PC 02-25-63 1 N
10321 SO. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD 252-4505
CITY •
OF CUPERTINO
Cupertino, California
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FE1. RtiARY 25, 1963
•
Time: 8: 00 P.M.
Place: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road •
I SALUTE TO THE .P?LAG •
II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Rampy, Small, Snyder
Commissioners Absent: • Adamo
Staff Present: City Attorney, City Engineer
City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: February 11, 13., 18
February 11
First paragraph, page 7, misspelling. Should be meets and bounds.
Third paragraph. Commissioner Frolich asked Mr. Ingber, "Would
you be interested in dedicating it?", not improving, as shown.
Eighth paragraph. ----. discussed this with the Real Estate Board,
not broker. . .
Third paragraph from the bottom of the page, Chairman Snyder was
concerned with the fact that the developer hadn't considered how he
was going to sell the apartments.
February 13
Eighth paragraph. Commissioner Frolich asked for figures on
Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, since like Saratoga, they are also -
referred to as "bedroom communities" . , and will give the indication
of the cost of being bedroom communities.
It was moved by Commissioner Small, seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald, that the minutes of February 11 and 13 be approved as
corrected, and that the minutes of February 18 be approved as submitted.,
Motion carried 6-0.
III COMMUNICATIONS
A. Written
1. Booklet "Coordinated Utilities, Inc . " dealing with
underground utility installation.
2. Minutes of Feb. 27 County Planning Comth1 sion. Applicant- .
Bess Liebe, requesting a 4 lot subdivision, north side of
old Stevens Creek Rd, within Crescent Drive . Present
zoning P.O.
Commissioner Fitzgeral_d .explained that this is a 22 .acre
site . There would be a problem of access on the rear
portion.110 -
3. County Planning Department : H. J. Layman 10330 Scenic Dr,
three lot sub-division, east side of Scenic Blvd. R-1
zoning. Three single family lots not less than 10, 000
sq. ft. each. •
4. County Agenda Feb. 20.
5. County Summary of Actions Feb. 6 Meeting
•
. 6. Subdivisions in Santa Clara County - Month of January
B. Verbal
There were no verbal communications.
-1-
It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald that the communications be received and filed. Motion
carried 6-0.
IV HEARINGS SCHEDULED
A: GOODWIN B.. STEINBERG: Application 73-Z-63 to rezone 7 acres
on the east side of Blaney, 220' south of a projection of
Lucille from A-2:B-4 to R-24-H. Second hearing contd.
The problem of access to the' rear portion of the property could
be handled by an alternate entrance either Deodora or Cypress which �.
will eventually come through. The City Engineer saw no problems to
. .this. solution.
Mr. Nudelman, 10574 No.. Blaney asked if the 25 ft. street was
adequate. Mr. Steinberg pointed out that the street would be secondary,
that it was wide enough for emergency vehicles;. it was also pointed
out by Commissioner Frolich that this would .he a private driveway
under R-24, and that the actual driving portion of 60 ft. streets is'
not much more than '25 ft. •
• ' The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were
no others.
'Commissioner Leonard: _Mr. Zeszutek still has a long ,triangle. •
. The most likely use appears to be carports, or something like that
next to- the freeway. If Mr. Zeszutek doesn't -want to sell at a
reasonable price, I can' t think of much that can be put .in there..
The Chairman asked if Mr. Zeszutek had any comments. He did not.
It was moved by Commissioner Leonard and seconded by Commissioner
Fitzgerald that the second hearing be closed. Motion carried 6-0.
Commissioner Leonard discussed the" similarity of the development
with_ one near the Sunken Gardens Golf Course. The buildings. are flat
tops, _with side walls nearly straight up and down. The outward im-
pression of those buildings and Mr. Steinberg' s renderings ' are about
the same.
Mr. Steinberg stated that many buildings on paper are very simi-
lar. The -Pepper Tree and Saratoga Apartment developments are of a
style good for the community. He added that this project will be
a credit to the cummunity. Although the roofs are flat, they are
shingled, and not visible. Development is expected within four to - •
six months. Mr. Steinberg agreed to make the sketches part of the
record.
