Loading...
PC 07-12-65 PC-R12 80,000.4 C I T Y 0 Feu PER TIN 0 California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 12, 1965 8:00 P.M. The meeting was held in the Library Room, Portal School, 10300 North Blaney Avenue, Cupertino. I SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: Minutes of the previous meeting: June 28,. 1965 Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson (8:05), Traeumer, Gates None Comm. present: Comm. absent: 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 Corrections to the Minutes of June 28th: Comm. Frolich had the following correction: On Page 4, regarding conditions to application l2-Z-65, Condition /,'15 should include the following: " . . .and hearings be published; in. addition, adjacent residents who are interested in the plan are to be notified by mail." The City Attorney asked that paragraph 6 of Section VI-D on Page 7 be corrected by Minute Order, to read as follows: Minute Order: The City Attorney said abandonment is not a method of conveying property. An abandon- ment would revert the fee to the prior owner. Moved by Comm. Traeumer} seconded by Comm. Johnson, that Minutes of June 28th meeting be approved as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0 III ANNOUNCEMENTS OF. POS'rPONEMENTS, ETC. 8-TM-65 MAC~Y HOMES: Application for Tentative Map, postponed at applicant's request, until further notiçe. -1- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission; 7/12 ---------------------------------------------'-------------------------- IV WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS l2-Z-65 Letter from Attorney Dorothy E. Webb" to be disëussed with application l2-Z-65. V VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director announced that the next Planning Commission meeting, on July 26th, will be held in the regular meeting place, in the Board Room of Cupertino School District, 10300 Vista Drive. Subsequent meetings will take place there also. VI HEARINGS SCHEDULED: l2-Z-65 A. The applicant was late; after motion by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, the Planning Commission voted to hear the applicant later during the evening. 8-v-65 B. The applicant asked to be heard after other applicants as his Was a lengthy item. This was approved by the Planning Commission. 10-TM-65 C. D. A. EXCELL: Application for a Tentative Map; 3.8 acres east side of Foothill Blvd. at Ventura Avenue. First Hearing. Mr. Eugene Mastin, representing the applicant, displayed a Tentative Map and asked the Commission what their feel- ing wason Ventura Avenue coming onto Foothill Blvd. Ventura Avenue has been 1.11 the neighborhood plans in both City and County areas. The Planning Director said there is one point which has to do with access to Foothill Blvd. As discussed at previous meetings of the Planning Commission, Foothill Blvd. will be a major traffic arterial, constituting the major access to the western part of Cupertino from Junipero Serra Freeway and Foothill Expressway, There should be no direct access from adjacent lots to Foothill Blvd. In the proposed plan, lots #1 and 16 would have their driveways exit on Ventura Ave. Lot #17 does front on Foothill Blvd, but could be given access from the . irtteriOr,.street system in either of two ways: Lots 13 and 17 could be made into one lot with access to VenturaCoÜrt, a Varianc.eallowlng two duplexes on it. ('¡'he applicant.hasobjected that suchan over-siz:e lot would be difficult to sell.) Or an easement could be made for access either through Lot #12 or 13, with joint driveway from Ventura Court. -2- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Planning Commission, 7/12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mastin pointed out they could not make pJ:ans· which·would lend itself to joint driveway with Lot 13 or 12. Chairman Gates asked why Ventura Avenue has to go through to Foothill. The Planning Director answered that there is not now a con- nection to Palo Vista Road, which is a County road. Comm. Johnson asked about the standards of Foothill Blvd between Stevens Creek Blvd and Junipero Serra Freeway, The Planning Director said there has been nothing on paper, but if we plan in the near future, wé can still have a road with good quality; that is, with no direct access from ad- joining lots. The Director of Public Works said he had talked with the County and waS told there are no plans for improving Foot- hill Blvd. south of Starling Drive, but undoubtedly there will be a median strip in this highway at a future date. The Planning Director remarked that the County's General Plan (Trafficways Plan), which has been submitted to the City of Cupertino, show$ Foothill Blvd. as an Inter-City Arterial, with back-up policy or frontage roads, The County has not done anything to implement this, however. Comm. Johnson suggested Lot 13 be adjusted to provide for acceS$ to Lot 17 from Ventura Court. Mr. Mastin said they could not possibly come up with anything in this respect. Chairman Gates pointed out that Foothill Blvd. is a major artery and will be more heavily travelled in the future. Chairman Gates asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Motion waS made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that Public Hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 Motion was made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Frolich, that application lO-TM..65 be approved, Bubject to the 12 Standard Conditions. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon;Traeumer NAYS: Comm. Johnson; Gates . . . Motion carried, 3-2 . . J2-2-b$~ A. DON CHUCK~ APPlicationlfor Rez:oning of one acre from R-l to PO-H, atthé southwest corner of Wolfe Road and Richwood Drive. . Second Hearing continued. -3- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, 7/12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Gates said that since this was a continuation of the second hearing it was not necessary to recap the second hearing. He read a communication from Attorney Dorothy Webb, who wrote on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Zehms, 10165 Vicksburg Drive, owners of property adjoining Mr. Chuck's. Mrs. Webb asked that her letter be read aloud and entered in the records of the Planning Commission as opposing the change of zoning from R-l to PO-H as requested in application l2-Z-65 for the followlng reasons: 1. "Mr. & Mrs. Zehms said the change in zoning will damage them in their peaceful use and enjoyment of their residence. 2. "Mr. & Mrs. Zehms, while not agreeing to such rezoning} said that the only development of this property to another z:oning (PO-H) that would make .it possible for them to continue to live in their residence would be a one-story building separated from the property line by a solid planting of evergreen shrubs for the entire length of their property line and to continue past the dead end of the alley running along side their resi- dence; the back wall of the building to be windowless; and all parking to be on the street side of the pro- perty. . . 3. "A time limitation should be included for completion so that a revised plan could.not be presented for approval after the change in zoning is approved, that would be completely incompatible with the residential living re- quirements of the neighborhood property. 4. "All the officials of the City of Cupertino should con- sider first the welfare of their residential citiz:ens in hearing applications for rezoning or for architec- tural and site approval, and should deny any such application that appears to violate the settled rights of these citiz:ens. There appears to be no pressing reason to rezone these lots except that private in- terests may desire such rezoning; however, it is re- spectfully submitted that it is to the public interest not to do so." Mrs. Webb added that "it should be the City's foremost re- sponsibility to maintain consistent and dependable condi- tions of living on which all potential resident citiz:ens can rely in making their investment in a permanent home. When a tract· is zoned R-l, the buyers have a right to assume that City officials will not take away their use and enjoyment of their homes by rezoning unsold lots in the tract." -4- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------.--------------------------------------------- Mr. Richard Faust, representative for the applicant, pre- sented a revised plot plan showing a one-story building proposed for this property in deference to the residents in the area backing up to this property and to the dup- ~exes adjacent. . After talking to Mr. Zehms, who waS quite adamant about a one-story'bullding, Mr, Faust had contacted the appli- cant, who agreed that the one-story bUilding would be satisfactory to him and asked Mr, Faust to develop some- thing on that basis. Two separate plans were draw n up, which showed a cross section of two possibilities in terms of design which would not obstruct the view of the closest property owner, over this fence. Parking would be placed in front of the building, and eliminate the lighting that residents feared would disturb them. In . this way, the one-story building would resemble buildings in the residential area and Mr. Faust felt this would be satisfactory to the nearby residents. Mr. Zehms said he was satisfied with the presented plan and opposed to the two-story bUilding plan} but would still prefer that the property not be rezoned. Mr, R. W. Cooper, 10175 Vicksburg Drive, said that he agreed with Mrs. Webb's letter, but he would like to add a stipulation to the application that the alley behind never be allowed to go through. Motion made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, to close the second hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Gates said he thinks this is a basic problem; there is more to consider than the actual property in question. As Mrs. Webb's letter stated, when a tract is zoned R-l and homes are sold therein, the buyers have a right to assume that the City will not rezone adja- cent lots to other uses, which will take away the enjoy- ment of their homes. When this subdivision waS first zoned (to R-l) would a PC-H lot on the corner have been acceptable, considering that Wolfe Road was bound to be a busy street? Putting himself in the position of these adjacent property owners, having it recently zoned R-l, there would have to be some pressing reaSon for rez:oning it to PO-H at this point, inasmuch as this is a developed subdivision. This is an important factor and needs additional comments and ideas before taking a vote. Comm. Frolich pointed out that at the time this property was rezoned as a subdivision, it was assumed that there would be an· extension of Wolfe Road, but it has only -5- . PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 --------------------------------------------------------------------- been quite recent that any indication of access to the free- way was contemplated. This does change the characteristics of z:oning here, and if this had been known at that time, this property might have been zoned PO-H. The purpose of PO-H zoning was to solve similar situations. We are not violating the intent of our Ordinances by a rezoning, as people would not want to build:.single family homes with com- mercial zoning across the street. Chairman Gates said Wolfe Road induces a substantial change in the entire neighborhood, thus changing the entire aspect of z:oning plans. Comm. Johnson agreed with Chairman Gates in one respect, in that when a tract is zoned R-l, buyers have a right to assume this will remain R-l, but when con- ditions change, especially on a major corner, it would be reasonable to rez:one the property to meet this change. The residents will have to rest their hopes on the architectural and site control approval, with regard to control of the type of bUilding approved. In answer to Comm. Frolich's question as to how soon the applicant intends to present these plans to the H-Control, Mr. Faust replied that it will probably be a few months. Comm. Johnson asked if there was a time limitation on this. The City Attorney pointed out that a time limitation in Zoning is something to be discouraged, for the reason that the law says no man has a vested lot in a rezoning unless he has put in improvements. The only way to amend a Zoning Map is to initiate rezoning proceedings. Comm. Frolich felt that PO-H would be an appropriate zoning for this property, but if ·the applicant does not make use of this application within a limited time, the application should be revoked, by public hearings and rezoning. Comm. Traeumer said he believes PC-H is a proper zoning for this property because of its location, and feels that since the applicant is showing consideration for the adjacent pro- perty owners, the application should be approved, subject to the 12 Standard Conditions and Conditions 13, 14, 15, as outlined in the June 28th Planning Commission Minutes, with the addition to #15 that H-Control Hearings on this plan be published and adjacent residents who are interested be noti- fied by mail. It was suggested that the applicant should be required to pay the cost for advertising the Public Hearings, and sug- gested this be added to Condition 15. Also, particular reference should be made to the. architectural plan presented by the applicant, and a second reference should be made to Point #2 of Mrs. Webb's letter referring to single-story building, buffer z:one and landscaping. -6- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion was made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that application l2-Z-65 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1-12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. AYES: NAYS: Standard Conditions That building be single-story construction An adequate buffer for adjacent property be in- cluded in the plan Revised site plan and parking plan be approved by H-Control, and hearings be published at applicant's expense. In addition, adjacent residents are to be notified by mail. The architectural plan presented by the applicant to be included as an exhibit to the Resolution. Reference to Point ff2 of Mrs. Webb's letter to be made in the Resolution. Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates None Motion carried, 5-0 Chairman Gates asked that it be noted in the Minutes that the reason he voted yes on this application is simply because of the transformation of Wolfe Road into a major arterial, and for no other reason. The situa- tion þere has clearly changed dramatically since the property was first zoned. l4-V-65 D. NATIONAL ADVERTISING CO.: Application for a Variance for a sign at Portal Plaza, exceeding sign area al- lowed by Ordinance. Mr. Walker Davis, 360 Collingwood, San Francisco, re- presented the applicant, and presented photographs of typical signs applicant ha$ erected in other locations, which would be similar to the one proposed for Portal Plaza. In answer to Comm. Frolich's questions as to whether this sign is revolving, Mr. Davis replied that 99% of their signs are of the revolving type; however, accord- ing to request from the 'Commission, this one on Portal Plaz:a would not be moving. Comm. Hirshon asked if each Shopping Center planned to have one of these signs. Mr. Davis said there are several sizes of signs, which they lease to different stores. This particular sign is the standard size for this size light standard; however, they could stipulate a smaller size for Cupertino. -7- '-.- -.-- --- ....