The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 08-09-65 :2,ç,.( 10321 South Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road £upertino, California, 95014 ph: 252-4505 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PC-R14 80,000.4 C I T Y 0 F CUP E R TIN 0 California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 9, 1965 8:00 P.M. The meeting was held in the Board Room, Cupertino Elementary School District, 10300 Vista Drive, Cupertino I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting: 7/26/65 Comm. present: Comm. absent: Johnson, Hirshon, Traeumer, Gates Frolich (vacation) Staff present: City Attorney, Sam Anderson City Engineer, Bob Shook Dir. of Public Works, Frank Finney Dir. of Planning, Adde Laurin Recording Secretary, Sylvia Hinrichs Comm. Johnson noted that in the corrections of the July 12th Minutes, a repetition had been made in listing his name in the roll call vote. The vote should read: "AYES: NAYS: Comm. Frolich, Johnson, Traeumer Comm. Hirshon, Gates Motion carried, 3-2" Corrections to July 26th Minutes: Comm. Johnson asked that his comments on page 6, in the 6th paragraph be corrected as follows: Add the word "not" to the 4th sentènce, to read: ".... .application would not then be returned to the Planning Commission for further discussion." Also, in the last sentence, same paragraph, correct the sentence to read: "....and request additional Hearings if required." - On page 9, last paragraph, 5th sentence, should delete "Mary Avenue" and insert "freeway;" to read:..."and an overpass over the freeway." . Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Corom. Johnson, that the Minutes of July 26th meeting be approved as corrected. Motion carried, LI-O -1- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning qommissionMeeting, August 9. 1965 - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....-.... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- III ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POSTPONEMENTS, ETC. 10-z-65 A. MASON ENTERPRISES: ' '¡'he Planning Director announced that application 10-z-65 has been postponed until the next meeting, at the request of the applicant, to enable him to complete necessary maps. 3-TM-65 B. The. Planning Director stated that the various agencies concerned with application 3-TM-65 had been unable to complete their investigations, and had requested addi- tional time to submit their comments. For that reason, it was requested that there be a Second Hearing on August 23rd. C. ALAN ALAMEDA: Application fC.>r rez:oning from R-l:B-2 to C-l-H and a Use Permit for a Funeral Home, north side of Bollinger Road, 500' west of Blaney Avenue. Comm. Johnson inquired about the status of this applica- tion, which had been on the agenda at the previous meet- ing. The Planning Director said this application will re-advertised, if the applicant wants it on the agenda again. lLI-Z-65 ll-u-65 IV WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were none. V VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS The Planning Director reported on the August 5th meeting of the Santa Clara County Inter-City Council, where this Council recommended to the various cities that they amend their Zoning Ordinances to include the Standardized Zoning Symbols presented .at the meeting, .He said he hoped to be able to present a draft for such an amendment at the next E'lanning Commission m~etiIl:5. When this system was originated, in Cupertino, the intent was not so much standardization as a desire to make zoning . more. flexible, in adjusting to terrain, .etc., and to make it possible to read the most important characteristics of a Zone from the map.. This is of importance for item 8-U-65 on the agenda. VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED:. 8-u-65 ,A. VALLEY, n'rLE COMPANY. (Page Properties): Application for a Use?ermit fop a',50..acre, one-family Cluster Development within a PC-H Zone; north and east of Mary Avenue hear Stevens Creek Blvd. Second Hearing continued. -2- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 -------------------------------------------------------------~---- Chairman Gates recapped the proceedings on this applica- tion from the previous meeting, in which he instructed the staff to arrange a study session with the City At- torney to propose procedures and wording of motions the Planning Commission could follow when making a de- cision at this meeting. A memo from the Planning Director proposing a possible sequence of voting and a series of motions has been given to the Commissioners for tonight's meeting. Chairman Gates asked Mr. Mittelman, the applicant, if he had anything new to present at this meeting. Mr. Mittelman asked for clarification of Comm. Johnson's statement that if Mary Avenue were not carried over Junipero Serra Freeway, this would change the Develop- ment Plan. Mr. Mittelman showed on a sketch, that with Greenleaf Drive extended to Mary Avenue, residents in the adjacent County area can travel in all directions withoUé passing through the proposed development. Motion made by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Hirshon to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Gates pointed out that basically, the first decision the Commission must make is whether they accept the applicant's proposal in total, reject it, or vote on the alternative motions selected by the staff. The Commission unanimously commended the staff on the pro- cedures and motion submitted in the memo, and recommended it be followed. The City Attorney suggested the Chair be given authority by the Body to initiate the motions. MOTION NO.1 APPLICANT'S REQUEST (enclosed as Appendix A) Moved that the request as presented in total by the applicant be denied. Motion made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO. 2 (see Appendix B) Moved by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 -3- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning CommissiOn Meeting, AUgust 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOTION 4A (See Appendix B) Moved by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm.Traeumer AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4':'0 ' MOTION 6 (See Appendix B) Made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by qomm. Hirshon AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Comm. Gates Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 After further discussion on this motion, on the applicant's proposed concept of no minimum lot size or maximum coverage requirements, the Commission agreed that tqis would not be desirable, and .the motion was annulled unanimously. MOTION 6.1 (See Appendix B) Made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Gates, Johnson Comm. Frolich Motion failed of pas$age, 2-2 The City Attorney pointed out that if the applicant sub- mitted a project plan which the Planning Ccmmission approved, the Development Plan would show the lot size, and would be established by the density allowed in the Development Plan. Chairman Gates questioned how to deal with the problem of density and minimum lot siz:e - perhaps to establish a mini- mum lot siz:e of 6300 sq. ft. and change the 350 µnits to 250 units would be an answer. Would it be preferable to have the qualities of an R-l one-family or. R-24 apartment use; is R-l desirable with smaller lot sizes? -4- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 - - - - --.