Loading...
PC 12-07-65 "ff' ),'-1 '1' ................À 10321 I:)OUI.I. Oo.~-o."C>lSo.-OUtl!l'y 1f<1J.e ftoad Cupertino, california, 95014 phone: 252-4505 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PC-Sl 80,000.4 CITY OF CUPERTINO California MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEE.'l'ING December 7, 1965 8:00 P.M. The meeting was held in the "offi·ces 0:(. CUpertino' City Ha.ll 10321"8'. Saratogl"-Sunnyvn1e Rdad, Cupertino ~. ' I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: : ~; Comm. present: .Comm. absent: Frolich, H1rs~on Horgan, 'rraeumer, Johnson None -. ,., . Director of Planning, Adde' L8.urin Assistant Planner, Jim Nuzµ~ City Engineer, Bob Shook .. Recording Secretary, Sylv1a .Hinrichs Chäirman Johnson we1 comed James Horgan· to the Planning Commission; and complimented the City council on malting a wise decision in selecting Mr. Horgan to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Gates. Mr. Horgan has been a member of the Architectural and Site· Control Committee since 1964, and is well oriented in City Planning matters. Staff· present: . _. , :' J."'\ ' .Chairman Johnson pointed out that this Special Meeting of . ..the Planning Commission had' been called for the following rea.sons: . ¿. ''''''. ;:.¡ (1) The Planning Commission waàshort one member. (Comm. . Horgan had not yet been appòinted); (2) The· Chairman .could not attend the regularly scheduled 'meeting on P.ecember 13,1965; ·(3) There was on thesgenda ari'item, to which one Commissioner ,is an intereated party; and intended to abstain from vot ing on it; ·(4) The meeting sched.lled for December 27, 1965, should be cancelled, if possible, bécause thi.s day ·1s adjacent to the Christmas Holiday, and members of the public, as well as the PlanningComlliission, maybe out of town; (5) It had'been ascertained that all members of the Planning Commissi~n could attend onD~cember 7th.' ,I -':: ... i: -1- -._' '-~.----._.. -. ~ ~ -~.. - ---- ----_..-- ------------------------~~---------------------------------------- PC-S1Minutes of the Special Plannlng commission Meeting 12/1/65 pI 20-z-65 A. HEARINGS SCHEDULED: CPM DEVELOPERS: Rezoning of l5t acres, from R-l to R1C, at McClellan Road and Vallecito Road (Horse Ranch). Comm. TraeUJner said he would abstain from the pUblic hearings, because he was directly connected with this development, and was presenting the application. Mr. Traeumer indicated that it would lend support to the presentation if he reviewed the cluster development concept, as it applied to this site. He believes the site development plan as proposed. will generate a project that will make a name for the City of Cupertino. because of the natural beauty of the site and it has the historical marker situated on the site. The property is completely encompassed by Stevens Creek and the bluff. and will have an artificial lake within the area. Mr. Traeumer pointed out that generally when a developer contemplates a project, he investigates the property for any problems which might exist in the way of drainage, utilities, etc., and checks with the City Engineering Department. To indicate how Laguna De Anz:a developed, he contacted an engineer to start the preliminary investigation with a cluster concept in mind. . . Mr. Traeumer then yielded the floor to Mr. Heiss. the engineer for the project. to review the development plan from its in- ¿eption. Mr. Heiss explained that his firm had been involved in this project for over two years. In their analysis of the site, they felt the most desirable feature and which made it unique. was the fact that half the property was ringed by a channel, and surrounded by a large growth of trees. The cha~nel might have become a detriment, howev~r, and certain problems have arisen in regard to flood control. Mr. Heiss .illustrated on a drawing, the location of the channel in its natural setting, and said that the Flood ~ontrol District in their analysis have indicated the specific size which the channel would have to be excavated. The developer has submitted a cross--section as a minirm.¡rnwhich the Flood Control District could approve; this included a 301 bottom, 1+lt slöpes, and 9--13 ft. depth. Mr. Beisscontinued that if the excavation standards were too restrictive, it would .ellminatethe natural appearance of the creek, which would be replaced by an ugly cut, and if the trees would have had to be removed for the larger excavation,· this would ~ve eliminated one of the most desirable features of the Sl~$. The developer tried to work out a solution which would satisfy the Flood Control District. Be proposed a minor excavation, which would maintain the natural characteristics of the channel. Instead of a deep and wide channel, a floci plain would be provided, with a berm of compacted fill ?rotecting the houses behind. -2- PC-Sl Minutes of the Special" Planning Commission Meeting, 12/7/65 -------------------------------------------------------.------------- The channel would suffice 99% of the time; only on very rare occasions would the flood plain be utilized. This has satisfied the County Flood Control requirements. Mr. Heiss pointed out that this property is a natural for a Cluster Development, and would incorporate a common green ·area, scenic walkway, and a park-like setting, thlis restor- ing the natural amenities of the site. Mr. Guzz:ardo, the site planner and landscape architect for the project, stated that he is primarily concerned in the site planning and development of the land to its best ad- vantage. From the standpoint of requirements and real estate sales they have arrived at the proposed plan, which they think is the best utilization of the land. The key to a successful development is amenities, and the cluster concept with its individual parcels is good planning. Basically, side yards are wasted space; it is better to provide an arrangement that will give the feeling of open- ness and provide space which all the family can enjoy. The proposed development is a self-contained neighborhood, and a controlled environment; the creek is active a good portion of the year, and there are mature trees, which will remain on the property. The people living in the area