The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 09-27-65 l � ' j �: . .. ^ � _ . _. a... . .. _ _._. _ � _ .__ _. ..._.�.. .._..... , . .. . . .. . .. ......... ._ ._..,.. ... .. . ..........'....'--- i � �A �AdOJ ` AdOJ ` � AdOJ , �OLf3X � � OZl3X �� OLi3X � .' OL13X /� 1 � � J�� .. I � ( �, C` V /✓v � , 10321 Sauth Sarato�a-Sunnyvale Road � � � Cup�rtino, Californ:La, 9501�4 - phone: 252 -�5c5 : _-------------------------------------------.---------------------- � PC-R17 . ' EiO, 000 . � ; . ` ��. CITY 0F CUPERT,INO. � California ��.MTNUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIIdG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI0�1 � . . � September.27; ` 8:,00. P.M. . The.mee�ing was h�ld in tYie Board Room, Cupertino Elementary School Dis�rict�Office,,10300 Vista Drive, Cupertino I. SALUTE TO THE FLAG � � � II .;ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting, 8/23/65 �:. � Comm, present:� Frolich; Hirshon, •Johnson, Traeum�r, Gates �� Comm: absent: None .Staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson : Dir. oi Public Works, Frank'.Finney � ' , ..: City En�ineer, Bob Shook� ' Dir. of .Planniz�g, Adde Laur.in ' �. Assistant Planner; Jar�es Nuzum � � .:Recording Secretary, Sylvia.Hinrichs :,, , � Moved' by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by,Comm. Johnson, to , � approve'the minutes of the September 13th meeting. � Motion carried, 5-0 • � III ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, ETC. .: 3�U-65� A. . PACIFICA C0. PARTNERSHIP: Use Permit 'for Medical- ��- � Dental Center at 20�l11 Pacifica Drive�. First . � Hearin�. Application withdrawno � ' 3-TM-65 �; B. ASKAM-JONES: Applic�t3.on .for a Tenta•tive Map; 5p,�i A-2:B-�4 development (one-acre lots), 6�! acres on the hills west of the extension of-Mercedes Road. TYie' Planning Director .reported tY�i�s app1. was post- ' poned again to al2ow the:applicant to revise his plans ,, �� as su�gested� by the staff.: He added that the applicant has indicated his willingness to go along with the �'su;gestions and if the results were an improvement to •-� � the develop.ment, it�� woul'd be to the advantage of th� ' . City to accept the delay.. Comm. Traeumer sudge�ted a be made that when an applicant_appears before the�Commission�after more than -1- t r... ,:..__ ,v.....:ii._.._.. ......_ ._.. ._.__.. ,�.._. _ � _ ...._...'-_. ._._...._.�..__. r.: - _ . ..... ---._... .. _...-.....__,.,.y..,,:-...-._.,-...., . . . . . . . . � ' MdOO �' ��AdOJ i � . ... .- �. AdOO . . ... . � /.dU� i:.{' '�. �Otl3XF �Otl3Xf `Ot93X iOH3X - .,_. _ � PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetin;, 9/27/�5 , --------------------------------------------------------------------- one postponement he be required to pay an adcli.tional fee. Comm. Johnson added that the item then should be treated as a new application with complete fee, advertisin� and posting procedure. �, Comm. Frolich proposed that if an item to be heard was postponed it would automatically be delayed for thirty days rather than until the next regular meetin�. Com- missioners Traeumer and Johnson also sug�ested that if the application was postponed throu;h no fault af the applicant, then he should be courteous enough to appear before the Commission and explain the delay and answer questions from the staff and the people who had come to hear the application. Comm. Traeumer recommended that in case of a hearing for rezoning, consideration be �iven to the type of develop- ment for which this zoning is requested - many applica- tions which request a r�zonin� will be denied by the Commission because they do not conform to the General Plan, and thus waste the time of the Commission and the • applicant. Comm. Traeumer made a motion for a Minute Order: If an application for rezoning is denied it should preclude application on the same prop�rty for a � minimum of six months;�the applicant could be advised to re-apply for another zoning after that period. Comm. Traeumer cited instances in other cities where this � procedure is followed. Comm, Johnson pointed out that a property owner has a"right to apply for any rezoning he wishes, if he submits an application and pays the proper fees. Cornm. Traeumer withdrew his m�tion, and asked the staff if they had an opinion on time limits for postponements, and sugges�ed a study be made. The City Attorney indicated that according to the Govern- ment Code, 3.n the event an annexation is made, there must be a delay for a period of.one year before re-applying. Some cities have extended t�is ruling to rezoning. However, to initiate null and void proceedings on a rezonin� would bind the Plannin� Commission, if there has been a material change since the last,application. . MINUTE ORDER Moved B;� Comm, Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Traeumer to instruct the staff to make a study of the time limits for postponements of applications, �. especially with re�ard to rezonin�s; �..�: � and to determine v�hether a continuation of Application 3-TP�I-65 should be � treated as a new app�.ication. � AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates ' NAYS: Comm, Frolich � � Motion carried, �-1 • -2- ,� ..._ ____�_ ......_�....._—..,.,,..._r.�_ .�..:. �,..�_,�..,,s,..._. .. ,- ..... _ _. } . _ . ..� _: ......._ ._ .. . .__ ._._. _ _ , ��d00 � � AdOJ't AdOJ . A dUJ ��uY ' O!!3X I ' � 02l3X { 'OL13X �0273X � ....�" . /._�,,.. �� ,.. .- . �� PC_R17__._ Minutes_of�the_Planning_Commission Meeting, � IV 4+TRITTEN CGMMUNICATIONS . • 18-Z -65.�; Lett�r of,protest concernin� Appl,ication 18-z-b5 will �� be discussed under Item VI-A. V VERBAL.COMMUNICATIONS� 80,002.9 A. Meeting of the.General Assembly of the Association of Bay Area Governments. _ 80,002.U]. B. Regional Conference, Foothill Co11e�e The Planning Director reminded the Commission that • reservations must be made for.these two meetings if � the members plan to attend. � 15-U c . DICK PACHECO: Request for a temporary sign at .