PC 12-11-61
'10321 SO. SARA'l'OGA-SUNNYvALE ROAD
AJI ~ :~ ( ~
C I T Y 0 Feu PER TIN 0
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR l>iEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 11,
1961.
PMCE:
TIME:
10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
8:00 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich,
Leonard, Rampy, Snyder, Small
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present City Manager, City Attorney,
City Engineer, City Clerk,
City Building Official
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: November 27, 1961
The minutes were approved with one correction: One Item IV-A,
Page three - Should have reference under "D" "See item IV A above".
III COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Written:
1. A letter was received i'rom Henr:, Horn p,,:,otesting
the condition~ that had been made to granting of
his Use Permit. He objected to having to plant
a hedge, reasoning that for flower growers this
would only attract snails and slugs and cause a
hardship to his business. He proposed, r'a [;l1er, to
build a fence instead of the hedge. Also, he was
concerned about the use of fertilizer, saying he could
not control the odor, but did have to fertilizer. The
possibility of having to renew his Use Permit every
year, with the chance of it being denied on a peti-
tion with only five signatures, was also a point he
questioned.
Commissioner Leonard read a rough draft of a possible solution
to Mr. Horn's problem, and Chairman Small suggested that the renewal
on a year-to-year basis be left in the conditions.
Mr. Calandreno, representing Mr. Hom, stated that Mr. Hom was
concerned that five or more protesting would interfer with business.
That he will be making a $75,000 investment and someone coming in to
protest with five signatures would put him out of business in chort
order.
Mr. Calandreno was informed that this was not necessarily true,
that five people protesting would merely be excercizing their right
of protest, just as he, Mr. Hom, had a right to protest the condition~,
That the Planning Commission would still be the judge as to 1rlhetl1er the
protests were justified or not.
Mr. Calandreno further remarked that the fertilizer used war,; fis;
meal and only lasted in odor a day or so, that once it was turned over',
there was no odor. However, Mr. Horn could not control this.
Commissioner Leonard moved: Whereas,' applicant hDS objected on
hardship grounds to certain requirements placed by a."a [l(:t;<on 0f this
Gumé¡¡:IIs¡J¡du:J.1'l on November 14, 1961; and Whereas, the applicant counter
proposes: 1) a five foot painted fence to be used as a screen in lieu
of a hedge planting; and 2) that cultural practices be governed only
by the wording "Consistent with normal good practice in the industry";
and 3) whereas the Commission, on review, finds the counter-proposals
are reasonable. Now, therefore> be it resolved, that the conditions
be modified as counter-proposed. ,Seconded by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard,
Rampy, Snyder, Small
None
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED 1-0
.' 1 -
2. Letter from City of Sunnyvale Planning Commission re:
Cupertino Union School District's application for
approval of a sci1001 cite south of Homestead Road,
east of Wright Avenue.
3. Copy .of the Publication "California Farm Reporter"
4. A brochure on the Stevens Creek Park Chain received
from the County Planning Departœent.
Commissioner Frolich requested the City Clerk to obtain
eight or ten more copies of the brochure.
Co~nissioner Snyder made the motion that all written
communications be received and filed. Seconded by
Commissioner Rampy. All in favor.
B. Verbal:
Chairman Small asked if there were any verbal communications
from the audience. There were none.
IV. HEARINGS SCHEDULED:
A. JACK DYMOND CO: Appliea tj on 44-2-61 to rezone ll. 36
acres from A-2:B·,2 to C-l,-H, R··2-H & R-l; west side
Mountain View-Ste'lens C,:,eek Road, south of ¡·10nte Vista
School, north of Alcalde Road. Second Hearing.
Tentative Map,
Mr. Gene Maston spoke fOl' the applicant. After viewing the
tentative map, there \Ias some 0[1jection to the fact that the commer-
cial (œ-l-H) area would be close to a school.
