Loading...
PC 05-25-64 10321 So. H~y o, Cupertino, Cali£,, 9,0~4 252-4505 C S T Y 0 F C U 1' E R T I N 0 CUPERTINO, CALIFbP,NIA f~INUTE3 OF THE RE(}ULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, May 25, 1964 TIME: 8:00 P.M, PLACE: Board Room, Cupertino Elementery School District Offi~e I SALUTE TO THE FLA(3 II ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Adamo, Gates, Johnaon, Thomson, Frolich Commissioners absent: Ram~y, Snyder Staff present: Gity Plan~~r, AssSstent 4ity Engineer, City Attdrney III ELECTION OF CHAIRM.AN AND VICE-CHATRMAAT~-~ It was moved by Comm. Adamo and seconded by Comm. Gates to nominate Comm. Thomson for the office of Chairman of the Planning Commission. It was moved by Cottan. Gates ~nd seconded by Comm. Adamo to cloae the nominations, Motion carried, 5-0 It was moved by Comm. Gates and secon3ed by Comm. Adamo that Comm. Thomson be eleeted by White Sa11ot as ~hairn~an of the Planning Commission. AYES: Comm. Adamo, Gates, Johnson, Frolich NOES: None ABSTAINED: Co:nm. Thomson ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 4-0 It waa moved by Gomm. ltdamo and seconde& by Com~. JQhnson to nominate Gomm. Q~ates for Vice-Ck3airenan of the Planning Commisaion. Zt was moved by Comm. Adamo and seconded by Comm. Johnaon to close the nominationa, Motion carried, 5-0 It was moved by Comrn. Johneon and aeconded by Comm. Adamo that Comm. Gates be elected by White ~llot as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commiasion. AYES: Comm. Adamo, Johnson, Thomson, Frolich NOES: None ABSTAINED: Comm. Gates ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 4-C -1- . _ _ _ _ _ _ IV MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS NIEETING5: May 7, 11, 14, 1964 Corrections: ' May 11, Page 9, Para. 3, the City Planner wanted it in the record that the total of three rather than five parking spaces are needed. The City Attorney had the following corrections to the Minutes of May 11: Page 4, Para. 7, should read: "It was moved by Comm. Thomson and seconded by Comm. Gates that the Commission report favorably to the City Council on Ordinance 279, based on the foregoing points." Page 6, Para, 9, should read, "It was moved by Comm. Thomson and seconded by Comm. Johnson that the Commission report favorably to the City Council on Ordinance 280, based on the foregoing points." Pag~ ?3 Para, 7~ s~ould read, "It W~s mbved by Comm. Gates and seconded by Comm. Johnson that th~ Commission report favorably to the City Council on Ordinance 281, based on the foregoing points.° Page 7, Para, 12, should read, °It was moved by Comm. Snyder and seconded by Comm, Rampy that the Commission report favorably to the City Council on Ordinance 282, based on the foregoing points," Page Para, 7, should read, "It was moved by Comm. Thomson and seconded by Comm. Johnson that the Commission report favorably to the City Council on Ordinance 283, based on the foregoing points." Comm. Frolich wanted to clarify a point on the May llth Minutes, Page 10, Para. 2, in that the new ordinance "may" contain a specific ordinance for high rise~ May 7th Minutes, Page l, Para, 5, should read, "July 1, 1965•~~ May 7th Minutes, Page 1, Para, 3, Comm. Thomson, rather than Comm. Scott, felt that Cupertino should maintain their present lot sizes, It was moved by Comm, Gates and seconded by Comm. Adamo to approve the minutes of May 7, 11, & 14, 1964, as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0 V COMMUNICATIONS: A. Written 1. A communication from the Tri-County Apartment House Association, Room 816, Bank of America Building, San Jose, concerning the vacancy factor in the area, -2 - M~s. August ~nger:, wro said she is a mQmber of the~ $oard of, Directors of that body,,,wanted to clarif`y " that thi,s study -is in regard to San Jos~, not Cupertino o.r Sunnyva le . , Comm. Frolich felt it mig.`.it be worth going into when we get a,7..oning rnap frotn tl-_e consultant. 2. Letter fr,om the Recreation ~,inector ~n,regard to a park site in the Bubb Road area. t~e also commended the Planning CommisSion on their interest in the park ogra,m.:: ; . . ; , pr „ , _ , . , It.;vias moued by Comm. Frclich an3 seconded by Comm. Johrisori to receive the written communications. Motion carried,.5-0 . B. Verbal There were none.. VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: A. MASON ENTERPRISES, INC.: Appl. 112-Z-63 to rezone 50 acres from M-1:B- -H to R-2-H, R-3-H and R-24-H; eaet side of the Southern Pacific Railroad R.ight-of-Way, north of University Avenue, Second.Hearing;continued. Mr, Lou Ters,ini, Vice-President of Mason Enterpr3ses, gave a recap of previous Hearings on thls,appl.icaticn for the benefit