`�� Highway 85 , south of Junipero Serra Freeway. ' Mr. Dicic Pacheco, Realtor, represent�.tive of the owner of property l�cated on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road � adjacent to the Junipero Serra Freeway asked Chairman Gates for permission to speak. He stated there were 28-30 acres involved in this parcel and he has a client ��. who is interested in it ior a regional shoppin� center, � with option to purchase. The client is coming from the East some'cime within two weelcs, and to desi�nate the property location for the client he installed a�l�x8' si�n. He was instructed by tne Buildxng Inspector to remove it, which he did. He was now appealing to the Planning Commission for special dispensation to allow : him to put the sign back up for a period of �wo wee�cs, which r��ould distingu3.sh the property for the client's inspection. =�'After a brief d�.scussion, it was suggested by the City ' _ Attorney that a Use Permit be granted to allow the - inst,allation of the sign for a limited time. Chairman � Gates asked Mr. Pacheco if a three-week time limit • would be�preferable to the two-week limit. Mr. Pacheco . affirmed this. ' , - Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm, Johnson, that a Use Permit for the sign be granted, limited to a , three-week period, � AYES: Comm.�Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Gates �NAYS:� Comm. Traeumer • Motion carried, �-1 �_ -3- _ __.._ _ ._..-.. .. .,r__,.. :.,�.,...,. ....,; ,... , . _�;,,., . . . . - .__ _._ . _ � �AdOJ: � I AdOJ; .. . � .. AdOJ. '.�dOJ:r; 02i3X � . � 02l3X i � ' . . ' . . .. - � '02i3X �OLi77( , -_...-. ..�.✓- � , - .. .. . ._. ... .. .. - � PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetin�,.9�27�65 -. Chairman Gates asked for.comments from the audience. � - Mr. Mark.Kelley, 20��8 KirG�ain Lane; submitted a letter of protest which was read by the Chairman, asking the Planning Commission to consider several factors before ��rantin� this rezoning; (1)` The property is adjacent to single-family resi- � ' dential property, (2) There is no possibility of providing a buffer , between the many types of undesirable commercial ., ent�erprises and the adjacent residences, � (3) Rezoning to Prafessional Office use would be more appropriate than to uncontrolled cor�mercial. � Comm. Hirshon asked the applicant � if he would ob�,::.t to � .� �� a PO-H zoning. Mr. Dumont pointed out that since the . corner is now zoned commercial, it would be difficult to develop a satisfactory complex in the 11,000 sq, ft. area remaining. He added that the corner of Bollinger and Hwy. 85 is in a heavy traff ic area, and a retail development which he proposes to locate on this property would call for C-1-H as the proper zoning. He has several clients who ar� interested in the property for commercial (or retail) use because it is close �o the . hi�hway, and 150' from a busy stre�t (Bollinger). There are approximately �40,000 cars a day on H��ay. 85, and he feels this tiaould not be conducive to residential zonin� in this heavy traffic area. He daes not feel the PO-H zoning would be satisfactory for this property� The Planning Director said the policy established in Cupertino has been that.there be LE00' depth on com- mercial property, and in this case the two lots combined •... total only 160',• however, this is still spot zonin�. He would su�gest C-1-H zonin� with a condition requir- ing a proper buffer or screenin� from the residential property. . � Comm. Frolich statea that even if C-1-H was granted, we have only the depth of 160', and he does not feel � C-1-H is the proper zoning. The General Plan en- . � coura�es commercial u.se in lar�er areas, rather than � . � spot zonin�. � Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm;.Johnson, to close the Public Hearings. . Motion carried, 5-0 • . Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Chairman Gates, tl�at .. application 18-Z-65 be denied. � AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnsor�;` Traeur�er, Gates NAYS : None. . . � � . � Motion carried, 5-0 � _ -�- . .�... ___. ._._.�.._� ...._ __. r_._. ,�... .._ _ .....� __ __ _ �. . , ; � _ _ . .._. _ ._ __ ___ _ . _ �AdOJ � �Ac10J! �AdOJ � � A�iU:�e.+ OZ13X - . OLl3X r �OtJ3X � � � �� i 0r13X _ � _ , � _ _� �.. � : • _ PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 9/27/65 Chairman�Gates advised�the applicant of his right to .,:.appeal the decision within.5 days; it would probably be . .� heard by.the City,Council October 18th.�'Chairman Gates further commented that ;if dev.elopers� are interested in � a ma�or shoppin� center s3..te, the. Plannin� Commission should look caref ul1y,,. _ not only `from the standpoint of the City's General Plari but alsa`into the`prospects of bringing shoppin� into C,upertino. • . . .. . ; � : � � C4mm. .Traeumer ,added that now that the C.-1.-H zoning has beeri .clenied he fe�ls �here may _be , c�ertain �sympathies for a . PO-H . zoriing.. : .. : , .. . , � ,� . . : � : ._`; • , � , ; ' i � � M-65�; B, MACKAY �HOMES: Tentative �Map for �development, east of -,__^_� Foothill Blvd., south of Har.tman Driv�, 3� acres. �- . Continued ,I�e�aring. � � • � � i. �; . . , . � . � . . .. .. . ..Chairman Gates recapped�th'e highlights of`.the application � as . foTlow.s : : . ��. . The Plannin� Commission originally•�ranted a rezonin� � �(8-Z-65) of this�property to R-l; for a`33-acre portion at the meetin� of .June� l�+;t:h by Resolutiori ,No. 272, subject . � t.o . the 12� starida .rd condit ions, . plus _ = ` - �,13),�Access: road.to be constructed'by the�.developer, to connect"with.Foothill Blvd,, via Alpiri.e Drive. - .,� �� 1��) The. 33. acres v�ii11 ,coritain no m�re �:tYian 111 lots . 15) The Tentative.l�ap must provide access 'for lots along ' _ Foothill� Blvd; to,the_internal str�et pattern, so that they can be served from the east'side rather . than.from Foo�hill Blvd�.' ��'�his Resolution was passed, �y, �he 'City Council Ordinance . No .'.313; a� their meetin�� of Ju1:y :7 1g65 .' , �. . At the same me:eting �of , JunA 1?}th; the ` Pla�ining Commission :. denied a.pplication , 7-2=65 , . for the� rezonirig of 1.1 acres � of this property� to R-3=H, by Resolution No . 271, which was upheld by the City Council at their meet�in� of July 7 19�5 ' .� `�At the Plannin�:Coinmission:meetin� �of°August 9th, Appli- _ .. cation 16=Z.-65�, of� Pal� :Alto Developm,ent Company, for . �. ` rezonin� �the., 1.1, - acres to . R=2,--H_ use, vqas�� passed by � � �tesolution No, 28j, 'sub�ject �t'o �,the 12��standard conditions ' plus : . .. , . � . 13� There shall be no.acce.ss throu�h the.area to be ' ` � ' rezoned 'from � FootYi`ill. Blvd . � to� internal streets . � 1�1) Access sha1l be"� provide'd for the ].ots ' alon� Foothill B2vd. �to� the interrial street pattern, so that they . be ser.ved from the , east side ra�her than from . . . . - � 'Foo�thill� �lvd. � . . , . : ,. � 15) Ea.ch duplex sha7.