-~ - -'---- -...;..... - - - -,"';-- -.-'- -- - - -'-- - -- --"- - --- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- MOTION 6.2. (See Appendix B) . ··Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. JohnsOn. Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried,. 4-0 The City Attorney said that in the staff study session on this application, it was recogniz:ed that thè actual Zoning is a Planned Community. Mr. Mittelman pointed out·, that the R-24-H use has speciPic requirements for side, rear .and ~ront yard set-backs, and gives more flexibility than other ordinances and they would like to use R-24-H rules as a guide,· within the PC-H Zone. The Planning Director sàid the Cluster Ordinances give the same flexibility, and by definition, the applicant's concept is a Cluster develop- ment. Comm; Traeumer suggested theR10 designation be utilized, wlth mixed density; AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: MOTION NO.9, with some deletion from the wording in the Planning Dlrector's memo· (See Appendix B). . Made by Chairman Gates, seconded byComm. Hirshon. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: COmm; Johnson, Hirshoh, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO, 14 (See Appendix B ) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded· by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Hirshon; Traeumer, GateS· None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO. 17; with Item 5 deleted fròm the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B) , Made by Chairman Gates, seconded. by Comm. Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Hirshon,Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 ..,5- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 -------------------------------------------------------------,----- Comm. Traeumer wished to add that consideration should be given to coordination of the extension from Ann Arbor Drive, with development of the Central Park. MOTION 20 (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Hirshon. AYES: NAYS; ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer. Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 The birector of Public Works explained that the 80' cross- section proposed by the applicant would be possible, but the section would then be squeezed to a bare minimum. MOTION 23, with some changes from the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B) was made by Comm. Traeumer. Motion dled for lack of a second. The Director of Public Works said cross-sections depend on whether a concept of parking on a sidewalk would be accept- able here, or a concept of a roll-type curb. A vertical curb requires 60' right-of-way, a narrower street must have a valley gutter in place of a curb. In answer to the City Attorney's question about the grass str~p' between the parking lane and the sidewalk, the Director of Public Works stated that it protects people on the Sidewalk from open car doors, but the grass must be maintained. MOTION 24, with some changes from the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B), was made by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Chairman Gates. . AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Gates Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion failed of passage~ 2-2 MOTION 25, with addition to the Planning Director.' s Memo (See Appendix B), was made by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 -6- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ----------------------------------~------------------------------- MOTION 26 (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAY~: ABSENT: . Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION 28 (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson} Gates NAYS: None ABSENT: Comm. Frolich ABSTAINED:, .Comm. Traeumer Motion carried, 3-0 Comm.. Traeumer wished to go on record that he is abstain- ing because he was not certain that 16 dwelling units were approved when the rezoning to PC-H was made. Mr. Mittelman said he felt the Commission was not aware that this application relates to a concept which does not exist in an R-l subdivision with a grid system pattern and asked what specifically the Commission feels makes the project too. crowded. Chairman Gates responded that he, himself, correlates his visual impression of the presented plan with what he thinks the development will look like after it has been built. Chairman Gates called for a 5-minutebreak at 9:45 P.M. l7-V~65 B. WARD CRUMP DEVELOPERS, INC.: Application for a Variance to build duplexes +n R~24-H zoning, 4.5 acres, 330' west of existing .Gardena Drive, south of Junipero Serra Freeway. First Hearing. Mr. Crump stated that when he applied for an R-24-H use he was under the misapprehension that he could build duplexes in R-24-H and that the requirements were the same as in the County R-24-H Zoning. It is also difficult to utilize the area properly because o:rat~ansmission line easement. -7- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Director of Planning, ina memo to the Commission, outlined a list of variances from R-24-H requirements and conditions necessary for the applicant's proposed develop- ment, which does not quite conform to Cupertino's R-2-H standards. The plan has a much lower density than allowed in R-24-H. The most important difference from Cupertino's R-24-H standards would be that two-story duplexes would be allowed. Variances from R-24-H requirements, according to the Planning Director's memo: 1. Uses permitted: Duplex dwelling units. 2. Minimum lot area: 8400 sq. ft. for lots north of Gardena Drive, other lots 8500 sq. ft. 3. Maximum bUilding coverage: 40% 4. Side yards: 20% of lot width; minimun 6 ft., except that distance between buildings shall be at least 20 ft. in areas where one or both adjacent buildings are 2 stories high. Conditions, according to the Planning Director's memo: 1. 2. 3. Duplex dwelling units only. Building height: not to exceed two stories or 25 ft. in height; accessory buildings not to exceed 16 ft. in height. Front yard: 20 ft., except that 10 ft. is allowed at garages with curved driveways. Minimum lot width: 50 ft. north of Gardena Drive; 67 ft. south of Gardena Drive. Number of lots: not to exceed 18. i.~ . 5. The City Attorney pointed out that there would be a hard- ship case here if this Variance were not granted, because of the transmission line easement. ·Comm. Traeumer felt another condition should be added to this Variance, which would allow sale of these units in an R-24-H Zone. After discussion of the language in the Ordinance, it was determined there was no intent of the Ordinance to restrict the units for dwelling as opposed to sale. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 , . Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that application l7-V-65 be approved, inc. luding the Variances, and subject to the conditions outlined by the Planning Director, and granted for the reaSon that here is a hardship. AYES: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates NAYS: None ABSENT: Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 -8- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ l6-z-65 C. PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Application for Rezoning, from R-l:B-2 to R-2-H, 1.1 acre, Foothill Blvd., near Starling Drive. First Hearing. Mr. Jack Kuzia, engineer for MacKay & Somps, represented the applicant and explained that the application was for rezoning of a strip of property 120 ft. in deþth, along Foothtll Blvd. to R-2-H. The .applicant feels this is a reasonable zoning inasmuch as the property to the north is zoned R-2-H; property to the south is zoned R-3-H; and property across the street is zoned R-3-H. The Plarming Director referred to the conditions im- posed on the rezoning of the adjacent prop,erty (application 8-z-65, Condition #15) that '....access must be provided for the lots along Foothill Blvd. to the internal street pattern, so that they may be served from the east side rather than from Foothill Blvd." If an R-2-H Zoning were granted, duplexes would be facing one-family homes across an internal street. He did not object to thi~however; in his opinion; one.-story duplexes could mix with homes. Chairman Gates commented that he has always noticed a great number of cars parked on the streets in duplex areas. The Planning Director said the requîrements in a duplex zone are only 1 garage and 1/2 parking space for each dwelling unit; compared to 2 garage spaces in R-l. The Chairman inquired if a condition could be added to this rezoning, that they be required to have two spaces for each unit. The City Attorney remarked that density has a lot more to do with heavy parking problems rather than less parking space. It is a major planning premise to determine the number of cars allowed per dwelling unit. It would be a material change to the Ordinance to change-the parking require- ments. It would warrant the requirement of a carport to solve the problem without upsetting the R-2-H Ordinance. Mr. Kuzia said:they would prefer not to have access from Foothill Blvd. in this development. The rezoning has been approved on the R-l portion, and this is a new application. At present, there are no re¡¡trictions on the acc.ess to Foothill Blvd. In the map sùbmitted with the application, it was shown how the property would be developed, with an intersection at the top of the rise, where there is good visibility from both directions·. Also, they CQUld put in a common driveway at .the back of sornelots to decrease traffic pulling out directly from lots. Comm. Johnson asked if there could be a service road fronting on to Foothill Blvd. -9- ..-..'.....".. .... .,--,_..,. ~...,. -'.~--- ..- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Comm. Traeumer pointed out that in approving the applica- tion to rezone the R-l portion of the adjacent property, there was a condition that there would be no access on to Foothill Blvd. through the applicant's property. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, to close the Public Hearings. Comm. Hirshon said he would like an additional Hearing, and he would like an opportunity to look at this property more closely and consider the parking requirements for this particular type of zoning, and study it with relation to similar areas. He would like additional Hearing for further study. The Clty Attorney remarked that perhaps the applicant would prefer to have a decision tonight. The applicant agreed he would like the Planning Commission to act on it tonight, and felt the developer would be willing to provide three closed garages for each duplex. Comm. Johnson suggested to the City Attorney that the Commission could bring up the subject of parking spaces after the rezoning has been granted. Each dwelling unit should have a garage and a carport. The City Attorney said the courts would uphold conditions to a rezoning if the conditions were reasonable, and he felt thls area could be rezoned now, with a condition on the parking requirement. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that Application 16-2-65 be approved, subject to the 12 standard conditions, plus condition #13: a requirement that there be no access through the area to be rezoned from Foothill Blvd. to internal streets; plus condition #14: that access must be provided for the lots along Foothill Blvd. to the internal street pattern, so that they can be served from the east side rather than from Foothill Blvd. This agrees with the condition contained in a previous rez:oning (8-2-65) for the R-l parcel of this property. Comm. Traeumer added a request, but not a condition, that this application, when submitted to the H-Control, would refer to the statement that the developer has indicated he would provide three enclosed parking spaces for each duplex, bringing to the attention of the H-Control that this was one of the reasons the Planning Commission voted to approve this application. Comm. Johnson recommended that a 15th condition be added to the application, that three covered garages be provided for each duplex, and moved an amendment be made to the original approval, seconded by Chalrman Gates. -10- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vote on the Amendment: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon;Johnson, aàtes Comm.Traeumér Comm. Frolich' Mot16n carried, 3-1 ,. ,!..,. Vote on the Motion: AYES: . NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, John.son, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 17-2-65 D. l3-TM-65 20-v-65 WILLIAMSON-WOOLEY: Application for Rez:oning from A-2:B-4 to A-2:B-2, 3.75 acres, south of Bay Terrace and west of Mt. Crest Drive. Also Tenta- tive Map. . First Hearing. Mr. Williamson, 1051 Polk Avenue, Sunnyvale, one of the two applicants, outlined the application as sub- mitted to the Commission. The Director of Planning stated that the apPlicant proposes seven lots,. with an· average of·alittle over a half acre each, the smallest being 15,500 sq. ft. He said that, rather than granting a rezoning to 10,000 sq. ft. lots, it wOUld be preferable to keep the present zoning, but to grant a variance'for average lots of 1/2 acre with no lot to be less than 15,000 sq. ft.