It was moved by- Commissioner Frolich that Application 73-Z-63
to rezone 7 acres on the east side of Blaney from A-2;B-4 'to R-24-H
be granted subject to the following conditions:
•
12 standard conditions, ' • • . •
131. That arrangements be Made . to the satisfaction' of the City
Staff to provide eventual access from Deodora or Cypress,
14. That this being R-24 without public streets, that all dedi-
cations for sewers -be granted to the ,Cupertino Sanitary
District. '
Seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Referring to the recent Alpha Land application for variance to S
Ordinance 220, and the problems encountered when a development is
broken up, Commissioner Leonard asked if these .problems and the set-
backs had been considered .
•
Mr. Steinberg replied that the project would be broken up for
financing purposes, ' but that it is being built with the intention of
keeping it . It could be sold off in three or four stages in the future,
however' it will 'stand up on the parts, or on the whole development.
AYES: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None '
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo
Motion carried 6-0. -2-
: B. ALPHA LAND CO. : ,Application 28-V-63 for a Variance to
Ordinance 220 to allow side yards of 20' where ordinance re-
quires 31' ; Rodrigues Avenue & Terry Way . Continued.
Mr. Philip Ingber, Alpha Land Company, gave a brief explanation
of the application. They developed six R-3 lots fronting on Terry
Way, under the existing R--3, by meets and bounds . The lots .are 70' by
129' , four units on each lot . In discussing the possibility Of selling
the units, the buildings do not meet , certain requirements, standing
• alone,. If the units burned down, the second - owner might not be able
to rebuild. It was recommended by the .Real Estate Commissioner that
. the property he subdivided in units of eight . In that case, the require-•
.._ . ments of the ordinance are met, but when put together the side yards
do not meet the requirements. A variance is requested so that the.
units can be subdivided and the State requirements will be met .
. Commissioner Leonard asked how many sq. ft. was required for a
four-plex. 10,500 for the old ordinance, 10,700 is required by the
new ordinance . •
•
Commissioner Leonard: I would like to explore a statement made
by the applicant. , He stated the problem is one of sideyards . If -
the buildings were sold separately and burned down, they could not
be, rebuilt seems to be the feeling. Twenty-four units have been built
on a parcel of land large enough for a triplex, not .a fourplex. The
intent of the builder .is transparent. We' agreed to treat this as one
unit. I can' t see any reason to do retroactively what we could not •
do if they had presented it that way originally,
Chairman Snyder: The same thing bothered .me. At the time of
development, I can' t see how you overlooked the problems of selling.
Mr. Ingber: We still intend to own 'it . Regardless of whether
Mr. Leonard feels we did it in dishonesty or not; we are trying to
combine and subdivide the units so that we would have legal units
should we decide to selL We came in. under the existing ordinance,
and presented the plan. It .was checked by everyone in the City. Now
we are trying to subdivide, and because we cannot consider the center
area as a sideyard, which we do when separate, we are having this
problem.
Commissioner Frolich: Under the old ordinance, 4 units require
10,500 ft, nine units - 18,5•00. The old ordinance required 17,500 for
eight units. Under the new ordinance, we show 21,900 sq. ft. for
eight groupings. This is about 900 sq-. f t. more than they show. In
the case of the buildings burning down, you still could not get those
on the lot .
Mr. Ingber: In putting the buildings together, you have a. better
situation than as a singly, except we do not meet the newest ordinance.
We do meet the old one of 20' 2" for side yards and 20' 10" between
buildings.
Commissioner Leonard: This same requirement is now working on 30
acres of multiple. We started out with. a common green and a good
looking development. Then one sewer line is requested, not .several.
I think we might as well make, an issue on the front end of this. . We
will have to take a firm stand. •
•
•
Commissioner Small asked about the 12' strip of "no man' s land"
on Terry Way. The City Engineer reported that Alpha Land has agreed
1410 to dedicate the strip and Mason Bros will improve. it .
Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed with .Commissioner Leonard, that
granting the variance would be setting a precedent .
Mr. Ingber: This is not a. R-24 matter. This is an R-3 matter
under an old ordinance It has nothing to do with the other piece of
property we hold in Cupertino. •
Chairman Snyder: The point we are trying to make is this. R-2k
is developed on a whale ,area. You can get into the problem of trying
to sell off certain portions of this which might lead into the same
problems as we now have . After development, if- you -want to subdivide,
then the problems occur.
-3-
Commissioner Small asked how this got- through in the first place?