can see the openness, and all units will adjoin a common area; some units will be inverted and some will have private decks and patios; people can walk on to the common area. There will be a lake which can be enjoyed by everyone, and which will be stocked with swans and ducks." Traffic cir- culation will penetrate at only one locatio~ because this is a contained environment. They have avolded the grid concept, and have gone to great lengths to support sale- ability aSpect. Mr. Traeumer added that it was necessary to determine what the selling price would be, when de- signing these units. For that purpose, they made a study of town houses throughout the entire State, to arrive at a fair price. Mr. Stan Langford, Sales Manager for Stone & Schulte, said he has done research on town houses, and discovered there were a number of developers who are exploring this type of development for the first time. In the past, it was primarily retired people who bought this type of home, and many developers placed restrictions for certain age limits. At present, 30% of the buyers are fam.i1:!..es with young children, wh:!..ch still are the primary market. A third group of buyers for this type of dwelling are the younger couples, both husband and wife working, who would l:!..ke to enjoy home ownership without too much upkeep and maintenance. Privacy must be built into most of these units, and the units in this development are so arranged; there are no windows overlooking other windows. Some of the dwelling units are situated to the rear,overlooking the lake and swimming pool. -3- -----~ PC-Sl -- ----- - ---- --- -';"'-;- --....-- -....-..,;. -- ---...-.... ---- -------.-- --.-- -~ - - -:-.:--- -:-...;...;. --- Minutes of the Special PlanningCommission Meeting, 12/7/65 Another reason people are interested in .buying these units is for the convenience; they feel they want to get away from the daily maintenance chores; other reasons are for :t'ecreatiOl! facilities, and an escape from the influence of subdivision ·li ving.. .. There are many conveniences that can be built in, that many people could not afford. otherwise. People want romance and adventure in housing and the amenities, and by buying a home in a development such as this they can get away from theold~·rashioned grid pattern. There is a tI'ueldentity in this proposed cl!>mmunity - there are one- and two-sto~and ranch type homes, with different roof l1nesand architecture. Mr. Traeumer commented that it is necessary to present an intermedia~e plan beforesubmitt1nga final development plan, because the design will determine the final building envelopeS, and because it would be too costly to complete plans in all details before knowing if therez:oning will be approved. He also mentioned that there will be two golf courses nearby for the residents to enjoy, and that Blackberry Farm picnic grounds are situated near the development. Mr. Traeumer introduced Bob Page (,Bukke,Cahn &P1Jgei}.rchitects, who had designed the Chrisman development of Professional buildings at the "Town Center." Mr. Page said he felt a better name for the development now presented would be "country houses," rather than town houses. He said this development was a challenge to them, .and the first opportunity in Northern California to take a self-contain~ land and develop some sört of architectural continuity. They have established an a:t'chitecturaI theme wlth a Spanish design, because of its historical Spanish background. Homeowners will be acquiring a total concept, not just an individual house. There will be five different floor plans, building into each individual plan the fact that the houses all face the green, with private patios and without the feeling they are being encroached by neighbors. All houses will be con- struèted withCalifornia tile roof. The developers presented slides of two "California Spanish" town house developments in Southern California, and explained that ·their development would have some öf the same charac- teristics in design and layout. Mr. T:t'aeumer stated that this site was chos·en because of its bis·torical background, one of the most historical sites in California. It has been reputed that De Anz:a stopped there with his party, on his wà.y to San Fràncisco,andbur:!:ed a plaque on this site. The developers have called this project the Laguna De Anz:a in his honor. Mr. Page emphasizec;l the individuality of each house, with different elevations, set backs and roof lines. The density projected for this develqpment:1s 5.5 units per acre. -lj- PC-Sl -------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes or the Special Planning Commission Meeting, 12/7/65 Mr. Traeumer added that they have worked with the Planning Department and Public Works Department staff before present- ing the plan to the Commission. The City plays a part in the culmination of this project, and it is their wish to develop the project with the City's cooperation. Chairman Johnson asked about the layout diagram, the park- ing situation, and circulation of traffic before discussing tpe plan further. Mr. Guzzardo explained that basically, the network of pedestrian circulation will allow the residents to walk from their back door and around the projep1¡"the lake and the creek. The walkway will conform both with the appli- cant's requirements and the City's requirements. The parking ratio will be 342 cars for the total project, (in- cluding driveways, pocket and curb parking) allowing four parking spaces per dwelling unit, which they feel is adequate for this project. He indicated the sloped topo- graphy to a low point of the lake excavation and natural drainage. They hope to channel most of the surface water into the lake. Mr. Guzz:ardo showed the lot system areas which will be open space and the building envelopes (set backs will vary); there will be 1.475 acres of open area, 6.773 acres of common area, 1.4 acres for the lake - a total acreage of 9.28 of Common Area. '¡'he dwelling units will encompass 1,4 acres, 1.95 acres will be streets, and 15.368 acres in ~otalarea. The road section will be 32 ft. from curb face to curb, wlth 5' set back, which is part of the right-of- way - being 42'. The flood