Loading...
PC 09-03-64 , r • Ro 000 s- ill , 10321 So. Hwy 9, Cupertino, Calif. , 95014 252-4505 _ . CITY OP OUPERTINO CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SEVENTEENTH WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 3, 1964 . . • TIME: 8:00 P.M. PLACE : City Hall Comm. present : Frolich, Traeumer Comm. absent : Gates , Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Thomson Staff present : City and Traffic. Planner ,Adde Laurin Recording Secretary Lois Inwards Citizen present : Louie Tersini, from Mason, Enterprises-Developers CLUSTER ORDINANCE WORK SESSION . . 1 The City Planner made the following announcements : . 1. The City Manager has reviewed the proposed revised ordinance once, will go through it a second time , and then confer with the City Planner. • 2. The Chief Building Inspector is, at present, checking out the proposed ordinance to look for possible redundancies or con- flicts with the Building Code . 3. The City Attorney has been out of town until recently, but will meet with the City Planner on September 4th to start a review of the proposed ordinance . 4. The County Planning Office will set aside time for discussions September 14-18. They have promised to make a very thorough study of the material, and feel that their "consultantys •fee " will consist of an exchange of ideas. The County Planning . Director, Carl Belser, has instigated much of the cluster planning thinking in the U.S.A. , and the City Planner hopes to get his ideas on the subject direct from him, 5 . A Cluster Ordinance is more urgent than other parts of the Zoning Ordinance , It would be well to devise a Cluster Ordinance ' that would fit into the framework of the proposed Zoning Ordi- nance , but could be discussed and adopted separately, It may be revised later, when it is incorporated in the complete Zoning. Ordinance . III -1- A 411 6. The City Planner will preennreitenb zlanning Ccnm ss:J' n with his version of a cluster ordinance on Thursday, September 24th, after discussing it with the County Planning Office the previous week. 7. The City Planner said it is easier all .tie way around if the staff can go through things first arid then have them reviewed by the Planning Commission, 8. The City Planner said that a generalized discussion of cluster planning would be helpful, and suggested that this work session • should be devoted to that. This was agreed to by those present and a general discussion followed. It was noted the Los Gatos Cluster Plan Ordinance maintains the same density as non-clustered development in the same zone. Several different zones can have the cluster principle . Comm. Traeumer felt that in order to get a cluster developer to build in Cupertino it would be more attractive to him if the density were the same as R-1. You would have to change the front and side yard setbacks, however. Comm. Frolich said it is questionable whether or not the density should be higher simply because it is clustered. There would be less dedications for .city parks; also, the installation of public utilities and streets should be. less6 • Comm. Frolich felt some attention should be given to the view of the cluster development from the street. It .shouldn°t look like just blank walls set a couple of feet apart, with no indication of the landscaping, etc, within the complex. The City Planner was of the opinion -that" side yards:;should-be either. . zero (i.e.., -:row houses.) or of the same size :as in:an ,ordinary. R-1. zone . It was discussed whether or not some latitude as to density should be given the builders.. Comm. Frolich said we should guard against in- ferior quality builders . Comm. Traeumer said economics would guard against this . The City Planner said some people may not want any back yard at all. All open area would then be common area . The other extreme is a very small common area; e .g. , a path along a creek. It would be desirable to have a freedom of choice in the Ordinance of both alternatives , as well as all intermediates . 410 a_ r ' I 4 Comm. Frolich asked if there has to be much difference between a cluster plan ordinance and a condominium ordinance, Comm. Traeumer said the side yards would make the difference . The City Planner said we could have two cluster types -- one with and one without side yards. Comm. Frolich suggested a suffix be added to the zone designation to differentiate between them. Fremont 's ordinance regarding combination and planned districts , etc. , 40 should be consulted. Comm. Traeumer felt that density transfer could be incorporated here. That is, savings could be in the lower land costs and by picking up these areas where you can 't use the land and incorporate this acreage into computing of the density.. Comm. Traeumer said it is impossible to get any cheap housing in Cupertino anymore . The acreages, run $20,000 per acre. Comm. Frolich felt the whole community would benefit if we don't shut off the pretty, green areas completely from everyone except those living there . The City Planner visualizes several of these cluster plan developments, one next to another, where open areas would create a chain So resi- dents could walk to work (if they work nearby) and children could ride bicycles through them. The only trouble is that if it is to be maintained by the homeowners they may resent having any outsiders ® going through. It was brought up that the ordinance should include that the common areas are to be maintained properly, but to give a choice of alter- natives of handling this . The City Planner suggested that the zoning development plan and the contract must go together. Comm. Frolich suggested we make a check list for the developers to go by so they know what they must come up with right away and not have to keep checking back with the staff. Mr. Tersini said Fremont has a good check list of this sort . The City Planner said he has prepared a formula designed for people with different tastes and requirements. He asked if we should go down from the. average 7500 sq. ft . minimum. 