a 23 ft. second floor setback in lieu of the
required 37 ft.
FIRST HEARING CONTINUED:
(CONTINUED FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 9, 1988)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERM1NA TION: Categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20,1988
Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the history of the Application; he presented Site
and Building Plans and a Property Cross Section. He stated that the Commission might be
able to make a Finding due to the trees on-site and the minimal privacy intrusion resulting;
however, a Firtding based on the uniqueness of the property was not able to be made.
Com. Szabo noted that privacy intrusion depended upon the absolute number of feet and
not percentage; Mr. Cowan concurred that such should not be a function of lot depth but
rather distance from adjacent property owners.
Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Scott Cunningham, Scott Design Associates, presented
photographs and introduced Mrs. Chalbay.
Mrs. Mrytle Chelbay, Applicant, stated that she was building this structure as her home;
she planted the trees for privacy protection. She planned to occupy the new structure since
she now needed two bedrooms, one of which could be occupied by an attendant or aide.
Mr. Cunningham commented as follows:
- Three story criteria was used in order that the Applicant could have vehicle access to the
property; an elevator tower serviced both floors and allowed for wheelchair circulation
- Addressed Staff Report Variance Criteria as stated in his letter of May 9, 1988
Felt that the Criteria had been met and adjustments made to accommodate the neighbors
Due to slope of the property, alternative designs would require up to 7,000 cubic yards
of cut; cantilevering the building as suggested, would overshadow property to the west
- With respect to Variance Criteria, Preservation ofRi~hts, the Applicant lived in the area
22 years and had maintained this property; it was unfair that she could not use such
- With respect to Staff analysis that smaller units would work, the designers had spent
considerable time assessing what would/would not work
Units proposed were not particularly large and would provide a variety of housing
Objections raised by one neighbor had been withdrawn
Noted diffIculty irt fmding a defInition for three story; Uniform Building Code cited
Chr. Sorensen present at 7:50 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 3
PC - 544
PUBUC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Cunnirtgham addressed Staff Report, Conce,ptual Development Plan as follows:
Applicants were attempting to develop a quality project while dealing with two sets of
constraints, namely, R3 Ordinance and Variance constraints
With respect to concerns about the massive appearance of the westerly portion of the
building, the second story had been stepped back
With respect to the R3 Ordirtance, the proposed units would provide housing for the
elderly, possibly the handicapped, and low to moderate income housing
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. R. W. Brushwyler, 10143 Hillcrest Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows:
Strongly opposed granting a Variance; he did not oppose the buildirtg of a triplex
Felt his rights would be violated if the proposed house were moved closer to his home
Felt the Applicant was attempting to build more house than the lot could accommodate
Sma1ler units would not require a variance; the courtyard sacrificed neighbor's privacy
Cited other housing alternatives in Cupertino for the Applicant
Speaker had added screenirtg bushes to protect privacy
Mr. J. W. Woolfolk, 10123 Hillcrest Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows:
Urged denial of the variances requested and saw no justification for such
Ordirtances were in place to reduce mass and crowdirtg
Size of structures, constriction to the rear and height would impact neighbors
Was particularly concerned regarding the impact on views
Favored a sma1ler, less massive house on this site
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen abstaining
3-0-1
Com. Mackenzie felt that the Finding of special conditions or exceptional characteristics
had not been met; in addition, the easement did not qualify as an extraordinary circum-
stance. He was favorable to considering a variance for a duplex at this site. With respect
to the property owner's rights, there were other ways to build on the site; denial of the
variance would not deprive the Applicant of use of her property.
Com. Szabo noted that there was no absolute requirement for the square footage requested;
he felt that a variance could not be granted on this Application.
Vice Chr. Adams concurred that a variance could not be granted on grounds of special
conditions or exceptional characteristics of the property; the easements on-site were not that
difficult to work around. In addition, there was a fairly good size courtyard; he was
favorable to the triplex as zoned or consideration of a duplex on this property.
MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to grant a Negative Declaration
SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen abstaining
3-0-1
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to deny Application 3- V -88 making the Findirtgs.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed, Chr. Sorensen abstaining 3-0-1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 4
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to deny Application l-CDPR3-88
SECOND: Com.
V01E: Passed
3-0-1
Vice Chr. Adams turned the Chair over to Chr. Sorensen.
ITEMS 3. and 4. to be heard concurrently.
ITEM 3:
Application No(s)
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
Parcel Area (Acres):
3-U-88 and 8-EA-88
Ken Kav Associates
Tandem ComDuter
Tantau Ave. between 1-280 and Prunerid~e Ave.
WA
USE PERMIT (3-U-88) Application to refme a previously approved Master Use Permit
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 Avenue north of Interstate 280.