· The Tentative Map involves two problems. The Fire . Department recommends a 40' rather than a 30' road. A comment from the County Planning Department has suggested that the turn-around section be. made more attract'ive, with a green area rather than an asphalt area; however, who would maintain this green area? The Director of Public Works said this is a small sub- division and would be t~ebest development here in order to complete the land. It is extremely steep, and this development clearly meets the qualifications of a hill- side subdivision. The Fire'Department, however, is correct in asking that a 40' road width be required. Chairman Gates asked for Gon\ments from the audience. -11- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ---------------------------------------------------------~~------- Mrs. Juanita McLaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, whose home is adjacent to this property, stated that she and the other property owners in this area are concerned about this proposed development for two reasons. One is the source of water supply and the question of how the water would be furnished for this development; the other is the possible use of the 20' non-exclusive road from Lindy Lane for transporting necessary construction mater- ials. This concern was also expressed by Mr. Bryson, 21950 Lindy Lane and Mr. Hashagan, 12540 Linda Vista. Mr. Williamson remarked at this point that they had no intention of using Lindy Lane during the construction program. Mr. Gratten Hogan, 11067 Linda Vista, felt that reducing the lot siz:es from one acre to 15,000 sq. ft. would be too high a density for that area, otherwise he would look on this development favorably. Mr. Bryson said that the homeowners on Lindy Lane must pump their own water at present, and if the applicant does not provide water for his development, they fear their water source will be used. Mrs. McLaren added that their line will not take additional usage. The Director of Public Works noted that the Tentative Map indicated in Item 5 that water would be furnished by San Jose Water Works. In a comment from the County Health Department, it is noted that 1T...this subdivision shall be furnished domestic water by San Jose Water Works." Since no adverse comment has been received from San Jose Water Works in reply to the Tentative Map, it is assumed they will furnish water. If the applicant promises not to use Lindy Lane to bring his materials in, would this satisfy the residents on the street? Mr. Bryson main- tained that the applicant should post a bond which could be returned to him if there was no damage done to the road. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to close the Public Hearings. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Johnson, Gates Gomm. Frol1ch Motion failed of passage, 2-2 Chairman Gates asked if it would be agreeable to the Planning Commission if a Variance would be granted on the half-acre lot" sizes. -12- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Comm. .Johnson pointed out that by the time the issue comes before the City Council, the problem about the water will have been resolved, and the problem about use of the private road was not a decision of the Plan- ning Commission. Comm. Hirshon asked if a condition could be attached to the Variance in respect to the two issues involved. Moved by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson, to close the Hearings (for the second time). AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 The Planning Director said if this application would be treated as a Variance, it still would be of the same nature as a Rezoning. Hearings before the City Council should be advertised and be public. If so, it was the opinion of the Planning Director that the application could be transferred from a Rezoning to a Variance, and the difference in fee be refunded. Comm. Hirshon made a motion, but withdrew it. After further discussion, and by agreement with tho applicant, Comm. Hirshon moved that application 17-2-65 be denied, but that a Variance (20-V-65) be granted on the property under the A-2:B-4 zoning that will be commensurate with the Tentative Map, with further con- ditions that the average lot siz:e shall not be less than half acre, and the minimum lot size not less than 15,000 sq. ft. Motion seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, that application 3-TM-65 be approved. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Johnson, Gates Comm. Frolich Motion failed of passage, 2-2 -13- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 - - - - - --- ,:,",,-- - -.. --- - - --- -- --....- -- - -- -- - - - -- - -- - -.-'-.~,-"': --'........ --- -- - -- - - -- Comm. Johnson pointed outthat.the' ~pplicant has verbally agreed not to use Lindy Lane for construction purposes, but suggested the a,pplicant ahd the ~esid.ents on that street get togethèr and have this confirmed in writing. This should not be a concern of the Planning Commission. The Dirèctor of Public WOrks said he questioned the legality of restricting the applicant from using a road which he would have every legal right to use; this would have to bè by private agreement. Comm. Johnson pointed out that. éven if the applicant does use the road, it has no bearing on the Tentative Map. Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded. by Chairman Gates, that application l3-TM-65 be approved, with no conditions attached. Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich . Motion carried, LI-O Comm. Traeumer moved that a Minute Order be directed to the City Council, requesting that. the City Gouncil ascer- tains that a meeting between the developer and the owners of adjacent property has taken place, .in årdèr to get assurance that the road from Lindy Lane. would not be used by construction vehicles. Motion seconded by Comm. Hirshon. AYES: l'jA YS : ABSENT: Motion carrled, 4-0 E. .MASON ENTERPRISES: (postponèd)' See Item III. Chairman Gates pointed out that this application has been on the ag.enda before, and has been postponed befo:i:'e. This item has been advertised for PUblic Hearings, and there were undoubtedly people in the audience who had come to the meeting to hear the application and were justly disappointed in the postponi'mepts. There are three possibilities: (1) Postpone now without additiOnal Hearing, (2) Ask the applicant to pay for advertising the additional Hearings, or (3) .. Act on the application now by either denying it or appråving it.· . After further discussion and several motions, a final motion was made by Comm. Hirsþon, seconded by Comm. Johnson to postpone this application for twò weeks, until the next regular meeting; the applicant to pay the cost of adver- tising, and at this time the application must either be heard; it will not be postponed again. -14- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, Aug. 9, 1965 -------------~---------------_._--------------------------------- AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Gates recommended that the Commission should make a decision 'at this time what the procedure should be on future postponements, and the terminology to be used. The City Attorney said that, according to Robert's Rules of Order, an item which is postponed automatically comes up again at the next regular meet- ing if it has been tabled br,motion at the previous meeting. This would be an 'off-calendar" method and will be acceptable if the parties are not ready to proceed and 1.f the staff is ready to report. A ¡,,:·tion then can be made that the item be taken off the calen- dar, and voted upon. Motion then was made by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that