`1� have �at�� least��thre�e'�enclosed garage � �-• �� . - � . spaces; iM o�rder �;o . �revent, exces�;ive parking in streets that also would serve.•.an �.-x�;�.a;;zoned R-1. �.. . � . . .. . . . -6- , , , � ___.._. _. a_.. ... �_ _.__.___. �._. , . . ��, _ ._ ._ ._... __.. .., . . �,. __._ _. ___ . � �AdO:J Ac,OJ i AdOJ AciGJ �,;y � Ol13X � '� OLr3X ; � Oil3X � Ot13X ^ - - J � PC-R17 Minutes of the P?_anning Commission Meeting, 9/27/65 .The City Council approved�the application with their �. Ordinance No: 320, at their meeting of Sept. 7 1965 sub�ect to the 12�Standard Conditions, but excluding � conditions 13, 1�, &�15 imposed by the Planning - Commission. •�' � Chairman Gates .pointed out; that:the applicant has�' � not in his Tentative Map, followed-the conditions �- �� ,attached to the rezonings. The reasons behind these conditions are still.en�irely valid. . �� Chairman Gates �,sked what happens, now when the City .�Council has.included the conditions in rezoning 8-Z-65, but eliminated them from rezoning 16-Z-65; the con- ditions affect the entire area covered by both re- � zonings. The Planning Director stated (though he said � th�s perhaps was hearsay, and not permiss,ible as evi- "�' ` dence), tha.t he had asked Councilman Firich after the ' �• � September ' 7th mee�ing, whether the .eliminatic�n of the � conditioris was intended as.a final decision on the � standaxd of Foothill Blvd., or only an indication that � possible conditions should be a part of the Tentative Map procedure rather than�the.rezoning; the answer was � that the elimination was not intended to tie the Plan- . .. • riing Commission�s judgment on•the Tentative Map. The City Attorney stated that we now have a situation where these co ltions are a part of one rezoning Ordinance, No.�313, though eliminated from another, �:• No. 320. If the City Council wants the conditions , eliminated entirely, this can only be done by a.n emergency ordinance amending No, 313. As for the Tentative Map, it is both the right and the duty of the Planxling Commission to use their own judgment, recommending approval, denying it, or inform the applicant what changes would make it acceptable. �. Chairmari Gates noted that the 'R--1 part of the Ten- �� - tative Map has nne more lot than the 111 allowed by .. the rezonin�. Also, there seems.to be a discrepancy between the legal descriptions accompanyirig the re- zonings and the Tentative Map regarding the boundary between.the R-1 and R-2-H zones. iKr. Somps, the applicantts representative, said that.this could be corrected in the Final Map. ' . _ , _ . . , . . . , :� � ..�- _ .. . ..__.. ..._.__ . _ ..- --. _. _ ...,. ....�,. . ._.... . _. ..._ . _ .... y �� • �AdO�'� Ac10J� . . � AdO� � A�iUJ Y�.0 � �OLi3Xi 02f3X� �Oa3X 'nv�x _ � . -... �_. _ � _ . PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, g/27/65 Mr. Somps informed the Planning Commission tha.t the part of Cook and Wilson's property which would be required for th� connection to Alpine Drive now is optioned to another party, which option expires in March, 1966 This creates an awkward situation, apart from technical difficulties created by the steep terrain, Mr. Somps was of the opinion that the now proposed connection to Foothill Blvd. at the c of the hill was much better - from all points of vie��:. The Planning Director reiterated •that this connection wo��ld create intersections in . • Foothill Blvd., too close for an efficient signalization of this ma�or arterial. � �Comm. Frolich was concerned about the�elimination by the -: City Council of Condition #15 to 16-Z-65, which required additional garages. Chairma:� Gates asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Walter Ainsworth, 10629 Ainsworth Drive, President of Creston Improvement Association, stated that the �enta- . tive Map presented tonight is a great� improvement over the previous one. However, he would suggest there be , an outlet to Hillcrest, which could be connected i,o - Alpine Road. He said they would have preferred to have 10,000 sq. ft. lots, but as the Ordinar_ce requires - ,. 7,500 sq. ft. for R-1, they have no objection to the number of lots in the presented inap. Mr. DeT�Titt, 10395 Rivercrest Court, agreed with Mr. Ainsworth. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seccnded by Comm., Johnson, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carriec�, 5-0 There was considerable discussion about the problems caused by the City Council's elimination of the conditions to rezoning 16-Z-65. _ Moved by Comm. Frolich, secanded by Comm. Johnson, that Application 8-TM-65 be denied for the reason that it does not comply with the conditions of the Planning Commission's Resolutions No. 272 and 28g and the City Council's Ordinance No 313 AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Gates � NAYS: Comm. Traeumer' Motion carried; �4-1 , Comm. Frolich noted that the Commission feels this was the proper method of treating this application. It is the responsibility of the Commission to set conditions to i.he _ application before granting it. By denying it, provided this denial is appealed to the City Council, it can be determined why the Council deleted the conditions imposed by the Commission. -8- ' --- ----- .. �..,..._........,�,...__...__.,... ,._ .. ...,�. -...... �. __ ---- -__._ .�..._...._ __._ _ r - ..dOJ�r � .AdOJ�( � . •..•. . - • ,� ...«•• . .~ AdOJ. )AdUJGi' ' OM3X ! �� OiJ3X { �' OLf3X t Oti3X __ . .;._/ � ._. . . .. _ � � ''T PC=R17 � Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, g/27/65 � CYiairman.Gates instructed the staff to include City '� �Council Resolutions and other documents ''pertainirig to the Tentative Map application�when sub- mitted to the City�Council, �.. MINUTE ORDER Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by �, � Comm. Johnson, that trie Planning Commis- � � sion wishes to direct the City Cour.cil's � � • attent3.on to Condition #15 of Resolu- .: � tion No 289 emphasizing the �importance - � of this cor�dition in a mixed R-1 and � R-2-H area, and questioning whether it . . is possible to re-introduce this_condition � ' to the rezonin�. AYES: Comm. Frolich,,Hirshon, Johnson, Gates• � NAYS: Comm. Traeumer .. ' . � - - Motion carried, 4-1 • Chairman Gates requested a 5-minute break at 9:30 P.Mo ,��(-��i��'�-L� C. DITZ-CRANE: Tentative Map for a 37.9 acre �__r-. development, Bubb Road at Colurabus Avenue. - . Firs.t Hearing. ' Mr. George Somps, repr�senting the developer, explained that`this.plan was proposed for Units 1, 2, 3, and included 1�45 lots for single-family