PC 05-16-73 I
'� CITY Or CUPERTINO, S�A:i'T: OF CALIFORNIA PC-99
�.G300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Cal_ifornia Yage 1
Telephone : 252--4505
MINUTES OF THE A�JOURI3ED REGULAR MEETING OI' T�lE Pl,ANNIN'G C01`1MISSIOr1
HELD ON MAY 16, 1973, IN TfIE LI3RARY CUNF�RENCE ROOT1, CITY HALL,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ,
Meeting F�as called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Buthenuth.
ROLL CALL
Comm, present: Gatto, Nellis, 0'Keefe, Chairman Buthenuth �
Comr.i. absent : Adams
Staff present: Dir�ctor of Plannino and Development Sisk
. Associate Plani�er Co-aan .
Assistant City Attorney Terry
Economic Consultants Arnold and Le��y
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearin� to consider 1973
� Comprehensive �seneral Plan
Chairnan Buthenut?� advised the :�eeting :aas to d�.scuss resident�al
land use on Valley floor.
r1r. Arnold reviewed previous work done on various larld use alternates,
summar.ize.d residential alterna*_�ves and poiated out area� under �
di.scussion. He said an objective ot the study should be consiste.ncv
of classification, i. e. ,similar densities for si_r.lilar neigh�orhoods.
Worksheets to aid tne commission in the study of land uses -aere
distributed. These sheets listed as working targ2ts the follo
'(1) Decide ?ahicn neighborhoods are simil�r, (2) Select an allo�
density for each group of similar neighborhoods - on the basis oF. t�ie
character of the neighborhood and (3) draft final General Plan state- ,
ments.
The commissicn we-e in agreement to work with this basic format.
Comm. Nellis questioned 200 lots (830 units) in va zones that
were not considered under alternate uses. She felt these should be
facto.red in. .1r. Arnold noted these lots were spread out, but would
be included in final stud�� a� part of 17b.
a
� .
PG99 PIINUTES OF THE �.DJOURNED PLANNING COi�1ISSIGn rIEETING MAY 16, 19�3
�a�e 4 .
Comm. Nellis noted Ar�a 6 was distinguished fxon Areas 1 and 2 because it
was adjacerit to industrial area and some neignborh�od commercial activities.
Comm Gatto f.elt it belon�;ed be�ter caith Areas 1 and 2 si_nce it could not
expand industrially.
It was decided Are� 8 could better be identified as Area 21-A. Comm.
' Nellis noted a neighborhood sttoYping center was planned for either
• Area 21 or 21-A and suggested now might be the time to discuss which site
it sr.ould be. She said she tended toward the northwest corner because of
truck route noise iactor.
� A gentleman in the audience said he felt the southeast corner_ would be
better because of traffic flow. shoppers �•�ould not have �o cross Stevens
Creek �Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard.
Chairman Buthenuth suggested 21-A �aas mor� si��ilar tc Areas 3 and_5.
`�1�. Azn Anger said she .felt ?.l-a should still_ be considered single-
f amily.
It �,ras noted that the•noise of trucks holds true for both the southeast
and southwest corners, sc� both should be considzred commercial. Comm.
0'Ke�fe sa�_d thEr� �aas nPed for cor.L�ercial on one corner •but integrity
of neighborhood should no� be lost. Corun. Gatt� noted need for flex�-
bility to allo*a �or treatment of unique areas. He s„cke to a
p�ss�.bi_1_i_ty of having duple�es on main stree.t ar.d single-f�-r.il�
r�asiner:ces in the intex•ior.
f.fter further ��.scuss�.on, Chairr.ma.l Buthenuth su�«mar;zeci the com^.liss�or,'s
i :indings .
Group T= Areas 3 and 5
Group II � Areas 9 and 10
Groun iII =!�reas 1, 2, 6, 7, 20, 21-A and 22
Cha_rman Iiuthenuth then announced a break at 9:30 P^1 with the neetin�
reconvening at 9:50 Pri.
Allowable dQns�ty was now considered. Criterion for cheosing within
the density range �aould be impact� �n the char�cter of tne neighborheod
anci innovative 3esi.gn. .