FIRST HEARING CONTINUED
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF APRIL 25, 1988)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMlNA TION: Negative Declaration
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20,1988
ITEM 4:
Application No(s): 7-U-88 and 13-EA-88
Applicant: Ken Kav Associates
Property Owner: Tandem Computers
Location: Southwest qµadrant. Tamau Ave. at Interstate 280
Parcel Area (Acres): 4.6 acres
USE PERMIT (7-U-88) To construct and operate a 40,000 sq. ft. industrial building
containirtg offices, laboratories, dual anechoic chamber and one story lobby linking to
the existing structure on the site.
FIRST HEARING CONTINUED
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 9, 1988)
ENVIRONMENTAL DE1ERMlNA TION; Negative Declaration
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 6, 1988
Staff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the Application for a Master Use Permit and
stated that the Applicant had surveyed 14 other sites with an exclusion of lobby space. Site
was zoned Planned Development with MP (Planned Manufacturing) intent; as such a
Variance for setback encroachments was not required.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 5
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARING Continued
ADDlicant's Presentation: Mr. Doug Spilman, Facilities Manager, reviewed the Application
and introduced Mr. Barber to present a view of the Tandem Campus Complex.
Mr. Paul Barber, Ken Kay Associates, presented a series of exhibits and commented:
- Presented the existing site and the proposed changes to the Campus Plan
Reviewed Building 55: site area, landscaping, siting/elevation and design of anechoic
chamber, sight line/shade drawings of the building and relocation of the parking areas
- Concern regarding noise were addressed as follows:
Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures Report was completed and reviewed
An 8 Ft. high wing wall in the loading dock area would be constructed to address
sirtgle event (non-continuous) noises
Building itself would block some of the ambient noises occurring over a 24 hour
period of time (Freeway, No. Tantau Ave., Parking lot)
Consideration given to construction of a masonry wall on the property line extend-
ing irtto the Val1co Parking area, pending Val1co's agreement, to block noise to the
adjacent residential area
_ Trash Contairters: truck traffic circulation pattems reviewed; consideration given to re-
location of the trash contairters
Mr. Bob Evans, Architect, presented exhibits and commented as follows:
Wished to demonstrate that the prnject had evolved to meet neighborhood concerns
- Presented exhibits showing designs before and after Architectural and Site Review
- Noted relocation of the anechoic chamber adjacent to Tantau Avenue
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Richard Wentz, 320 Howard Dr., Santa Clara, presented the following statements:
- Justification for deI1Yin~ apDlications
Conditions ReQ)Iested as part of Construction and IT se Permit for Tandem Buildin~ 55:
Noted concern that presentation of such would indicate that residents were agreeable to
the Application; residents were absolutely opposed to the proposed construction
- Copy of the Inner Ci\Y AiI'Cement between CQpcrtino and Santa Clara. 1963: stated that
Tandem's Application could be considered a violation of this agreement
- Petition presented from residents requesting denial of this Application
- Reviewed ongoing maintenance, security and communications problems; noted visual
impacts of the proposed structure
In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, he stated that re-siting Building 55 as now
proposed would mitigate some concerns, but not the concerns about the building itself.
Mr. George Woodward, 260 Howard Dr., Santa Clara, presented photographs showing
visual impacts to his propeny from the Tandem facilities. While Tandem was courteous
and responsive to neighbor's concems, neighbors adamantly opposed this Application.
Mr. William W. DeHart Jr., 3898 Hancock Dr., Santa Clara, commented as follows:
- Cited the significant considerations surrounding the elevation of the new structure
Questioned why the project was not identified as a 47,000 sq. ft. building
_ Elevation was 3 ft. higher than the rear yard elevation of residences on Howard Dr;
existing fencing was not secure
- Urged considerations of the objections raised by the residents
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 6
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Art Osaki, Tandem, responded to Com. Adams' question, provided information on
the existing cooling tower and stated that relocation of such had not yet been determined.
Mr. Barber provided additional information on the [mished floor elevation, slope of the site
and the Applicant's proposal as shown on diagrams presented; he reviewed the landscape
screening the trees would provide for the anechoic chamber.
Mr. Wentz reviewed previous discussions on the 8 ft. masonry wall and requested con-
tinuing communication between the residents, Staff and the Applicant.
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hearing
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed
4-0
Com. Szabo was concerned in Application 7-U-88, regatding the 37 ft. distance between
the proposed structure and residential; in view of the request for transfer of credit, he felt
that more concessions should be made by Tandem. He cited the resident's concerns.
Com. Mackenzie concurred, citing standards of the new Ordinance requiring a 100ft. dis-
tance from the property line for structures irt excess of a 30 ft. height; he noted the minimal
37 ft. distance of the proposed structure. While such was acceptable in a Planned Develop-
ment, he was concerned about the adjacent residential and favored Conditions mitigating
impacts of what amounted to a 47,000 sq. ft. box. He suggested the followirtg mitigations:
Fence improvements along the property line of the residential use subject to review by
Santa Clara and Cupertino Staff
Use of wood frame and stucco fence
Roof screening of mechanical equipment to be added
Com. Adams cited similar situations irt the City and noted the site improvements. Impacts
could be mitigated with additional redwood tree plantings; however, such would have to be
trimmed and maintained. He could accept the plan presented; such met the guidelines. He
questioned other Commissioner on an acceptable distance from the property line.