application 10-2-65 be taken off the calendar. Motion carried, 4-0 3-TM-65 F. ASKAM-JONES: Application for Tentative Map; A-2:B-4 development (one-acre lots), 54 acres on the hill west of the extension of Mercedes Road. First Hearing. . Mr. Eugene Mastin, Civil Engineer for Askam-Jones, explained that this property has been before the Plan- ning Commission previously, for rezoning to hal~-acre lots. The present application for a Tentative Map adheres to the present .A-2:B-4 Zoning, which allows one-acre lots. They are proposing a hillside develop- ment, which will fit the terrain of the land. They propose to do a minimum amount of grading on the pro- perty, although some of the very narrow and high ridges would have to be cut down. There are 49 lots in this development. Chairman Gates aSked if the A-2:B-4 use could be applied to hillside lots. The staff confirmed this. The Planning Director stated that this application pre sents many difficult technical problems. It repre- sents a hilltop rather than a hillside development. Several County and other agencies have written and asked for more time to consider the matter; the staff would also need some further studies in cooperation with Mr. Mastin. -15- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -_.-- ''';-,- - - -.... -- -- - - - -.- '- - - - - - -.-.-- The Planning Director said there 1s söme very heavy grad- ing proposed; the most prominent ridge would be graded down an average of 40 vertical fee't, a. maximum.óf 60 ',,-,' vertical feet. Fill can normally not be made steeper than 50%; as some areas are steeper, up to 70%, fill would have to be transported to other parts of. the project. The Sub- division Ordinanc.e indicates that the applicant may be required to submit a map showing which parts will be ex- cavated, which would be filled, . and which would be left untouched. The Planning Director asked the applicant to submit such a map. . Mr. Mastin said 'there would be no fill on the outer slopes; the excavation from the ridges would be dumped into the central valley, which is hidden from view. The Planning Director stated that the Subdivision Ordinance req\lir.es that a map should show all trees more than 4" in diameter, other than orchard trees. It wou;I.d be of little use, however, to make a survey of the n\lmerous trees in the area if they all were to be cut down. Mr. Mastin stated that the groves shown on the Tentative Map were the actual location, and could largely be retained. The Director of Public Works noted that lots numbered 39-43 would be, in essence, mass-filled, and also asked the applicant how definite the indicated grades along Voss Lane were. Grades steeper than 15% need concrete paving rather than asphalt. The Tentative ,Map require- ment indicates connectionmus't be shown to an existing City street. In response to'ChairmanGates' question, Mr. Mastin said there was 'only one access route to the entire development, and that they have a proposed lay- out for the connection. ChairmariGates added that run-off is a major problem in a hillside development. Mr. Grattan Hogan said he had spoken against t!1e origi- nal proposal, but this is an imþrovement. .He would still like to see a study made of the application of the Hillside Ordinances to one~acre lots. He felt the 40 to 60 foot grading would be quite severe. Comm. Traeumer asked the Director of Public Works if he Saw any problems in this application, outside of the Tentative Map being revised that would prohibit closing the Hearings. The Planning Director. pointed out that there were several of thè agencies to which Ten- tative Maps are referred, that have not been able as , yet to. comment, and this application would need addi- .. tional Hearings. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Cqmm. Johnson, to close the First Hearing. Motion carried, 4-0' -16- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------ VII UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON POSTPONEMENTS: Chairman Gates again brought up the matter of post- ponements and the fact that it was very disconcert- ingfor people to come in to the Hearings to hear a certain case, and learn it has been postponed. If an application has been advertised to be Heard, it should be heard or a new application should be filed. Comm. Hirshon felt it should be resolved from case to case, and if it must be postponed, then the applic~nt should appear to request a delay and give the rea~on for the postponement. Comm. Johnson felt that one extension should be the limit of postponed Hearings, and recommended a Minute Order to instigate a more rigid policy for postponements. MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, that only one postpone- ment be granted, unless the applicant makes a personal appearance before the Commission, requesting a delay and giving the reason for it. Motion carried, 4-0 VIII NEW BUSINESS CITY ENGINEER: Driveways at Pharlap Drive. The City Engineer presented a map of the Oakdell development and pointed out the six lots which were not developed under the original plan, because of the heavily wooded area involved. The subdivider has re- quested approval from the City of this plan, where garages would be placed along a non-dedicated driveway at the rear of the lots; there would be access easements. The Planning Commission is asked for a policy statement. Mr. Steve Schott, representative for Oakdell Developers, explained that the reason for this plan is to retain the existing trees. If the driveways were to connect with Pharlap Drive, it would mean the removal of 25 trees, whereas their plan calls for removing only 2 or 3 by bringing the driveway to Woodbury Drive. -17- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 - - - -- - - - - -- - - --- -- - - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - -.-.- -.,. - -...... -- -- The Director of Public Workssaidtne maj'or issue is the removal of the trees, whicJ:¡ may bring,a storm of protest. Since the hydrants are installed on the sidewalk of Pharlap Drive, the Fire Department has. access. to them with no difficulty. ' . Chairman Gates asked if this waS jUstan~cìuiry on the part of the applicant as to what the Planning Commission thinks of this? The staff feels that a policy from. the Commission on this plan would be in order, and thé Pla~ing Director . suggested a Minute Order be maC:e to approve this policy. Comm. Traeumer added that restrictions on rear yards, side yards and front yards set-backs would be the Planning Commission's chief concern. The Planning Commission agreed they would like to see ~he area before any final decislon is made, and several of the Commissioners planned to .visit the area before the next regular· meeting. MINUTE ORDER: Moved by Cornm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson, to direct the City Attorney to recorrimend what.kind of action the Planning CommiSsion should take. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Hirshon, to continue this matter at the next regular meeting. Motion carried, 4-0 IX ADJOURNMENT Unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at midnight. APPROVED; /s'¡ Jack Gates Cnairman ATTEST: Gd£¿ . doMM"/v¡ Pirectorof Planning -18.,. 