R-1 dwelling units, Chairman Gates asked for comments from the staf�f. � The Director of Public Works �aid the development �s on flat land, and he can see no probl.ems nor difficulties; however, there is an extensive drainage pipe running the length of Columbus Avenue and he wants the applicant to ' be advised of this. . The Pl�a.nning Director reminded the Commission that Santa Clara County's General Plan shows an Inter-City Arterial connecting Foothill Expressway with.Prospect Blvd; this arterial would a.lso •be the main access to the western half of Cuper.tino. To preserve the possibility of this arterial, a,radical.revision of.l� ti vould be necessary. The Planning �Director said that he realized that the approval a year ago of 7-Tn7-6� (Ward Crump's development at Bubb Road) constituted a re,jection of the proposed arterial by the Pl�.nning _C:ommission �and the City Council, but he thought it was his duty to once more bring up ; this question. Zf- the possibility to builcl the � arterial�in the future is lost now the expected heavy traFfic has to filter through local residential streets, which would be disast.r.ous to the neighborhood. _9_ ...f .___�_._ __....___--,_ ._...__ .. _. _�. __.._.._._ .. . ._ _... _ _ �.,. �AdO.'1 � � ~ ...�fOJ �� . AdOJ � -� AdOJ i✓ � OL13X �� OLt3X ; � OLi3X i OL/3X "_.. r , -.. ,. .. _ � � � ._ PC-R17 Minutes of the Flanning Commission Meeting, 9/27/65 ------------------------------------------------------------------ � � �, The Planning Director then said, if the Plannin� Com- mission��wishes to re-evaluate the decision of a year ��; ., ago, it would be necessar.y to continue:t,h� Hearinb to ' - . t.h�' next mee.ting..... Otherwise, the � Plannin�.,D�.r�ec�or � � � . . ` h�,d� no ob�ections to� �14 -TM-65, . � � � .. Mr. Don Bandley; �21?�1� Columbus ,Avenue �and Mr, Ralph �. .. ..., . Beasley, 21613 Terrac� irive, mai�ntain that they would ��.'� ' .. .:. ob�ect�to widening Bub� Road to 90'. �Ir. Beasley asked � �`"� �- .what had happe�ied, to� the p1an, to continue �ubb Road over "� � a� �"'• :� : the ra'�:lroad compiex� at Stevens..� Cr.eek'.;Blvd. The Planning �� ,. . DireCtor.�said that`Bubb Road continuation over the rail- �•° - :� road-'is still, in the pl�ans. ��' �... ,� Zn�answer�to a questinn by Mr. Beasley, the Director of Public Worka said tYiat:no grading plan exists yet. Mr. Somps said tha� the first two units, No. 1 and No. 2, . will be below ground eievation, but unit 3 will be kept a�� the same elevation as the existing subdivision. � Moved by Comm� J�ohnson,� seconded�.by� Comm. Frclich, to _ close the Pub,lic Hearings: '- .. �y ' � Motion carried, 5-0 � � Comm. Johnson asked the Planniri�' �D�rector if the ma�or . . , 'arterial woul.d involve other ,jurisdictions, including �San�Jose and.the County,-,and would they share the costs? ,. . � The Planning Director�answered that they have been ap- -� •- proached but San Jose has already built their section . •- : ; withou.t �regard to the Count�r General Plan. . . . �, . . � , , . � � Comm. Frolich �asked if �there have �been any ob,jections � •'�. �_, , from the various agenc.ies on this 'Tentative Map. The �� :.. �. � P3anning Director _said there� have been none, except � ;;:.:. , , � •� • . -, . , ; from �he. Coun�y.'s �Planning Department . '�� .. � ' �Chairman Gates pointed ou.t tYiat the Tentative Map must 'still be approVed�by.the City Council at its October �tth � . meeting, and the P1�anning Director can introduce his ,. ,. .. .. ; plan for the arterial befo.re the Council makes a decision. � � - . .. ' � ' Moved �by Comm: �Johrison , that Application. 1�-TP�I-65 be appro�red, �' � � '�tivith ,special c`onsideration given to the drainage problem ' �:: �;� �. � �� along lots. 45 , 58, 59 and; because of the recent . � - � • � . . . � " dr��inage problem on Terr.ace. �Drive. Comm. Frolich -- : . . ' �: ' seconde.d� , tYie motion : . . .. . � . . . � • . �: • ' - � � � , �� ' AYES; �Comm. Frolich, . Johnson, `Traeumer, Gates ; - ., -� NAYS : , Comm. ' Hirshon . ` ' � - . .. . • . . ' . . . � . . Mo�ion carried, 4-1 � . .. . . � . . ,; . r .. v ._ .. . � � � � • �� . . . , ' ' .. � .. . . . . .. —�ti/T . , �.�:. __ - .. _ �.._ ...... ... .....�. �... _ .., _. _ _.. __ _ ._ � � AdO� � � AdOJ j A dOD 6.+Y ' G-: .. , ,Oi13Xt ' 'OZ13X. � ' � j02i3X � . .. �.. .... . . . ,. . . . . ^ ' �- '�. . PC-R17 . Minutes of. the•Plannirig Commissio.n�Meeting, 9/27/65 MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by � . Chairman Gates,that City Council atten•- •� �• -,: tion�be directed to the problem of the �� , . . . Tnter-City Arterial shown in Santa Clara . - - � - , �' . � Coun�y's Gerieral �Plan. . • � AYES:. Comm.. Hirshon, Johnson', Gates _ - NAYS: Comm. Frolich, Traeumer � . � - Motion carried, 3-2 . r�_.�;,,� � . . .. , , ( 8-U= ' D, VALLEY TITLE COMPANY: ,( Pa ;e Properties ): Use Permit ��'�`� for a 50-acre orie-family C�uster Development within ., �,�� , � a PC-H zone, east of Mary Aqenue, north of Stevens ,. : Creek Blvd; Contiriued Hearin�, �•��The City Attorney discussed a Cluster Development Ordi- nar.ce in effect in South San Francisco, applied to the , Westborough-West Park Development which he has studied. They have covenants for construction and mair.tenance of � common areas which may be of help to us for solving the�e problems. � •��. '.'The Planning Director re7.ated that he had made several � ' - • field trips to the different.types of developments '.., pointed out by the applicant at the last regular meeting. . 1) .Los Altos.Square = a one-family cluster development, �•'� with shares in a common area; the density is 9.� -� dwelling units per gross acre. He had discussed this �� with:the Los Altos Planning Department, and although .�. � they were not enthusiastic, the Los Altos City . Council was impressed, and it�seems that the public �. likes it. The Plan Director .(of Cupertino) said ' that his opinion is very unFavorable; it seems to him that an effort to create an:R-1 impression in a ' '� development with too high�density has resulted in a ''. scattering of buildings, with the "open" area con- _ sisting mostly of vistas of driveways and �arage doors. 2) . The West Park units of Westb�orough in South San Francisco incltzdes both row-houses and apartments, ` so it is dif.ficult �to determine the density. A sr�all area, consis.ting of row-houses along cul-de-sacs, with narrow commori�� areas bettaeeri the • rows had been �• � ' atudied . It has 8:7� �unit�s � per acre, 8. �' if half of the ad�acent ma�or street is included, a lower figure �.f share of nearby park areas also is included. In spite of the formal arrangement and the narrotivness of the open area, this development gives more impress- ion of openness-than Los Altos Square. � -11- ::...' _ __ Y ....,,� .