Commissioner Leonard si,¡ggeE;-ced that, rathel' than go into the
C-I-H zoning, since the applicant's representative suggeutçd that;
they would consider making this a Professional Office area, th3.t
the R-2 and R-l portion of the application be cOi1cidered fh'st.
City Attorney was asked if this could be done legally. In view
of the fact that a Profes~ÜonaJ. Or'dJnance (002 (1) Via:, on the agenda,
that they may postpone considering this part of the application until
such time as they ð.ecide upon accepting the urgency ox'ù::'nance as pro-
posed, later on in the meeting. That regardless what; they decided here,
the City Council still had to consider the entire applieation.
Commissioner Frolich asked the applicant about the road that
divides C-I-H from R-2. He could not recall \'Ihether they decÜded
it should be a blind road up to the Voss property, or a cL,'ül,f' > 'rhe
Commi~sion wants it open to the Voss property, Applicant had no
objection to opening the x'oad.
Commissioner I"itzgerald asked if the Con:mlGsion should deny the
C-l-H part of the application, did the applicant ati:!.l ~..ntend to put
in a full sixtY-foot street running out to the 80U th? i\pplj,cant
stated yes. It would have to be there to serve the X'est of t"18 de-,
velopment.
Chairman Small asked if there were any comments from t;heaud.ie¡~c8
for or against the application. 'there were none.
Commissioner Sriyder iÎ10'l"d I;ha t the hearing be closed 0'1, the R,-J.
and R-2 portion of the application and C-l..H portion be continued.
Seconded by FItzgerald..
A YE.s :
Commissioners:
J\.damo, Fitzgex'ald, Fl'olich, Leonard, Rampy
Snyder, Small
NO;19
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MO'rION CARRIED 7-0
COmmissioner Leonard moved (1) '¡lherGas, the n:"-2 proposal is
consistent with Commission thinking, and (2) Whereas, no serious
objections have developed at !w,'}lic heal'ings; and (3) Whereaß the
applicant has used the check lL:t, and no agencies have raißec1 major
objections. (It was sugge::,ted that the cul-de,-sac he run to the pro-
perty line as a stub street 60' wld.é'). New', 'J:he:r'ef(!l'e, Be it
- ~ ..,,,
resolved, that 1) The Commission recommend the R-2 rezoning subject to
the conditions 1 to 12 - See Schedule B, Condition No. 13: continuing
the cul-de-sac street near lot 2 to the Anthony Voss property line.
Condition No. l4, Street along northern boundary to be developed as a
60' street. Approval of the tentative map with these changes. Seconded
by Commissioner Fitzgerald.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder, Small
None
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0
Commissioner Leonard moved that, Whereas ~he R-l proposal 1s
consistent with Commission thinking, and 2) Whereas no objections have
developed at public hearings; 3) Whereas, applicant has used the
check list and no difficulties have developed. Now, therefore, be
it resolved, that 1) the Commission recommend the rezoning subject
to conditions 1 to 12. See Schêdule B, and 2) 'I'he Commission approve
the tentative map. Seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder, Small
None
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0
Commissioner Adamo questioned the size of the lots and City
Engineer explained that the lot sizes must conform to code or building
permits would no.t be issued.
B. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.: Application 15-U-61 for
Use Perm:it t-o establish public utility use for well,
aeration tank, pumping facilities, etcj located at inter-
section of Wolfe Road and Calabazas Creek.
Mr. Jeptha Wade, Jr. represented California Water Service. He
stated the company needed a well to provide domestic water service in
Cupertino. That they have only one other well in the City Limits of
Cupertino and one bordering on Tantau in the Tilson Tract. Both wells
relatively small wells, producing two to three hundred gallons a minute.
Mr. Wade commented on several new tracts that California Water
has had to service to emphasize the need for another source of water.
That 704 lots have been proposed to California Water for water service
since JulJ 1958 within the limits of the City of Cupertino alone. Out
of which, 202 are presently active and they are looking, since the
growth has been so very rapid, to hav:ing the growth continue.