Commissioner Frolich: If this passes, I think we should go all
out to see that this doesn't happen again, and put some wording in. our.
ordinance that separate buildings should be on a lot all its - own. The
only thing I can. .see in the favor of the applicant is that he is willing
to solve 'the street problem
•
The city Attorney: The original R-3 ordinance was based on the •
precept of lots which presupposes subdivided lots and brings into play
the subdivision ordinance . We spent several hundreds of dollars on an
opinion of the .planner as to the effect of the zoning ordinance. That
opinion said that . both oUr subdivision ordinance and R-3 ordinance - was
based on building sites or lots.' The issue arose of overall density.
16 units or 20 units per acre. This led to the present problem. If
density requirement. is met by sticking all in one corner or by putting
buildings in there throwing out setbacks on individual lots, we will
lose control of the size of building on any particular land. R-3
ordinance should include a definition of lot . A lot shall mean a par-
tion of land separate from another by description or by m6et.s and bounds,
for sale, lease or separate use. The definition of a lot in the -origi-
nal application made here, the applicant said this is a single lot. '
There was no talk about subdividing, which' meant breaking up. lot's, or '
for sale. Representations were-that these are not for sale, therefore
no subdivisionmap is required. It would be impossible to' see how
big a lot would get . .Based on the facts of this particular case, they ,: •
almost met the subdivision ordinance and probably didn't know .it. I , .
am talking in terms of lots and side setbacks. They found themselves
short on side yard setbacks and the center area is really a form of a •
setback. -.The real problem- will be when., we ran into an' application for
a subdivision of a common green development. This is not a common
green, the only misrepresentation is that they didn' t intend to sell.
Our definition of a lot would be for purposes of sale.
Commissioner Frolich stated that this application had never come
before the Planning Commission. It came before H-Control Committee.
It is doubtful in the Commissioner' s mind if this was legal from the
start.' If 20% of the lot width were required for side yard setbacks,
there would have to be a total of 84 ' at the south end.
Mr. Ingber: When we came before the City, this map was presented.
We wouldn't have gone ahead if it was illegal. We presented four-plexes,
but each one on a particular lot. Now we find out that taking :them as
four-plexes on meets and. baunds, they can't he sold, .because they can' t
be rebuilt. ' •
•
Commissioner Leonard: Let ' s go to the core, which is the earning
power. The. builder-maximized the earning power of the property by
treating it as a single unit, and got 24 units . I don't ' see any reason
why we shouldn't permit -them to operate as they are. 'I can' t follow •
a theory that it is all Our fault, having a four-plex where a triplex
belongs.
•
•
Commissioner Frolich: Still I th nk he has a point, :he is
at least partly in this position because the City 'goofed up.' Either
he has six lots 70 , three lOts 140' or one lot 420' - wide. We-have ..
one of three' or a mixture. Under certain circumstances, the-sideyards
will meet the ordinance. 'If divided into six lots, they will make it..• •
Then the lots are too small for a four-plex. It was ,never- legal in the
first place.
•
•
Mr. Ingber: If my understanding of a variance is correct, this is
what we are talking about. We. built under the existing ordinance at that I,
time . We were given building permits .and built the building: ' We
wouldn' t have built it if we thought it. illegal. .
•
City Clerk: This map has never been-brought before • the,.Commission.
It was never considered a subdivision because it was treated' •a's one lot
Mr. Ingber told the Commission that it was before the H-Committee and
City Council.
•
City Attorney: , The H-Committee' isn' t responsible on the setback. .
It may be a variance is in order to put the building in compliance.
I.. think this should: be checked out with the Staff.
-4-
Commissioner Leonard: Let ' s think about the hardship aspects .
There has been a 33-1/3% increase in the earning capacity, from 13 to
24 units. If they burnt down after five, ten or fifteen years, the
builder has had the income for that time. They would have to rebuild
them legal. No matter how this came about, the applicant is sitting on
additional revenue. I would therefore propose that a motion for denial
be in order.
Mr. •
1 Nudelman 10 � No n. Blaney. As
57 y. a citizen, and property owner,
I am interested in how the City develops. I don't think there is much
problem here: They built it to keep as one unit and rent, they don' t
4410 intend to sell it. If we have an ordinance, we should stick to it and
go by it, I think if these things are well thought out, we should
hold to it. •
Commissioner Frolich: I am not sure to what extent the H-Committee
has been.- serving as site control committee. This is one of the earlier
ones that came before the committee. I think they are becoming more
familiar with the ordinance and working with the Building Inspector.