---- --- ------ - -- --- - - - ---- -- -..;. --,- -- - ----- ----------- - ----- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 Comm. Johnsan asked what other cities in the area, south from Palo Alto, have these signs. Mr. Davis enumerated Palo Alto, Mountain View; Sunnyvale, and San Jose; and added that no Variance has been required in any of the other cities, except in Cupertino. These signs are placed on light stand- ards, are wind-activated, but have a check, so they will not rotate too rapidly. Chairman Gates asked for comments from the audience. There were none. The Planning Director remarked that letters from the Archi- tectural and Site Control Committee and from the Chief Build- ing Inspector stronglY advising against the Variance, had been sent to the Commission. Moved by Comm. Traeumer, seconded by Comm. Johnson, that Public Hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 Comm. Frolich asked if the staff had a Sign Ordinance re- quirement present. The City Attorney quoted from the Ordinance that "..a Variance of the sign use corresponds with the land use.....the Variance to b3 granted is one that will require the least.modification and the minimum Variance that will accomplish this ·purpose......Any person aggrieved by order of the Planning Commission may appeal such order to the City Council by filing a written notice to the City clerk." Comm. Traeumer asked what the violation is on this Variance request. Director of Public Works replied that excess area covered by the sign is one violation. Comm. Frolich moved that application l4-V-65 be denied for the following reasons: 1. It is the philosophy of the City of Cupertino that advertising signs of this type do not improve the appearance of the City, and do not further its development. 2. The sign does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Motion was seconded by Comm. Johnson. AYES: Comm. Frolich, Hirshon, Johnson, Traeumer, Gates NAYS: None Motion carried, 5-0 Applicant was advised of his right of appeal. -8- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ l5-V-65 C. B. Archdale: Application for a Variance, to ex- tend present building into rear yard, at 20063 Merritt Drive. First Hearing. Mr. Archdale explained that the extension requested is for an addition. of a family room to the present building, which would change the building from an L-shaped to a U-shaped building. Only 4-1/2 feet will be needed for this Variance, which would still leave 15-1/2 feet to the fence line in the rear. Since Variances have been allowed in the past for other property owners in the immediate area, he does not feel this 4-1/2 feet would have much adverse effect to the adjacent property owners. E. Chairman Gates clarified the fact that standard require- ment for a rear yard set-back is 20 feet. Comm. Traeumer asked the applicant why he wanted to add the family room, and added that Variances were given only in hardship cases. The applicant said they are interested in making this home a comfortable, livable home. They have 3 bedrooms at present, and four members in the family, and this addi- tion would give them more area in their kitchen and a bedroom. When asked by Comm. Hirshon whether the neighbors in the back object to this addition, the applicant replied that they were not against it. Comm. Traeumer asked if there was a window or a sliding door directly to the left (west wall) which connects to the house, and.suggested perh~ps this could be eliminated and the addition built from there. The applicant said there was a sliding door, but if it were removed, this would change a nice kitchen into a dark kitchen, and would not be suitable. Chairman Gates asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Vern Schwartz, 20046 Merritt Drive, said he did not realize the nature of this addition. Although he liked the layout of the plan, he would be hesitant to have a neighbor build a structure larger than the lot can ac- commodate. It is his opinion that the Planning Commis- sion has set certain restrictions on their z:oning to protect individual home owners, and in this case, other adjacent property owners. Therefore, he is opposed to this variance as a matter of principle. -9- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 -----------------------------~-------------------------------------- Mr. Erwin·Morgenthal, 20043 Merritt Drive, said his home was one of the original homes in this tract and he likes the spacious area. They have a Variance of 20 feet, with public utilities and easement running through the rear. The house to the rear of the applicant's was given a Var- iance at the time the house was first sold, and they have come close to the rear fence. The applicant's proposed extension wOUld, in his opinion, be. too close to the rear fence, and.. ,he is very much opposed to the Variance. Mr. Fritz Weinert, 20103 Merritt Drive, said he could not follow the,~easoning of the other residents in their opposi- tion, as there have been many Variances granted in this block, including the house directly behind the applicant's. The only two remaining homes in the block without Variances is the applicant's and one other. He cannot see how it would harm the adjacent property owners if this building would be extended 4-1/2 feet. Mr. Jerry Matz, 20083 Merritt Drive, has no objections whatsoever. Mr.Vern Schwartz said that he is not in the same subdivision as the applicant, but lives across the street. He said the point brought out that the number of variances on that block seems to be the rule rather than the exception, whereas they should be the exception. He felt the Planning Commis- sion should uphold the requirements in their set-back standards. Chairman Gates asked for comments from the staff. The Director of Public Works explained that FHA requirements state that rear-yard set-backs should be 15', and this appli- cation meets that requirement. Comm. Johnson noted that the addition requested seems to be 20-22 feet long - would applicant consider an addition of 17'6' and thus meet the necessary requirements. The appli- cant said this would not be sufficient for his plans. Comm. Hirshon asked Mr. Morgenthal what specifically dis- turbed him about this Variance. Mr. Morgenthal replied that his conÖern was that a situation would be created here which may br1nglarger families into the area. Although some Variances have been granted, it should not be continued, but should be "nipped in the bud" now. . Motion made by Comm. Traeumer, seconded þy Comm. Johnson, that Puþlic Hearings be closed. Motion carried, 5-0 ,~lO- .'- . PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Director of Planning commented that, as a matter of principle, as few Variances as possible should be granted; only those that alleviate a real hardship, and that the neighbors' opinions should be seriously considered. In this area, however, there already are several similar Variances. Comm. Frolich pointed out that the other Variances in this area are in cul-de-sacs, so the situation is not the same. Motion made by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Traeumer, that application l5-V-65 be denied on the grounds there is no hardship indicated here; it would bring the build- ing too close to the building on lot l420-B immediately behind. Regulations in the Ordinance should be upheld to provide adequate fire protection. An addition re- stricted to 17-1/2 feet would not need a Variance. The Planning Director pointed out that this kind of Variance automatically goes to the City Council. Chairman Gates requested a 5-minute break at 9:15. 8-u-65 B. VALLEY TITLE COMPANY (Page Properties): Application for a Use Permit for a 60-acre one-family Cluster Development within a PC-H Zone, north and east of Mary Avenue, near Stevens Creek Blvd. Second Hearing. Mr. Mittelman, representative for Page Properties, asked the Planning Director for his comments before proceding with applicant's plans. The Planning Director stated that the revised map WaS not submitted until late on Friday afternoon, which did not allow him ample time to study all the details; however, he displayed an earlier map for comparison. In his opinion, the plan submitted by the applicant is a desirable kind of development and would have lower density than it was zoned for. There are numerous details, however, that would have to be solved. The present zoning is PC-H, with a maximum of 16 dwelling units per gross acre - 960 in all. The proposed plan is divided in low-density area of 51 acres with 340 clustered one-family houses and a high-density area "A". If the overall density were to be 16 D.U./ gross area, area "A" would contain 620 D.U., which is 70 D.U./gross area, an entirely unreasonable figure. If the density were lowered in one portion of a planned community, the Ordinance does not guarantee that the developer can increase correspondingly in other portions. Each portion is subject to a Use Permit, and is to be judged on its merits. -11- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- A note on the proposed development plan states: "This Site Development Plan contains exceptions and variances which shall be deemed approved by the City upon granting of the Use Permit." The Planning Director did not think the plan is detailed enough to be the basis for a Use Permit, nor should it be considered to be a finished product. He realized, however, that the applicant might be short of time. A possible accommodation might be to grant a Use Permit for 340 Clustered one-family houses in the area pro- posed, with a condition that the developer would come in with a development plan acceptable to the PlanningCommis- sion before the application for a Tentative Map; this plan should clearly show the proposed Variances. In answer to Chairman Gates' question as to what is re- quired in terms of more detail, the Planning Director said that front yards, side yards and division into lots should be specified in the plan. A development plan for a Use Permit should be more specific and perhaps in a bigger scale, so distances could be measured accurately. Both PC-H and Cluster Ordinances state that lot lines should be shown on a Development Plan. The proposed plan shows 36' wide streets, including parking on both sides, but with no sidewalks; cul-de-sacs 28' wide. Streets without .sidewalks may be preferable· if walkways in Common Areas are proVided, which are at least as direct and convenj,ent as the streets; this is not the case in this plan. Reduced lane width is satisfactory for short cul-de-sacs or loop streets; in this plan one street with two accesses serves 280 units, and needs a standard cross-section. Director of Public Works agreed that applicant must submit further details in regard to street widths, etc. Chairman Gates pointed out that he definitely opposes sub- standard streets; he approved them in a previous applica- tion because they were short loop streets. Comm. Frolich asked if this is PC-H zoning and is the Use Permit which the applicant is. requesting for a Cluster development? A Use Permit, Comm. Frolich pointed out, should be for a particular type of use, and for that reason we should determine just what this use is. If an R1C zoning permits cluster, why is it necessary to ask for reduced street widths and crowd the houses as they are 'shown;. the density does not lend itself to the Common Area concept for recreational purposes. Comm. Johnson indicated. there was sufficient "green" area shown, but not in a usable· arrangement. . .;,012- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Gates