Co�-��.. Gatto suggesCed assignin� ari overall density rani�e, puttin� �t ��nto
a Planned Developmer�t type situatio�, ta::ing each sepa propc�al for
each parcel to assigt� �pecif icati_oris . He :.oted tvpe o� mix as vaell as
� nu.��bers had to be co �si�de.r. ed.
� D�{f_er�nt ways �i ass�.;;n�ng density ;�>>re tiien discussed .
4
� �
�
'�
�
_l
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURPIFD PLANNING CO,iMISSION T41:ETING r1AX 16, 1973 PC-99
' . Page 5
It was noted the reasonin�-for di�ferentiating tietween duplex and
single-family cluster was a charact difference. Duplexes talce on
character of single family house.
It was then decided to far� a group with a range of 4.4 to 7.6 units
per. acre and see how the ditferent areas would fit in similariL
under this density. ,
After a discussion of reasons for setiting this range on different
areas, rir. Arnold su�;gested the commission try to narrow range in
some areas. Chairman Buthenuth noted the top number could be applied
on each parce7. since everyone had to cor.le in for a use permit and
Planning Commission should �ake this into accounC. Comm. Nel.lis .
• added her endorsement of at�achments to indicate wilich neighborhoods
and parcels are being covered. ,
It was felt single resic�ences and duplexes are compatible; going to
12 eliminates opportunity for people to.develop R1.
In discussing Areas 21 and 21-A, a memb�r in the audience said there
was an interest for a cnmmercial usage on this corner �but the �
developer �.rould not want �ust a secc�nda accesso Another member
in the audience observed that i£ church property develops, the traffic
f.l_ow past �hi�s corner �raill be a si�ni.ficant factor: Mr. Arnold said
the traffic sCudy would be ready soo�z, and if facts seemed to �rarran�
it, Areas 21 and L1-A could be re-evaulared.
Comm. Nellis noted Area 22 was not a large enough piece of property
to consider cluster approach.
Area 1 was seen as duplex or high rise by Comm. 0'Keefe, single-
family by Comm. Nell.is and a 4.4 to 12 by Comm. Gatto.
Comm. 0�'Keefe noted A.reas 1, 6 and 20 are next to �junior high an.d
high schools. PutCing 12 unit apartments across from schools could
create prob�.ems. He fel� 7.6 should be the high range. .
A gentl.eman in the aud.ience said he felt 12 would be more realistic
allowing cluster type (duplexes, apartments with open space, such as �
town houses, garden apartments, etc.).
Chairman Buthenuth saicl he had proposed a 4.4 to 10 �init per acre �
for entire Valley floar with an ordinance requiring every propo�al .
over a certain number to come in for a c�evelopment permit. Comm.
Nellis ob�eci:ed Co a blanket approach. Chairman Buthenuth pointed
out each proposal would be judged on its merit, noting tliere might ;
be some typ� of building not yet thought o£ tha� would be very
appropriate for land use.
A£ter £urther discussion, a range of 4.4 to l0 units per acre was
agreed for.Group III.
s
f -
p�-G9 MINUTES OF THE ADJUIIRNED PLANNT;IG CU�ISSION P�'fEETING or MaY 16 , 1973
rage 6
In discussing Areas 9 and 10, it was felt a lciver than 10 d�nsity
should be set because it is in foothills and Uecause 1/3 of property
i.s part ai Flood Plain.
An audience me:�ber sa�d the v�.sual aspect should be considered,
I .
Co:m;,i. Ga�to su�gested a cluster. ap�Yoach en Area 9 i�ecause of ttle
terra�n ar_d baszc configuratyon of land.
Mr. Arnold asked how clustering could be �uaranteed if range �aas set
at 4.4 to 7.6. Ar. ordi�ance Lavoring cluster�ng �•�as discussed.
Coru... Nellis said sne felt a mix of buil_dings would not blend in with
ne�_gi�borhood. She su��est2d Areas 9 and 10 should be grou�.ed :aith
Areas 3 and S, ?�e�.ig predor.l�nax:tly single-famil.y.
It was suggested from the audience that rahen the ordinance :oas
re;aritten, there should be an incenti��e for t�_.e density to �;o
higher . Tile �e,�.� roads , the more 1 and ta build on.
