PC 09-11-61
10321 so, SAi1A'1'OGA--SUNNYVALE ROAD
C I 'T Y 0 P c: Ù 'oJ R R TIN 0
éUP'ER¡:;.l'JO; -CA;"IF'JRl'i':::ll,
AL 2"4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OJ!' THE PLANNING COMMISSION - September 11,
1961
PLACE:
TIME:
J0321 So. Saratoga--Sun~yvale RoaŒ
8:00 P.M.
I SALUTE TO THE FLAG
II ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy.
Snyder and Small
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager, City Atto~ey.
Ci ty EnginE:er and Dep. City Cler!
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: August 28, 1961
The C~ty hr~ineer noted a co~rection in the minutes of
August 28, 1961, page 3, Line 21. change "extra storm drain fees"
to "sanitary connection fees".
The minutes of August 28 were approved as corrected.
III COMMUNICATIONS:
A. ìÙ.'ltt,n:
(1) County Planning Commission: Notice of application of
Frederick J. ::":leger for change in zone fr,')m R-l:B,·2 GO R-2:B-2.
located on the east side of Mountain View-Stevens Creek Roed,
r:::,70 , south of Permanente RoaJ. Publ1.c he9.ring will be held
Óòtober 4, 1961.
. l'ioved by CO!!lJ1J:!.s:',j,onér Snyder 'o;h;;.t a lettclT.' be directed to the
County Planning Commission advising that there is no particular
objection to multiple fronting heavy traffic streets, but that this
is one of the b~st focthill areas in the County and the Commission
would like to see it R-l if possible. The letter shall further
state that the City requires 60' street widths for subdivision£ and
there seems to be a possible problem with accessibility to Lots 11
and 9. 'I'his motion shall be brought to the attention of the City
Council. Seconded by Commissioner Adamo.
AYES:
Cornrn:-~ss~~ Jr..r.a~B ~
Adamo, Frolich,
é-nè. Small
None
None
6·",)
Leonard. Rampy, Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
The City Engineer stated the sanitary sewer easement would faE
within the frontage c~ some of the lots. He said the San1t~~y Board
had also received a copy of this appUcation and that the Bo¡;¡,rd hf,ñ,
pointed this out to the Co~,ty, and suggested the layout b~ rb-
viewed to be sure the sewer falls within the street right-of-way.
(2) County Planning Commission: Summary of Actions, Regular
meeting of August 14. 1961, adopting resolution regarding Axel E.
Nielsen application. Application abandoned without prejudice.
(3) County Planning Commission and Board of Zoning: Agenda
for September 6, 1961.
(4) County Planning Department: Subdivisions recorded in
Santa Clara County, August 1961.
(5) Philip Eagar: Copy of letter addressed to City Council
submitting resignation.
Moved by Commissioner Leonard that:
vlHEREAS, Phil Bagar has served on the Planning
Commission since April of 1960; and
WHEREAS, inc~"easLlg :)','c"Ioure of pe!'Bonal business
and responsibili tL,,:¡ pc:'e,;',"¿c:",s j.'eg':Üar attendance in
the future;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE:C, that this
commiss10n extend to j,';;" £'Oè'lil:ò:': me!TIbe::> thei:ë' thanks,
and extend to ¡Jiu, o¿.Jt.ÜS!'èS fc':~ success in his
private under~akings.
AYES:
Seconded by Commissioner Snyder.
COmmissioners:
NAYS: COlltnissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
r10T10N CARRIED:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Snydgr
and Small
None
None
6-0
Moved by Commissioner Adamo that the foregoing communications
be re0eived and filed. Seconded by Commdssioner Snyder.