�.,-.,,..,.,� .-,_.�� r, ,�.. _ _ _ _ . . � -, - .... ,_ _. _. .. _-... �:.,i . _.. ___ ..� _.� _ � __ . 'Ln �AdOJ:� . . ,. ��AdO�! .. , � .�d0� .. . � � :AVUJ� -0!!3X � Otl3X � � , . �� . . `OLf3X ; Oti3X . . l� 4 PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, 9/27�65 , 3)� Park Forest.in San Mateo County, near Atherton, is similar to the area described above. Data on density � were not available. 4) The Knoll is a small, one-family cluster develop- ment at Peacock Gap in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, with a density of 9 uni�s per gross acre. The.buildings have one garage floor at street level and two residential floors above; because of the slope of the terrain they present only two stories toward the open ar�a. No effort to create privacy by the means of small patios has been made; ' all houses front directly on the common green. Because the natural krioll has been preserved, and because of the internal arran�ement, the Planning Director has formed a very favorable opinion; he thought it by far the best of the developments he . � had visited� He also rather liked the "rustic" • architecture of the buildin�s, in spite of it being • somewhat artificial, and even though his taste generally favors functional architecture. The Planning Director then commented on his memo with suggestions for motions: The most important decision is on density. Of course, the lower overall density the better; the R-1 density of 4.3 D.U./�ross acre would have been preferrable. But it should be taken into consideration that the present zoning allows 16 units per gross acre, and that land price has been ad�.usted to that. The proposed density of 7 units per gross acre is a good compromise, and it � � is possible tio design a good one-family cluster develop- ment,with this density,.even Lhou�h it would be different , . 3.n character from a cluster area with lower overall density. � Chairman,Gates stated that the Planning Commission's task is to decide the best use of the land, without being - unduly influenced by the price 1eve1 of the land. He � asked if the proposed area would provide good R-1 living, �or apartment,living. The Planniri� Director answered that this would be neither, but a type of living new to the western U.S.A., bu. well tried in eastern U.S.A. • and Europe, where a great many people prefer this to . other types. The Planning Director continued with the next point ori the list of motions: designation of use. It is by • - definition R1C, R=residentiai, 1=one-family, C=cluster (which by definition includes a common area). -12- : , ,,:�r __........_...._ _.._-__--- -- � -- -.>...:: __ _ _ �__.. ..... . __ �._ ..� _... _........_ _. � . � �AdOJ' _ . ... _ � AdOJ ` . ._'._... ' � AdOJ 1 AdG:J kw' � ��Otl3X � �-0tJ3X � 'OLl3X iO2f3X -_._, ... .._. ✓� -.._.. ... � PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, g/27/65 . ---------------------------------------------------------------- � The Cluster Ordinance should apply; this Ordinance can allow hi�her density t'r:an R-1 vahere the area already is zoned for higher density, as is the case•here, Because �of the density it would b.e. nec�ssary to grant variances � •� no� requiring front yards, and allowin� a limited num- ber of undersized distances,between buildin�s (pro- v'ic�ed trar�spar.ent, windows do .not face each other); �the Cluster Ordinance fores�ees that such variances may , be granted. Ho-aeve.r, the applicant has indicated thut - •: a R-2�l-H designation would malce financing easier. As the project is not a multi-familf R-2�-H development, .. �t would necessitate attachin; a variance or a condition to almost.every requirement in the R-2�1-H Ordinance; the Planning Di'rector would b� willin� to do so if the realization of the project actu�.11y depends upon it ,. The continuation of�Fnn Arbor Drive is a bone of con- •• tention.. Such problems do not arise in a grid system, where a1T streets go through. It happens frequently �� in modern city planning, however, tha� a certain street is not needed for access to any particular pr�operty, but ' . is neecled for the �'unctioning of the entire nei�hborhocd. It is �he opinion of the Plannin�.Director that a � developer should contri�ute to such a street, and that . • �'� this can le�ally be imposed on him. A failure to pro- vide for the extension of Ann Arbor Drive would cause detours for 1oca1 traffic (which is not serious}, load more traffic on the adjacent thorofares, particularly _ on the left.turn from Steveris Creek Blvd to S�ellin� Road (more serious)�, and i't may tie the disposition of the parkin� facilities for the Central Park (ti•Jhich can prove to be quite seriaus.) � -� It is now an.opez� question whether Mary Avenue can be carried over Junipero Serra Freeway or whether Stellin� .� . Road has to Ue widened enough to r�a�ch the capacity of both HolTenbeck Road and Mary �lvenue in Sunnyvale. � Until this is resolved, it is necessary to retain the . � possibility of making�the Cupertino part of Mary Avenue ,� a hi�h-quality road, with four moving lanes, left turn . � facilities, emergency par�cin�, shoulders, and median � .. - strip. _ .. Our conventional stree� widt.hs are based on �he �rid concept, where all streets carry an amount of throu�h , traffic, In modern city planning, where throu�h traffic in local streets is avoided, and curvature prevents excessive speeds, reduction in width is �ustified. � The Plann�in� Director thinks that in principle every . stree.t�s:hould have a sidewalk, even if so narrow as to provide on3y ari escape from an oncomin� car. He is will- in�, however, to recommend an.experiment with the appli- ,cant's concept of no.sidewalk� only walkways in the � � , ,- -13- � ' .. <; , .,.... .._._.._,.. . .... _.____._,,..... _....---._.,.--._. a;...., .. ._._,._:..J__. _._ ... _.,,,..,.- �.� ,. . ... , -. .R-: Y.. . _. ._ . . .. ,_ . . ... . . . . . � . . .... .. - ' . •.. -_'__. .. _ . __ _.. ._.. _..... _ . , . �AdOJ . AdOJ �� AdOJ. . .. . ; AdCJ7 �• OL3X - �� OLf3X t � OLI3X � Otf3X .._.__ . ....