Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 125281,004.126 RESOLUTION NO. 1252 (Minute Order) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TRANSMITTING a report relative to the current draft of the proposed revision to the Planned Development Ordinance (Ordinance 618). 1. The Commission concurs with all sections of the ordinance as drafted with the exception of Section 7.2. The Commission is in basic agree- ment with the concept of initial aesthetic input as a means to strengthen the evaluation of planned development. However, the Commission is concerned about the mechanics and format of the initial review and the nature and/or make-up of the initial reviewing body. 2. The Commission requests that the Council provide a clear definition of its desires relative to early aesthetic input not only with respect to the planned development ordinance but relative to the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Approval Committee in the total development approval process. 3. The Commission hereby transmits the following documents reflecting the point of view of various individuals and organizations relative to this matter: C. Nancy Sallan Memo of January 22, 1974 and March 29, 1974 James H. Sisk Memo of January 23, 1974 James H. Sisk Memo of January 31, 1974 John Gatto Memo of March 11, 1974 R. D. Koenitzer Memo of March 28, 1974 American Institute of Architects Letter of March 20, 1974 Draft Ordinance 618 (as referred to Planning Comm. by City Council 2/19/74) PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 1974, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Adams, Gatto, O'Keefe NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None APPROVED: ATTEST: Daniel P. O'Keefe, C airman Planning Commission Ro ert S. Cowan Associate Planner 4 -1- Goes wrR1 PC R96 0 125�, Citg of Cupertifio TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James H. Sisk, Planning Director fr DATE: January 31, 1974 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 618: Revision to the Planned Development Zone During its meeting of January 14, 1974, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1229 recommending the adoption of Ordinance No. 618 amending the City's Planned Development Zone. The amendment of the Planned Development Zone is the initial step in the Planning Commission's and staff's implementa- tion strategy for the 1973/74 Land Use Amendment. The primary purpose of the Planned Development Zone amendment is to allow the City to initiate a change of zone to Planned Development. As you may recall from an earlier discussion, the staff determined that the optimum approach to implement the Core Plan would be to develop broadly based policy guidelines for development of the four key areas discussed in connection with the Core Plan, specifically the Town Center, Vallco Park, Highway 9 and Stevens Creek strip between Saratoga —Sunnyvale Road and Wolfe Road. The broadly based policy plans (labeled the conceptual plan stage in the Planned Development Ordinance revision) will set forth detailed regulations of proposed uses within the four subject areas and will describe the proposed public and private street systems. In other words, the broad based policy plan or conceptual plan approach would enable the City to develop a planning frame- work to more precisely regulate the type and intensity of uses and the land use development patterns within each of the four basic areas discussed during` the Core Plan. The conceptual plan developed by the City would be similar in nature to development plans submitted by applicants in connection with applica- tions to rezone their properties to a Planned Development Zone. A second basic change proposed by the new ordinance is a procedural change which in essence allows the Commission and Council to jointly hear the zoning and use permit phases of an application concurrently. This particular change will expedite relatively small scale Planned Developments such as the S.H.A.R.E. application and the 3z -acre Villas Townhouse development on north Blaney Avenue. In both instances the developers were prepared to submit final site plans for approval at the rezoning stage. In cases of concurrent zoning/use permit applications, the very hard definitive or use permit plan would serve both as the zoning plan and the use permit plan. A third basic change in the Planned Development Ordinance is a procedural change which requires that applicants spend additional time at the Commission level if the Commission has difficulty with a particular development. Presently, a Planned Development use permit heard by the Commission automatically goes on to the Council irregardless of the Commission's recommendation for either approval or denial. Often, applicants who traditionally had difficulty before -1- Ordinance No. 61£3: Revision to the Planned Development Zone January 31, 1974 the Commission would in essence write off the Commission's input into the planning process by demanding that the Commission make an immediate decision in order that they might appear before the Council with the least amount of time delay. Also, if the Commission recommended denial of a project, the Council would not have the benefit of the Commission input relative to conditions of approval. The new procedure stipulates that at the definitive stage or use permit stage, if a project is recommended for approval, it auto- matically goes on to the City Council for adoption. Conversely, if the Commission recommends denial, the application stops at that point unless appealed. If the project is appealed and the Council determines that the basic general concept is valid, the application would then be sent back to the Planning Commission for review to condition the project. The Commission would then forward the application to the Council for final review with recommended conditions of approval. The new procedure will not alter the time frame for development approval for a project which is in basic agreement with the development philosophies of the Commission and Council; however, projects that are not in basic agreement would have to go through an extra step