of those not present at those Fiearings. Of the 50 acres, 10,9 acres,have already been taken by the State for the Steyens Freeway. The fact that the freeway cuts through,this property presents an ingress and egress - problem. Infprn~ation from tYie utate jndicates the Stevers5 Freeway.at this point may not bs buiit for anc;ther ten years. , In regard to the vacancy factor i:,r multi^7es, Mr, Tersini gave percentage;s of a vacancy f'acLor in other cities in the Bay Area and noted that Cupertino's percent is com-' ~ paratively low in respect to the others, Mr. Tersini feels there is a r.eed in Cupertino for good multiple housing such as town houses and he would like to be the first to do it and to do a fine ,~ob of it. ' In checking'with;the County, Mr. Tersin~ found they Have no immediate plans for improying the streets in this area, However, a 3tate representatlye fe~t that 2 access rnads would handle;the,traffic generated by this, development. The Developer gua,rantees the im~rovemen.G of 26' on ' Lowe Avenue at the time thia property is developed. In addition, Peninsula Auenue wiclening is ~uaraMteed by '~he developer although they question the ne~d of°.eurbs, ~leetrol~.ers,.etc, ' . ~ Mr.'Tersini intends to try:t;o geb permission for a temporary road across the propased .Pr~ev:•a.~ lancl; although this w0uld not make for goo,: N~u~iic re.~ a~icc~s at the time the. 3ta.te decides to p,it.t in this;.portio?.1 c~ tY_e freevaay. ~ _J" An alternative is an underpass beneath the freeway, al- though the cost is prohibitive, Two lanes would run anywhere from $150,OG0 to a quarter of a million dollars, and the Stiate's present thinking is that they will not contribute to this undercrossinb. Mr. Tersini said that a Traffic Analysis prepared by D. Jackson Faustman, Consulting Traffic Engineer, indicates that the traffic can be properly handled through the existing roads if they are improved. As a long range re- commendation, Mr. Faustman su~gested that investigation be inade of the possibility o£ the State moving the south-, bound off-ramp south of Stevens Creek Blvd. (as a clover- leaf quadrant); this would simplify design of the Lowe Ave. intersection. Comm. Frolich asked why the developer is interested in putting R-3 around the green areas indicated on the map. Mr. Tersini answered that they felt it would be hard to sell town houses so near the freeway. In the R-3 portion they intend to put 4-plexes, garden apartments, etc., in groups of 6-8 units. The City Planner said that the developer's plans indicate 400 units west of the freeway and 80 units on the east side. Comm. Frolich asked if the developer would be willing to change the application to R-24 for the urhole parcel, Mr. Tersini did not think his firm would be adverse to this. Comm, Frolich was concerned about the traffie situation. He as~ed the developer what would riappen if half of the cars from the propos~d units had to Pet onto Stevens Creek Road within one hour. Mr. Tersini said that with Lowe Ave. at 46' (32' net) the directional hourly volume would be 620 cars, exclusive of intersections. The intersection at Stevens Creek Blvd, should be signalized. Comm. Frolich felt that without Mary Avenue going,through, it would ~ust dump the traffic from one area into another. The City Planner then gave a summary of his report and comments on Mr. Tersini's presentation. There is a question of whether additional area is needed for industry in Cupertino other than Vallc6 Park. There is now no demand for railroad access to Cupertina, Higher population density in the future may possibly change the picture, however, Industrial use of this area may be im- portant to the City of Cupertino in the future but the demand for such use cannot be documented now. Traffic is anather important factor. It is undesirable to serve an area of this size from one side only,"in this case, from the south, All traffic from the a:rea would be concen- trated to one or two intersections on Stevens Creek.Blvd, Traffic to the north would be foreed to long-detours. Traf- fic to neighborhood schools, churches and shops east' of the freeway would be forced to detour via Stevens Creek Blvd; this would add local traffic to a heavily travelled arterial and make pedestrian and bicycTe traffic to nearby parts of th~ neighborhood impossible. _4_ The developer has indicated an interest in a temporary road acrass the freeway property. Tf sueh a road were con- structed and then closed when freeway construction is begun the public would certainly protest. For these reasons, an additional access to the area should be provided:' t~n access from the north would have eliminated detours as'much as