410 Comm. Frolich suggested that maybe we need 2 or 3 different cluster plan densities. • Comm. Traeumer felt there should be room in the ordinances for density transfers in the cluster plan. • , - • The City Planner said another point to, consider is where side yards are Iof no use. A 6500 sq, ft: lot for row houses 'is of just as much use as a 7500 sq. ft. lot fox, detached houses. With the reduction of lot sizes, many cities require that the developer should dedicate the difference to the city for communal purposes. As the city cannot .. " exist without schools, parks, streets , etc. , it is in many American • cities considered to be the duty of the landowners, to set aside land for these purposes . This philosophy is sometimes incorporated when cluster planning is introduced. • Comm. Frolich said you wouldn't get the schools in the right places and the City would be on thin ice , legally, having the developer set aside money or land for future. development. The City. Planner said the dedication of land for these purposes has been upheld in the. courts, but not contribution of money as a substitute for land. In regard to getting some needed land :E'ree for the City, the City Planner said it is sometimes possible to make trades'. Mr. Tersini suggested the possibility of reducing lot size by 20% and this 20% of land can be incorporated into a park between subdivisions . It might also be possible to gain such land by reducing street widths from 60 ' to 56 ' and reducing 80 lots to 64 ' wide lots. Then' the City owns the park area . • Regarding cluster plans within the different zonings, Comm. Frolich suggested having different grades of density rather than call out: duplexes, triplexes,, etc. The City Planner feels the R-1 homeowners should be protected from apartments just across the street . ' 1 . • . The question of renters versus homeowners came up next. Comm. Frolich feels we, don't need to care whether or not the _people rent or buy homes within certain areas. Comm. Traeumer felt developers should be able to work with the Planning Department because there can be a tremendous loss of money :and. bad feeling created with developers if they are allowed to go so far and then learn they will not be' allowed to, put their development in their chosen area . y ' • Regarding R-3 clustering, high, rise buildings 'make More _open space - possible. Another -approach is to put the garages underground or park on the •roOr. Still another possibility is to put the house on stilts and have the garage at ground level. 411 Comm. Frolich felt Mr. Leonard is "Line of Sight " approach, introduced under the Vallco Park application, seemed feasible in regard to height of buildings . In regard to Public Hearings after the developer has been allowed to go so far, Comm. Frolich felt this should be rectified in some way. Mr. Tersini said the City of Fremont has the staff check density, ® side yards, traffic, schools, etc . in the early stages to see if there are any pitfalls. Comm. Frolich suggested the possibility of rezoning the entire city when the General Plan is accepted and thereafter dispense with public hearings on minor adjustments . If this were to be the case , the City Planner feels the General Plan should be strengthened . Comm. Frolich questioned that, if an area is not developed within, say, 6 months (or another set length of time ) it would revert back to the asked if this is necessary original zoning. He if it conforms with the General Plan. Premature zoning becomes a dead hand to the development of a city if not accomplished within a reasonable length of time. Comm. Traeumer said that after a reasonable length of time , such as 10 years , the zoning should go according to the General Plan if the 411 land has not been developed by then. The City Planner said that zoning is the right to do something within the near future. If not used, it should revert back to the original zoning. Mr. Tersini suggested a time factor of 2 to )4 years. When it comes in for zoning it should be indicated that it will be developed in phases and each phase should be developed within a certain period of time . In cases of conflicts , come in with a revised development plan. Cpmm. Frolich felt the zoning granted in accordance with a General Plan should be less subject to revision than zoning granted before there was a general plan. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. APPROVED : 410 ATTEST: CJC.cLcJ. ol:Gt�-s1�in.� City and Traffic Planner -5-