AYES;
C0!1'!Pissioners:
NAYS: Cornnissic-ners;
ABSENT: Com¡J'issioner3:
MOTION CA~RIED:
B. Verbal:
NO"le
Adamo, Frolich, Leonara. Ram~y, Snyder
and Small
None
i\:0ne
6-,0
The City IilJanager inr'ormed the Chairman tLat Mr. !'L3,riani had
contacted him and advise(è tbò,t he would ¡'a ç1<'òl8.y,"d, ¡-,n6 j"'ò)ques:;2d
the hearing on his e,pplicatj,on be mov~d to the end of tha 2genda,
or continued until his a!"r:I,va,l. HeqJ.8st granted.,
COIltmissione)' Leona:ë'd ~)riefly reviewed t.he agenda and noted
that s")veral i'\;2!ŒS ne(,ded consul'icE:~icn of the Ci,i;y Hanner. !vIoved
by Com¡nis¡Üoner ::Æonard 'chat the revised subd1vision ordinance
(Item IV-HL Ordinanc;8 002(h) (It8m V..A) and t.he rezoning 0:' the
Ciluck propel'ty (:~+;em v-c) be còntin-",ed pGr.ding consl:ltation wl'\;h
the City Planr.er. Se00nded by CC';Qmissioner Rampy.
AYES:
Commissioners:
:N!,YS: Corn.missicners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIBD:
IV HEARINGS SC¡ŒDULBD:
Adc¡,mo, Frolich, Leonarc~: Rampy, Snyder
and S!Mll
None
None
6·,0
A. DEE? CLID'.b'E DEVEL0i:'i\lfE})T CO.: Application No. 37-Z-6l, to
rezone 28 acres from A-2:B..4 to R"l, R-2-H and C-I-H; southeast
corner of McClellan and Mountain View-Stevens Creelc Road. TGntativ?
Map. Second Hearing.
James DesmùnC:, representing the appli cant, stated he h:),([
appeared before the Sanitary Distvict on September 6, as requestod
by the City Engineer.
The Chairma::J. read a letter from the 'scciÜ tary Listrict a.c~"
vising that the property as proposed can be served by the L\istrict.
Map "A" was posted.
Mr. Desmond stated that one of the cul-de-sacs was longer than
the 350' speclfle~ in the ordinance. Also that the minimum right-
of-way should be 501, except that j,n the case of clÜ..,de...sacs not
longer than 350', the rlght..of-,;'/itY !l1£',y be 56'. He stated hI') can
eliminate the 56' and malca t112 ri~ht-of-way 601, and thereby con-
form to the subdivisior. oi~in~nce.
Mr. Desmond posted Map "B", stating that he had asked to be
allowed to take adv~r;tage of the ordi::J.an0e to allow lot size to be
reduced by 5%. With thÌf3 proposal 27 B"l lots would be 7,500 sq.
ft; 21 lots would be 7,125. The average of all 72 lots would be
almost 8,000 sq. ft. Hith this pla.n ¿l1e~'y lot has m?re than 7,500
sq. ft., lo,owever there are two lots é.¡hich do r.ot 2..ppeal' su:i. ta.1--,] p
. . ~.J ,..
Map "e" was lX~stðd and ¡WI::" ~B!!lond stated that all lots
except 5 contain 7,500 sq. ft,
The Chairman a~ked about 'che 901 right-or-way for !I!oUiltain
View-Stevens Creek Road.
Mr. Desmond sta.teJ that all me.ps posted snow a 60' right-of-way
for Mountain View-Stevens Creelc Road. Resaid the appl1cant has no
objection to a 90' right-of-way, however this takes another 15' and
created another þ!'Oblem, but it can be worked out. He said, however
that he would be unÞ~ppy if the commission required an additional
15' for a 90' road and then finds it un£easible to extend it further
south and ends it at the southerly limits of the subdivision.
Map "D" was posted, and Mr. Desmond stated that under this
plan l¡ lots will be lost. He still prefers the one oriein~.lly
submitted or the second proposal he said.
The C,1airman asked for comments from the floor.
Dean Sayre, 10805 South Stevens Creek Road stated he has a
home across from this prope~ty. Before Cupertino annexed the
area, t~ere was a meeting with thè County, and it was agreed to
widen thi3 road within o~e year. Prope~ty was volunteer~d at the
corner to be dedlcated to the County at that time, he sald. He
stated hois pa~ticularly ~cncerned àbout the lighting proposed for
this develo~nent, and alBo concerned about nmltiples. He noted the
vacancy fe,ctor, a~d Rtatc-i re was nr:.t hl'ppy ab01¡t having triplexes
across the street. COW1t;r c~dinance req¡¡ireFJ 10,000 sq. ft., lots
he said, and requested IreG s::''3es be kept larger.