control plain may be decreased in size, without decreasing the total area of open space. At present, the flood control plain ends at ~berm which slopes gèntly to the interior, and is 41 hig~. The De Anza historical site will have a statue of De Anza placed in the center of a small island in the lake. There will be an off-street parking area adjacent to McClellan Road, with a path to the statue, and a few picnic tables for sight-seers. This area will be buffered from the residential area by·the trees. Pedestrians can reach the lake and the statue withoug going through the residential a.rea. The Planning Director stated this is a good plan, and will be enhanced by the terrain. He had checked it against the Cluster Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to be quite flexible, but exceptions must be specified, which can be accomplished because the applicant's plan is a well drawn and accurate layout, on which variations can be clear- ly marked. If the Planning Commission agrees with the development plan, variations of standards can be made conditions to the rezoning. A revised final Development Plan should be submitted together with, or as a part of -5- PC-Sl -------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the Special Planning Commission Meeting, 12/7/65 , the Tentative Map. He has reviewed the plans with the applicant, checking against section by section of the Cluster Ordinance. In some sections the applicant has con- formed wntirely with the Ordinance, in other sections appli- cation for variations have been made. The Planning Director proceeded to go through his memo, para- graph by paragraph (enclosed as. Appendex.A to these Minutes), referring to all provisions of the Cluster Ordinance. During this process, the following remarks were made by other persons: Gara~e space: Mr. Traeumer remarked that his plans call for '2" x 201 for each garage space, which would ma!{e the inner dimensions of each garage 1'8" less than required ·bythe City, but meeting F.R.A. requirements. parkin~: Mr. .Traeumerreplied that the only people who would ave to walk distances near 600' would be the guests at houses without driveways. McClellan Road: Mr. Traeumer indicated that his engineer, in cooperation with the City Engineer, has made some cross sections, and will contact the County to determine how the road can be widened and provided with sidewalks without removing many trees. Development of Open Area to be dedicated: The Planning Director emphasized that the Applicant's request to be excepted from the requirement to develop the part of the area which is indicated to be dedicated to public use, is a variation from the requirements of the Cluster Ordinance. Mr. John Parham, theCity1s Director of Parks and Recrea- tion, stated he wished to make some observation on the development, and to question the amenities and advantages to people living in the areá. Upon receiving information on siz:e of area to be dedicated and the Common Area, he stated he wlshed to go on record that he felt the Common Area is adequate for the 85 families living there, and added that there were many advantages around the develop- ment which had not b~en mentioned before; there is an excellent golf course nearby, a high school and two elemen- tary schools with playgrounds will be located nearby in the future, and a nearby Stevens Creek County Park is planned. He would also like to comment that this is one of the most ·enlightened plans he has seen for a long time. The City Engineer stated the applicant has met with the staff concerning the stre~t pattern, and the staff is agreeable with the applicant's suggestions. The staff will continue to work on the McClellan Road situation. Chairman Johnson'· asked what the situation on McClellan Road is at present. -6- · ,-,......,. .. .... ",.~" PC-51 Minutes of the Special Planning Commission Meeting, 12/7/65 -------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Engineer replied that McClellan Road is the County boundary between the City of Cuper.tino and the County. The staff has discussed with the County the widening of the road to 60. right-of-way, of which 401 is roadway, with some straightening of the alignment. Mr. Louis Stocklmeir, 22120 Stevens Creek Blvd., said it was his understanding that a section near the lake would be dedicated to the De Oro Historical Society. Mr. Traeumer replied that the small iSlandJwould be dedicated to the De Oro Society; the rest would be mainly a path- way and a picnic area and a small playground for children. Mr. Grattan Hogin,ll067 Linda Vista Drive, asked how this development will relate to the proposed Stevens Creek park chain. Mr. Traeumer replied that the owners of the property across the creek had held their property off the market during the negotiations for the park chain, but now it is back on the market. Mr. Hogin asked if the walkWay on the floodplain will be closed to the public. Mr. Traeumer answered that there will be a dedicated por- tion of 151 to Stevens Creek Elood Control for maintenance of the channel, but the remainder will be private, jointly owned by the residents of the development. Mr. Hogin cOntinued by saying he felt this was an .excellent project, but he feels the area next to the creek should not only be of benefit to the residents of the Bubdivision but be usable by the public, and recommends that the Planning Commission give this consideration. Mr. Traeumer reiterated ~hat the area adjoining the creek was to be private, be- longing to the residents of the development, and not a public park. Mr. HeiSs said that the boundary of Mr. Traeumer1s property is the middle of the creek. Chairman Johnson asked what would happen if the County decided to excavate and widen the channel; will the ba~{ on the right side be sufficient to handle the overflow if the bank on the left were filled as a part of a develop- ment? Mr. Heiss and Mr. Traeumer replied that there is a written statement setting forth the. intent that the County will not excavate the channel; the stream is also controlled by the reservoir; and the elevation of the channel is now nearing the height required by "the 100- year storm." Mr. Stocklmeier said he owns a half-mile of the creek, and within 75 years there have been 4. instances when the creek has overflowed its banks, three were natural runoffs ~~d one was man-made. This portion opposite the dike is much smaller than the area on the other side,and on very fe~ instances in the 4 periods (since 1872) has the water e-rer encroached on the left side, but has always gone over to the field to the right. -7- Pö'-s:J. . ~qir.utes ot: the Spec;1.al Planning' Commission Meeting, 12/7/65 -~.._.._-~---~--~--------~--_.