restated that this property was z:oned for one-family residential before being rezoned to PC-H, when the granted use was R-3-H. If the pr~sent applica- tion is a material change, the original maps should be substituted and new mapS submitted, showing the now pro- posed use in this ,PC-H zone. The City Attorney stated that this application is for a Planned Community area, and as such, must comply with all requirements of the Ordinance, to include areas proposed for commercial uses, professional office uses, and light industrial uses. A statement was made at the Hearings that the City Council was not worried about residential uses, but commercial and industrial uses; and concern was expressed as to how deep the City wOUld be involved in these three classes. The City Attorney suggested the Commission rile an amendment to this development plan, stipulating that the applicant list in detail precisely what they propose to include in this development, in accordance with Section 6, Development Standards in Ordinance 002(0-1). If applicant wishes R-l zoning, it should be regulated to 7500 sq. rt. per lot and 60 ft. street widths, and other standards coinciding with PC-H, in set-back purposes, height, etc. There would be some architectural freedom allowed in regard to curved streets and modern concepts. If PC-H zoning is granted, Section 7:1, Variation of Regulations can be applied. The development standards for PC-H, as set forth in Section 7, speciry that desirable structures and other such features will be permitted provided that the overall density does not exceed sixteen (16) living units per gross acre. The City Attorney further suggested that prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Use Permit should show a plot plan with locations, tree plantings, elevations, etc., and be reviewed by the City Council. The applicant is requesting and proposing a distribution of single-family residences - can the Planning Commission rightly deny him a PC-H zoning and substitute an R1C, Cluster zoning? Mr. Mittelman said the applicant would prefer the PC-H z:oning, uSing Section 6, amended by Section 7, as speci- fied in the 002(0) Ordinance. The City Attorney continued: "It is the Planning Com- mission's duty to note that when this application comes before the Architectural and Site Control, the develop- ment standards for streets, etc., shall apply in all cases subject to provisions of Section 7 of Ordinance 002(o~, as established in Subdivision Ordinance Section 47-A. Our problem here is that we are using the word "cluster" in this application. If we are trying to apply a Cluster Ordinance to this application, we have a brand -13- PC·-R12Minutes- of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 -------------~---------------------------------------------------- new Ordinance, and applicant is interested only in this particular plot plan under PC-H zoning. Single-family cluster ordinance gives power to zone for single-family cl~~ter only - this is not the situation here. This is a Pla~ing Commission problem, to decide on street widths, side,~ards, set-backs, etc., and use of this will come under general rules. This is the Ordinance structure as it stands today. When the PC-H Ordinance was enacted, no one was thinking of a Cluster. Ordinance, and the City still has not had a trial run on a Cluster. This applica- tion has met the density required, 16 units per gross acre; the street widths do not meet the Ordinance requirements, but Section 7 of Ordinance could solve this problem. Comm. Frolich pointed out tha~ if R~l is granted, then R-I standards in set-backs, etc"would have to be met. The possibility of addingRIC requirements to PC-H has been discussed previously - was this not done? R1C standard re- quirements are permitted in PC~H zoning.. If we approve this application for PC-H, does. this automatically indicate that we will approve all of the applicant's requests for Variances? (The Planning Director answered that an amend- ment to the PC-H Ordinance, including R1C use in a PC-H zone, is now in effect.) --- The City Attorney suggested that every exception to the R-l zoning shouldbe·documented,such as eliminating cer- tain standards as setwbacks, height, etc.; provided the area does not exceed 16 living units per gross acre. Comm. Frolich asked whether this plan could be R-24, R-l, or R1C'l Comm. Traeumer aSserted that the end result will be R-24-H zoning, and if this be the case} it will have to meet re- quirements for parking spaces, building envelope} etc.; R-24 does allow narrower streets than R-l requirements. He advocates cluster developments with their common area that can be utiliz:ed for the benefit of all the people in this area. He believes the way to proceed with this application is to zone it -R24c· and to meet the required standards for R1C. or PC-H zoning. .. The City Attorney pointed out that Ordinance 002(k) in- corporates the R-24-H and PC-H in that "multiple dwellings or combinations thereof" are allowed; but how can single family dwellings be allowed in . R24c when the limitation is 16 dwelling units per gross acre - why not call it R1C rather than the R-24-H or PC-H. Chairman Gates said the difference in R24C as opposed to R1C is the density. -14- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 -------------------------------------------------~~---------------- ,. The Planning Director explained that the PC-H Ordinance