Louis D. Segal I',sked the c;OII1ì1Ìssion to hole! :)íf on tile iIIf';¡;te::,
until the Planning Consultant ';ould s'Jbm.i.t a Hk:st2r ple,n. He felt
there might be a better area :f'')r R-:? and R-3, aw'!. ß~I',i..8::i thc,t the
matter nee~s mo~e stu5y.
:::n answ,"r to:> a question" rlir. Desmond stated 20 lots are pro:),.
posed for multiples, and th¡¡,t these structures would tend to blend
with the R-l ty~e of development. There would b, no multi-FJtory
construction, he se.id. KegarcUng ~he street L,gJ:tin,?;, ~t W'juld
cOnform to the wish~s of t;ì8 r.j',y.
The Ci ty Engir,eer s'~a'i;ed there are certain requirements for
street lighting for su~diviRio~s.
The Chairrean commented on th8 ~ize of the lots, stating that
duplex lots woul-;' have tr; be 9,500 sq. ft., which JS large co~r.pared
to most cities.
Mr. Desmönd :;::Mr:ted out that ttle lots affecting Mr. Sayre's
prope!'ty would be almost 10,000 sq. ft. Regarding a delay pending
preparation of a llIÐ.ster plan, he said the developers do not in":.end
to construct anything that would sit idle. As far é.S a be-r.ter arc,,,
is concernGd, he expressed the opinion that if á person 'f~~ts to
live in apartments, why s!10u1d h"! be forced to livedownto,";'J1 :?,r1 ;",
deprived of the foothills area. He believes apartments ;;r.úl,Gc; be
in more beautiful areas if possible.
Commissioner Snyder stated that the proposal ing~neral is
quite good, sté',ti!1g- that not too many peopIe vlOuld '18.;1t to b'...:y R-l
fronting O~ a 90' road.
COmmissiC'l':er Pro15,ch CC''1'}t,r:>:'ed w:;, th Co:nmissioner S,nyder,
stating th&.t he did n0t believe FHA would D,pprove leans fé;l' R..l
fronting on a 901 road. He noted trat on Neigh~orh0od Plan #10
there was a K,·6 schoo} r:i.ght; in the. rntd,dle.. ho\<¡ever" it proved that
no school was planned for t¡~~ location.
Mr. S¡¡,yr", reite:>:'é'tAd his oo,je:Jticr.. to IJ:'J.ltiples, say1ng that
he does not feeli;hey cJ,):'e in har¡ncny with development in the area.
He also noted the commerc:'al at tile co~er.
COmmissiGller Leona,rd stated it a;;>peared to be a service station
location.
"
-,
The Chair~an ë>tatcd that ~ervi~e statio~s require use permits,
and if the zoning was approve,i" the matter of a service station
would still have tü be gODé ~ve~.
Co~~issioner Leonard sta~ed that the developers have taken
a realistic look at the situation> stating that single family homes
on a heavily traveled street would be a waste of money. He offered
a proposed motion for cünsideration.
Mr. Segal stated he would concur with Mr. Sayre, h~wever he
would also agree with the Comndssion. He stated he could not see
a homeowner buying a home on a 90' road, that he would rather see
apartments there than R-l.
Mrs. C. S. Spencer, Stevens Creek Road, stated she wou~d like
some assurance the construction would not be any more than triplex
units. She stated that persons wanting to live in the country
should be willing to g:i.ve up push-buttOIl living in apartments for
co~rtry living. She said further that there should be so¡ne place
left for people who want the freedom of the country.
The Chairman called attention to the recreation area, truck
traf~ic, golf course, and other develop~ent in the area. Y5% of
the application is i!1 good qua::'::' ty R-l h0r,les in the $25,onn price
range he said; a ver'y small amount of multiple is involved iIl this
application. He assured the residents of the area the.t the H Control
Committee will watch the development.
~1oved by Commissioner' Adamo that the first hearing be closed.
Seconded by Commissioner Ra,m¿y.