8-u-65 Appendix A - to the Minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 9, lS65 --------------------------------------------. ----------- ---- -- APPLICANT'S REQUEST: WHEREAS the applicant has presented a development plan with enough detail to judge the quality of the proposed development, and WHEREAS the development would be a credit to Cupertino, it is moved to approve Application 8-u-65 for 350 one-family units; and to grant such variances from the City's zoning ordinances that are necessary for a development essentially in accordance with the plan attached to the application, and WHEREAS at the rezoning of the area a use comparable to a R-24-H zone was indicated, and that the area should be designated as a R-24-H use, with exceptions and variances, with- in a PC-H zone. Now Therefore be it resolved that: 1. A Use Permit be approved in accordance with the exhibits attached to the use permit application submitted for an average density of seven (7) dwelling units per gross acre with a total of 350 dwelling units. 2. R-24-H use and development standards shall be followed, with exceptions and variances on all lots to provide for: a. Single family use b. Minimum lot area sufficient to include each building and garage. c. Lot coverage of 100% d. No front, side, or rear yard restrictions e. No restriction on location of detached accessory bUilding. f. Street sections indicated on plan submitted to be used, together with street pattern shown. 3. Applicant will submit from time to time a detailed development plan of a section of the site area, which shall indicate land- scape features and dimensions of open green areas, prior to or concurrent with the submission of a tentative map for part or all of such area. 4. Area "A" shall remain zoned PC-H with R-24-H use and development standards to apply with exceptions and variances as set forth hereinbefore and height variances as required; the total density for each submission of a tentative map and detailed plan with lower densities in some areas being compensated with higher den- sities in other areas provided that the overall density for the entire residential area shall not exceed an overall average of 16 dwelling units per gross acre. A Use Permit will be required for the development of Area A. 8-u-65 Appendix B - to the Minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 9, 1965 MOTIONS AND VOTING ON APPLICATION 8-u-65 for: Use Permit for a 50-acre one-family Cluster Development within a PC-H zone. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE: 1 Applicant's Request (Enclosed as Appendix A): Moved that the request as presented in total by the applicant be denied. . Seconded by Commissioner Traeumer. Motion carried, 4-0 2 WHEREAS the development plan presented by the applicant does not have enough detail to be a base for a final approval, and WHEREAS this plan is unsatisfactory in other respects, but WHEREAS the developer has a legitimate interest in getting an intermediate decision as a guidance for further study, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Planning Commission shall provide such a decision. - Motion carried, 4-0 4A BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission, through' the means of a Minute Order, which will include the subsequent voting, shall give gUidelines for a further study of the development plan. Motion carried, 4-0 DENSITY 6 WHEREAS a density of 16 units per gross acre is allowed by , present zoning, and WHEREAS the density proposed by the ap- plicant is approximately 7 units per gross acre, and WHEREAS the proposed concept may, after restudy, prove to be an in- teresting development and an asset to Cupertino, NOW THERE- FORE be it resolved to approve the applicant's concept of 350 one-family units on individual lots plus a Common Area in the area designated on the plan attached to the appli- cation, with no minimum lot size or maximum coverage require- ments. Motion carried, 3-1, but annulled unanimously. 6.1 WHEREAS the density proposed by the applicant is approximately 7 units per gross acre, and WHEREAS the proposed concept may, after restudy, prove to be an interesting development and an asset to Cupertino, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to approve the applicant's concept of 350-one-family units on individual lots plus a Common Area in the area designated on the plan attached to the. application, with no minimum lot size or maximum coverage requirements. - Motion failed· of passage,2-2. 6.2 WHEREAS the density proposed by the applicant is approximately 7 units per gross acre, and WHEREAS the proposed concept may, after restudy, prove to be an interesting development and an asset to Cupertino;' WHEREAS, however, at the present time the -1- Appendix B 8-u..65 proposed density appears excessive and undesirable for a one, family development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to approve a concept of 250 one··family units on individual lots plus a Common Area in the area designated on the plan attached to the application, with a flexible minimum lot size and flex~, lble maximum coverage requirements. Motion carried, 4-0. DESIGNATION 9 WHEREAS the Planning Commission and the City Council of Cuper tino have recommended proposed Standardized Zoning Symbols to the Santa Clara County Inter-,Ci ty Council, and WHEREAS said Council has recommended that the various cities amend thelr Zoning Ordinances to include these symbols, and WHEREAS these symbols systematically describe the use of a development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to designate the use of the area in the proposed development as R1C, within a PC-H zone, in- dicati.ng residential area for one family houses, clustered, each lot having a share of a Common Area, with variances ac- cording to a list that will be attached to the final Use Permit. Motion carried, 4-·0. TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 14 WHEREAS narrow passages between detached buildings wastes space and may cause the impression of a cheapened R-l development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the requirements of the Clus.. ter Ordinance, Section 32 and Exhibits A and B, shall apply, except that interpretations following the intent rather than the wording of this Ordinance may be allowed in cases not fore-· seen exactly by the Ordinance. Motion carried, 4..0. STREET SYSTEM 17 WHEREAS the applicant's street system would cause too many in·, tersections in Mary Avenue, and WHEREAS it lacks connections to the east which are needed for the circulation within the entire neighborhood, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that a street system be required approximately conforming with the Neighbor,· hood Plan presented by the Pla.nning Director; this system being characterized by: l. A maximum of four intersections in Mary Avenue, located as in the presented Neighborhood Plan. 2. Extension of Ann Arbor Drive to Mary Avenue, 40 ft. of the section of this extension being located west of the boundary of the Central Park property. 