states that the develòpment standards for different uses in a PC-H zone shall conform with the standards in tne-- zones in wñIëñ they are otherwise allowed. Cluster development consists of individual lots plus a Common Area, plus parking. Mr. Robert Rees, associate of Mr. Mittelman, said that their application, at tne timez:oning was granted, and also when they requested an amendment to PC-H, was not for cluster zoning. Their application is for a PC-H, and it is their understanding that all uses are allowed under PC-H, and that under the development standards of Section 6 of the Ordinance, together with Section 7, gives them a very broad power to do as they wish. Comm. Frolich said proposed changes in use should be stated on the Development Plan - it would be wise to find some label by which to determine which regulations need a Variance. There followed considerable discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of zoning this area R24c, as opposed to PC-H. Chairman Gates recommended this application be processed under R-l use, with a Variance for density and to use the R1C Ordinance as a guide (limit of 7 units per gross acre). Mr. Mittelman said the overall density would have to be considered in z:oning, also for land not yet developed in the area. The original application for this area was requested by Stoneson, under Pc-H zoning. Comm. Traeumer asked if this original development map did not designate the type of zoning for each parcel. Director of Public Works said there were some drawings, but they were scrap- ped when the application was dropped. Chairman Gates pointed out that a Tentative Map on this undeveloped land must be submitted by the applicant. Chairman Gates indicated that this development plan can be controlled up to a certain density limit. He felt it would be far better to have 25% more buildings and 3 times as much green area, even if those buildings were R24C (multiple dwellings). Comm. Johnson said the applicant's proposal would result in 70 D.U.jgross acre in area A (to be developed in a later stage). Comm. Frolich pointed out that if the area shown in the present plan constitutes a change, it is granted only for that area; the area shown in the original plan was designated as R-24-H and would still have that label. It the applicant later requested another change, the PC-H Ordinance would allow only a certain density; con- sequently, area A could not contain more than 16 dwelling -15- PC~R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- units per gross acre, and applicant could not request higher density. However, Comm. Frolich asked, would the PC-H Ordinance permit the granting of 70 units per gross acre in area A, if the applicant so desired. The City Attorney re- plied .that the present applicatiop. is for R-l z:oning, and we do not know what is being planned for the remaining pro- perty, but if the applicant meets all the development stan- dards for the type of zoning he requests, it would be posSible to get approval. Chairman Gates .said he would much prefer this property be used for multiple dwelling units; perhaps one high-rise building,which could contain more green area than single- family dwelling units·with high density. In R-l zoning, he feels the density of 7 living units per acre is too high; but it could be possible that 5000 sq. ft. lots would be utilized in some cases, although in an R-l z:oning 7500 sq. ft. lots is the accepted and required siz:e. It would be a mistake to convert this R-24-Huse to R-l concept. Comm. Traeumer said that in his opinion, cluster develop- ments, if they are developed properly, can be desirable with narrower streets that are not thoroughfares, etc. What would be the objection to applicant requesting R24c for the entire area, with a variance to allow for sale of units. The Development Plan would show location of buildings, parking spaces and streets. . Mr. Mittelman pointed out that the original application has been studied for about 18 months, they have discussed cer- tain street sections and incorporated them· into other ideas which would meet development standards. He feels this plan is an improvement and they are satisfied with it. They are willing to go into more detail and to revise any objections where necessary. Director of Public Works said the street. pattern and the street widths should be clearly indicated and in more detail. Comm. Johnson wondered if the applicant would be limited to the 7 dwelling units per gross acre, although the entire area allows 16 units. The City Attorney said this R-l area could be treated as a single entity, and area not yet developed as a separate plan. Mr. Rees explained that economically, at this point, high- rise apartments are not feasible. They have drawn up a number of plans designed in order to see how each one worked in detail. In the present plan, buildings permit light and air on 4 walls, which is important to persons living in this development.. The open land area constitutes 1/2 of the area, 1/4 of the area is streets, 1/4 covered by build- ings. This plan is the work of 18 months and they feel this is an excellent development plan which they would like to build in Cupertino. -16- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 7/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Comm. Traeumer pointed out that the Planning Commission should give the applicant their opinion on street width, as this will