Chances of this happening in the future are not so great. On the
other hand, the problem still does exist. I agree with Mr. Leonard. I
don' t think it necessary to perpetuate the windfall for now and for-
ever more. I think it might be of some help to postpone for two weeks
to see where this broke down.
City Engineer: The first month I came here, I went over the
ordinances. ' There was no agreement on setbacks . ' Now it comes out that
there has been a misinterpretation. Side yard was 6' plus 3' , but what
was overlooked was the total check. Two sideyards together must be
20% of the lot width. The total requirement hasn't been checked before.
Mr. Krushkhov, City and Regional Planning Consultant, added his
comments. First if you are going to send it back to the Staff for
study, I would like to suggest that you consider it a s npt .to the City' s
advantage to have 'non-conforming uses either with respect to zoning cr
legal division of land. I think it would be well to consider that the
City has an obligation to get every piece of property into a correct
legal state.
City Attorney: In reviewing the ordinate, it is obvious the
application of sideyards points out they used the building site .
approach rather than the single lot. They did not treat it as a
single lot. I am not convinced they were required to. They didn' t
have a subdivision map, so they said, we are going to apply the rule
of sideyards to the buildings. It ;may be that the ordinance could be
interpreted that the side setbacks apply to buildings. It is as the
Engineer reports. One half of the depth of the lot refers to a build-
ing site, not entire acreage. I am not sure they are wrong.
Commissioner Frolich: . They treated it as a single lot on square
footage requirement. Do you feel this should. have. been done under .
the subdivision ordinance.
City Attorney: I was startled because there wasn' t a subdivision
map. What rules do you apply? I think the Building Inspector did the
right thing here.
•
Commissioner Frolich asked what there was to stop someone from
doing this with R-1 houses. The City Attorney replied that they would
be unable to sell them, and this would prevent it.
City Clerk: • Where the builder divides the property after con-
struction, this discrepancy will occur every time. I know that this
was known because I was at the hearings. On one acre you can get 20
units, but if divided into four equal parcels, you get only 16.
Where you have a unit of 7500, equal increments of 1,000, you are bound
to get a difference when dividing'.
•
The City Attorney pointed out that the Building Inspector has a
tough job to do, and has to go by a building, not a lot, therefore
there would be the same problem with town houses. The ordinance was
not built for such a thing.
•
It was moved by Commissioner Frolich that the matter be continued
to the next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Small. Motion carried
6-0.
•
RECESS: 9: 50
RECONVENE: r 9: 55
•
C. ALPHA LAND CO, : Application 21-TM-63 for tentative map
approval; 3 lots on Terry Way at Rodrigues. Continued.
•
It was moved by Commissioner Frolich and seconded by Commissioner
Small that Application 21-TM-63 be continued to March 11. Motion
carried 6-0.
D. STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORP. : Application 68-Z-62 to rezone 69'
acres from R-1-A:B-2, 'R-l:B-2, R-1 to PC-H. Adjoining north side of
Stevens Creek Blvd. ; bounded on the west side by future Stevens Creek
Freeway.
Mr. Abraam Krushkhov, representing Stoneson, gave a brief descrip-
tion of the planned development . At the time the study was completed
on the. property, the City did not have a Planned Community District
• Ordinance. The developer feels the time is now proper for rezoning.
After streets. and commercial are out, there will be 42 or 44 acres of
residential land. Over 31% is to be in open space park area. -There
are 229 town houses , or housing units, eight three story apartments, two
six-story apartments, a total of thirteen housing units per net resi-
dential. acre . . 19 acres from the total 69 acres will be taken by the,
' freeway right of way. .
•
Chairman Snyder stated that the application was delayed because
the Commission felt the City Staff should review it to see that all
the documentation requirements had been fulfilled. The City Engineer
stated that .the applicant has not filled all requirements; Mr. Krushkhov
thought they had been met, and assured, the Commission of compliance.
The City 'Attorney pointed out that now is the time to get it on •
record that a 'six story apartment house.