Mr. Wade further commented that they now have 542 additional
lots proposed. They presently serve 679 accounts in the City of Cuper-
tino. Going by last summer's problems in designing water supply, they
take the highest average customers' usage, which totalled 1,419 gallons.
The average usage is 657 gallons. On this basis, the need for a new
well supply to provide service to present customers and potential cus-
tomers will require 1,700,000 gallons a day to meet the load which
they expect.
Chairman Small asked the C:ity Clerk if letters had been mailed
to landowners within a 1/2 m:ile rad:ius of the well s:i te. 'rhe City
Clerk replied in the affirmative that letters had been sent to Mr.
Ivan Izovich, W. Lester, Ellen Craft, L. Paganini, and J. Maggio.
That no written replies had been received, but there may be some of
these people in the audience.
Chairman Small asked lf there was anyone in the audience who
wanted to speak in regard to the application now before the Commission.
Mr. W. W. Lester, 19539 Stevens Creek Road, represented Lester
and Lester, which have acreage to the north s:!,de of Stevens Creek.
Several other individuals contacted ~;!'. Lester and he found, when
looking over various areas, greater than 1/2 mile, there are some
fifteen or so wells. He placed maps on the boarq to show the approxi-
mate locations of wells and approximate gallonage. Mr. Lester stated
that the water was an increasingly serious matter in Cupertino. We
have an area that is in a deficit condition.
'"
J
Further that the farmers involved cannot increase the output of
their wells as utility companies can, they cannot go deeper. A thou-
sand feet, or one-half mile away from a well means nothing. ' It would
still cause a drain on the domestic wells nO,l being used by local
growers, Ranchers need a reliable source of water, without it, they
cannot grow their vegetables, or supply their trees with enough to
keep them alive, thus they would go out of business.
Mr. Lester presented a petition to the Commission protesting the
Use Permit for California Water and pointed out that the reasons:stated
above are so stated in the petition. That by allowing California Water
to sink another well, they would cause a hardship on the local an.d
close ranchers to this area.
Commissioner Leonard asked Mr. Lester if the land is not current-
ly available for R-l development, d,id he suppose it could become avail-
able if these orchàrds were pumped dry? '
Mr. Lester said it W)uld be impossible to farm it with no water.
'rhey could not stay in business,' could not raise a crop.
Chairman Small asked if any other people in the audience wished
to speak on the subject.
Commissioner Frolich said that it seemed to him there were legal
ramifications involved with this matter and could the City Attorney
help on this matter? If it is in the realm of the Planning Commission
to decide who is entitled to the water or is the Planning Commission
supposed to issue use permits on the basis of all the surroundings.,
The City Attorney read the ordinance under which the Planning
Commission operations. :-Ie stated that it is in the intere!3t of a2.1
of the citizens of Cupertino.
Mr. Leonard aslced whether or not it would be a good idea to
examine more closely what they are doing when they pass on subdivisions
coming into the Cupertino area. It is well known that subdivisions
use more water than orchards" It is the suhdivisions, commercial
activities and lndustries that use up the water, He feels that the
City owes an obligation to the applicant and to the people living
in the City to insure ample water supply. Insteað of passing more
school bonds' and recreation bonds" why not start thinking more about
passing some water bonds to help alleviate the serious situation that
is arising. That in consider'ing any further maps í'or subdivision
developments, that water supply should also be considered.
Mr. Wade again spoke, saying they must be able to supply present
as well as future customers with water and fire protection. In fact,
in drilling this particular well site there is Borne element of chance
that they will not have success in finding a good well. They will
invest some $30,000.00 ln this well.
Commlssioner Leonard asked Mr. Wade if his firm had covel' had a,':/
commitments to supply water to farmers in the event their well:" ",Ed:
dry. Mr. Wade said no. Commissioner Leonard then asked if Cal ¡¡¡a',,~:':
would make such a commitment, Mr. Wade said No. Commissionü:' J"',"onar,j
then moved for denial, Commissioner Adamo seconded.