which would result in a time delay. Both the Staff and Commission determined that this approach, although some- what more cumbersome, would best serve the interests of the Commission and the Council. A fourth basic change is the deletion of an acreage requirement for the Planned Development zone. The present 15 -acre requirement is unworkable because of the large number of relatively small parcels of land in areas designated for Planned Development controls in the Core Area. In addition to these basic changes, there are several small changes which clarify or amplify the standard operating procedures utilized by the Commission and the Council with the old Planned Development Ordinance. The Ordinance, for example, clarifies the content requirements for each of the basic plan stages. A few of the content changes are significant in that they call attention to unwritten policies of the Planning Commission and City Council. In essence, the plan content requirements for the conceptual development plan or zoning plan stage of the development approval process reflect the planning concerns expressed by the Commission and Council during the Core Plan review. For example, the Conceptual Development Plan will include a statement as to how the conceptual plan conforms to land use types and intensities for the development boundary as designated on the General Plan. It is expected at this stage the Commission and Council can determine how intense the particular plan can be and still meet the intensity standards proposed by the General Plan. The Definitive Development Plan which is the use permit stage is basically a refinement of the type of information required at the conceptual level. The Commission did stipulate that they would like to evaluate the basic architectural theme of the development and the functional aspects of the landscaping proposed at this stage of the development. Basically, in more complex developments, the Commission has always asked for this type of information; however, it is made a written requirement in the revised Planned Development. (The Architectural and Site Approval Committee is somewhat con- cerned about these two additions. The Committee's concern will be described -2- Ordinance No. 618: Revision to the Planned Development Zone January 31, 1974 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in a later segment of this memo.) One important content requirement of the Definitive Development Plan, labeled Section 4 B-7, pertains to construction phasing. In recent Planned Development approvals, the Planning Commission and City Council have asked developers to describe the phasing of development within their project. For example, in at least two instances, the Council has adopted a condition requiring that at least 50% of the development be constructed at one time. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the City is not merely approving "paper" plans with the primary intent being to approve an immediate development in the 100% location of the site with no guarantee that the balance of the development will be built as approved. With the addition of Section 7, the applicant and staff will be in a position to explain precisely how the staging is to occur. The Precise Development Plan level is the Architectural and Site Approval level. The Planned Development Ordinance does not propose any changes whatsoever in the content requirements. Another important section in the Planned Development amendment is Section 7.1 which clarifies the question of how much property should be planned at one particular time. The Commission recognized that in very large Planned Develop- ments such as Vallco Park or the Planned Development that will exist along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road could not possibly plan the entire property holding at the use'permit level. Section 7.1 allows the Commission to evaluate an application to determine how much land in the Planned Development zone should be planned at one time. The applicant would submit his proposal based upon his concept of how much should be developed at one time. The intent of this Section is to ensure that the City will have the control to require, parti- cularly in small properties, the complete planning of the property and yet still have the flexibility on larger pieces to allow partial planning of the property. Interrelationship Between the Architectural and Site Approval and Planning Commission in the Development Approval Process Essentially, the Planned Development Ordinance revision maintains the status quo with respect to the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Archi- tectural and Site Approval Committee relative to the approval of projects in Planned Development zones. As stated earlier, the Planned Development amend- ment does formalize a practice which is currently conducted by the Planning Commission in more complicated Planned Developments wherein the Commission evaluates the basic architectural theme of'a development and reviews the functional aspects of landscaping. The term, "architectural theme and functional aspects of landscaping", relates to a broad review and not a detailed review to the extent of approving specific building materials and plantings. The Commission determined that the two design aspects would have to be evaluated early in the development approval process in order for the Commission to adequately review the definitive plan. Strictly speaking, the inclusion of the architectural theme and functional landscaping plan content requirement could formally narrow the scope of the review of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. -3- Ordinance No. 618: Revision to the Planned Development Zone January 31, 1974 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- During its meeting of January 23, 1974, the Architectural and Site Approval Committee discussed the implications of the Planned Development Ordinance relative to their roles and responsibilities in the development approval process of the City. Resolution No. 367 of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee is attached to this memo describing their request