AYES:
GOlr<missioners:
Ada:'lo. Frolich, L30nard, Rampy, Snyder
ani Small
NO.lb
N')ne
6,0
NJl.YS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Comrnd,ssicners:
MOTION CARRIED:
Moved by Commissioner Leonard;
\'JHERRI\3, this comprehensive development appears to
be in reason~ble harmony with the residential and recrea-
tional potential of the creek ani hill ar0a; and
UHEHEAS, applicant's comprehensive project is con-
siderably mor'e than a~Jartments per se; those proposed
are one--story and resemble R-I homes in a middle price
range; anè,
UHEREAS, applicant ra.ises no adamant objection to
developing the Stevens-Creel{..¡V¡.-,untain View Road leading
to Stevens Creel< dam as a 90' right-of-way near suhject
property; and
1IIHEP.EAS, applicant raises no objection to par'~ici;~r.,-
tion in L-I-D to provide orderly sewering of th~ ar8a;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HESOLVED that the tentative
¡rap "A" (adjusted to a 90' street) be approved, and that
we recommend approval of the land uses proposed subject
to:
(1-12)
(l3)
(14)
Schedule B,
Gonsultati~n with the County seeking adherence
by them to the 90' req~irement on the main road
to Stevens Creel'; dam.
G~nsultb.tJ.o::l with t~e Sa,nitary District to
e.SS1lre tli2.t p:i."eBent :"11 futu~e \9êWer !.in,ès lie
in p:.:>esellt 0:' prè.'posed public str",et"J insofar
as possible.
Seconded by C0~niss~one~ Snyde~.
AYES:
COIlUllissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leona,,:,d, 'Rampy, Snyder
?,nd Small
None
None
60
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Comm:i,s:sioners:
¡.r.Yi.'ION CP',HHIED:
I,
._I.¡-
B. PAUL JIlI\.RIANI, 3R., & 1f;ATl!-::LDA COUSA:, Application No. 41-Z-61.
1,314,1 x 337' to C-l-H from A-2; 13··4, R-3'-H and R-l, sou,th8aat
corner of Lucille & Highway 9. Second Hearing.
Paul ~iariani, Jr., represented the applicant.
The Chai:::'man stated thai; this application is right in the
middle of the same gener'al area ~Thich also applies to a former
application. He aRked the applicant if there would be any objec-
tion to waiting a week or two until the City Planner can review
the matter.,
Mr. Mariani stated he would have no objection.
Comnissioner Snyder expressed the opinion that it would be a
wise move to have the Planner look at the matter.
COlmnissioner Leonard stated he was agreeable to the iðea, but
aslced that the audience be allowed to express vie~lS, a:> thild was a
public hearing.
John r~cGowan stated that if the CO~Tission is going to give
this application considera.tion :..t will be a long \1ay in '~he future.
He also brought up the quef:tion c")i' 4 aùreö of M-l across 'l.nestreet.
The Chairman stated he had investigated th" ¡Vi·'l, ard noted
that the applicant in thi~ case is not applying to build sOffietrrlng
that was not ~lready thc~a. He saj~ p~ hAd c~eùked with the County
and other cities a1'1d found the,t an e,r.imal hospi'i;s,l requi:'ir.g board-
ing of animals for any r<"ason l'eq',Ür"s iight inÖ:llstri':1.l zo¡ung in
t;1e County. The Glty of ,san Jose reql.:ires M-4". a little he¡>.v:l.e!'
type of zoning. It is t;1e feellDg of the C'Jmrr;iseicn 'Che,t 'i;herz are
already some bus~nc8:ks Ü, there that were :cn!12!'ited, be 'së,id.
Moved by Cotnndssioner Leonar'd 'GhS.1; the hea:r'lng be continued
tQ October 9, 1961. SecQnded by COII',,¡issioner F'rolich.
AYES:
Comn':issionerlO :
Adamo, Fr·ol:1.ch, Leonard, Ra;npy, Snyder
OJ.no. ,slTlcill
None
Non'"
)-0
NAiS¡ Co~ssioners;
ABSENT: Comrr~ssioners:
MOT:;:ON CARR:CED~
C. CITY 'l'ITLE INSURANCE (.;0": Application No. 34-2-61, to rezone
7.6 acres on the east sj.de of Cala'ol'1,zas Creel{ from R-l to R- 3-H,
400' west of Millel', 746r soath ot' :'Jt;evenld Crcek Blvd, Revised
application. S,econd Hete,ri:lg.