� ..., .,. ... . _., � 1 PC-R17 Minutes of the Planning Commission Me�ting, g/27/65 � `-- --------------------------------------------------------------- common area, except for some short sec�ions near Mary Avenue, where rows of houses block direct walkways. . The procedure wiLh submission to �che P1aMning Commis- sion of detailed development plans in sections is � agreed upon with the applicant. They would be a con- tinuation of 8-U-65 that is, not requir�irg additional �application or f'ee . Mr. MitLelman responded to the Plannin� Diractor's report, and said that the Forest Park Development has 8-10 units per �ross acre and there are two projects on Foothill Blvd. which have a density of 7� units � per gross acre. One single-family development pro- �ect which included town houses has separate garage camplexes. The applicant's developm�nt Yias sin�le-fami:ly units with �arages attached. UJith regard to the Planning Director's proposed motions, the applicant .� pointed out that they submitted motions of their own at the last meeting. The applicant a�rees on the Plannin� Director's m�mo as regards density, subject to two minor changes in language. He definitely opposes the R1C designation and requests R-2LE-H designation of use. He thinks �'� the R1C Ordinance is too inflexible, would tie the developer's hands and involve him in le�alities, while the R-2�4-H Ordinance vaould both be more flexible and give the Planning Commission better control of .design. Only three variances would be needed when � applyin� the R-2Ll-H Ordinance, while the R1C Ordinance would need variances for (1) density, (2) front yards, (3) side yards, (�4) street width, (5) distan�e between buildin�s, (6) transition, (7) windotvless walls. (Planning Director's note: In my opinion, the opposite is true, which should be clear from a thorough read- ing of the Ordinances). Mr. Mittelman pointed out that the Plannin� Director's conditions would preclude the proposed model homes. . The Planning Director stated �hat a study of the de- tailed plans probably could solve the problem. The applicant is definitely opposed to the continuation of Ann Arbor Drive; it would be entirely incompatible to the environment they are trying �o create. The applicant has proposed exact standards for Mary � Avenue and considers them sufficient. �� The 5' right-of-way for public utilities on each side o.f every street: is agreeable to the applicant, but otherwise streets should not be wider than proposed; every foot spared would go into the open area, . , . . -1�}- , ::....� _,_. �._....._�._._.�...__.�_._. . ...y ,. ,� _. _ .__. ... _ _ ... _. ..... _ . _ . . ' _ _ I , . AdOJ . . . y�� AdO.^. . . . � ' .. . . . AdOJ t � . . . ,' AdO:i OLi3X . .. • , � , �02l3%i� . � . � . . . . � .'OLl3X . , i0213X ._..._.. . � . . �_'..�'. ..�.._,..-� . ' . . . . .......,- . ;� : , . . . , .-. ;� ,�. . . . . . . a. . . .. � . _ . . . '.. _ .. ... . � . �. . . . .. . . . � .. . � x` , . �. . . `� PC-R17 Minutes of the Plannino Commission Meeting, g/27/65 Mr. Mittelman concluded his revieva with the remark that a condition about Covenants is unnecessary; it is covered by the Subdivision Ordiriance No. �+7. Also, there taill be numercus changes until all a�encies are � ` in agreement. There will, be further discussions w3.th the City Attorney and the Cit�r Staff. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. � � Mr. Grattan Ho�in, 11067 Linc�a Vista Drive, Cupertino, said he looks tivith favor on this development and feels there is a definite need for a somewhat different land ' usage than is forced on land development by standard R-1 developments, arid he thinks it will be a definite ad- vanta�e to the community. 'Comm. Traeumer asked the applicant what '�Je�e the three variances�to R-2LE-H? Mr. Mit�elman listed them as: : ..:.,��:.,,, _, . ' :; � ' Sing1`e fam�.Iy us e : , , '•�`No res�ric�.ioris as to 1ot dimensions and area, Lot covera�e of 100 0, - No front, side or rear yard restrictions. No restrictions on location of detached accessory building. Street sections indicated on pla.n submitted to be used, together with street pattern shown. : Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that the public hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 � Chairman Gates recapped the sug�ested motions submitted by the Plannin��Director at tYiis meeting. � Comm. Johnson would strike out Condition'7, regardin� � walkways to be substituted for sidewalks. He feels - sidewalks should be provided on the main internal streets . in a development. The Director of Public ti5lorks said a sidewalk on one side of the street should be sufficient. Comm. Frolich felt they would destroy the plan b;� re- quiring two sidewalks, and would agree with the Director of Public ti�lorks . Comm. Johnson asked about �rrives walking to the shopping area. Chairman Gates feels there is a definite need for a sidewalk to wal�c to the commercial area, and added that this is not a test pro�ram; what we decide now cannot be reversed. The City'Attorney pointed out that if it takes 5 or 10 minutes to walk to the colle�e from the end of the development, this wo uld be a�ood place for peopl.e to move who have children of �unior college age. The basic purpose of this develop- ment was to fill the need for the college students and instructors. _�5_ : , , ., ,.�..:, : _ . _._:..� _ .. _ _. .� _ _. .... __. _ . _..,._. -- _ � _..__._ . _ __._..�._ _.__ �AdG., . . �: AdOJ �i AdOJ - . ! A.J(i:� l.. �OLi3, . ��O[f3Xi. �OLf3X i0a7x ... . _ -� � :� . " �--- PC-Rl7 Minutes of the Plannino Commi.�sion Mee�irig, � 9/27/65 • �� The staff was�instructed.to. re.-word �ondition 7 for the . .. � nex�t meet3.n�. ' . ... �: , •. . . � �, regard tocond. ?I, Ann Arb�or Drive, Comm. Hirshon con- � curred .that one entrance• from. S�evens Creek Blvd. tivould . '� •'�be more beneficial to �he central park, it would be used �� then for�people from this area, rather than from other areas . Comm. Tr.aeumer agreed, ; and added that it ti•aas not � a good idea�to have a`road alon�:the.park. Comm. Johnson . ,� � agreed, and recommended� that Condition �4 be stricken from • •_. the motions.. ' , � � " Cond�.tion �5, Ma.ry Averiue, �was agreeable to the Commission, ..- ��' . provided �2' l�anes were i'ncluded. � C��ZC�.9, proposed Covenants, was�discussed. Zt was pointed out�that �Che Subdivision Ordinance provides that a copy �� of the Deed Restrictions will be furnished to the City. •� We should review the deed covenants and have a righ� to modify ichem, ti�lith the ri�ht alsa to approve or d�ny any � , . . material cha.n�e . � The City Attorney stated that the City has a righ� to ' review the�proposed Covenants for development and maintenance of the common area prior to issuance of a ..