that the City Council evaluate the roles and responsibilities of both the Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Approval Committee in the planning and approval process prior to final adoption of Ordinance No. 618. The Architectural and Site Approval Committee still has a feeling of frustra- tion with regard to their role in the approval of projects in Planned Develop- ments and regular use permit applications whereupon the Commission and Council has preempted the Committee from modifying site plans. Inasmuch as site plan approvals speak to the degree of landscaping that is to be installed, the Committee feels that they really don't have the degree of flexibility that they would desire to modify the scope of landscaping at the detailed design approval stage. The Committee felt that the Planned Development Ordinance revision would further hamper their ability to modify architectural plans and landscaping plans at the very detailed design approval stage. Two memorandums are attached to this report to describe some suggestions by Member Sallan to alter the development approval process to incorporate early architectural and site approval input and to describe the staff's position with regard to the interrelationship of both bodies. During its meeting of January 28, 1974, the Planning Commission discussed the matter. Although the Commission did not take an official action with regard to a recommendation to resolve the issue, the Commission did generally feel that the present planning process is valid. Individual members expressed an opinion that since the majority of key developments in the City will be located in Planned Development zones, the Planning Commission should be directly involved in the approval process as outlined in the Planned Development revision. The Architectural and Site Approval Committee minutes of January 23, 1974 and the Planning Commission minutes of January 28, 1974 are attached to describe the positions of individual Committee members and Commissioners. Enclosures: Planning Comm. Resol. 1229 Arch. & Site Approval Resol. 367 Memo from Member Sallan 1/22/74 Memo from Planning Dir. 1/23/74 Arch. & Site Approval Minutes 1/23/74 (Excerpt) Planning Comm. Minutes 1/28/74 (Excerpt) -4- Citg of Cuperti io TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: John Gatto DATE: March 11, 1974 SUBJECT: Planned Development Ordinance 618 - Latest Revision Joint Planning Commission/H-Control Meeting - :larch 6, 1974 Two prime ccncerns appear to have developed on the part of the two bodies as a result of the proposed ordinance and really reflect previous ongoing concerns. 1. Role of H -Control as advisory body during use permit - definitive stage. 2. Degree of specificity of definitive plan. Historical Background Zoning originally was in the form of pre -stated ordinances in which the various land uses permitted, setback, parking, height, land coverage requirements. etc. were enumerated. This was based on the theory of predictable charactistics of the various land uses. The basic discretionary task was then to assign the appropriate zoning. No additional discretionary act was necessary and the ordinance then acted as control and oniv compliance with the ordinance was required to obtain a building permit. _is time progressed, it became evident that pre -stated ordinances could not foresee all situations and procedures evolved for deviation from the ordinances. These procedures were discretionary actions and commonly emerged as variances and conditional use permits. The planned development ordinance is an extention of a conditional use permit procedure. The use permit procedure is widely employed by many -communities as a technique to provide flexibility with control over land uses. long with the growth and development of the use permit technique most communities realized the need for aesthetic influence to improve the quality of developments. This aesthetic influence was primarily concerned with landscaping and sign control and to some extent the effects on adjacent properties. The use permit became an appropriate place to insure aesthetic quality by imposing review and conditions relative to those concerns as a part of the use permit process. This input took various forms and examples of these forms are available for analysis among our surrounding communities - Some such as Santa Clara County and San Jose made both the input, preliminary review and completed compliance review a staff function. Others, such as Campbell and Mountain View made the input staff, the initial plan review (advisory to Planning Commission) a function of a subcommittee of the Planning Commission aided by staff and "guest" experts from the community. Cupertino developed its H -Control to perform its review function as a condition to the use permit. The review follows the basic use permit decision and is more in the form of detail refinement. Planned Development Ordinance 618 - Latest Revision Joint Planning Commission/H-Control Meeting - March 6, ].974 March 11, 1974 Planning Commission Review at the Use Permit Stake_ To properly evaluate a proposed development, all of the environmental impacts associated with that project must be considered. This includes aesthetic as well as physical characteristics. The various components of the physical site including building configuration and location, circulation and traffic patterns, topography and ground cover masses and textures, aesthetic qualities and emissions as well as the social and economic considerations are all interrelated and must be evaluated as such. To perform this evaluation effectively, the Planning Commission must utilize technical and advisory input. The technical input is statistical and empirical in nature. For all intent and purposes, the Planning staff assembles, correlates and presents this data. Advisory input is available in the form of City policies, both written and philosophical. The General Plan and supporting policies are examples of this type. Expert testimony in subjective areas is also a valuable form of advisory input. In terms of our present develonment, it is generally agreed by the Planning