possible, but the intersection with the pl~nned Junipero Serra Freeway encounters certain technical diffiCUlties and the schedule af the freeway construction allows no time to solve these.' An access from the east can be constructed fairly easily as an underpass under Stevens Freewa'y:- A moderate ad~ust- memti'oR the freeway proflle would'be necessary, but there is time for a technical study as this section of the free- way is not scheduled for several years. Tentative cost estimates of the underpass vary from $45,000 to $150,000, depending on the standards, which would be - decided by the State Highway Division. From the point of view of the City of Cupertino, minirnum standards (e,g, sidewalk 2 x 6', roadway 22', clearance 9' or 10') would be acceptable and even preferable, as through traffic should not be encouraged. There is a question of whether or not the State would agree to tihis. It may be argued that the underpass is r_ot ~ustified, be- ~ause the capacity problem of Stevens C~^eek Blvd could be solved. This may involve considerable future expenditures for the City or the County, however. Above all, the aecess problem is not mainly a capacity problem, Also, it may be argued, that the value of the underpass will be lessened, or even that it might create a traffic ~roblem, if the proposed N~ry Avenue viaduct over Junipero Serra Freeway were not reaiiz~d. It seems, however, that the Mary Avenue overpass, or at least a good connectlon from Mary Avenue to the Stelling'~o~d overpass, would be an ~ essential part of the overal2 traffic system of Cupertino. The developer's consultant, as well as Mr. Dean P, Larson, Senior Engineer of Santa Clara County'S ~epartment of Public Works, concur about the desirability of the underpass. The City Planner's recommendations are: 1. There may be a future need of an industrial development in this area, but as this need cannot be documented now it is recommended that am application for rezoning to residential zone be granted. 2. Zf rezoning were granted, it is recommended that it be granted to R-2-H along University Way and to R-24-H for the entire remaining area, as R-3-H would allow an undesirably high density and leave no guarantee that sufficient a_ccesses were constructed, -5- 3, It is`recommended that,a possible rezoning should be granted only under condition that the recommendations in the attached letter from the Santa Clara County be adhered to and guaranteed, including an underpass under Stevens Freeway with the minimum dimension5 the State Highway Division may agree to. 4. It is also recommended that an easement for water mains with a total width of 20' at the northern boundary of the area be made a condition to rezoninb, The County's recommendations in their letter of May 22, 1964, are as 'follows: 1, Direct extension of Lowe Avenue to the north from Univeraity Way. 2. Improve the easterly si(3e of the proposed 46' right-of- way on Lowe Avenue with County standards improvements as shown in our Standard Details Manual, plus 10' of temporary paving on the westerly side. 3. Improve the intersection of Lowe Ave. with Stevens Creek Blvd. 4, Improve the westerly 20' of Peninsula Ave, to the same standards as No. 2 above, plus an overlay of the re- maining existing pavement. 5. Provide a new intersection of Peninsula Avenue with Stevens Creek Blvd. Chairman Thomsan requested the Staff send copies of th~se attachments to the Commissioners along with the Minutes. Comm, Johnson stated hg wanted to study the traffic analysis before he made any decision. Chairman Thomson asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Chairman Thomson asked the City Attorney if,,the property owner has any recourse for oompensation when in~ress and egress from his property has been impaired. Tlze City Attor- ney said this could be sub~ect to eminent domain proceedings. He went on to say that the taking of land is one taking; impairment of ingress and egress is another taking and involves eminent domain, The Chairman then asked the City Planner whether Lowe Ave. to the east would cease to have access when the freeway is developed. The City Planner said that it would go into Alhambra and together they would empty into the freeway. The Chairman asked the City Planner if it was his opinion that the County is trying to get more road improvement than seems fair, The City Planner said that the developer has indicated he is in agreement on the road improvement plans. However, Mr. Ters3ni said he felt the County is trying to get as much as possible from trie developer, -6- Comm. Frolich stated that, in light of the presentation tonight and the report from the City Planner, he proposed to