AYES:
NAYES:
Co¡¡¡¡nlssioners:
Commissioners:
None
Adamo, Fitzgerald, F'rolich, Leonard; Rampy,
Snyder
, None
Small,'
Abstention
ABSENT: Commissioners:'
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED: 6-0 - 1
Chairman Small then asked that the Commission consider ,moving
the 'application of City 'l'itle. up on the agenda, rather than keep them
waiting while the Commission consj~~red the Sign Ordinance an~ others
thàt were preceding it" It waG agl"e"d that this be dcme.
Vice Chairman Sn"ler then took over the meeting, Chairman Small
excusing himself because he works for the applicant. Chairman Small
then left the room.
4
City Engineer questioned the fact that none of the buildings
faced on a public road and that our ordinance states that all buildings
must be on a public road. The City Attorney said that none of the
City's present ordinances cover such a development as this. Even
extending the ordinanc9s to the best possible interpretation, he did
not believe that they would cover this type of situation. The only
possible jurisdiction that would cover would be to compare them with
the Ketell Development that had alleys. Mr. Marburg said they would
not consider them alleys, more like private drives.
City Attorney stated that our ordinances as they now stand re-
quire that every building be on a pUblic street.
Mr. Leonard suggested that we could not resolve this if the
dicsucssion continued. Suggested poling the Commissioners for
tentative viewpoints whether this type of living arrangement is
what we want to go on multiple. Suggested that the commission go
into a study session regarding this development.
City Engineer suggested Commissioners look over similar de-
velopments in Santa Clara area, asked Mr. Marburg if he could direct
them to some;
Mr. Marburg said that the Anne Darling, 33rd and McKey, San
Jose, City of Santa Clara, Homestead and Los Palmas. Also Mr.
Finnburg's development Riviera, Los Gatos apd Bay Tree Apartments,
Los Gatos. (This won the AlA award and also Housè & Home and Time
Magazine Award). Roberts Development, Los Gatos, Wisahicken, end
of Pennsylvania, 100 acre development by McDonald and Rayden, Sheran
Heights, Menlo Park. Bob Grey of the Menlo Park Planning Commission
was very familiar with this development.
City Attorney questioned maintenance and paving. He said,that
the City would have no control over the development, as regards
maintenance of grounds and the cleaning of the streets. That the
people living there would be calling City Hall and we could do nothing
for them.
City Attorney stated the only possible way to interpret this
through one of our ordinances was by looking at it as a single unit.
However, he suggested that more exploration be given to this problem.
A discussion arose involving the check list. Since this was a
rezoning application, the checlc list did not apply. There was no
tentative map submitted with the application and therefore the City
Clerk could not send out anything as the check list requires. Mr.
Marburg was asked if he could submit twenty copies of the plot plan
in black and whitA, something for the City Clerk to send out with
the check list.
Mr. Marburg said he would be happy to do so. Also that he would
leave two of the renderings at City Hall. In addition he would gather
some material from magazines and literature that would help the Com-
mission in arriving at some sort of decision.
Commissioner Leonard suggested that a check list be sent out,
saying that this was an unusual situation.
Commissioner Frolich made a motion to continue the hearing to
the next regular Planning Commission meeting of December 26th. ' ;Then
a discussion was had as to the date of the study session that the
Commission felt was necessary before considering this application. It
was decided the study session was to be had on December 21, 1961 at 7:30
P.M. Also that the City Attorney attend the study session and before
that time, ascertain what other Cities who have similar developments
have in the way of ordinances to protect themselves. It was requested
that all City Officials attend the study session to give their view
pOints on the subject; City Manager, City Clerk, City Engineer, City
Attorney, City Building Official. Seconded by Commissioner Leonard.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Snyder
None
Small
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED: 6-0
6
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked that the check list be submitted
on rezoning applications. The Sch90l Districts have complained that
property has been rezoned and building commenced be~ore they were aware
of the rezoning. Commissioner s,nyder said that he has assumed that
the check list was sent out on all applications. It was then explained
by the City Clerk that on a rezoning this was virtually impossible
since tentative maps were not required and he, therefore, had no infor-
mation to send out with the check lists.