Commission, H -Control and staff that guidance policies for the treatment of Stevens Creek and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road frontages are needed to promote an effective overall development. It has been further stipulated that H -Control should be instrumental in developing the details of these guidance policies. By so doing, aesthetic guidance in terms of citizen input can be formalized by Council action and become policy to be evoked by staff during the project design stage. Specificity at the Definitive Stage Since the Planning Commission reviews all aspects of a project during the definitive stage, approval of that plan must constitute positive direction to the applicant. Just as the applicant is accorded the right to make minor changes as determined by staff without returning to the Planmi.Lg Commission, the City in the form of H -Control should be allowed minor changes at the precise plan review. These changes can alter detail without altering intent. Example: planting areas can be enlarged, or modified so long as circulation, parking or screening intents are not altered. Similarly, the precise building location or configuration is allowed to be modified as long as area on site functions are nct altered. Design theme which is part of the definitive stage can be spoken to in detail but no new style imposed. Advisory Role of H -Control at Definitive Stage as specified in Section 7.2 of Ordinance 618 Advisory input from H -Control will be available through guidance policies relative to aesthetic treatments. The Council appears to be seeking additional input by H -Control by some form of review prior to Planning Commission action. In pure form, additional input can only be beneficial. But as is the case in practical application, all benefits usually require some costs. If the Council —2— u . Planned Development Ordinance 619 -- Latest Revision Joint Planning Commission./H-Control Meeting - 1.1arch 6, 1974 March 11, 1974 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ wishes H -Control to perform this advisory action, then the mechanics of this review, its manner of dissemination and the areas of responsibility between H -Control and Planning Commission must be clearly stated. In analyzing cost/benefits of this review, several factors are applicable. Advantages: 1. Review by a body responsible for aesthetics occurs in the planning stage. 2. Review by a body analyzing a project in light of its policy guidelines is possible. Disadvantages: 1. Reviewing body supplying aesthetic input at the planning stage is without expertise. Personal opinion without technical competence is not constructive. 2. To properly assess aesthetics, an indepth analysis of the project is required. a. Either review is cursory aid therefore of little value, or b. is extensive and duplicates a Planning Commission hearing. 3. If the review is to be meaningful, the recommendations must be documented and forwarded as comments. This requires additional staff time and introduces additional control. What is status of these recommendations if Planning Commission takes differing action. 4. The proper time to implant policy input is during the planning process and can be most effectively done by staff. 5. Possible prejudicial judgment at precise plan review based on earlier opinion which may have been changed by Planning Commission or Council. Almost all applications in the foreseeable future will come under the authority of this Planned Development Ordinance (618) and as such, the respective roles of the Planning Commission and H -Control require clear definition. -3- Citq of Cuperti io TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: R. D. Koenitzer, Architectural & Site Approval Committee Member SUBJECT: Section 7.2, Planned Development Ordinance 618 DATE: March 28, 1974 There have been some questions on ways to implement paragraph 7.2 of the proposed Planned Development Ordinance No. 618. I would like to propose one way in which the Architectural and Site Approval Committee could provide early aesthetic inputs to the planned development process. During the development process, the developer reaches a point at which he is ready to formally submit his definitive development plan for approval. The developer has consulted with City staff to ensure that his proposal is in compliance with City requirements. When the developer requests approval, the public hearing must be advertized, which process takes about three weeks before the public hearing is held. During this waiting period, the H -Control Committee will meet at least once. I propose that the developer and City staff present the plans at the H -Control meeting. The plans would NOT be included in the H -Control packet. H -Control members would see and review the plans at the meeting. The plans would be redlined with H -Control's suggestions. H -Control would also provide a brief statement of their reasons for the suggested changes. This material would form part of the information supplied to the Planning Commission for their public hearing. The Planning Commission could accept, modify or reject the H -Control suggestions. In no case would the plans be sent back to H —Control. I believe this proposal offers several advantages. Aesthetic input is obtained at a time in the development cycle when significant modifications can be made without major costs to the developer. Additional citizen input is received from the City Committee responsible for aesthetics. Since the proposed review is held during a waiting period, it does not slow down the development cycle. The disadvantage is the requirement for additional staff time. I believe this is a small price to pay to achieve maximum aesthetic review for development that will affect the appearance of our City for the next twenty years. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SANTA CLARA VALLEY CHAPTER Marina Playa Office Center Suite 219 "'- 1333 Lawrence Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051 • (408) 249-1515 20 March 1974 City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California Attention: Mr. James H. Sisk, Planning Director Dear Commissioners: tv1i R 21 X974 The Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects understands that the City of Cupertino is now discussing the roles and interrelationships of the Planning Commission, the Architectural and Site Approval Committee, and the City Staff. iWe have received comm- entary from some of our members who have observed the existing procedures of Cupertino and we wish to offer a few constructive suggestions. Although our Chapter's membership is not totally in favor of the concept of design review, the Chapter has supported it under certain circum- stances. The creation of a design and its subsequent review are based upon individual judgements and tastes. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to equitably establish legislation to control these judge- ments. We feel strongly that any design review process must be based on positive goals for the environment of the community., The guidelines and criteria for review must be clear and thoroughly understandable by any applicant. The review should occur as early as possible in the design process to enable effective and economic exploration of alter- natives. The review should be conducted, if at all possible, in the environment of dialogue through informal study sessions as opposed to an adversary approach typical of the formal public hearing. Finally, and perhaps most important, the review should be conducted by a comm- ittee of which the majority are design professionals who are well aware of the design process, its constraints and realistic opportunities, and who are sensitive to the relationship and trust between the Arch- itect and his client. If these conditions exsit, the design review process becomes a positive and constructive dialogue encouraging the applicant and the Architect alike to achieve the best possible solution to the design problem within existing constraints, and at a time when change is both possible and acceptable. It permits well conceived designs to be judged on their own merits whether they be innovative or traditional. Unfortunately, most ordinances are written from a negative point of view, spelling out items and/or conditions which are unacceptable. This prompts most applicants to do no more than is required of them and requires the city Staff to be sure that all the loopholes are plugged. The result is usually a bulky document and a large workload for the Staff to interpret for each applicant. We feel that comm- unities which establish design review should set positive goals or PETER SABIN, President • REX MORTON, Vice President • ROBERT JENKS, Secretary • WILLIAM TAGG, Treasurer Directors • JOHN COLE, JOHN BOYD, JOHN NORTHWAY, F. HAZEN MacLAREN, JOHN JORGL • LOLA MILLARD, Executive Secretary SCVAIA - Cupertino Planning Commission 20 March 1974, page 2 guidelines clearly defining the direction in which future development should be headed. This can be done in writing, by comparative example to other communities' efforts, and graphically through display of drawings and photographs of existing buildings and developments that are clear examples of the positive goals and also examples cf designs which are clearly opposed to these goals. This permits the owner and the Architect to understand the city's objectives, perhaps even before a decision is made to acquire a site. Early knowledge is also necessary concerning the criteria upon which the design review will be based. The criteria must be clear, and the interpretation must be consistent. This can tend to become legislative however, a body of precedent can be used to explain what has been acceptable in the past and also to indicate changes of emphasis which the community may be considering from time to time. The review process should start in the earliest stages of design when !. J the schematic drawings are becoming crystalized. There is usually enough data availible at that time to indicate the scope, placement, and general character of the proposed project. A preliminary review allows confirmation that the project's design is in harmony with the city's goals and objectives, and becomes the basis for the final review at the building permit application. This simplifies Staff's load as the final review checks for conformity to the schematic design and focuses on changes that have occurred during the design process. It does require design professionals to do the review at the schematic stage to understand the probable development of the design and to foresee possible problems which may arise later. It does enable the Architect to develop the design based upon positive suggestions and directions and saves time in the design process. The review process we are describing is based on informal dialogue. It allows the least sophisticated applicant an easy forum in which he can discuss his design objectives in an informal manner. Unfort- unately, a review board gathered behind a table, perhaps even up on a dias, is intimidating to many. If this is compounded by the formal public hearing presentation format it is totally defeating to many applicants who then retreat to submission of documents without commentary, or, who counter the atmosphere with ha.rrangue and con- frontation. We submit that the community's broad objective should be the encour- agement of the best possible performance in design within given constraints. This is best achieved by the enlistment of all concerned in a common positive effort at the outset of a project. It is defeated if the parties to the effort end up in adversary positions. The Architect's relationship to his client is sensitive and it is eroded if the product of that relationship, i.e., a finalized individual design, is publicly shredded without any sensitive consideration or positive direction. It should go without 'saying that any Architect would prefer to make changes in a design at the schematic stage rather than after the bulk of his work has been done and the construction documents are completed. Thus, cooperation in effecting changes is natural at the early stage, and defensive justification and challenge to arbitrary changes is also natural after the design is