cantinue £h1a applicat~on,to the~next meeting. Motion was''tria3e by Comm. 3ahnson and seconded~by Comm. Adamo to close the Second Hearing. A~ES: Comm. Adamo, Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None AB3EN`Pd'Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 5-0 It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Johnson to continue applic,ation 112-Z-63 to the next re~~3,ar;cr~eting and that tHe City Planner €urn~sh tYie Commi"ssion with copies of the traffic analysis and the communication from the County Department of Public Works. AYES: Comm. Adamo, Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 5-0 B. ALMADEN-WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT CO.: Appl. 12-Z-64 to rezone 5.5 acre8 from R-1:B-2 to~R-1; south end of Whitney•Way, 380' east of Highway 9. Second Hearing. Tentative,map aPPl• 3-TM-64 (23 lots). Mr. David Franklin, representative of Almaden-Windsor Development Company, made the preeentation. He said the problem here is the extension of Antoinette Drive, The Assistant City Engineer reported bhe tentative map is now at City Hall, and the question is who is responsible for the brid~e needed to eross Regnart Creek, The City Planner felt 2 lanes of traffic on this bridge would be sufficient, along with 2 sidewalks. The City Staff feel5 the storm drain fee could be credited toward thia crossing. Tt is estimated this bridge will cost between $8,000 and $10,000. The stcrm drain fees would cover about half of this. Comm. Gates wanted to know if the brldge would gp in when the rest of" the improvements are put in, The Assistant City Engineer stated that, in checking with the Flood Control,.they felt no responsibility toward this crossing of the creek. Chairman Thomson asked for comments ~'rom the audlence. There were none. Comm, Frolich asked if there were any conditions or requlre- ments from the Public Agencies. The Assistant Citv Engineer said the Flood Control cautioned against any overflow into the creek and requested the subdivider be required to fence the rear prop~•rty line along the creek. The Utilities companies indicated no problems in servicing the area. -7- The Assistant City En~ineer noted the following defi- ciencies in the Tentative Map: Water furnished by San Jose Water Works, Gas furnished by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the map has no North Point on it, Chairman Thomson stated: "I am happy to see an R-1 appli- cation; they seem to sell very well.in Cupertino, It `takes home owners to build a good community, if we can get a good tax base.to,go along with it:" The sudience applauded this statement+ It was moved by Comm. F:rolich.and~ seeonded by Comm. Johnson to close the Second Hearing. AYES: Comm. Adamo, Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 5-0 It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Adamo to recommend approval of application 12-Z-64 to rezone 5•5 acres from R-1:B-2 to R-1 with the following conditions: 1 - 12 Standard conditions 13. Fulfillment of requirement of the Flood Control 14, The bridge on Antoinette across Regnart Creek to be completed by the developer befare the bui7dings are finaled. 15. Fence alor~g rear property line to be installed by the developer. Comm, Johnson asked about the timing on the finalization. He wanted to know if the bridge would be constructed be- fore any of the residents move in. Mr. Franklin assured the Planning Commission that the bridge will be in when the development is completed. It waS moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Adamo to amend item 14 of the original motion in that the bridge is to be installed and paid for by the developer, Comm. Gates felt that turning left off Highway 9 onto Silverado presents a real hazard. Comm. Frolich stated that if this were a sizeable development he, too, would be concerned with the traffic, but this involves only about 23 homes. The vote on the amendment was 3-2.. The Chairman then called for a roll call vote on the amendment: AYES: Comm. Adamo, Frolich, Thomsori NOES: Comm. Gates, Johnson ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 3-2 -8- Vote on the motion as amended: AXES: Comm, Adamo, Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 5-0 It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seCOnded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Tentative Map, appl. 3-TM-64, sub~ect to the approval of the City Engineer. Motion carried, 5-0 C. DEEP CLIFFE DEVELOPNtENT CO.: Appl. 13-Z-64 to rezone 4.5 acres from R-1 to R-24-H; east end of Riverside Drive. Second Hearing. Mr. Jim Desmond, Secretary-Treasurer of the Deep Cliffe Development Company made the presentatibn. The