On the question of sidewalks, Mr. Krushkhov said he. didn't think
it always necessary to have a complete' set of engineering drawings •
on the proposal to change the use of land to obtain proper zoning. He
felt the matter of sidewalks would, be a part of the engineering study.
Commissioner Small pointed out that the town houses violate every
setback.
The Chairman asked the City Attorney if the applicant has to come
in .to the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building per-
mit, and if the Commission has the opportunity to scrutinize at that
time all of the factors now being discussed. The City Attorney said
that the question .is: has the applicant complied with 4. 1 of the
ordinance. '
•
•
Commissioner Fitzgerald: It is my understanding this is proposed
to be developed as one lot. Mr. Krushkhov replied that this was .also
his understanding. • '
•
City Attorney: To call this a single lot in my opinion' means '
nothing, I think you will have to apply the .requirement standards set
forth in Section 6. You will be up against the same problem as another
one we have before us. '
Commissioner Frolich: There seems to be some misunderstanding of
what is in the PC. Ordinance. There are ,several uses permissible.
If you build under the' PC., you. have to meet all the requirements .
covering commercial. If the town houses are considered .as individual
houses with the possibility of them being sold individually., it seems
it should come .under .R-1 zoning. ordinance which states you have to
lik
have a certain amount of sideyard setbacks.- If you are not proposing
this for' R-1, what ' other type of use is proposed? If R-3, and each.
unit is a -single unit, that is something else. Th'e . Commissioner ;asked
if .the streets are Public- or private driveways, and if the building has
to front on a public street. These . can't be called building -sites or
lots. If there are discrepancies, they should be - noted and .a variance
taken. into account now.
•
Mr.' Krushkhbv: Every single point brought up would be adequately
discussed' and documented with the H Committee on the proper use of
• :PCH or use permit portion of the ordinance . Tonight ' s application is
'on the proper use of land. You have complete control of this program
all the way through.
Chairman Snyder asked about the commercial area, and learned the
-6--I
entire area is PC-H,.
Commissioner asked about access to the development, and. pointed
out' that Mary Avenue won't be going through. Commissioner Leonard also
felt there is still a traffic problem, since the college will generate
a lot traffic at the busiest times of the -day.
Mr. Krushkhov: This piece of property is served by a complex of
traffic facilities. Stevens Creek Freeway and Junipero Serra freeways
will be nearby. Greenleaf will probably gO through.
"� • Commissioner Leonard presented a table •showing .the picture on
commercial zoning.
- I MAJOR ' • Built Not Built Total •
Wilson. 8 14 22
Saich 10 10 20
Cali 4 50 ,54
22 7 96
II MINOR C-1-H
Rodrigues(T&C) 4 - 4
Mayfair. 5 5
Allario 4 - 4
All American 4 1 5
Portal Plaxa 5 - 5
• Bickell 2 - 2
•
Dorcich 2 - 2
All Strip Comm. 16 - 16 .
2 1 47 •
Needed: Maybe 3 acres per 1, 000
Population Now: Maybe 6,000
. III MINOR C-l-H 'Not Built
Rodrigues-Fisher 10 • .
Jack & Louie Mariani 10
Bandley 5
Lodato 3
Gertson 1 '
Paganini 21 .
50
PENDING 8
Mariani Ofc . •Cook & Wilson 8 8
1.
Asking
Mariani (66+10) 76
1 Craft (Est. 30) . '30
6
Commissioner Leonard stated that three acres per thousand popula-
tion is probably high. I think we are anticipating the future rather,
generously. Planner' s projections show an ultimate population of ,
180, 000. Maybe we should reflect on this application and the next. one .
It would look -like the time is •here for some degree of self-analysis .
on the whole subject of commercial. Tieing it in with a development
like this makes some good sense .
• Mr. Krushkhov: Neighborhood shopping centers are not meant to
compete with larger centers. 'Most important is the relationship of the
retail floor area to the amount of money that will be projected into
Ithe area.
1 The City Clerk reported there have been no letters submitted in
o respect to this application.
The Chairman asked for comments from the audience . There were
none.
Commissioner Leonard outlined a draft of a possible resolution
for denial. Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that the planned
community ordinance gives the owner a hunting license, so to speak.
-7-
I
They aren' t really getting anything, because they have to come back to
the City for use permits anyway. I say give them their hunting license
and see what they can do. I think we fool with these too long.