~~..~-~-------------------.----.-..-------..- Chairman Johnson called fOr a5:minute reak at 10:00 P.M. Comm. Hirshon questioned the applicant's variance in the width of the garages, and pointed out that City standards call for 20' x 10'. Mr. Traeumer contended that 9'2" is the FHA specification; also, that this garage width is a part of the oVerall design by the architect, and that the width of the door (16') would be more important than the interior width of the garage. FHA standards are researched and will take care of any car. The reduction would have to be included as one of the variations requested by the developer. . Comm. Frolich pointed out that there is a separate area set aside for washing and drying, so this . will hot encroaèh on the garage space which usually is the case in standard R-l areas. Comm. Hirshon commented on McClellan Road. Mr. Traeumer answered that all problems will be resolved to the satis- faction of t~e Director of Public Works by the time the Tentatlve.Map Issubmitted. Comm. Hirshon asked if';there has béen any stl,1dy made of the policing of the area, and how the public area will be màintained. MI'. Traeumer replied that, for the area to be dedicated to the City, the developer will provide all the architectural design, but the City would be respon- sible for landscaping and maintenance, if the dedication ·is accepted. The other Common Area will be landscaped by the developer and maintained by a Homeowners' Assoc. . . Comm. Hirshon asked the applicant to clarify the "Promenade luminaires" which were mentioned in the plans, Mr. Traeu~er explained theàeare street lights which are'much more attractive than the usual electroliers. As they are closer to the ground, they have to be spaced 20' apart instead of 301, They will greatly enhance the pro3ect. . PG&E will maintain them, as they do with other types. The City Engineer pointed out tnat this is a deviation from the Clt~ standards, and Would .have to be .. an exception from the subdivision ordinance; however, PG&E approves of them. . . . .. . Comm~ Frolich stated that from what he has seen and heard this far, this is the most imaginative development, in his. opinion, during the time. .he has been on the Planning Commission.. He asked about the lighting situa- tion in the Common Area in the rear.of the houses. Mr. Traeumersaid adequate lighti~ would be included in the plans. Comm.Frol1ch pointed out that the problem of policing the area is up·t.othe City Council; the Planning Commission should make recommendations, however. He added that he is somewhat concerned about the park- ing situation. R-l developments in. Cupertino usually provide at least 6 automobile parking spaces per dwelling unit; 2 in the garage, 2 in the driveway, and 2 on the curb. -8- ------------------------------------------------------------------- PC-Sl Minutes of the Special P1anningCommission Meeting. 12/7/65 .,. He felt that six spaces may be too much. but questioned if the number proposed in this project was enough. He did not suggest that the project be turned down because of this matter. but it should be investigated further. Con- cerning the garage width, one reason Cupertino" required 20' x 10' width was to aocommodate home owners for storing lawnmowerB and other garden equipment. Mr. Traeumer pointed out that only 38 units out of the ~ would lack parking in the driveway. Rather than destroy some of the attractiveness of tþe plan. he would prefer the guests walk to and from the-aøsigned parking areas. Mr.. Heiss said it can be arranged 'to have guests park in front of a neighbor'S garage with his permission. Comm. Frolich said there are enouÆìl spaceâfor, cars in the area. but what concerns him is no~' only the total avail- able, but the pr¢per distribution. He would not like to see the project destroyed in the future by necessitating additioncof a large parking area or areas. Mr. Heiss said they could place more cars if they put the houses nearer the creek. Mr. Traeumer added that when the Tenta- tive map is. submitted and unit plans are completed, the parking:distribution will be better organized. so that the. 38' units which do not have driveways will not all be ~n the same area. Comm. Hirshon said ~he does not fee~ the guest parking problem will be tQO great. qpomm. Frolich agreed and added that it will be satisfactory if a better distribution is made of the parking spaces. . . The Planning Director referred to his suggested Resolution recommendine; a.:r1ezoning. which he had submitted to the Commission (enclosed as Appendix B. to these Minutes). He also presented a memo from the City A~~orney, who was ab- sent from the meeting, (enclosed as Appendix C to these Minutes) . . . . , . , ,.,:; Comm. Hirshon aSked if ~~ere would be any problems in locating the houses.åo. close to the recreation amenities. . and if there wou~d:besâretÝ enclosures for the pool and 'the lake;'Mr. Heiss answered· that the pool area shows dee¡ign intent .in the plan; they".could adjust the position of 'these amenities sin'ce '~l1eYà.:i:'e. not designed in their final fOÍ'lll.The'lake wil1not1:>eenclosed. nor the creek. The depth of thelake.wil1 bë a safe 3 feet, and shal~ower at one end; the pool will'óe'e'ric1osed. Comm. Frolich, referring to Item B-2 of the suggested Resolution. asked if tnë, driveways less than 20' indicated in this section referred to the aforementioned 38 units. The Planning Director answered: "Yes." .. ' -9- P0·-S1 _.__,_.______________________________u.___________~.