The Chairman hriefly reviewed the matter. Rene Helou
represented the app~ica~t, and Fr~d Findberg, the developer, was
also present.
fl r. Helou stated this \1oule'. be a different type Of cor,ll;r,mi ty
which would not hä.ve the outlook that ~le have seen '0efo!"2, the-' bo'-,
type of apartments. The bU~Tel's are expecting 80metU"ng difr'e!'0nt
and have not been getting :it. He :>aid that as fdr as n..l is (,on"
ce~led, it would be very difficult to sell houses surroQ~ded by
triplexes, the high school and commercial development.
In anm.e:.... tc a q\;cestion by Connnission<:.r Leonard, ¡..~.':'. Hel~u
stated that this woulCÁ b.., a 00"09 owned by a corporation nG~ o1lc'ned
by individuals. This is quite complic!.ted and it 110ulCt be diffi-
cult until there is a p~ecedGnt, he said, and further that there
are three c,[ these è.evelopments p:íp,nn",d '::'0:::' tn;"q GOU;1ty.
Commissioner Leonard askeã ato"t some form ".(' àgreemen'~ be..
twee~1 the developers and t:~:·..3 C:~-CY;'é'..l.ld ~:~:1 a;:o;~:"eè¡ìlcd';: b::;t-~'reen the
deïj"elo~)erß and 'c:¡e OT! .12:r;:~.; ~t':-' "l;() (:.....:_1~~ù,r~:~aJ.1c:-'. ,~{;(j. ..::: Ù8:"1t on to
say thåt some pl'otectlc:l ,,¡hov),c: b" oi'í'e"'ed "'·r_ê occupan.-:;s.
Mr. Helc'., stated chat-. f",¡ch b,g::,cements wel'e not available at
this time. Mr. p'1ndberg stated the,t form of such e,greements would
be sent to the Commissicn, This is something that Hill ta.ke a
long time ~o plan, he s&id.
·':r'
Mr. li'indberg stated hR r:n,¡lrl clal'lfy sO:Ile of the answers.
Buyers own one share in a non-pl"ofit corporation I¡J1ich is owned
by all of the buyers. 011l1ership remains in the developer until 60%
sold, at .-;hich time: ownership l"eVerts to the corporation. He said
the occupants will be perma,nent residents living in a community
not persons renting an é'inrtm,mt and then m0ving out in a short
time. The corporation will t~ke care of the maintenance) landscap-
ing, utilities, etc.
He went on to say that it was his intention to design the
community to help CupertÌ11o, and that approval ,¡as needed so they
could wn:>."lc on FHA approval. He said further that this is a request
for a use permit, not rezoning.
The Chairman stated tJ~t this is a request for rezoning, and
asked the City Attorney for an opinion.
The City Attorney stated there is no ordinance to permit this
type of development. Rezoning is all they can asle for and the
application stands or falls on R-3 he said. The ordinance is de-
signed to prevent cluster' plans, and this is a cluster plan.
Commissioner Leonard expressed the opinion that if approval
was granted, there would be one variance l'equest after an" cher.
Mr. Segal stated he has seen these developments in other states,
and they can be made to c-omply with R-l. He stated could bp.
bei~eficj,al to the City of Cu¡;¡ertino.
Moved by C:ommiss:!,oner Frolìch that the ê.pplication be tabled
pending consultation with th~ Planning Consults.'1t. Seconded bv
Commissioner Leonard.
AYES:
Comm:tssioners:
Ad2.i!JO, Frolich, Leonard, Rtblpy, 3nyder
and Small
Non"
None
6·,0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
The applicant stated he would present further plans and
brochures at the next '..le',::¡ing.
D.
from
side
FR~NK SHEPHARD: Application No. 1:0 ·Z,·6l, to rezone 10
R·'l:B·,2 to R-l; bet\/een Vjsta and Blaney adjoining the
of a projection of ~,1e>:,ri tt. Fj,rst Hearing.
acres
south
Jacl: Kuzie. of MacKay i£ Somps represented thé) applicant.
The Map of the area v~s posted, and Mr. Kuzia explained that
this was the property adjoining Tr~~uph No. 2 Subdivision.
Mr. Shephard, the applicant, sta'l;ed that a nice devp.lojJm<mt
is planned, with better type homes.