City Staff agre2d with him that this property cannot be developed into 7500 Sq,. ft. R-T lots witriout heavy grading and terraeing, whicri would include almost total destruction of the t~ees. He ~aid that after mUch thought, his firm had decided upon light density, garden-type apartments. They will not be rental units, He explained that this is a uniaue settin~ here which cannot be duplicated anywhere, The proposed garden apartments will cover less than 20% of the site and will include 2 parking spaces for each unit. The City Planner asked -if the carports were included in this 2Q/ coverage. Mr, Steinberg, the architect, said he believed they were. Mr. Steinberg said this property could go single family but the ~op of the hill must be shaved off and this fill would be used to build up the low ground around the perimeter. A low density apartment type of development would preserve the trees. The possibility of high rise was brought out at the last Hearing. Mr. Steinberg said a steel reinforced concrete building would increase building costs by one-half or may even double. Comm. Gates said the subdivision ordinance says the sub- divider shall mark all trees on the map, Mr. Steinberg said this has been done. The R-24 Ordinance 002K under Section 47 was referred to. Comm. Gates asked if this plan is on a topographical map. Mr, Steinberg said that it is. Comm. Johnson challenged Mr. Desmond's statement that 750o sq. ft, lots could not be developed without destroying all the trees. Mr. Steinberg said that when you subdivide for R-1 you are more concerned with ~ettin~ lot sizes right than preserving any landscaping. Where the land is hilly this problem is compounded in that by scraping off the top you lose those trees and pushing the e~cess soil into the low areas would kill the t'rees in those areas. -9-- Comm. Johnson asked if it would be a hardship on the com- munity if R-24 were not granted, Mr, Desmond felt it would be a hardahip on the exieting neighborhood and on the community to lose the trees:'' It is a wonderful area for evening strolls. This area was zoned in 1961, Comm, Gates said that if the present zoning were to remain a lot of earth moving would be involved and that is expen- sive. He asked the developer where his "break even" point would be, from an economic standpoint, Mr. Steinberg said these figures were not available at this time, The City Planner said it is quite clear that the architect has been aware of the natural beauty of the area and has made a great effort to save as much of it as is compatible with the proposed density. It is trie opinion of the City Planner, however, that the result would not be as good as shown in submitted layouts, tnainly because of insufficient parking space, The plan provides for one car apace per dwellirig unit in carports, plus one parking space per unit (instead of 1/2 as required in the zoning ordinanc~). However, by reducing the wSdth of the access roadway, which is aesthetically preferable, curb parking is eliminated.' When a foreseeable need of up to 3 car spaces per,unit iriaterializes, the result would undoubtedly be that trees would be cut down and additional parking epace bulldozed from the natural slopes. After some sketching, the City Planner came to the result that 32 dwelling units is the maximum that would leave the natural beauty of the area reasonably intact. It has been pointed out that 32 units per 4,5 acres is an extremely low density for R-24-H, but it should'also b~ considered that the area has been bou;ht by the developer as an R-1 area. The City Planner's recommendations are as follows: "A low density R-24-H zone seems to offer the only poasi- bility.now to retain at ~east a part of the beauty of the area. It is recommended,that rezoning to R-24-H be granted, under condition that there will be no more than 32 dwelling units in the area, and that areas for three automobile spaces per unit be res~rved inside or outside buildings or in a centralized parking lot. Comm. Johnson askefl the City Planner what his opinion was concerning the area that would have to be leveled for R-1. The City Planner said that for 18 to 20 lote eyerything would have to be leveled and very`few trees could,:be saved, If you restrict it to about 12 lots you could save some of the present topography. If you get down to 5 or 6 homes you could save most of the trees, probably. Comm. Gates asked the approximate retail price of .homes if 5 or 6 were tp be built here, Chairman Thomson sa,id he believed view lots ran about $10,000 for 1/3 acre at the present time. --10- r • . , . The Chairman-asked for comments from the audience, and cautioned them from becoming