Com. Szabo responded that with further consideration a better design could be presented.
Chr. Sorensen would accept this proposal with Conditions suggested above, adding a
provision under Condition 18 requiring replacement trees to be of comparable size. She
strongly favored the proposed fence between this use and the adjacent residential and as
suggested, further clarification on the type of masonry wall to be installed.
With respect to Application 3-U-88 the following comments were made:
Com. Adams asked that wording be added to insure that the anechoic chamber nor the
recreation facility be used for office, industrial and/or manufacturing use should sale of
property or building occur; Ms. Lopez suggested that CC&Rs could be added to address
this concern.
Mr. Cowan added that a Trip Count would also apply to this site; however, the anechoic
chamber could be addressed irt a separate condition since it was a specialized use facility.
Com. Adams concurred, asking that the Commission review a change in use of the facility.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 7
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Com. Adams suggested a Condition 24 be added to Application 7-U-88, addressing the
placement of trash enclosures in the southerly portion of the site; in addition the relocation
of the cooling tower shall be reviewed by Staff.
Mr. Piasecki suggested that Condition 14, add, "..a wood frame, stucco faced wall.."
With respect to Application 3-U-88, consensus reached on the following Condition:
13. Precise square footage to be clarified prior to the Hearirtg by the City Council
Add, "..limited to non-commercial use of Applicantl company employees..."
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 8-EA-88
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed
4-0
MOTION: Com. Szabo moved to recommend approval of Application 3-U-88 subject to
conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the
Model Resolution: Conditions 1-12; Condition 13 amended to reflect precise
square footage and add to final paragraph, "limited to non-commercial use of
Applicantl company employees"
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved approval of Application 13-EA-88
SECOND: Com.
VOTE: Passed
3-1
With respect to Application 7-U-88, Motion to include the following amendments:
12. Approved Exhibits: per Applicant's request not the have Application retum to ASAC
for review, designs submitted at this Hearing to be approved. Condition amended to
read, "Exhibit B-1, Second Revision and Exhibit B, Second Revision"
14. Masonl:)' Wall: to include a stucco firtish subject to Staff Review
18. Tree Protection: add paragraph "Replacement of trees along the eastern property lirte
which are no longer living with comparable variety of 24 irtch box redwood tree.
20. Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment: add, "roof screen shall continue around the
North elevation and match the height and design of the anechoic chamber."
22. Condition deleted; following conditions to be renumbered as appropriate.
Trash Enclosure: Condition added that trash enclosures be enclosed and placed in the
southerly portion of the site
Coolin~ Tower: Condition added to indicate that the cooling tower would be relocated
to the southeasterly portion of the site, subject to Staff approval
Condition added to approve the cyclone fence at 6 ft. height along the park boundary,
subject to approval by Santa Clara and Cupertino
Condition added stating, "Exterior construction activity shall be limited to the hours of
8 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday; all other hours construction shall be limit-
ed to the interior of the building and enclosed portions of the building, conforming to
the Noise Ordinance requirements."
Condition added, "24 inch box trees are to be installed on the second row on the east
side of Building 55."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 24, 1988
Page 8
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of Application 7-U-88 subject
to conclusions and subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the
Model Resolution: Conditions 1-11; Condition 12: amended to read, "Exhibit
B-1, Second Revision" and "Exhibit B, Second Revision." Condition 13;
Condition 14. to require a stucco firtish subject to Staff Review. Masonry Wall
to extend along the south end of the parking lot; Applicant will work with Staff
to extend the wall along the northerly portion of the site. Condition 15-17;
Condition 18. add to read, "Replacement of trees along the eastern propeny
line which are no longer living shall be of comparable variety of a 24 inch box
redwood tree." Condition 19; Condition 20. add, "Roof screen shall continue
around the North elevation and match the height and design of the anechoic
chamber." Condition 21; Condition 22 deleted; Condition 23 to become 22;
Add Condition 23: Trash Enclosure: Trash enclosures shall be enclosed and
placed irt the southerly portion of the site." Add Condition 24. Coolin~ Tower:
Tbe cooling tower shall be relocated to the southeasterly portion of the site,
subject to Staff approval." Add Condition 25. approving a cyclone fence at 6
ft. height along park boundary subject to approval by Santa Clara, Cupertino.