� buildin� permit. - •� Regardin� sidewalks, 'the City�Attorney su��ested a mono- lithic sidewal�c, Comm. �irshon recommended that the � Commiss3.on make no specific decision on �his, but to consider it when the development plan is fully presented to the Commission. The Plannin; Director pointed out that the d would be entitled to�a decision now � for tl�e overall street standards, Comm. Hirshon vaithdrew ' his recommendation. Comm. Traeumer questioned the 5' easement for public - �� utilities - how .can a sidewall� fit in? The Director of � Publ.ic Works explained that this can be�done with no • . problems,. as present procedure.install.s the utilities �� - and covers them with a sideti Comm..Traeumer added � " � that th3.s question shauld.be decided.on iri the detailed � � development plans. Comm. Frolich would consider walks ' � a].ong the main peri�eter of �the development. � �. After further discussion, Comm. Traeumer su�gested a '-� vote on this application be �aken tor�ight; if an � approval fail,ed:to pass the Hearing vaould be continued. . � • .: �; _ . . . � �.; . . . . � . • -16- ...�.:� --_ _ __...__.._. ._...,..--_._. ...._, _. � .� _..� __ ..,_.. . __._._. � � .. .. . V "�" . : .__ �..�., ..._.. ... - ............i.r .i�. •rv r�v �AdU:Ju �AdO, AdOJ�:�' �AdOJ � O[1�i�. . ' OL13X , ' 0213X � �- OLi�X .,. . ., . . ' . � � �" U i"' . . � .. . �- PC�R17 , Minu.tes . �f tl�e P1a.nning �Cammission Meetin�, g/27/65 .� Comm. Johnson.asked, if the application is approved by ' the Planning Commission and �he City Council, hoti�� does the CiLy�control.the development withiri the �uidelines? - The City Attorney repliec� that the plan will Ue reviewed when the final plans are submitted to the Plannin; Commission, before building permits are issued; also, �` a Tenta�ive Map has to be revietiaed and approved. Chairman Gates s�ated that in his opiniori this is still • too hi�h a density for single family dtivellin�s. It should be reduced to 5 untts per �ross acre, or the ' development should call for hi�h-rise buildin�s. �omm. Johnson s�ill maintained that consideration be given to provide sidewallcs on one side of the easterly connect3.ng street, for children goin� to school or far - mothers walking to the shops. After a discussion, a motion vaas made by Ccmm. Johnson, _ seconded by Comr�. Frolich, that Condition 6(alternative), as recommended by.the Director of Public Works, be . �:do�t�ect�,-:. _ __ __.... __. _., _, _. �..., ,,. ... .. . 1..9� ,; ' -, ,� . AYES: � Comm. : �'r` 61ich, Johnson, �Gates - ~- . � NAYS: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer- DZotion carried, 3-2 � Moved by Comm:,Johnson, �econded by Chairman Gates, to � adopt Condition y;''7, except that all streets noted A-A on the map presented by the Director of Public ti�orks will have sidewalks on one side, namely the internal �. � street �� coni�ectiny�'-the int�r-�ections in Mary Avenue, � �• . arid tYie easterly loop street. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Gates; , . NAYS: Comm, Hirshon, Traeumer ... ,: . .. Mo.tion cax�ri�d, 3 2 .. . : ... , . . . . ` . . . ., , ,, .. � ,,': . . Moved by Comm. �`rolich�, �s�conded b�r �or'rim: Traeumer, that . a,, Cpndi�ion, lQ �be :added ta �provid`e iznder�round .utilities . ; � ..... .. .. . � . �: . . _... . .- .:�. � . � , . � ; ..:,•�.°: . Mo��ion car�i�ed, 5=0� . . . ;; I�ecammended that a`�Cond�i.t��:on 31 : Ue �added to provide that �" the d�veloper.��rant: a.surfaee service eas.ement to the � ;,;�reen areas,�- and . r.equiririg �that consent .of the City be . �- : � obtained for ;.tl�e bui-ldi_n� of :ariy _s�ru.ctures thereon. . .: .• . . . _ . ---- � -�� -- --- -�: .. _._. , . .�., , .. . , . •.. .., _ -�7- , . " ._. . -. - _._._.. ...._.__ ..._.__�., _,.:.., . . .._ _ . . ._��. .....,._ . _ __._. . . - •AdOJ � i , - � � � . ... . ,. _... . �� AdOJ �- AdUJ AJU;j y;;- OLI3X - ' pa3X ; 02f3X 102i3X - _. � .. PC-R17 Minu�es of the Plannin� Commission Meeting 9/27/65 � -------------------------------------------------- -------------- � T�Ioved by Comm. Frolich, seconded bJ Comm. Johnson, that R1C use tiai�hin a PC-H zone be desi�nated, with variances � �� ,in accordance with the P�annin� Director's memo. AY�S; �Comm. Frolich, Hirslzon, Johnson, iraeumer, Gates NAYS: None � Motion carried 5-0 Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comn�i Frolich, that Application 8-U- be approved, subject �o the 12 Standard Conditions and the follotving adclitional conditions: Conditions 1, 2, 3 in the Plannin� Director's memo be modified in accordance with previous motions, except that entrance and exit for a str�� or driveti�ray servin� the model homes wi31 be allowed; Condi�ion l� 'co be dele�ecl; Condition 5, in accordance with i,he Plannin� Direc�or's memo. � � � � Condition 6(alternative) in accordance with the Dir�ctor of Public Z��Iorks plan; Condition 7, in accordance to previous motion; Condition $, in accordance to Plannir.; Director's memo; Condition 9, modified in accordance to previous motion; Condition 10, underground utilities shall be provided; - Condition 11, the developer shall provide surface easement �o the open areas and consent of the City must be obtained for �he buildin� of any structures thereon. �� AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer �� NAYS: C�ia.irman Gates Motion carried, �!-1 VII UNFIIVISHED BUSINESS . �, ��lrE:t`�, CITY PLANNER: Emergency Ordinance Re�ulatin� Home �-----i , Occupations. Continued. ' Chairman Gates r�commended that automobile repair shops be adcled to the list of Excluded Occupations in Section 1 4. The.Planning Direc�or stated that the Chiei�Buildin; ; Inspector. does not thinlc that the responsibility of . int�rpretin� a Zoning Ordiriance shoulcl rest vaith � him as proposed in Section�.6, Tn�erpretation. For that reason, and in spi�e oi the fact that this would cr�ate a certain duplication of staff vaorlc, the Plannin� Director sug�ested a chan�e in the taordin�, � by which he would be the one interpretin� this Ordinance, -18- ...:�" ____ _._.__..__ .__.__.,___._ �...: « __ � W - .... __. . __ _.. _.. ..._ ., _ � . �AdO:J �Ac10Jt 'AdOJ ... . A:i0�1.;: OLf3X 02l3X � 'OLf3X �' Otf3X . _ __ d -- PC-R17 Minutes of the Plannin� Cor�mission Meetin,�„ 9/27/65 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Ga�es remarl�ed that this was a sLaff issue, and he had no opinion re�ardin� �his. The Director of Public t�Jorlcs mentioned tnat a public license clerl: will be added to the staff in the near fu�ure, and �he ��d�nanc;�� fni�'ht'.: t�ie�?. b�:..