completed and documented. SCVAIA - Cupertino Planning Commission 20 March 1974, page 3 Not all designs proposed will or should be accepted. The process of indicating the desired changes is paramount. Those who review the designs, then, should understand the design process, the Architect - client relationship, and the constraints on the project at hand. The Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the AIA recommends that the City of Cupertino consider changes in its design review process that address themselves to these considerations which are based on the positive and mutual goal of improving our man-made environment. Our Chapter would be willing to assist the City by proposing a list of our members who would be willing to serve on study committees related to changes in Cupertino's design review process and to serve on the design review committee if asked. Sincerel e e Sa ns I esident Santa Clara Valley Chapter American Institute of Architects PSS:kp (As referred by City Council 2-19-74) ; ---ORDINANCE NO. 618 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING ORDINANCE 002(o) AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 002 BY ADDING THE CLASSIFICATION "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: REPEALING CLAUSE Section 1.1: Ordinance 002(o) is hereby repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 2: AMENDMENT Section 2.1: Ordinance 002 is hereby amended by the addition of the zoning classification entitled "Planned Development." SECTION 3: PURPOSE Section 3.1: The Planned Development zone is intended to pro- vide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment in areas of the CIty that are uniquely suited for a planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership pattern, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. The Planned Development zone is specifically intended to en- --courage variety in the development pattern of the community; to promote a more desirable living environment; to encourage develop- ers to use a more creative approach.in land development; to pro- vide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning;. to conserve natural features; to facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces and to encourage the creation of public or private o,mmon open spaces. SECTION 4: DEFINITIONS A. Conceptual Development Plan: The Conceptual Development -1- I ► Plan shall contain the following information: 1. A general description of proposed uses, including a statement describing how the development proposal will conform to the land use categories and inten- sities for the development as designated either on the general plan, or on a precise plan. In addition, the statement shall set forth the amount of land area devoted to the various land use types. 2. The proposed public and private street system, in -- eluding a general description of ingress and egress points and median channelization. 3. A map on ma pa dezckibLng topogaphy, unique vege- tative, on hazandoua aneas , and, in addition, an y ex.iat ing dopment within the p!an boundany. Scud map on mapahaU . deaen.-.be ex.iat-.ng deve.Zop?ne_nt on, others physica.b 6eatuae6 £oeated within the immediate vicinity adjacent to the a.tea .tnvo.Cved. 4. A description of proposed landscaped area, including a description of the relationship of the conceptual development plan to streets designated either on the general plan, or on a specific plan for a uni- form street landscaping program. 5. Such other information as the Planning COmmission or City Council may require, including but not limited to information to enable the Planning Com- mission and/or the City Council to evaluate the plan based upon the criteria enumerated in Section 6.2 A through G. —2-- B. Definitive Development Plan: The Definitive Development Plan shall include the following: 1. The architectural theme of the development and the location of buildings, building configurations, building heights, building square footages. A defi- nition of uses within said buildings, a land use distribution table setting forth the net property size, and the amount of land devoted to various land use activities. 2. The proposed private and public street system, in- cluding ingress and egress points and medium chan- nelization. Street right-of-way shall be defined. 3. If the project involves residential units, the total number of units shall be defined, as well as a bedroom count per unit type, and the total number of covered and uncovered off-street parking stalls. 4. An analysis of traffic generated by the development during the peak traffic hour and an analysis of the total traffic generated by the development of a 24 -hour basis for each day of the week. The peak hour shall be that 60 -minute period of time, wherein the highest number of vehicular trips occur for the specific streets involved. GenenaJ -in4,ot�m t -ion tce— gari-d.ing "Lhi4 eub1ect i ava-< ab.�e '%,cm .the City -adm n,iatnve Zta/6' . 5. A definition of the internal traffic circulation pattern for off-street parking areas, including ingress and egress points to private and public streets within the development. -3- 6. A detailed dimension drawing describing the areas to be landscaped within a development including areas adjacent to streets denoted on the General Plan for future street landscaping projects. The functional aspects of landscaping design shall be described but not limited to how landscaping is to screen vehicles and provide an aesthetically pleasing design element. 7. A description of the phasing of construction for the development, including a tentative time schedule and plan describing the extent of building square foot- age and land area involved with each phase of the development. C. The Precise Development Plan: The Precise Development Plan shall include the following: 1. Detailed Site Plan locating proposed or existing structures, parking areas, planting areas, lighting facilities, necessary fences and walls, trash en- -closures, ground signs, and grading. 2. Detailed Landscaping Plans setting forth types and sizes of materials to be installed and showing the irrigation system. 