PC 04-23-62
r
{,,~. ,1'~' (../lfY
10321 SO. SARA,TOQA~PNNYVALE ROAD
AL 2-4505
C I T Y 0 Feu P E R TIN 0
CUPER'TINO, CALIFORNIÄ --- - -
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANN:LNG COMMISSION - APRIL 23, 1962
PLACE: 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
TIME: 8:05 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Fro1ich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small
Commissioners Absent: Snyder
Staff Present: City Cler~, City Attorney, City Engineer
III COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Written
1. Santa Clara County Planning Commission: Map of supporting
evidence on zone change application of Catarino Hernandez, north
side of permanente Road between Mt. View-Stevens Creek Road and
parado Vista Drive.
2. ASPO Newsletter: April, 1962, issue.
3. County of Santa Clara Pl~nning Commission: Map of support-
ing evidence on use pe~mit application of Donald E. Regnart,
east side of Bubb Road, between ~lbb Road and Vai ~re.opposite
Regnart Creek.
4. Santa Cla~a County Planning Commission: Summary of Actions
of the March 21, 1962, meeting, and meeting of April 4, 1962.
5. University of California: Letter requesting copy of Cuper-
tino General Plan, and copies of Cupertino Planning Commission
annual reports.
6. MacKay & Somps: Map of Tract #3128, Belmont Unit #2.
7. County of Santa Clara, Department of P~òlic Works: Appli-
cat~on fo~ tract number, nùrthwest corner Homestead Road and
Highway 9.
8. Santa Clara County Planning Commission Agendas of April 4,
and April 18, 1962.
Moved by Commissioner Frolich, seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald,
that all communications be received and filed; unanimously carried.
B. Verbal
The Chairman stated that he had been approached by the Stone sons
regarding the status of their application before the Commission. He
said there is no application, per se, before the Commission, anè, that t!)c-
applicants should put in a fo~mal ap~lic~tion in order to ~btain action
on the zoning they would like to have.
Discussion was held on the merits of the R,24-H ordinance oT: the
County which had been suggested for adoption by the City by the Planning
Consultant. The City Attorney stated that it is his bsEef that th3
R-24-H, as it now stands, is unworkable by the C:tty.
The planned community type cf development brought up the question
of whether or not our ordinance!" are s'.~f:'icj,ent as is, or adequate. It
was suggested that this type of develcp~enc, mixed zoning, could be app-
lied for and granted on the b&s~.s of spe~ific zoning for specific section:;;
of a piece of land. This could be &cco,";')l,:\.s!i<~d by zoning that portion of
the development that will be ':.t:U'. zeë, fc'r' hO'Ising as residential zoning;
and zoning the portion for commer;::ial <3S ecmmerclal zoning. This, then,
would eliminate the need for R-24"E, and allow the Commission to grant
zonings of this type of develù9ment under thp. existing zoning and sub-
division ordinances of the City.
Another suggestion that came out of the discussion was that appli-
. ~-
cants be required to present their applications for specific zoning, and,
on the same application, request certain exceptions as they might need,
rather than leaving it up to the Commission to find these exceptions and
suggest remedies therefor. This would relieve some of the burden and
time-consuming reviewing of the Commission and place more reponsibility
on the applicants who are desirous of such re-zoning.
Commissioner Leonard suggested that copies of Mr. Anderson's revision
of the R-24-H be sent to the Commissioners and a study session be set up
on this revision.
The City Attorney stated he believed that the trouble experienced
in the recent past is not with the City Ordinances. He stated a great
deal of work and experience has gone into these ordinances and he be-
lieves them to be well worth keeping.
The Chairman asked the Commissioners in what direction they think
the City should direct its energies in the next It years while the Gen-
eral Plan is being formulated.
The Commissioners replied as follows:
Rampy: The applications should meet the conditions of the ordinancec
rather than the ordinance fitting the applications.
Frolich: The Commission should go along with the ordinances and
variances be permitted where necessary; R-3-H requirements
should not be loosened; in favor of a study session on the
ordiance question.
Adamo: In favor of study session on ordinances in regard to appli-
cations that do not fit ordinances as su~h.
Small: Believes in strengther.ing the City's stand on its ordinances
as they now exist; would like the Commission to draft a resolu-
tion to the Council to draw up a better C-2 and C-3 ordinance.
Fitzgerald: Require that applicants spell-out what they want, but
go along with the ordinances now in existance.
Leonard: In favor of Planning Commission, with aid of stenographic
help or tape-recorder, making up the General Plan of the City
instead of waiting for a Planrling Consultü!1t.
Discussion then followed regarding giving the Planni!1g Commission
the power it needs to function adequately as 8uch a body; rather than
having the Council act on a tentative map after the Commission has al-
ready approved it.
IV UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Miscellaneous
Commissioner Fitzgerald reported on the Hillside Ordinance. He
recommended adopting this County ordinance in its entirety.
The Chairman asked the Commission if they want to obtain secretar-
ial help, or a tap recorder, for use in study sessions, allowing the
applicants to come to said sessions and sit in on same, or form a sub-
committee.
It was decided to form a sub-committee composed of Fitzgerald, as
Chairman, Adamo and Small. The City Atto~ney and the City Engineer were
requested to sit in on these meetings as their aid was needed. Commissions
Rampy offered his assistance, when time permitted from other sub-com-
mittee duties,
V NEW BUSINESS
None
VI ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
APPTIO\iED:
Lawrence K. Martin, City Clerk
Is/ E. J. Small
Chairman
-~-