definitely have a bearing on the plan. Director of Public Works said that Mary Avenue is con- templated as a full 90' right-of-way, and should have a planted median strip. The development plan should show location and width of internal streets, loop streets and cul-de-sacs. The present plan provides no connection to the north or to the east, and it is important these details be included. Also, sidewalks are preferable, as space is needed for lamp posts, hydrants, water meters, etc. The Planning Director feels the developer should carry some of the costs for Garden Gate Avenue to be connected with Mary Avenue; and that a local connection to the north should be provided. This should be done so as to discourage traffic through the area. The proposed cross- section of Mary Avenue is unsatisfactory and the numer- ous (5) entrances and exits to Mary Avenue would create accidents similar to Rodrigues Avenue and Highway 85. The Planning Director showed a sketch for design of Mary Avenue with only 2 intersections, which sketch had been submitted to Mr. Mittelman at an early stage of the contact between him and the City. -~ The Planning Director added that in view of the many unsolved problems, it would be reasonable to continue the Second Hearing. Mr. Mittelman said they would like an opinion at this time from the Planning Commission on the street pattern. Street sections have been reviewed with the staff as follows: street sections did not include sidewalks, width of street 36' where parking on both sides was al- lowed and 28' where parking was allowed only on one side, sidewalks will be in addition to this where there is no other access. A landscape architect will work out different details with the staff after agreement in principle. Development will be created as an attractive environment and neighborhood and have designed features of a common area. If buildings were lined up in a row the back yards would face Mary Avenue, so they have eliminated accesses where possible. Chairman Gates instructed the staff to study the Development Plan further, and the matter will be con- tinued at the next regular meeting. Motion made by Comm. Hirshon, seconded by Comm. Johnson to close the Public Hearings. Motion carried, 5-0 -17- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, 7/12/65 ~~~~a~~~~~'_~~W__._~__M_~~__~___.._~____~_____·_··____--~-~-----~. -~~.~~.~~~- Mr, Mit'!;elma!'l added that the aPPUoflnt woulc! like thispor- tion of the d@V\i!¡Qpm@nt \,\s@c! u R·l~ hQwClvet'. the Planning Direotor has applied Rig Ordinanêê. The app110flnt would like to know what zoning they should be guided by. The City Attorney said he feels the R-l would be preferable, with variance in set-backs in compliance with Government Code which provides set-backs, front, side and back yard, and lot. siies. He would not like to see any development with 7 units per gross acre to be used as a cluster zoning. Comm. Frolich said that an R1C zoning would compound the confusion. Chairman Gates advisèdthe applicant to use R-l zoning with variances. Mr. Mittelman asked if this hearing could be continued at a special session, as they wanted to proceed as far as possible in order to get ahead with the necessary steps for approval. The Planning Director, however, said there were many details to be studied and he could not possibly present them earlier than July 26th. Chairman Gates then announced that this application will be continued at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 26th. 81,024 F. CITY PLANNER: Proposed Policy for Hill Development Chairman Gates asked the Planning Director if it would be agreeable to him if this item be continued to a further meeting. The Planning Director said it would. As· the agenda of the next meeting will be very heavy, this item would be postponed until further notice. The Chairman then proceeded with the next item on the agenda. VII' UNFINISHED BUSINESS Comm. Johnson made a .recommendation that the staff initiate a form which. would be an addition to the present Use Permit and Variance ~pplication forms. This form should spell out in more detail , to apprize the applicant (in statute langu- age), what requirements he needs to meet for approval of his application öy the Planning Commission. With the pre~. sent application form the applicant does not realiz:e that a Variance is granted only in a. 'hardship I case, and does not know what constitutes a 'hardship'. He pays the $25.00 application fee, which is not refundable, and does not prepare his case compl.etely when requesting a Variance. Comm. Johnson, at the suggestion of Chairman Gates, offered to draw up a suitable form for, rev.iew by the staff and approval of the Commission. ·In the interim, the staff was instructed to appriz:e the applicants of these require- ments verbally. -18- PC-R12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, 7/12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comm. Frolich asked the Planning Director if the Santa Clara Valley Plans and Santa Clara County Planning Department Information bulletins will continue to be distributed to the Commission. The Planning Director said he would attend to it. VIII NEW BUSINESS There was none. IV ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Chairman Gates, and seconded unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 P.M. APPROVED: /s/ Jack Gates Chairman ATTEST: Dock j'DM/iA' ~ Director of Planning -19-