______,______________ Minutes of the Planning COTIlmission Special Meeting, 12/7/65 , Camm. Frolich recommended that a new section, #11, ßS sug- gested by the City Attorney's memo, last paragraph, be added to the list of conditions. Comm. Frolich questioned what happens if for some reason, the City does not accept the dedication, and suggested that it be added to Section 11, that if the City would still retain some control over the area if they do not accept the dedication. Chairman Johnson asked what would happen to the overall density if the City should decide the land is not usable for a park or other purpose, and refused the dedication. Mr. Traeumer said he feels if the City does not accept the dedication the De Oro Historical Society may. The De Oro Historical Society proposes to put in a marker at the historical sitè. If the dedication does not take place, that portion will then be retained and maintained by the home owners, Chairman Johnson asked if Section 10 (dedi- cat:l.on) does 'not come into fruition, does the developer still want to claim the additional 7 units. Discussion followed on Section 24 a and f, Modifications of Density, in the Cluster Ordinance. Planning Director's note: There are three variations from the straight density regulations of the Cluster Ordinance involved: A. Common ~rea steeper than 7% may be included in the computation of density, according to Sec. 25, second sub-paragraph; pro- vided t~t the landscaping enhances the overall quality. B. The area~o be dedicated to the City and the Historical Society may, according to Sec. 24b, be included in the area on which number of dwelling units is computed; if provisions A and B both are applied, the number of units allowed will be (Lot Area + Common Area + Dedicated Area)~ 7,500 = 78 units. C. To encourage quality of the develop- ment, the density may be increased, according to Sec. 24c; the requested increase is 9%, to 85 unitso Mr. Guz:z:ardo suggested to the applicant that landscaping of the area to be dedicated to the City would not be too difficult, and if the City does not accept dedication he feels the applicant should include this area in the Common Area, in order to qualify under Sectiön 23. Chairman Johnson referred to Item 3 in the Suggested Resolutions, concel'ning walkways. Mr. Traeumer replied that the pathways will be gravel in the flood control plain only, and feels it would destroy the atmosphere of a natural trail if these pathways were paved. It was recommended that the word "may" be changed to "shall" in Item 5, last sentence. Applicant agreed. Chairman Johnson asked if this was the only placê where the flood control plain must be mentioned; assuming that none of this flood control plain is included, does the Planning Commission still want to rezone it? . -10- . PC-Sl Minutes of the Planning Commission Special Meeting, 12/7/65 -------------------------------------------------------------------- In Section A, it was suggested that spelling out Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 will clarify this section. The City Engineer pointed out that any development must carry the approval of the Flood Control District before the Tentative Map is approved. Moved by Comm. Frolich, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that the Public Hearings be closed. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAINED: Corom. Traeumer Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Frolich that Application 20-2-65 be approved, in accordance with the Planning Director's suggested Resolution of December 7, 1965, with the following changes: Sec. A: After word "Exhibit" in second line, insert 1, 2, 3, 4 and the appropriate titles. Sec. B(2): Change the garage space from 20' x 10' to 20' x 9'2". Sec. B(lO): Add, that in the event the dedication is not accepted by the City, the Developer must landscape this area to the satisfaction of the City, in order to quality for 85 units. Add Item 11 to Sec. B, as follows: Grant of Surface Ease- ment to the City on the portion of the property proposed to be dedicated to the Homeowners' Assoc., and also on the property proposed for dedication to the City or to another Public or Quasi-Public Agency as a recreation ,. area. Add Item 12: Provision that deed restrictions are not to be amended without recorded consent of the City. Motion AYES: NAYS: ABSTAINED: seconded by Comm. Hirshon. Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Horgan, Johnson None Comm. Traeumer Moved unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 P.M. APPROVED: /s/ Robert Johnson Chairman ATTEST: Adde Laurin Director of Planning -ll- PC-Sl 80,000.4 Appendix A to the Minutes of the Special Meeting o~ the Planning Commission on December 7, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: December 7, 1965 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission MEMO: FROM: Adde Laurin, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Laguna De Anz:a (Horse Ranch), Rez:oping from R-l to RlC - - -"- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - -... -"- -- - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- The applicant has submitted five exhibits: (1) Site Development Plan, which gives a visual impression of the proposed development; (2) Land Use Diagram, .which shows Open Area to be dedicated, Com monArea to be administered by a Homeowners' Association, Lots, Building Envelope, Streets· and Parking Spaces to be dedicated, Public Utility Easement, etc.; (3) Parking and Circulation Diagram, Showing walkways and exact number and location of parking spaces; (4) Street Sections; (5) Suggested Resolution. The exhibits are detailed and show clearly 'the applicant's inten- tions. Instances where variations from the provision in the Cluster Ordinance are requested have been stated. Even so, some instances have been discovered, where clarification is needed; this would normally occur in any similar application. These in- stances have been discussed with the applicant and reSulted in revisions of the Sug~ested Resolution. Specifically, .the Building Envelope on Exhibit (2) needs revision; it is the applicant's con- cept that some buildings should extend to within 5' from the curb of the street, others extend to the rear lot line. A revised map will be presented at the Hearing. It seems, that if the PlanningCommission basically approves the applicant's plan, other needed adjustments could be included as conditions of a rez:oning. One condition should be, that a revised Development Plan should be submitted to the Planning Commission not later than the occasion when a Tentative Map is submitted. If the applicant so wishes, one layout can include all the features required in the Development Plan as well as those required in a Tentative Map. ------------- Here follows a sectlon-by-section check of the project against the Cluster Ordinance: ·9.