3. Elevation drawings of proposed structures, including necessary fences and walls, signs, on -site lighting standards, trash enclosures, etc. Cross sections should be provided describing how all appurtenances upon the roof will be screened from public view. 4. Detailed plan showing utility undergrounding provi- sions. (This plan must have the prior approval of -4- the utility companies.) 5. A scale drawing of proposed signs showing dimensions, color, mounting height, clearance to ground surface and structures, copy, means of illumination and square footage per face. A site plan showing total lot and building area, method of mounting and proposed sign location will be required. 6. Such other information as the Architectural and Site Approval Committee may require. SECTION 5: INITIATION OF P (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONE Section 5.1: Initiation by Property Owner or Owners. The. owner or owners of property either within the City of Cupertino, or within the City's "sphere of influence", as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, may apply to the City Planning Commission for Planned Development zoning or prezoning of his, or their property as provided in Ordinance 002(a) revised. -The application shall be accompanied by a Conceptual Develop- ment Plan attached to the application. Section 5.2: Initiation by the City of Cupertino. The City Council or the City Planning Commission may apply for planned de- velopment zoning or pre -zoning of property or,'properties.either within the City of Cupertino, or within the City's "sphere of influence", as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency For- mation Commission. However, nezon.ino to p -Panned deve.eopmen. zoning •at .the %eque.a. oo' the City Counc. U o.�. P.Qanning Ccnn 4.a -ion ahou.ed on.ey be done when ouch action .ia neceaaany due do the need .to co- ondtna.e oveiia.e.C eoncep.tu.c.e pZann.ing on .two on mono bepanate pa.tcit . -5- Any concep.tuai plan p.tepaned by the City need not contain aUL items desejAbed £n Section 4A. L-5 but shaU contain .Len.t .i.nsonrnation as to Land use ea.ego n.i.es and £nten4 tLes, s -nee -t systems, and community design objectives to enable the p,topenty owners on owne.ts to e�.fhe.t pnepane a suppLemen. aL conceptual de- veLopmen-t plan on a den- tive deveLopmenf plan. SECTION 6: PROCEDURE FOR THE ADOPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES Section 6.1: Action by the Planninz Commission: Hearin Notice. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any application for zoning or prezoning initiated pursuant to Section 5 of this Ordinance. Said hearing shall be held in the manner as prescribed in Section 65854 of the California Government Code and in accordance with any local ordinances establishing pro- cedural requirements for amending the official zoning map. Section 6.2: Recommendation to the City Council: Findings. After the Daring, the Planning Commission shall render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the City Council. Such recommendation shall contain conditions of approval and state the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the appli- cation to applicable general and specific plans. If the recommen- dation is one for approval of the application, the following find- ings must be made by the Planning Commission: A. That the Conceptual Development Plan attached to the application is consistent with the land uses, land use intensities and community design objectives specified either in the General Plan or a precise plan, which may regulate the subject property. B. That the Conceptual Development Plan provides for an organized and unified system of land uses and land use intensities which would be compatible with the surround-• ing neighborhood. C. That the Conceptual Plan insures that residential de- velopment provides adequate active and passive orientated open space within the development to satisfy the needs of the residents and further, that all developments pro- vide landscaping that will function in a manner to enhance the individual development and the community as a whole. D. That the Conceptual Development Plan insures that the location of the Planned Development zone with regard to major thoroughfares and uses outside the zone would not create undue and unreasonable traffic congestion in the area. E. That the Conceptual Development Plan provides for adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation facilities which would be designed for safe and convenient use in accord- ance with accepted site planning standards. F. That the Conceptual Development Plan make provisions for adequate parking, waste disposal and undergrounding of utilities, if required, for the planned development. G. That the Conceptual Development Plan is compatible with the area, and with the adopted goals of the City. Section 6.3: Action by the City Council: 'nearing, Notice. -Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the recom- mendation. Notice of time and place of said hearing shall be given in the time and manner provided for the giving of notice of hearing by the Planning Commission as specified in Section 6.1 of this Ordinance. In addition to notice by publication, the City may give notice of the hearing in such other manners that may be deemed necessary and desirable. Any hearing may be continued from time to time. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove a recommen- dation of the Planning Commission; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the City Council shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recom- mendation, but the Planning Commission shall not be required to' hold a public hearing thereon. Failure of the Planning Commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference, or such longer period as may be designated by the City, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed modification. "Any :ce.pon.t and tr_eeommen- dation o 6 the PfannLng Comm-ia4-Lon a haft be d en -t to the. City Counc ? jjot 4ina.C. de-tenm Lna.t.Lon. " Upon final approval of the application, the Council shall adopt an ordinance zoning or prezoning the sub- ject property or properties as a planned development zone incor- porating within the said ordinance the conceptual development plan and conditions of approval. SECTION 7: DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY r':ITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE Section 7.1: Application for a Use Permit. Prior to any de- velopment within a Planned Development zone, a Use Permit shall be issued by the City. Every application for a Use Permit shall be accompanied by a Definitive Development Plan. A Deb nitive Deve.P_opmen-: P -tan aha.0 encompass the en -t i&e -8- pnopenty, unless the ptcepattat.ion o6 the De5in.it.ive Development PLa.n jots a Lessen pottt.ion w.iUL not h.indelt the £mpLementat.ion o6 the Conceptual Development Plan. In the event that the Definitive Development Plan does not encompass the entire cants filing for use as a part of the Use opment will not hind opment Plan. Nothing in this area of land owned by the applicant or appli- permit approval, the Planning Commission shall Permit make a finding that the proposed devel- er the implementation of the Conceptual Devel-- Ordinance is intended to prohibit a combined application for zoning and use permit to be held at the same public hearing provided that this method is approved by the Plan- ning Commission. In this event, the Definitive Development Plan shall be substituted for the Conceptual Development Plan. Section 7.2.: Action by the Planning Commission: Hearin, Notice. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the application for a use permit in the manner prescribed by the appropriate City ordinance. Ptt.iott to the pubtie heah.Lng, the appcat-Lon shall be tte6et ed to the Atc.ehiteetuaaL and Site Appttovat Comm-ittee Son ad.v,isotty comments on the proposed site ptanning , a,tchitecturcaL theme , Land.6 ca,n.ing , on others matte.n z hown on the plan which ILL be undett the ttev.iew o the. Attc(t.iteetu,'.aL and Se AppttovaL Com}n.ittee .in the plLee.is e development plan. In the event the PLann-ing Vi ttectolL in h.is d�.sctc.et,ion detettm.ines that the appLat-ion p -resents zubsta{it-.aL pttobLems oLand use wh.ieh must be ttesoLved begone. qu.e4. Lons oa.7eh.itectu.te ott Land- seap.ing ate conns.idetted, the appticat-iou shall 5 -Lit go to the -9- 1 P.Zann.ing Corn ion without comment £tram the Atoch.itectuttat and Site App-�.ova1 Committee. In auch .fatten event, .the Anch�,,tectuna.Z and Se AppovaP Committee commenta aha.Zt be obtained pn-e0.& to the CounciZ heat_ ng on the P.Zanning Corn m.iai.ion n.eeommenda-t-i.on, the Aeo.ommendat.ion appaova.Z. Section 7.4: Action by the City Council. Upon tteeeJ.pt o5 the tteeommendat.ion /ott appttova-Z o6 the P.Zanning Comm.i z ion on an appeal oo. P-Zann.ing CommJ4d.ion denLa.Z, the City CoanCJJ. aha.Z.Z hold a pubtie heating to eon.a.idett the mattett as pne.actt.ibed by the app/Lop/L-ate City ond,inance. The City Counc-iC. may act to appttove, eond.itiona.Z.Zy appttove, mod,i/6 y on deny the app.Ucat-ion. Ig a1tetz public heating the City Counci.Z decJdez contttatty to the Pe.ann�.ng Commi4i.i.on action, the app.Z�.cat.ion ahatt be t.etuAned to the P.Zan- n,ing Comm�.aaion oJz. ttepottt containing the appttopn.iate condition. and 5ind.inga. Any ttepont and ttecommendat,ion o4 the Pe.ann.ing Com- middion dha.Zt be cent to the City Coune.i°. 4ott na.Z detettmJna.t-Lon. The Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public --hearing thereon. The failure of the Planning Commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference or such longer period as may be designated by the City Council shall be deemed that the Planning Commission has no report on the project. SECTION 8: BUILDING PERMITS Section 8.1: Issuance. No building permit shall issue to an applicant whose property is within a Planned Development Zone until he has filed a Precise Development Plan with the City Plan- ning Department and until said Precise Development Plan is approved by the City Council. —10— Section 8.2: Action by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. The Architectural and Site Approval Committee shall consider the Precise Development Plan submitted by the applicant and shall render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the City Council which must include a finding that the Precise Development Plan is consistent with the Definitive Development Plan for the subject property or properties. Section 8.3: Action by the City Council. The City Council shall review and make the final decision on recommendations submit- ted by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. No building permit shall issue to an applicant whose property is within a Planned Development Zone unless the City Council determines that the Precise Development Plan for the applicant's property meets the re- quirements of Section 8.3. SECTION 9: PERMITTED USES Section 9.1: The gene.tat eategorci o.in a P!anned Devetop- ment Zone <shaeZ be de6.ined at the time o6 the ConeeptuaZ P.ean and ahatZ be eonent with the adopted genena.e plan %ce.ative to the pnopenty (c.e.a) .gin the app2�.eat- on. The development standards and regulations of the permitted uses shall be established in conjunction with the approval of ,the Concep- tual, Definitive and Precise Development Plans. SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Section 10.1: if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reasons held to be uncon- stitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the re- maining portions of this ordinance. The legislative body hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, senten- ces, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 11: PUBLISHING CLAUSE Section 11.1: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this ordinance to be pub- lished at least once within fifteen (15) days after its enact - went in the Cupertino Courier, the official newspaper of the City, published and circulated within the City of Cupertino. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 19 , and ENACTED at a regular meet- ing of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor -12-