Aft� further discussio,i, it was a�reed Areas 3, 5, 9 and 1Q would ,be
grouped as single--�a:. residenti.al not tc� exce��.d 4.4 units per acre.
� y1r. Arnold asiced i� .it were poss�ble to dit_ferentiate bet��een 7.6 and
• � �.0. ;�il:y not make trer. al� 4.4 t� �.�7
� C��.�_rman Eutheruth suggested t.ie followin, cr�ter�_u:
S;..n.gle fanily = 7,yC0 sq. ft. miaimu� .
5].t1��G' f3i111�' C�:iSt2'C = lU�`1��� SC�, it. �iJltil �F�c� :?�C�:� uP�C° •
s
� Du�.t�.� - 4,500 sing�e--fam�_1�, 4,��0 7�ental T�i_th �7 zon:_na
� It Yaa� suggest�u �iza� t•anat w«s �^eazzt by 7.6 and 10 ��:as ti at t�ie Planning
Con�-,lission �aould be :�ill�_ng to ent`rtazn cluster t;pe approach.
, 1 Cc���n. idellis su��e�ted �aking �i distinction bet�•;ee,i 7.6 and 10 becaus�
! pror�nc;-�ls r•�oul.c� rr��Labl;- be on hi�ii s�de. C��!airTMari 3uthenut�i su�gest:d
the bui.�der must hatie a ce;�ta�n p�>rcentage in a�.;en s��ac� for c'.u�t`r
t;���e c.� ���_lopi.ient .
Ai Le more discuss:�on, :�r. Levy sug�ested keepin` t,e thx'ee ��rouFs
as i_i_st�ed belc��a until. rraffic anai_ysis :�._ i�z since zesults TM�ay be
a factor in tir:al decisioc�.
G�oup �L -- S�r.�;le--farail-y , 4.4 un�ts per acre
f:rea s�, 5, Q and 10
Gcou�; I:i -- S�.ir,�e.-ia:r:il;Ti�:.ul�.iple, 4.4 to 7.6 u��.its g�r acre
� ��.r��.�a� 2, 7, �t, 21-�. and 22
� Group tiI -- I�:�S.i_cle�ztial.; coa�merc.i_a:L/i_nctustcial_, 4.�s Lo 10 u.�its ?er a.cr<�
Ar_ �as '- , 6 a.d 2d
., : �
�>,� .g9 PIII��U'1'ES 0�' 'TI3�: AD.7UURNF.'J PLAi1NT.;�`G �O:f^:�f.SiInN III:ETIilC OI� PSAY 1(i, 1973
a. F� 7
��
A ner,�her in the ��udience s��_d Area ?0 st:ould 1�t� considei-ed corr.mc.rcial
because of cliar�ct�er o� area and becaiise a nei�hbo�-hood shopp:�ilg �enter .
is i�ceded rhere. :�is. Linger said tl.e ici�« of a re�ional. sho��t�ing cent
t•:as to �liminate neiChborllood� shopping ce-�';.ers. Som:�one else noted that
a good perceiit;:;e of nei�llbar't�oo�s uon't ti�aiit coruii�E�rcial bt�catzse of
problezr.s encountered.
Com�r. Gattc sug;;ested polling the resi.dents. ��:e noted peep?_e dzivin�
Ll;r•ou�;Yi eth:,r ne-i�hb•:�rhoods to get to neial�borliood ;l�oppiTl� ceilrer.s
are :is,posi.�g on these nei�Th�orhoods. The concept of neighbo
su�portiing module just as viable as in ca�e of sc.hoo]_s, etc, used on
ctay� to day basis. �t G�as decided t.hi.s t�:ould be studied further.
Com�. �cll.is r.�oved, seconded by Cor�.�n. Gatto, to adj ourn to the next
meeting on Tl;ursc'.ay evening, 2�iay 17, 1973 at 7:30 P.t:. The meeting
c��as ad j ourr:eci to 11: 35 Y.ri. •
APPRQ�JED :
/s/ John W� Buthe
Cha. i.rman '
ATTEST�
/s/ �hn. E. Ryder - -- .
i.ity C)_erk
- �