Commissioper Snyder observed that in cases such as these that
information c.ould be collected at the first hearing then if felt
necessary, the check list could be submitted so as to give everyone'
involved an opportunity to comment on different applications.
Commissioner Frolich wants the full width of Wolfè Road developed
in relation to the City Title development.
Since there are a number of these developments in Los Gatos,
Commissioner Leonard asked if possibly .LOs Gatos City offices could
be contacted for a copy of their ordinances that cover. Building
Official Benevich said that he would go over to Los Gatos and obtain
as much information as he ,could on the subject developments.
At this point in t'he ,meeting a ten minute recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M. Chairmal) Small returned.
Vice-Chairman Snyder continued in the Chair.
C. ORDINANCE 89:, Sign Ordinance; review of regulations
, on sign size, etc. Continued.
At ,the previous meeting Vice Chairman Snyder, Commissioner Fitz-
gerald, Commissioner Leonard and the City Building Official were
appointed to report to the Planning Commission recommendations as to
hhwthe ordinance could be amended.
Commissioner Fitzgerald read a Draft of Revised Language for
the Sign Ordinance. The draft went into the subject of directional
signs at intersections and the possibility of a single billboard
type signboard with several tract developers having an opportunity
to have use of designated portions of the billboard to advertise their
tracts. The size of the sign to depend upon the size of the inter-
section, either two, four, six or eight lanes. The feeling being that
rather than have separate signs spaced apart at intervals along the
corners of the intersection. The City Building Official informed
Commissioner Fitzgerald that this had been covered in the ordinance
already and to amend the language would just be saying the same thing
in a different way.
Banners and penants may be used in.lieu of a subdivision sign.
A tract may use a subdivision or entrance sigh, or banners and penants,
but not both. To insure the maintenance and/or removal of all banners
and penants when they have served their purpose, a $25'0.00 deposit will
be required.
There were recommendations as regards arrows, and placement there-
of at intersections, left turns to be given space on the left of the
combination sign and right turns to be given space on the right pór-
tion of the sign. " '
Tracts more than 3 miles distant may not place signs on the com-
bination signs. Directional signs more than 300' from intersections
shall be governed by present regulations (50 sq. ft. spaced 250' a-
part) .
Vice-Chairman Snyder stated that he had read the ordinance and
could not find where the definition was for subdivision signs and the
definition for subdivision directional signs. The City Attorney said
that he thought there were properly defined, but that he would have
to find them in the Ordinance.
After discussion, City Attorney Anderson said that he felt the
suggestions were good ones, and if the Planning Commission wished,
he would, to the best of his ability, incorporate the conditions as
set down in the report and amend the sign ordinance accordingly.
7
Commissioner Frolich moved to so request the City Attorney to do
so, when Mr. Benevich requested that, since he had not beenpr~sent
at the sub-committee meeting, that he and the City Manager be allowed
to go over th~ draft and make their recommendations before anything
definit.e was decided as to amending the sign ordinance. He also sug-
gested that there were subdividers in the audience who may wish to
express an opinion on the draft as submitted.
Mr. Richard Taylor of Foster and Kleiser, respectfully requested
that when the sign ordinance comes up on the City Council agenda that
his Company be notified. Mr. Taylor asked that the ordinance be such
that his Company would be able to comply with .its conditions if the
need should arise.
Commissioner Leonard referred to other Planning Commission Meet-
ings where they did not wish to encourage billboard-type signs. The
Council, at the time of the original sign ordinance felt that there
were too many signs in Cupertino. They felt that in the Cupertino
area for the time being, at least, that they did not wish to go over-
board on billboard signs and a drastic reduction in larger signs
around town. Mr. Taylor stated that at the present time, F08ter and
Kleiser had no signs in the City of Cupertino.