•
Mr. Krushkhov' asked for two weeks to go . over the draft.
•
It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner
Leonard 'that the matter be continued for two weeks .
Commissioner Frolich amended the motion by requesting a written
report from the City Manager, City Attorney and City Engineer on the•
planned - community documentation requirements. Seconded by Commission-
er Fitzgerald. Amendment passed 6-0. Motion carried 6-0.
E. PAUL MARIANI, JR. , et al: Applications 25-Z-61, 41-z-61,
45--Z-61, 46-z-61, 47-z-61 to rezone approximately 114 acres
to the east and west side of Highway 9 adjoining the future
Junipero Serra Freeway from A-2:B-4, R-1:B-2, R-3-H to PC-H
and C-1-H. Second hearing.
•
Mr. MarianioutlinedCupertino' s
Cu ertino s need for a central business
p
district. The population is expected to reach 100, 000 in the next
10 or 15 years. Average income per year. .,is 8, 000 - $12, 000. In
1985 the average is expected to be $13, 800. This will be determined
by what is brought into the area. 45% of the income is spent on
retail sales. That will be around $125, 000,000 within the Cupertino
area. More than 11 acres of floor space would need to be provided in
retail stores alone, eighty acres required. In addition 200 or 250
acres are needed for other services. Total commercial needed would be
between 250 and 330 acres. The majority of the population will be
located north of the present business district. The Junipero Serra
Freeway will be north, and the Stevens Creek Freeway west of the central
business district. The ground toward Homestead Rd. is the most probable
area for expansion.
There have been no letters received on_ the application.
The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
•
Commissioner Leonard commented that Mr. Mariani had done a monu-
mental amount of work on the presentation. He wondered if the appli-
cation could be pushed further on a couple of quadrants. Regarding
the regional shopping area, he felt that the city should have some
indication of the user who might be interested in developing a store
of the caliber of Macy' s or the Emporium" He wondered if the local
payroll is of the kind to generate interest of that kind. The
Commissioner worried a bit about the owners having to pay higher taxes
on undeveloped property, then settli^ for something less than the best
out of hardship. As of now, he felt the answer was still "No" .
Mr. Mariani stated that he was very familiar with what would
happen to taxes on "idle zoning" . He . suggested PC zoning, pointing
out that it is pretty generally conceded that the area can and will
support more commercial. We are planning for future needs.
Commissioner Leonard referred to "the lumber yard and service
station across. from the property. Both applicants asked what else
. they ' could do with a packing plant across the street . He suggested .
the town 'has three problems, Cali, Mariani ' s Packing Plant and 'his
packing plant
Mr. Mariani asked the City Attorney if the effect ofadjacent
property was a proper consideration in rezoning. The City Attorney Ilk
replied that this is always a. consideration. Referring to the trusts
on the land occupied by the packing plant, which Mr. Marianiinformed
the Commission he had no authority on, the City Attorney said they
were a private matter.
•
Commissioner Frolich presented two possible motions, the first to
approve the 38 acres south of the freeway, west of Highway 9,. 'to be
rezoned 'to PC-H;- the second- to deny the 76 acres NW and SE.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald that the hearing be 'closed,
seco'nded. by Commissioner Leonard Motion carried 6-0.
-8- ..
. It was moved by. Commissioner Frolich, and seconded by Commissioner
Leonard that commercial zoning be approved for the 38 acres south of
the freeway west of Highway 9- subject to Exhibit B and 13e Signing of
an agreement satisfactory to the City Council, City Manager, City Engineer,
and City Attorney on restoration to the City o.f such- funda-as- may. have
been expended on subject property fromCitys allocation of Trafficway
Bond money.
ANTES: ' Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, . Small, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo
•
MOTION CARRIED 6-0:
Commissioner Frolich commented that he' hoped Mr. Mariani under-
110 stood the Commission' s problems, and wondered if the packing plant land
will be a "pig in a poke" .
Mr. Cone, . Planning Consultant accompanying Mr. Mariani, pointed out
that there would be no' more control over the packing plant if it were.
in the city, except that it could not be enlarged.
When asked if he wanted a "yes or no" or if he would like a con- '
tinuation, Mr. Mariani replied that he needs 'zoning on both properties
so that he can sign a covenant regarding the planned use of the area.