3. All internal streets connected with the second intersection from the north ln Mary Avenue. -2- Appendix B 8-u-65 4. All internal streets connected either with the extension of Ann Arbor Drive, or with the thi~d intersection from the north in Mary Avenue, or with both Ann Arbor Drive and the aforementioned intersection. Motion carried, 4,-0. CROSS SECTIONS OF MARY AVENUE 20 WHEREAS 90' width is needed for Mary Avenue at intersections, but less between intersections, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that such a plan by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director be approved. Motion carried, 3-1. CROSS SECTIONS OF INTERNAL STREETS 23 WHEREAS adjustment of street widths to actual traffic condi- tions is desirable, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the following standards be set for this development: 1. Width of moving lane: Major street 12' Local street with some through traffic 10' " " without" " 9' Short cul-de-sac or loop street 9' 2. Width of parking lane: 8' 3. One parking lane may be omitted, if it is shown that enough parking for visitors is provided in bays or in some other way so as not to block garages or driveways. 4. Sidewalks m~y be omitted, if there are parallel walkways in Common Areas, as direct and as easily accessible as the streets. A 5' space between face of curb and property line will be provided as street right-of-way to allow in stallation of usual utilities including, but not limited to, light standards, utility poles, street signs, water mains and hydrants, telephone ducts and any required underground electric transmission and distribution facilities as may be required. Motion died for lack of a second. 24 WHEREAS the proposed development has higher density than an R-l area, and WHEREAS reductions of street widths generally should not be allowed under those circumstances, NOW THERE- FORE be it resolved that the standard 60' cross-section for local streets normally be required. - Motion failed of passage, 2-2. -3- Appendix B 8-U-65 25 WHEREAS problems regarding off-street parking and walkways are not solved in the presented development plan, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that street sections be studied further; reu duct ions from the normal cross section of 60' may be considered depending on the facts in each separate case.-· Carried, 3-1. FURTHER ADVICE TO THE APPLICANT 26 WHEREAS further study of the development plan is required,·. ahd WHEREAS the details of the final plan canno~ beOjußged uhtil it is submitted, and WHEREAS the :Ust of variances granted will be based on the final plan, NOW THEREFORE: bè it resolved to advise the applicant that .the previously voted guidelines do not constitute an approval of the details of the 'final plan. - Carried, 4-0. , 28 WHEREAS the. PcuH Ordinance implies that density within a de- velopment may be varied, provided that an overall density of 16 units per gross acre is not exceeded, but WHEREAS it can- not be judged if this results in an improved standard unless a plan for the entire area is presented, and WHEREAS the ap·' plicant has not included plans for the intended high-density area "A", NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to s.dvise the applicant that an approval of plans for other areas than "A" does not include an apf,roval of higher density than 16 units per gross acre in area 'A". - Carried, 3-0, with 1 abstaining. o.L -4- PC-Rll< Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ---------------------------------------.------------------------------ MOTION L!A (See Appendix B) Moved by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 There was a Vote on MOTION 6, but because of a misunder- standing in respect to the wording, the vote was annulled unanimously. MOTION 6.1 (See Appendix B) Made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Hirshon AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Gates, Johnson Comm. Frolich Motion failed of passage, 2-2 The City Attorney pointed out that if the applicant sub- mitted a project plan which the Planning Commission approved, the Development Plan would show the lot size, and would be established by the density allowed in the Development Plan. Chairman Gates questioned how to deal with the problem of density and minimum lot siz:e - perhaps to establish a mini- mum lot size of 6300 sq. ft. and change the 350 units to 250 units would be an answer. Would it be preferrable to have the qualities of an R-l one-family or R-24 apartment use; is R-l desirable with smaller lot sizes? -4 - As corrected August 23, 1965 PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, August 9, 1965 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Gates recapped the proceedings on this applica- tion from the previous meeting, in which he instructed the staff to arrange a study session with the City At- torney to propose procedures and wording of motions the Planning Commission could follow when making a de- cision at this meeting. A memo from the Planning Director proposing a possible sequence of voting and a series of motions has been given to the Commissioners for tonight's meeting. Chairman Gates asked Mr. Mittelman, the applicant, if he had anything new to present at this meeting. Mr. Mittelman asked for clarification of Comm. Johnson's statement that if Mary Avenue were not carried over Junipero Serra Freeway, this would change the Develop- ment Plan. Mr. Mittelman showed on a sketch, that with Greenleaf Drive extended to Mary Avenue, residents in the adjacent County area can travel in all directions withoUë passing through the proposed development. Motion made by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Hirshon to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman Gates pointed out that basically, the first decision the Commission must make is whether they accept the applicant's proposal in total, reject it, or vote on the alternative motions selected by the staff. The Commisslon unanimously commended the staff on the þro- cedures and motion submitted in the memo, and recommended it be followed. The City Attorney suggested the Chair be given authority by the Body to initiate the motions. MOTION NO.1 APPLICANT'S REQUEST (enclosed as Appendix A) Moved that the request as presented in total by the applicant be denied. Motion made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO. 2 (see Appendix B) Moved by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 -3- PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, Augus,t' 9,1965 ---------------~------------------------------------------------- MOTIQN6.2 ,(See Appendix B) Màde by Chairman Gates, see,anded by Camm.Jahnson.' AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 The City Attorney said that in the staff study session on this application, it was recognized that the'àctual Zoning is a Planned Community. Mr. Mittelman pointed out that the R-24-H use· has specific .requirements for side, rear and front yard set-backs, and gives more flexibility than other ordinances and they would like to use R-24~H rules as a guide, within the PC-H Zone.