-12 13. 14. 15. are introductions to the Ordinance PURPOSE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS CHARACTERISTICS Conforms " " Note the clause: "Exceptions (from Common Area) may be granted as specified in this Ordinance." -1- i'C-,sl App",ndDt A, Special Planning Comm. Meeting 81,012 20-z-65 12/7 /65 ----------------_.~------------------------------------------------ 16. 17. 18. DEFINITIONS PUBLIC SITES. OPEN AREAS Applies One to be dedicated Conforms " 19. PARKING By oversight, the Parking Ordinance has not been amended to include Cluster Zones (though there is an indirect reference in the Cluster Ordinance that should have the same effect); it might be advisable to clarify this by adding a condition: "Each dwelling unit to have 2 spaces, each 20' x 10', in a completely enclosed garage." The Cluster Ordinance has no specified number of parking spaces in driveways, along curbs, and in pockets. The reason for this is, that there is too little experience of the cluster concept in areas 100% dependent on auto- mobile transportation (many cluster developments in eastern U.S. either have lots large enough to accommo- date parking, or are located in areas where mass trans- portation still functions.) It, has been assumed, that the parking problem would be solved from case to case for some time, until we have gained more experience, and until data from BATS are available. The third family car is generally supposed to be accommo- dated in the driveway. The applicant's concept of zig- zaging the houses within the Building Envelope would eliminate the full 20' driveway for up to 38 houses; however, the corresponding numþer of parking spaces would have to be accommodated in off-street parking pockets on Common Area, each space assigned to a parti- cular house. Occasional parking for one guest car can usually be accommodated in the driveway. Guest parking lots to ac- commodate parties are needed, however. There are no adequate statistics available to decide the number, but as a rule of thumb one parking space per dwelling unit may be used; this may include the fourth and fifth car for families with several sixteen - nineteeners. The number may be more than actually needed, if parking areas are big and centrally located, but too small if they are scattered and peripheral. The presented project has 87 parking spaces for 85 D.U., of which 53 are in pockets and 34 along the curb. This number includes replacement for a number of units (max. 38) with less than 20' driveway. Walking distances involved are up to 600'. In my opinion, the parking arrangement would be workable, and possible disadvantages more than compensated by the at- tractiveness of the layout. However, it is admittedly a step away from the present habit of never walking more than 30 steps to one's car. -2- . PC-Sl Appendix A - Special Plànning Comm. Meeting 8~,012 20-2-65 12/7 /65 .... -- -------- -- ---------- ---- -.----- - ....-- -....-- - --- -- -.....- - -- ~~ ---.... _.__.- ----- , 20. ClflCULATION The area is entirely closed off from through traffic. One st~eet serves 34.units, the other 51 units, of which 27 in a cul-de-sac part. The traffic created will be much less than the capacity of one moving lane in each direction (which could serve up to 500 units). The Subdivision Ordinance notwith- standing, street width may be reduced, subject to the approval of the City Council (State law requires 4 yes votes of 5). ~ . . Pedestrian walks in the project are well located, and suitable to replace sidewalks. A few minor adjustments should be made n at the Tentative Map stage. It should be noted that the walk- way on the flood control plan will have gravel surface. 21. LIGHT, AIR, QUIETUDE AND PRIVACY. 22. MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA 23. DENSITY The total area of lots and Common Area (to be dedicated and to be administered by a Homeowners' Association) in the project is 13.418 ~ 585,000 sq. ft., which in an R1C zone nGrmally would allow 78 dwelling units. The proposed number is 85, an increase of 7 units ~ 9%. 24. MODIFICATIONS OF DENSITY Applies Conforms The Planning Commission may, subject to approval by the City Council in each separate case, allow an increase in density under anyone or several of the following conditions: (a) "That existing zoning allows a higher density" - does not apply. (b) "That a part of the area to be rezoned is deeded. to and accepted by a Public Agency, for a use that is partly for the benefit of existing or future residents outside of the Development Area." This clause would apply, because the area to be dèdicated is included in the density computation, (c) "In order to encourage an outstanding level öf quality in the design of a particular Development Area, or an in- genious solution to development of a problem area; in each case involving developme~t costs above those in a comparable non-cluster zone, and where these costs cannot, in the . judgment of the PlanniJlg Commission, be retrieved by hIgher sales or rent prices per unit. The burden of proof th"re,- of shall rest on the applicant." -3-· .n.;-Sl AppendiX A ..; Special Planning Comm. Meeting 81,012 20-2-65 12/7/65 .'...' . ---------------------------~------~--------~---------------------- (c) continued: The applicant has submitted a reasonable cost estimate to justify the applicat:!'on of; this clause. Normally, a clus- terdevelopmentshoµld SaVeønoughin street and public utility costs to pay tor development of the Common Area. Additional values (swlLnmJing poOls, etc.) should reasonably bring higher sales prices. This particular project, how- ever, undoubtedly applies much higher standards in many respects than theR-l tract development. It should also be taken into consideration, that the fi.rst few cluster developments, until the· public gets used to the concept, carrY higher costs for experiments and more risk than would be the case later. 