Mr. Ward Crump, the developer of the Baywood Tract, took excep-
tion to the point of developers having to check a three-mile radius
uf their development with other tract owners or developers in regard
to having to coordinate their advertising signs. His argument was
that there were new subdivisions coming into the City every day and
that no two subdivisions would be started and finished at the same
time. If the initial developer were to put up one large sign, and
then wait until another developer came alon~. it would entail a great
deal of repainting and bo~her in maintaining ope la~ge sign.
The City Attorney observed that there is a Subdivision Associa-
tion whereby it would not be too difficult for developers to check to
find out who was putting up signs and could get together when they
were in the same general area.
Commissioner Small remarked that he thought rather than change
the ordinance, Why not let the builder come in by Use Permit or Vari-
ance and let the Planning Commission decide what to do. They could
accept o!' deny as they saw fit.
Mr. Crump remarked that in recent v¡eeks there had been another
interpretation of the sign ordinance and in view of this, perhaps
it would be better to leave the ordinance stand as is, it was, perhaps
a pretty good one after all.
Mr. Leonard observed that rather than have agendas cluttered up
with variances and Use Permits, the sign ordinance should spell out
certain restrictions. Since the agendas were getting longer and longer.
Mr. Small sùggested, rather put the matters of Use Permits and
Variances as regards signs, to the H-Control Committee and if it
cleared, since the H-Control committee consisted of the Building
Department, Planning Commission and the City Council representatives,
the three bodies could control the signs pretty well.
- 8 -
Mr. Crump suggested that perhaps the penants should be covered
in the ordinance. That permanent signs could come up bef'ore the H-
Control,Committee and the Council. Other signs and penants should
be controlled by ordinance because there is no time to review every-
thing, that comes up of this ~ature.
, City Attorney said if an ordinance can be interpreted two ways
it is ready .tobe amen<ied. The Building Official stated that in the
past, the sign ordinance had been interpreted in another way, however,
that had been corrected and everyone in his department understood thè
correc.t interpretation.
City Attorney referred to the sign ordinance in answer .to Vice-
Chairman Snyder's question regarding the definition of the subdivision
sign. On the Land ,Use Sign Chart in the Sign Ordinance, Article 4,
Section 4.02, a. Subdivision sign is an on..sîte slgn.
City Attorney Anderson says that the sign ord,inance is 18S8
trouble to. him than other ordinances that he gets calls on. In fact,
he has very few calls on the interpretation of the sign ordinance,
which would only indicate ,that it is handled eff'içiently.
Mr. Frolich asked if the sub-committee's recommendationo would
be incorporated into the ordinance with the exception of the joint
signs at intersections. Ire made a motion that the City Manager in-
struct the City Attorney to draw up a draft.of this a!!}cndment to the
sign ordinance to be brought back to the, Planning Commission for
forwarding on to the City Council. City Building .,In.spector requested
that he be allowed to go over the draft with the (:it,,' lI1anager and '
bring back their comments to the Planning Commission. To please
postpone any motion on acceptance of any part of the report until
the City Manager and the Building Dep~r.tment could go over it. Se-
conded by Fitzgerald
AYES:
Com:-nissioners:
Adamo, F'itzgerald, Frolich, Leonard~ Rampy,
Small, Snyder
None
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARHIED: 7-0
The City Attorney, in the interest of time, slncethe hour was
then late, requested that the Commission go to Item VI. A on the
agenda. All agreed to do so.
VI A. ORDINANCE 002(i) Adopting the Santa Clara County
Zoning Ordinance NS 1200 Section 45 thereof, being
regulations for "Professional Office (p-O) District,
and declaring the urgency thereof. (Referred to ,
Planning Commission for report to Council).
City Attorney made comments· on th:i.s ordinance as be:i.ng designed
to take care of what they might conslder a legal problem with the
NS 1200 County Zoning Ordinance, and adopted by reference of zoning
existing in the City by the date of the incorporation. Is the fact
that it is in NS 1200, does that automatlcally take'care of it, or
is it proper to amend an already adopted ordinance by urgency.