· The Planning Director said the Cluster Ordinances give the same flexibility, and by definition, the applicant's concept is a Cluster Develop- ment. Camln. Traeumer suggested the R1C designation be utiliz:ed, with mixed density. MOTION NO.9, with some deletion from the wording in the Planning Direct·or' s memo (See Appendix B). Made by. Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Hirshon. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Hirshon, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO. ILl (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Traeumer. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Hirshqn, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 MOTION NO. 17, with Item 5 deleted from the Planning Direc- tor's Memo (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Hirshon, Traeumer, Gates None Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 4-0 -5- As corrected August 23, 1965 PC-R14 Minutes of the Planning Commisslon Meeting, August 9, 1965 -----------------------------------.------------------------------- Comm. Traeumer wished to add that consideration should be given to coordination of the extension from Ann Arbor Drive, with development of the Central Park. MOTION 20 (See Appendix B) Made by Chairman Gates, seconded by Comm. Hirshon. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 The Director of Public Works explained that the 80' cross- section. proposed by the applicant would be possible, but the section would then be squeezed to a bare minimum. MOTION 23, with some changes from the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B) was made by Comm. Traeumer. Motion died for lack of a second. The Director of Public Works said cross-sections depend on whether a concept of parking on a sidewalk would be accept- able here, or a concept of a roll-type curb. A vertical curb requires 60' right-of-way, a narrower street must have a valley gutter in place of a curb. In answer to the City Attorney's question about the grass str~p· between the parking lane and the sidewalk, the Director of Public Works stated that it protects people on the sidewalk from open car doors, but the grass must be maintained. MOTION 24, with some changes from the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B), was made by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Chairman Gates. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Gates Comm. Hirshon, Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion failed of passage, 2-2 MOTION 25, with addition to the Planning Director's Memo (See Appendix B), was made by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Comm. Hirshon, Johnson, Gates Comm. Traeumer Comm. Frolich Motion carried, 3-1 -6- 8-U-6S Appendix B - to the Minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting or August 9, 1965 MOTIONS AND VOTING ON APPLICATION 8-u-65 for: Use Permit for a 50-acre one-family Cluster Development within a PC-H Zone. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE: 1 Applicant's Request (Enclosed as Appendix A): Moved by Chairman Gates that the request as presented in total by the applicant be denied. Seconded by Comm. Traeumer. Motion carried, 4-0 2 WHEREAS the Development Plan presented by the applicant does not have enough detail to bea base for a final approval, and WHEREAS this plan is unsatisfactory in other respects, but WHEREAS the developer has a legitimate interest in getting an intèrmediate decision as a guidance for further study, NOVl THEREFOR~ be it resolved that the Planning Commission :;¡hall provide such a decision. - Motion carried, ¿I-O ¿IA BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission, through the means of a Minute Order, which will include the subsequent voting, shall give guidellnes för a further study of the Development Plan. - Motion carried, 4-0 DENSITY 6.1 Ì^!!iEREAS the density proposed by the applicant is approxi- mately 7 units per gross acre, and WHEREAS the proposed concept may, after restudy, prove to be an interesting development and an asset to Cupertino, NOH THEREFORE be it resolved to approve the applicant's concept of 350 one-family units on individual lots plus a Common Area in the area designated on the plan attached to the application. Motion failed of passage, 2-2. 6.2 WHEREAS the density proposed by the applicant is approximately 7 units per gross acre, and WHEREAS the proposed concept may, after restudy, prove to be an interesting development and an asset to Cupertino; WHEREAS, however, at the present time the -1- As corrected August 23, 1965 Appendix B 8-u-65 proposed density appears excessive and undesirable for a one- family development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to approve a concept of 250 one-family units on individual lots plus a Common Afea in the area designated on the plan attached to the applica- tion, with a flexible minimum lot size and flexible maximum coverage requirements. - Motion carried, 3-1 DESIGNATION 9 WHEREAS the Planning Commission and the City Council of Cuper- tino have recommended proposed Standardized Zoning Symbols to the Santa Clara County Inter-City Council, and WHEREAS said Council has recommended that the various cities amend their Zoning Ordinances to include these symbols, and vŒEREAS these symbols systematically describe the use of a development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved to designate the use of the area in the proposed development as RlC, within a PC-H Zone, in- dicating residential area for one-family houses, clustered, each lot having a share of a Common Area, with Variances ac- cording to a list that will be attached to the final Use Permit. - Motion carried, 1!-0. TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT lL¡ WHEREAS narrow passages between detached buildings wastes space and may cause the impression of a cheapened R-l development, NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the requirements of the Clus- ter Ordinance, Section 32 and Exhibits A and B, shall apply, except that interpretations following the intent rather than the wording of this Ordinance may be allowed in cases not fore- seen exactly by the Ordinance. - Motion carried, ii-O. STREET SYSTEM 17 WHEREAS the applicant's street system would cause too many in- tersections in Mary Avenue, and WHEREAS it lacks connections to the east which are needed for the circulation within the entire neighborhood, NO"! THEREFORE be it resolved that a street system be required approximately conforming with the Neighbor- hood Plan presented by the Planning Director; this system being characterized by: 1. A maximum of four intersections in Mary Avenue, located as in the presented Neighborhood Plan. 2. Extension of Ann Arbor Drive to Mary Avenue, ~O ft. of the section of this extension being located west of the boundary of the Central Park property. 3. All internal streets connected with the second intersection from the north in Mary Avenue. -2- As corrected August 23, 1965