repetitive: Mr. Alex Patrick, 22389 Balustrol Ct„ challen~ed whether the rendering showed the actual location of the trees. He said he has flown over this area several times and it looked different. Mr, Steinberg said this rendering was done after an engineer had mapped out the trees, Mr. Tom Hunter, 22447 Balustrol Court, asked what the size of the lots were along the golf course. He was told they were up to 11,000 sq. ft. _ Mr, Hunter then asked why the developer says he must now go to 7500 sq. ft, lots ~or this parcel. Mr, Desmond said. th~ contour of the land and the street pattern dictate somewha~ t~e size of the lots. Mr. Hunter then wanted to know why he and the other home- owners were told tihis whole area would go into view lots. This question was not answered. At this point, Chairman Thomson stated that the Planning Commission is more influenced by light than by heat. Mr. George Hollingsworth, 22438 Balustrol Ct., felt the presentation misrepresented the contour of the lar_d. He also commented on the vacancy factor of the multiples in that area now, Mr. Sam Sersin, 22380 Balustrol Ct., said he was most concerned with the community and would like to keep the area for family living. Mrs. Kaplan, 22101 McClellan Road, said she is quite con- cerned with the nuisance traffic on the narrow streets in this area up to Foothills Blvd. She added that she is a conservationist and, in her opinion, some of the trees in that area seem to be in poor condition, Mrs. Judy Tess, Cordova Road, felt this area is too far removed from the stores for apartment dwellers and was also concerned with the traffic. Mr. Dean Sayre, 10805 So. Stevens Creek Road, felt the community atmosphere should be preserved, He added that the multiples already built in this area are not selling very fast. Mr, Robert Jacobs, 19851 Baywood Drive, stated that unless the developer has.an overwhelming reason why this would be good for the community, the will of the people should pre- vail, as it had in a recent application. Chairman Thomson stated this application will not be decided upon emotionally. Mr. Paul Morgan, 22392 St, Andrews Ave., wanted to know what would insure the developer puts in what he says he will put in, once he gets the R-24 zoning, Mr, Desmond said a re- corded easement around the entire area could be created to prevent anyone from developing this area for more than 11 units per acre. -il- Mr, Desmond said that high rise was not praotical for many reasons. His firm nas no statistics on what the cost would be or if there is any demand for this type of living accommodations. Also, the density would be greater. Mr. Serein~asked if the developer planned an O1d Folks Home here. Mr. Desmond said not neces~arily, altrhou~h it would be suitable for older people or people with small families. Comm. Frolich asked what the proposed selling price would be. Mr. Desmond felt that a rough guess would be $30,000 to $35,000 for a 1062 sq. ft, unit. Comm. Johnson asked how mueh an R-1 home'would run here. Mr. Desmond said they would run $25,000 to $35,000. Chairman Thomson asked if the tentative map for this area was submitted when the initial dedelopment'tentative'~ma~ was submitted to the City. The Assistant City Erigineer said it was not. " ' It was moved by Comm. Frolich and secondett b~r`Comm. Johnson to close the Second Hear3ng. . Motion carried, 5-0 Comm. Frolich wondered about parking on tlie street, R-1 would renuire 2 parking sp$ces per unit. After seeing the area on the previous Sunday, he now feels that high rise is not the answer. Neither is he 'convinced the top of the hill needs to be chopped off and the perimeter filled without the need of a high retaining wall. Also, any destroying of trees must now be checked out by the City Staff. He also could see the need for executive homes in the ?rea, He felt something other than an R-l grid pattern should be considered for this land. Comm. JohnSon said it is the duty of the Planning Commis- sion to protect the general health, welfare and morals of the Community. He does not feel this property would be useless if it is not rezoned, He felt the prime oonsideria- tion in this case is that the beauty of the area should be preserved. He suggested putting homes along the perimeter with redwood deGking and the trees-~utting'right through the decking. ' - Comm. Gates asked the City Attorney if the Planning'Com- mission would have anything to say about how R-1 would be developed here if ~hi,s application wer2 denied:' The City Abtorney said that after trie developer Has picked out the lots he wouid come to the City for variances." He must also present a tentative map and a final map, Chairman