The City Attorney then requested after reading the ordinance to
the Commission, that they g;l.ve him their wishes as to the condi'tions
contained therein, that it could be amended in any way they felt
necessary. He wentQn further to explain how some residential build-
ings are sometimes used as profesSional offices, such as lawyers, doc-
tors, etc. ße stated an example where a house situated immediately
in back of a gas station is generally cons.idered a '''dog'' . insofar as
selling as a single family residence, it was in these cases that
professional offices were sometimes preferred, ,since it meant that
the premises would be not only occupied, b'<lt by' reason or .the, type
of business, kept in good repair. .
All of the Commissioners commented with favor on the ordinance'
in its entirety, they were all of the opinion that it was a good OIle
and badly needed in the City. Mr. Leonard commenting briefly on the
one aspect of it , that it would mean, by bringing in professional
offices to the City, it would help economically, by reason of employ-
- 9 -
ment, etc. That he would like to see the ordinance adopted.
The City Attorney then went over the ordinance in detail as re-
gards the building heights, set-backs, lot pèrcentage coverage, etc.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the height limit should
be 1-1/2 stories, twenty-five (25) feet, forty percent (40%) coverage.
Also that the professional offices ordinance bé covered by H-Control,
thus making it PO-H, instead of P-O. With 40% coverage, there would
be a large!' usable area, better looking buildings. Twenty-foot set-
back was agreed upon as being reasonable, and any variation should
carry the stipulation that there would be no parking in front of the
building.
Off-street parking was not discussed too much since it is a
fairly standard còndition. City Attorney Anderson said it may have
to be amended later on. Vice-Chairman Snyde!' asked if the lot size
would not govern off-street parking and Commissioner Leonard stated
that if the lot size did not allow for proper off-street parking they
would simply deny the application, that this would present no problem.
Chairman Small moved that Ordinance No. 002(i) be adopted sub-
ject to the conditions and changes as noted in Resolution 78, to be
prepared by the City Attorney, mith recommendations to the City Coun-
cil for adoption. Seconded by Commissioner Rampy.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy,
Small, Snyder
None
None
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissiohers:
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0
Commissione!' Frolich then requested permission to read a draft
of a resolution to be given to the City Council along with the Ordi-
nance 002(i) and Resolution No. 78. The City Attorney said that it
wasn't necessary for the Planning Commission to send the resolution
in question to the City Council, that they could mal:e any recommenda-
tions to the Council they wished, but that the Ordinance and Resolu-
tion No. 78 would go to the Council as a matter of course.
Commissioner Frolich began to read the draft, and Commissioner
Small interposed a question as to whether or not the ¡VlacKay and Somps
application was on the agenda for the meeting of December lith. The
City Clerk answe!'ed that it was not. Then Chairman Small said that
Commissioner Frolich could continue: Commissioner Frolich reaJ, as
follows: Whereas, (1) this Commission has prevlously recomme oded
denial of the McKay and Somps application for C-l-H zoning, and
Whereas, (2) this Commission felt that the proposed use was proper
but that opening the door to C--I-H was unsound planning, and
Whereas, (3) it now appears likely that this application might now
be amended to apply for a possible pending PO-H classification which
is deemed by this body to be eminently compatible with adjacent R-l
usage, and Whereas (4) the City, whenever possible, should seek to
avoid undue delays when to do so is not detrimental to the best
interests of the City, Therefore, Be it Resolved that: Had the
subject application been before this Commission in essentially the
same form excepting that instead of C-l-H, the proposal had been for
a PO-H classification similar to that now being considered for
enactment, this body would have recommended approval of theapplica-
tion by the same vote as that cast on this resolûtion.
Commissioner Frolich moved that the above resolution be for-
warded to the City Council and requested the City Clerk to give it
a number, which was done, the number being nesolution No. 79.
Seconded by Commissioner Snyder.
AYES: Commissioner:
NAYS: Commissioner:
ABSENT: Commissioner:
MOTION CARRIED: 5-2
Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leon8.;.~id, Rampy, Snyder
Adamo, Small
None
- 10 -