In answer to a question regarding the storm dr'2.inage p_"oblem
in the area, the Chairman read a letter from the City Eng1ne2r
stating that they had no objection to the street pattern, whicb, con
forms to Neighborhood Plan i/7. With respect to the E'to:.:'m drainage
the letter went on to say that tbis proposal is in the sallie categolé
with Trië;mph if2 and #3 recently reviewed. It sugges~~d that pr~or
to the determina';ion, that authorization be given for a deta:1.lecl
storm dl'ainage analysis of the area. The City Enß:Lneer also pointed
out that the tentative map is incoml;J.ete in that it does not includ",
contourß or infor~tion required by the Subdivi~iún Ordinance.
The ChairnlÐ.n asked the applicant if hs woulc' c'e willing to s1 t
down with the City K1gineer and worlc these matters out. Mr.
Shephard answered in the affirmative,
Mr. Kuzia asked if it ,¡0êclc', ;}e p ,s5ib1.e to set tentative map
a,pproval subject to the stor~¡1 drainage p20blem: and the Ch"Ürman
advised that the (;oImn1ssion likes to consider the tentat:i,ve map and
the zoning application at ',-,he same ':.il11e.
Ml1(
p:.;.:·('\blc"iu;,
C:~'C~¡ 8'1(1
Shephard expressed the desire to
statin?; that he Jcn01'1S :Lt exists,
,"';( t 'che ,j C 1-: dr,ne,
work out the dr2.~nage
and want" 'co wol'l<: w:;,th t':,
-~..-
COmmissioner Snyder not.p.d that Rbout 16 of the lots do not
meet the ordinance, and stated théy should be worked out.
Mr.,Kuzia stated that they are very close, and that the final
plans will correspond to requirements. All lots will be to speci-
fication.
Regarding the acquisition of the 20' strip noted on the map,
Mr. Shephard stated that he is negotiating for that property at the
present time.
The City Engineer stated that Merritt Drive is an important
street. It will be an east-west street going through several
blocles and an easement would have to be obtained and improved at
the time this was approved. This is not the responsibility of the
City he said.
The Chairman asked for comments from the audience. There were
none.
~1e Chairman expressed the opinion that Ba~100d Subdivision
should come first; noting that these people paid their tees and
should deserve protection .
Moved by Commissio~err.rolich that the first hearing be
closed, and that the storm drainage problem be referred to the
City Manager for reference to the City Engineer. Seconded by
Com.'1!issioner Rampy. '
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
and Small
None
None
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSE}~: Commissione~s:
MOTION CARRIED:
E. MAGCAY.&; SOMPS: Application No. 39-Z-6l, to rezone 260' x
168: from R-2-H &; R-3-H to C-l..H; south aide of Rodrigues Avenue,
3l0' west of Highway 9. ~irst Hearing.
John Racanelli rt<presented the applicant. A map of thE;¡ propert;y
was posted. He described the property as being immediately behind
the City Hall. and that only one acre was included in this request.
The proposed use is for a single story office building cont~ining
about 4,000 sq. ft., conforming to whatever conditions necessary.
The building will house NacKay &; Somps, a civil engineering ení;er-
prise; employing about 20 people, and that the area will contain
adequate parking a.nd will be fully landscaped.
The Chairman e,sked for con,.'1ents from the audience
Mrs. Atkinson asked about ~he size of the area to be rezoned,
noting that a road was to run through the property and asked why
the request for rezoning on both sides of the road.
Mr. Racanelliexpla1ned that there was no stre<?t running
through the property, hotlever one is proposed dOHn the westerly
boundary of the property. He went on to say that this professicnal
building will eliminate 40~ of the multiplezoninß, providing an
excellent buffer.
Mrs. Atkinson stated she objecte1 to C-l-H because there is
no control once C-l-H is in and no promise that it 110uld not be
developed into any other comraercial enterprises.
Mr. Racanelli sa.id there is no other way to zone the property.
He stated that if th0re were another zoning to cover professional
offices, he would withdraw this applicatio~ and present a new one.
Mrs. Woodruff objected to co~~ercial zoning: stating that it
would open the door to lli1desirable development adjoining it.
Louis D. Segal stated that MacKay & Son~s building would pro-
vide 'i:;he best type of buffer an R-l owner could asle fo!', s"ating
that it \1ould be a 4o-hoUl' a week professional office.