Thomson quoted Ordinance 47, Section 13.2J regarding the destroyin~ of trees. ~ _ „ , , -32'- ' ,r . , . . . It was moved by Comm. Jornson and seconded by Comm, Frolich to deny application 13-z-64 AYES: Comm. Adamo, Fro11c~, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Rampy, ~nyder Motion carried, 5-0 The Chairman advised the applicant of his right of appeal to the City Council, Comm. Frolich stated that his obJections to this application were the traffic and the density. He suggested the developer pull back and wait for the new ordinance which may do a better ~ob for him, Comm. Adamo left at this point midnight. D, WILLIAM F. HARANG: Appl. 14-Z-64 to rezone 2 acres ~ from R-1:B-2 to R-2-H on the east side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Appletree Lane, First Hearing, Mr. William Harang, San Jose, said he proposed to put 8 duplexes with heavy shake roofs here, They will be individually owned and each will contain one 3-bedroom rental and one 3-bedroom unit for owner occupancy. Each unit will have a patio. Comm. Frolich asked what was across the street. There is a school across the street, according to the applicant. Comm. Frolich tihen wanted to know what makes this property different from the other in that area. The applicant said there are only 8 lots involved here and it coats approxi- mately $350o per lot for ~:.urbs and sidewalks. The City Planner said tYiis land borders R-1; however, the proposed duplexes are one-story. He did not see how they would be detrimental to the area. The Chairrr~n asked for comments from the audience, Mr, Roger McElliott, 10438 Vista Drive, said this sounds like poor planning to let this lon~, narrow property ~utting into R-1 and the school go to R-2-H. He felt traffic should be minimized here. Mr. Don Mahoney, Cherry Tree Is ne, said that his reason for speaking is purely economics. He paid $30,000 for his home and feels duplexes here would be detrimental. Mr. Mercer, 10446 Vista Drive, noted that earlier in the evening the Planning Commission Chairman had applauded an R-1 application. Mr, Ted Freeborg, 10416 Cherry Tree Lane, said tnat before he chose his home he took a careful look at the zoning of the area and chose it because it was all R-1 there. Spot zoning is not good, He feels the developer can get his money out anyway. -13- The Chairrr~an asked how many in the audience proteated this rezoning, There were 6. It was,moved by Comm. Gates and seconded by Comm. Johnson to close the First Hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Comm, Johnson requested the applicant bring in some data on the economics of the situation at the Second Hearing, VII UNFINISHED BUSINESS A: Study Session to meet Thursday, May 28th; at 7:30 P,M, at City Hall. Comm. Gates and Thomson stated they wi1l both be there, but late. B. The Assistant City Engineer said the Uenaka application for C-2 zoning was put off from December, 1g63, to last March, and then to the first meeting in June. He wanted to know what he should do, since the new ordinances are. still forth- c omin~; . Corpm. Frolich suggested the Assistant City En;ineer contact Mr, Uenaka and expTain'the siCuation and see if he wants to wait,for the new ordinances. VIII NEW BUSINESS A. Miscellaneous None. B. ANTONIO L. LILLO: Appl. 4-TM=64 for approval of a tentative map. South side of McClellan Road, 100' west of Westacres Drive. (2 lots) Mr. Lillo had nothin; to add; the tentative map speaks for itse lf . The City Staff ~ays everything seems to,b~ in order, It was moved by Comm. Frolich and second'ed by Comm. Johnson to approve 4-TM-64, AYES: Comm. Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: .None ABSENT: Comm. Adamo, Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 4-0 C. THORST.EN A, BACKMAN: Apgl. S-TM-64'fbr approval of a teritative ma~. North side of Bollinger Road, 150 feet east of Highway 9, (2 lots) Mr, B^ckman had nothing to add; the tentative inap speaks for itself. • The Assistant City Engineer said the map needs to be dated. Comments from the Flood Control indicate thaE should Mr, $ackman request drainage into Regnart Creek an enCroach- ment permit is required. . . - y~F_ . . ~ . It was moved by Comm, Frolich and seconded by Comm. Gates to approve 5-TM-64, sub~ect to the minor corrections indicated by the Assistant City Engineer. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Gates, Johnson, Thomson NOES: None ABSENT: Comm, Adamo, Rampy, Snyder Motion carried, 4-0 XI ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Johnson to ad~ourn the meeting at 12:45 A,M. APPROVED: /s/ Scott Thomson Chairman ATTEST: j\ i~ _ Robert S. Shook Secretary, Planning Commission -15-