25 USABLE COMMON AREA "Land steeper than 7%: after grading, shall not be deemed to be a Usable Common Area, unless the Development Plan shows that it can and will be used for active recreational purposes, or landscaped in such a way that it, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, enhances the overall quality of the development." Part of the area is. much steeper than 7%, but the development plan guarantees, that these slopes will be landscaped in such a way that it adds to the quality. (The clause was written mainly topreyent including in the density computations of steep unusable canyon slopes in the hill areas.) 26 27 28 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH FRONT YARD Confot'ms " The proposed design would reduce front yards to between 0' and 14' in front of a maximum of 38 houses (distance from curb between 5' arid 191). Parking in driveways would be eliminated and hav.e to .be replaced. To avoid the. risk in- herent in that drivers must leave. their cars·ina moving lane (usually with the motor running), in order to open garage doors, the applicant has proposed a córidition that all such units be provided with automatic garage doors. Other hous.es wOu;I.d have a front yard of at least 15', dis- tance from curb at least 201. . Parking in the driveway would extend to the curb, over the part of the street right-of-way reserved for public utilities. The Department of Public Works has not objected.. -4- PC-Sl Appendiz A - Special Planning Corom. Meeting 81,012 20-2-65 12/7/65 ------.----------------------------------------------------------.. 29 SIDE YARD AND BACK YARD 30· HEIGHT 31 WIDTH OF BUILDING Conforms Applies '·11 . . 32 DISTANCEBETWËEN"DETACHED BUILDINGS· 33 34 35 36 37 Required distance depends on height, and cannot be decided until the· type or homes has been determined. '¡'he applicant int~nds to conform with the Ordinance, without req~esting a variation. . INTERRUPTIONS IN ROWS OF ATTACHED BUILDINGS Conforms WINDOWLESS WALLS Applies v Does not apply in R1C Zones TRANSITION TO ADJOINING ZONES Conforms MODIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OTHER THAN DENSITY Applies "The Planning Commission may, subject to approval by. the City Council in each separate case, modify the development standards prescribed in Sections 27 to 36, inclUsive, when such action will promote the overall excellence.of the development." 38 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The applicant has submitted plans with complete information. Discussed items would require a condition to the'rezoning, that a revised Development Plan should be submitted not later than the time when application for apþròvàl of the Tentative Map ia made. (d) The applicant requests, that the submission of pro- posed text for Covenants be deferred until the time application is made for a Building Permit. (h) The applicant requests, that the Time Schedule be deferred until the time application is made for approval of a Tentative Map. 39 COVENANTS FOR COMMON AREA See Section 38(d). -5- æ-:n AppendiX A - Special Planning Corom. Meeting 81,012 20-2-65 12/7/65 - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- -'~,- -- - --- -- -_._- - --- - -~-- --- ,,-- --- 40 STREETS 41 42 43 44 45 Proposed street sections include two moving lanes and one parking lane, plus two 4.5' strips reserved for public; utilities. It would not be possible tó'.pave the latter for use as sidewalks or' widening of roadway in the future, Exact representation of McClellan Road, to be 601 wide. would be made as a· part of the Tentative MaP. ThepX-oposed. reduction in street width Seems appropriate, considering the low traffio volume and the pattern of walkWays. CONDITIONS CHANGES AFTER GRANTING OF A CLUSTER ZONE REVOCATION ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE CONTROL PUBLIC UTILITIES (Appl1ca:rtt may use . "Promenade"luminaries,) Applies " If' " " INSPECTION OF PROGRESS AND COMPLIANCE WITH A PPROVED PLAN 47 PROCE:I>URgg PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP AND ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 46 " The Applicant requests, that he will not be required to develop the part of the Development Area which is intended for dedication to the City or to another Public Agency, . 48 APPLICATION OF PREVIOUS ORDINANCES 49 - 51 are terminal clauses to the,Ordinance,· Applies -6- PC-Sl Appendix B to <;ne lUIlUt,\:!t! OJ: ~ne ~pecial Meeting of the Planning Commission 80,000.4 12/7/65 --------------------------------------------------~--------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ December 7, 1965 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Adde Laurin, Director of Planning Suggested Resolution for Rezoning from R-l to R1C of Laguna De Anza (Horse Ranch) MEMO: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WHEREAS, the attached application has been submitted to the City of Cupertino. requesting a change of zone in the zoning regulations of the City, as stated on Page two; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application on the date as noted on said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered and heard all evidence submitted in regard to said application; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-l zone; and WHEREAS,· a rezoning to R1C normalJywould allow 78 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the applicant propos€fI 85 dwelling units within the area; and WHEREAS, a. B"tudy of similar one-family developments in.. the Bay Area, with the samëor .slightlyhigher density, indicates that a pleasant environment can be created with this density; and WHEREAS, the'a.pp11cant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: . . . ·A.That tl1e Planning Commission, after careful consideration of ,maps, facts, exhibits· and other· evidence, finds that the pro- posed zone change: . . a. encourages the most appropriate use of land, b. Donserves and stabilizes the value of property, c. provides for adequate open spaces for .light and air, d. ~ permits adequate cont.rol of fires, e.promotes the health, safety and public welfare, f. ·provides for the orderlY development of the City, g. is advantageous to the property änd improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is located. . -1';: PC-Sl Appendix B to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission 80,000.4 12/7/65 ----------------------------------------------------------------- B. That said Planning Commission, therefore, reports favorably to the City Council in the matter of granting said z:one change. Said approval to be subject to the following variations and. conditions: 1. The 12 Standard Conditions, included in Exhibit liB", to the extent they are applicable and have not been super- seded by any other condition. 