�r��a'�tle:d.: to:''empoti�r�� 1�2s'' cler�c ��o;� �i�b�ce'ss aY�� Yri�.lce d��°sioris'..�n: �Iozrie Qccupations.' �� . :�-. • •-•- Comm. Johnson added that the City Attorney recommends that item (g) in Section 5, Advertisin�, should be deleted. Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, that Ordinance No. 321, HOM� OCCUPATIONS, be approved as amended. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeurner, Gates NAYS: None Motion carried, 5-0 VIII NEIrJ BUSINESS There was none IX ADJOURNMENT It was unanimously approved �;o adjourn the meetin� at 12:30 A.M. APPROVED: /s/ Jack Gates Chairman ATTEST: `�� L.x�-f,c./Zlir�t Director of Plannin� -19- _.�..: ____. _.�.__..._._.._-----�- :.._. �_. __._..� _ ___ . : ,.r _ _..__._._.._ . __..__.� . �AdO:: . �AdOJ� AdOJ adO:.�y.� �a- � � . ' . �Oa3X�� • � � �Ot13X .Oel3X - .._ .- .. . . C .�.. .. .' . . . �. �.. . ... . . . . • � � � .. � `.. .� . . � . .' � � . . � . . ° � . � . � .. . � ' . . ' _ . .. . . ' �C.-�17 80, o00 . li- . . � . .. . , . . . �- g-U • . . ... . , _ _ Appendix A to' �the Minutes of the Planning Co�nmission ' � . . . ... :. . . . , � Niee.t�-n�, of �Se�tember .2.7 i965 � � . ... � .. . . : . .. . . ... .� ...:, . .. . ME�O:: ,September 27, 1965 . . T ,. �The Honora,ble Chairman and Members of the � , . ., : �'lanning Commission ' . � � FROM:.� � .Adde, `Laurin, Director of Planning ' SUBJECTt.�$uggested Moti.ons on College Park,(Page Properties) - - - - - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - 1.��, `W�-7EREAS ,a density of 16 units per gross acre �is allowed by present � zoning; WHEREAS the density proposed by the applicant �s'approxi- mately 7 units per gross acre;.and Tr�HEREAS.study of similar one- family Clusi�er Developments in the Bay Area,.with Lhe saine or . slightly higher density indicates that.a pleasant environment•can '�� be crea�ed wi,th tYiis density, NOW TIiEREFQRE be it resolved to ��recommend - �o`the City Council a Use Permit for a one-family ,Cluster Development� with an average �density of seven (7) dwelling �units per gross acre and no more than 420 dwelling units in the indicated area, in general accorclance with application 8-U- as presented during the Planning Commission meeting September 13, ; : 1.g65 .�.th the following conditions : � 2. The.use shall be designated R1C within a PC-H zane, this desig- ,.: � riation being :the, proper atandardized. symbols recommer�ded by the �.Santa Clara,County Inter-City Council;'the requirements in the �Cluster.Ordinance sYia11 apply, w'ith �he following exceptions: _(a) ., Front yard may be, reduced t.o the .width shown in approved . •detailed development ,plans':. '� � � ' � � . . . . �.. : . . '�� Distance�between`buildings'�may be'reduced to the width shown in approved detailed development plans; but not � ; �.n more.cases than shown of the plan attached to the ��' :� present, application; and provide�. that. transpa'r.er�t � � w�.ndows in buil�dings on'different lots do not oppose each other at less distance than l�- ft. if both buildings are one-story, 29 �t. if one or both of the buildings are two-story. 2. (Alternative requested by the Applicant) The use shall be _ designated as�R-2�-H, with the following variances: (a) One-family houses, attached or detached, on individual lots, plus one or more Common Areas, is the only allowed use. 1��i� -'. rpfii}^}y^'�;f_nnc �,S �;c� �_C�t �� a.r�.�, pr �b� � - a.. - �'�i'��AdO:i - �.1Ad03� ,-.�+�M. r ...L......�. AdOJ!`-�. ...., .. . ..-�-._.. ..... d"J:'�... ....,,. .-;..�� ... . .... �' ' : . _ ... .. . ,. �t:.+Z A . .....: r: � . �. � ..-. . ._ . .. y �� OL13X ' ! OF13k � - --...OLf3X _._•-..,-.,.....,_.--.. ._.,...... . .... ..� . Oil3x, . f� y ,, (c) No restrictions for front, side and rear yards, or to location of accessory buildings (Except those under (b) in the nrevious section?) (d) Building height�restricted to 2 stories and 25 ft., 16 ft . for accessory buildings . (e) Two (2) gara�e spaces per dwellirg unit required. 3. The internal streets shall connect :aith Mary Avenue at two points, located approximately as shown on the applicant's plan; there shall be no direct access from Iots to Mary Avenue. �. Ann Arbor Drive shall be extended between the proposed development and the Central Parlc; a thirty (30) ft. wide right-of-way shall be reserved for that purpose within the tioundary of the develop- ment. 5, The section of Mary Avenue shall be decided as a part of the � processing o� a Tentative Map of the area; and after study of . the consequences of the recent decision by the City of 5urinyvale �.on the continuation of Mary Avenue. Ii i� were decided t�o re�ain the possibilitg to connect Mary Avenue over the Jur_ipero S�rra Freeway, the cross-section shall consist oi' four moving lanes, each 12' wide, plus shoulders, median strip, and left turn facilities, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public.Works and the Director of Plannin�. 6. The width of the internal streets shall be not less than shown �on the applicant's plan, except that a five (5) ft. wide right- of�-way for public utilities shall be provided on each side of every street which has no.sidewalks. 6. (Alternative) See below. 7, Walkways within the Common Area may be substitu�ed for sidewalks; except that two sidewalks shall be provided along the internal street at the souther�y connection with T�Iary Avenue, to a length of 35o ft .; and one sidewalk along �;he internal street of the northerly connection with Mary Avenue, to a length of 250 ft. 8.. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission from time to time detailed development plans for 5ections of the area for which the Use Permit has been grar�ted. These;detailed plans. shall indicate landscaping and dir,lensions of open green areas. The plans shall be considered a contiinuation of Use Permit 8-U-65, and shall be submit.ted prior to or concurrent with a Tentative Map covering.at least the area included in the �lans. 9. �Proposed Covenants for the development and maintenance of the Common Area shall be submitted together with the first of the detailed development plar.s mez�tioned in the above paragraph. 6.. �(Al�ernativ.e)_The cross-sections of internal streets shall be � in accordance' with the glan submitted by the. I�irector of Public Works.