PC 10-08-64 •
10321 So. Hwy 9, Cupertino,' Calif ,, , 95014 252.745O5
BncJOJ®5 v'.
'C I T Y OF CUPERTINO
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
410 NINETEENTH WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER . 8, 1964
TIME: 8:00 P.M.
PLACE : City Hall
•
Comm. present : Frolich (8 :30) , Traeumer , Gates
Comm. absent : Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Thomson
•
Citizens present : Mr . Louie Tersini; Developer .
Staff present : City & Traffic Planner Adde Laurin
Recording Secretary Lois Inward„
Comm. Gates , referring to Page 9 of the Fi.rst Draft for Cluster
Ordinance , felt a definition of detached, semi-detached and attached :
would be in order. ' 0
Comm. Gates felt that the comments at the bottom of. the pages which
illustrate the thinking behind the ' Ordinance were excellent . There
was some discussion whether part of these comments:. could be included
in the Ordinance . The ,City Planner suggested that comments could
perhaps be printed as explanations on eves., ,left-hand pages ; the actual.
Ordinance on odd, right-hand pages in the final edition.
Under E 10, it was decided, #28 FRONT YARD shall read :
"The distance between the buildings and the . pub"sic right--of-way other
than a cul-de-sac less than '200 ' long shall be at .least : , „ . . , . . , o , . " •
(Or else the City Planner shall completely rewrite the above
paragraph. )
Comm. Traeumer felt the guide to the setback should not necessarily
be 20 ' but should be sufficient to keep a whole car off the street
even when it is back far enough to open the garage door . Monolithic
sidewalks would have an effect on the amount of setback required .
The City Planner maintained that the setback should be 20 ' where
the building is 'parallel to .the street, ,1;onsidering that most cars
are nearly 18 ' long, Savings could be made in street width; e .g. , by
eliminating the grass strip between curb and paved sidewalk. There
0 was considerable discussion, but it was not decided whether setbacks
should be 20 ' or 15 ' .
411•
On Page E 11, Para . 30 Height, Comm. T.raeu.mer was in favor of
deleting the clause about TV and radio antennas . lie feels that in
a cluster ordinance there should be no Overhead structures . After
some discussion, it was decided the word "master " should be added
between the words "except " and "television" on line 3 of Para . 30 .
The result would be that any single unit which is attached or de-
tached can have only one antenna per. building. There would be no
overhead structures except one TV cr radio reception ancenna per main
building . At this point Comm.. Prol_ich wondered who would get the
antenna . . .the fellow who moves in first?
The City Planner is to rework Para . 30 Height, on Page r 11.
In 'regard to E 11, Para 31, it Was the feeling of the City Planner
that one should either have attached row houses or leave the side -
yard setbacks the same as they are at present
Comm. Traeumer suggested that once the cluster ordinance is put to-
gether we should try to make a few development plans , serving as
examples , incorporating the new requirements to see how much common
area can be derived from different acreages . Everybody felt this
was an excellent idea.
Chairman Gates felt there should be some restriction of the peri-
phery of the cluster development to tie ,in with its counterpart .
Mr. Tersini suggested the Ordinance should require a back-up con-
figuration.
On Page E 12, Para. 34, it was decided the City Planner should re-
word the entire paragraph,
Comm. Gates felt streets should be included in E 11 and E 15..
On Page E 14; Para . 35, (d ) •Comm. Gates' felt the developer should
be bonded to insure the common areas ' maintenance . He said a
reputable developer would have no trouble obtaining a bond and. that
the contractors for this kind_ of zoning must be authenticated as •
responsible persons .
Some kind of exemplification should be added at the end of the first
sentence on Page E 16, Fara. 36. •
•
Meeting adjourned at 10 :00 P.,Ma •
APPROVED : •
/s/ Jack Gates _
Chairman
ATTEST :
(2C6A- O
City and Traffic Planner