2. (Cf Cluster Ord.,Sec. 19) Each dwelling unit shall have a completely enclosed garage containing at least two (2) automobile spaces, each space at least twenty by ten feet (201 X 101).* In addition, there shall be at least eighty- seven (87) parking spaces, either along curbs or in parking pockets. Of these, there shall be a number, equal to the number of dwelling units with driveways less than twenty (20) feet deep, located in part of the Common Area; each one of these spaces shall be assigned to a particular dwelling unit. The remainder shall be within the right- of-way of public streets. 3. (Cf Cluster Ord. Sec. 20) The walkWay on the flood control plain may have gravel surface. Walkways on opposite sides of a street shall be adjusted where possible, to facilitate right angle crosswalks. 4. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 23 & 24) The number of dwelling units shall not exceed eighty-five (85), and the total of Lot Areas and Common Areas shall not be less than six thousand eight hundred and fifty (6850) sq. ft. per dwelling unit; the Common Areas to include both areas to be maintained by a Homeowners' Association and areas to be dedicated to the City of Cupertino or to another public or quasi-public agency. 5. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 25) The Usable Common Area may include slopes steeper than seven per cent (7%), provided that they be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Archi- tectural and Site Control Committee; it may also include flood control plain, creeks, and the ornamental lake. ---------------- * Note: Applicant has indicated that he will request a Variance to allow up to thirty percent (30%) of the garage space to be reduced to 20' X 912". -2- PC-Sl Appendix B to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission 80,000.4 12/7/65 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. 6. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 28) In order solely to accommodate design variations, front yards may be reduced to less than the normally required twenty (20) ft., or they may be eliminated entirely. Not more than thirty-eight (38) front yards may be eliminated or reduced to less than fifteen (15) ft.; in each such case the garage shall have an automatic door opener, and a parking space shall be assigned in a Common Area (see Condition 2). Details shall be shown in a revised Development Plan. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 38) A revised Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission not later than the time when the application for approval of the Tentative Map is made. Development Plan and Tentative Map may be combined into one document. Submission of the pro- posed text for Covenants may be deferred until the time when an application for Building Permit is made. Submission of the required Time Schedule may be deferred until the time when the application for approval of the Tentative Map is made. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 40) Cross-section of public streets shall be as shown in Exhibit 4. Two four-and-one-half (4!) ft. wide strips reserved for public utilities shall be in- cluded in the right-of-way of public streets; except that these strips shall be an easement for this purpose when they cross a parking area within a Common Area. The public utilities reservations are not intended for future sidewalks or widening of the roadway; driveway parking may extend over these reservations. Detailed representation of McClellan Road may be deferred to the time when the appli- cation for the Tentative Map is made. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 45) The applicant may at his dis- cretion utlliz:e Westinghouse "Promenade" luminaires 11890 D520 G13 at 20 ft. maximum height, in lieu of the normal electroliers. 7. 8. 9. (Cf Cluster Ord., Sec. 47) The applicant shall not be required to develop the area designated for Common Area to be dedicated to the City of Cupertino, or to another public or quasi-public agency, provided that the dedica- tion and the responsibility to develop and maintain this area is accepted by the City or such Agency. Adde Laurin -3- .. PC-Sl Appendix C to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission 80,000.4 12/7/65 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMO TO: Mr. Adde Laurin, Director of Planning City of Cupertino FROM: SUBJECT: DATED: Mr. Sam J. Anderson ------------------------------------------------------------------- Laguna de Anz:a (Horse Ranch) December 7, 1965 I have reviewed the enclosures on the Horse Ranch. My suggestion for your Resolution is as follows: 1. Leave off the mast head on Resolutions. We have never put all this detail on our paper work before. I would suggest "Resolution No. " and then immediately under it in parenthesis, "Horse Ranch." In subsequent Resolutions a short, terse description will give the reader an idea of the subject matter of the Resolution. This deal seems well packaged. Exhibits should exclude any ob- vious surplus conditions, such as a masonry wall between commercial and residential. The land use diagram provides for an establishment of a "Homeowners' Association." I think we should receive a Grant of Surface Easement to the City of all Common Areas and a provision that Deed Restric- tions are not to be amended without the recorded consent of the City. Otherwise, this seems in order to me. S. J. A.