Add Condition 26. "Exterior construction activity shall be limited to the hours
of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday; all other hours of construction
shall be limited to the interior of the building and enclosed portions of building,
conforming to Noise Ordinance requirements." Add Condition 27. "24 inch
box trees are to be installed on the second row on east side of Building 55."
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed, Com. Szabo dissenting 3-1
Com. Szabo noted for the record he was not favorable to approval of the Application due
to the size of the proposed building for the lot; under such circumstances, the building
should have been as unobtrusive as possible.
Consensus reached that Public Testimony would be taken on Item 5, Amendment of the
Residential Zoning Ordinance with Items 6, 7, 8 to be Continued to a Regular Adjourned
Meeting of the Planning Commission on May 31,1988; Item 9 to be heard at this time.
Break: 10:40 - 10:50 P.M.
ITEM 5:
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
Parcel Area (Acres)
81.004.18 (Ri). 81.004.12HA. Ai). 81.004.8 (RHS)
2-EA-88. 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88
Ci1y of Cuuertino
CitYwide
w.A
AMENDMENT OF THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCES:
Rl Residential, Single-family
RHS Residential, Hillside
Al Agricultural-Residential
A Agricultural
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May, 1988
Page 9
PC - 544
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Said amendments may include revision of the requirements pertaining to setbacks,
height, building area, bulk, lot size, landscaping, definitions and uses.
FIRST HEARING CONTINUED
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF APRIL 25, 1988)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 20,1988
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Jim Mueller, 11055 LaPaloma Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows:
Minor Variations Setbacks and Heights:
- Objected to deletion of requirement of neighbors consent for minor Variations
_ Include paragraph, "Declaration Imposing Conformance and Restrictions to meet
conformity and harmony of external design and not interferirtg with reasonable
enjoyment of other lots or plots in the area."
Recommendations: objected to allowing the property owner to decide the off-set
position of a building; cited examples irt his neighborhood
Cited documents already recorded as of July 1964 in Official Records of Santa Clara
County and apparent violations occurrirtg in his neighborhood
Cited privacy impacts from the height and density being allowed irt the City
Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Rd., Cupertino, commented as follows:
Noted the lack of grandfatherirtg projects developed under the Interim Qrdirtance
Cited his project developed under the Interim Ordinance and suggested wording for
adding a clause to the new Qrdirtances
In Fences, RH Zone Setback Reqµirements. for lots under 30,000 sq. ft., there was
no indication of fenced area; however, after 30,000 sq. ft., requirements addressed
lots of 5,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Joe Tyrrell, 11046 Linda Vista Dr., Cupertino, commented as follows:
Objected to Paragraph 4 and felt that neighbors should have a say in changes made
Noted that the Commission had approved, with one dissenting vote, the Application
made by Tandem Computers; he questioned the purpose of rules and regulations
Felt strongly that rules and regulations should be adhered to
The Public Hearing remained open.
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Application 81,004.18 (Rl), 81,004.
121(A, AI), 81,004.8 (RHS) 2-EA-88, 3-EA-88 and 4-EA-88 to the Regular
Adjourned Meeting of May 31,1988.
SECOND: Com. Adwms
VOTE: Passed 4-0
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM 6: Application 28-U-80 - Digital Equipment Corporation - Request of interpreta-
tion of a minor amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meetirtg of May, 1988
Page 10
PC - 544
NEW BUSINESS Continued
ITEM 7: - Application No(s) 22-EA-88 and 81,003.618 Applicant: City of Cupertino
ITEM 8: - Application No(s) 23-EA-88 and 81,003.618 Applicant: City of Cupertino
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to Continue Applications 28-U-80, Digital Equipment
Corp., 22-EA-99, 81,003.618 and 23-EA-88, 81,003.618 to the Regular
Adjourned Meeting of May 31, 1988.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
ITEM 9: I-M-88 - Saleem Shaikg - Requestirtg interpretation of a minor amendment to
an existing use permit for a 3,000 sq. ft. single family home. Modifications
include relocation of the home and architectural drawings. The property is
located at the northern terminus of Riviera Rd. approximately 100 ft. north of
Scenic Circle.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the Application and presented a Site Plan;
questions addressed by the Commission were answered.
Applicant's Presentation: The Applicant had no additional comment to add.
Com. Adams had no objections to approving the Application.
MOTION: Com. Szabo moved approval of Application I-M-88 subject to conclusions and
subconclusions of the Staff Report and this Hearing per the Model Resolution.
SECOND: Com. Adams
VOTE: Passed 4-0
MOTION: Com. Adams moved to adjourn the Meeting of the Planning Commission to the
Regular Adjourned Meeting on May 31, 1988.
SECOND: Com. Szabo
VOTE: Passed 4-0
ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned
at 11:10 P.M. to the Regular Adjourned Meeting of May 31,1988
at 7:30 P.M.
,
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Carol A. Probst-Caughey
Carol A. Probst-Caughey,
Recordmg Secretary