•
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald that rezoning on the ten
acres north of the freeway on the west side of Highway 9 be denied
without prejudice. Seconded by Commissioner Rampy.
AYES: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: Frolich, Small
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo
Motion carried 4-2.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald that rezoning to PC-H on
the 66 acres east of Highway 9, south of the freeway, be granted subject
to the 12 standard conditions, and 13. Signing of an agreement satisfac-
tory to the . City Council, City Manager, City Engineer, and City Attorney,
pn restoration to- the City ofsuch funds as may have- been expended .on
subject property from City' s allocation of Trafficway Bond money.
Seconded by Commissioner Small. . •
AYES: Commissioners : Fitzerald) . ,Rampy; Small . •
NAYS: . Commissioner• •F'rolich, Leonard, Snyder
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo
Tie Vote: 3-3
Commissioner Frolich asked Mr. Mariani if he . could elaborate on
why the interested firm is so concerned with what goes across from
them, when other land right next to them could have anything on . it.
If it stays in orchard land, anything could go -in.:-
Mr. Mariani explained that the firm recognizes that he has no .
control over existing uses. The covenant concerns the type of use that
can go in, but .I can't guarantee anything unless it is zoned. .
Chairman Snyder: I would like to see the professional development
first, then maybe the need would be quite apparent.
Commissioner Leonard wondered if talking to the firm' s representa-
tives would help. He felt there were too many things unresolved for a
"yes" vote. He added that he is not so much opposed to it as he is
opposed to going ahead when the ground rules are uncertain.
410 Commissioner Small: This is the last major large flat level piece
in the City. If we are going to attract anything major, it seems to
me this is the place to do it . Sunnyvale and Mountain View are both
pretty well filled up.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved ' to continue for two weeks .
Mr. Mariani: If you want to gamble on losing them, this is it .
"I have shot my wad" . How can you get better control than under PC-H.
He added that if rezoning is being used as bait for something else,
that it wasn.'t planning but bargaining.
Commissioner Frolich asked what other possible use there could be
}
for that large piece of land. .
—9— .
Commissioner Leonard: It might go into any. use involving a large
number of people . It 'is pretty obviously a proper type of location.
The particular zoning doesn't create any immediate use for it. It
would take months and probably years of maturing. If the owner would
like to go on some interim use and not wait it out, we can't do much
about it . If we zone it, they still might come in in a year or two.
Commissioner Small pointed out that if the land were sold, it
would still have PC zoning. He stated that he would like to get rid of
the R-3 on the land.
Mr. Mariani:, All the PC is, is a reservation of the land, so the
City won' t lose it'.
It was moved by Commissioner Fitzgerald, and seconded by
Commissioner Small that rezoning to PC-.H on the 66acres east of
Highway 9, south of the freeway, be granted, subject to the 12 standard
conditions, and 13. Signing of an agreement satisfactory to the City
Council, City Manager, City Engineer, and City Attorney on restoration
to the, City of such funds as may have been expended on subject property=
from City' s allocation of Tr .fficway Bond money.
AYES: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, •Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small
NAYS: . . Commissioners: Snyder
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo
MOTION CARRIED 5-1. .
F. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, L.D.S, : Application for a Use Permit
for a church; north side of Bollinger Road, about 150' east
of Farallone Drive.
Mr. E. P. Anderson, 6th Ward, answered the Commission' s questions
regarding the application. The site is centrally located for a con-
gregation of 600. The site was purchased in 1956. If approval is
granted, construction will begin this year. The chapel will have a
seating capacity of 299.
Chairman Small asked for comments from the audience . Mr. Brooks-
by was in favor of the application. . .
It was moved by Commissioner Small that the first hearing be
closed. Seconded by Commissioner Rampy. Motion carried 6-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Small and seconded by Commissioner
Frolich that the use permit be granted subject to Exhibit B and
Architectural Control.
AYES: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small, Snyder . .
NAYS: . Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Adamo. ° .-
Motion carried 6-0.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A . Miscellaneous
None
VI.. NEW BUSINESS
A . None
•
VII ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Small, and seconded by Commissioner
Rampy that the meeting be adjourned. . Motion carried 6-0. .
Adjournment: 1: 15
APPROVED:
/5/ Charles K. Snyder .
Chairman
ATTEST:
tf
j" r---
Lawrence K. Martin, City Clerk -10,-