Virß:L'1Ìa Norton ste,ted. sh-'! 1'.'01Üd concu,:, '....itl1 Mrs. Ho")dX'è~ff,
..·~i _
~he CÞairman stated that 50mÐ or the n~w professional office
buildings almost look like large homes, with landscaping, etc. He
Ga1d thAt if they are Þuilt right, they are an asset.
Mrs. Hertzmeyer, 10l¡50 Portal, said that there are miles of
area slong stevens Creel:: Boulevard where offices can be bUilt, and
she could not see any need for office buildings in a residential
area.
Anton Belescue stated MacKay & Somps would be very welcome in
the community, that their property would provide an excellent
buffer.
In answer to a question, Mr. Racanelli gave the dimensions of
the building and stated there \Üll be a good deal of parking area
and much of the area in landscaping. About one acre is needed for
the venture he said.
The Chairman remarl::ed that the property was already zoned for
multiples, and asked the residents if they would rather see a real
nice building of one use, or several multiple type dwellings.
Mrs. Atkinson stated there is no assurance there would be a
nice development there, and reiterated she was very definitely
against C-l-H. She referred to the depth and aslced what was the
usual depth of C-l-H. She noted that this would be 168' beyond
the 300' already zoned commercial.
Commissioner Adamo statzd that the Commission had changed its
thoughts on the matter of depth of commercial zoning, saying that
commercial has gone to 500' and more to meet developers needs.
Gordon Paulson, 20601 Rodrigues, stated that if this is zoned
C-l-H, others in the area may request C-l-H.
Commissioner Snyder remarked that the applicant was in not
too long ago requesting R-3-H, telling the Commission they had a
developer.
Mr. Racanelli responded that the City changed the ordinance
and they lost the developer. He stated they are not anxious to
have the land justing sitting there, and they would build a building
that would satisfy their needs and satisfy the homeowners when they
compare it with existing uses.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Snyder, Mr. Racanelli
said they would be willing to submit a letter of intention, however
Mrs. Atkinson felt this \~ould not be binding.
The City Attorney stated the property is bound by the class1ficE..'
tion.
Mr. Racanelli stated they would be willing to have a deed
restriction.
The City Attorney stated that a deed restriction is designed
to protect the buyer, and restricts the use of tlw land. He said
he has never seen it in this particular situation. With a deed
restriction, if the land is used for another use the land would
revert to the grantor.
Moved by Commissioner ,Leonard that the first hearing be
closed. Seconded by ComTIissioner Rampy.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
and Small
None
None
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
F. HERBERT F. ARONSEN (Simla Lands Ltd.): Application No.
l4-v-6l, requesting an exception to the subdivision ordinance to
eliminate sidewalks for 1, 05!!' , from Stevens Creel:: to Grant Road;
also to curve street around PG&E towers. First Hearing.
-8-
Mr. Aronsen stated that before improving ,the property he
~Ianted to know how ~side the tstreet h41'J to be. He 'said the City
Mana~er had advised it would oe alri~ht to eliminate the sidewalks
because there was no foot traffic.
COmmissioner Leonard stated there was a freeway interchange
not too far from the Aronsen property, and would seem ridiculous
to talk about narrowing Homestead Road. He felt the matter should
be referred to the City Manager and City Engineer and that the City
was entitled to more complete information and maps.
Moved by Commissioner Leonard that the matter be referred to
the City Manager for review and that the applicant return with
more information and maps to scale. Seconded by COmmissioner
F'rolich.
AYES:
COmmissioners:
Adamo. Fròlich. Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
and Small
None
None
6-0
NAYS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
MOTION CARRIED:
The Chairman advised the applicant that the matter would be
placed on the next agenda.
G. CUPERTINO PROPERTIES (G. Oakes):
rezone Lots 16, 17, 18, 33, 34, 35 of
First Hearing.
Application No. 38-Z-6l, to
Tract 2880 from R-l to R-2-H.
George Oakes represented the applicant. A map of the subdivi-
sion ~las posted.
Mr. Ow{es stated that there had been some problem with these
particular lots, that the FHA would not approve single family
residences on these lots facing Wolfe Road opposite four-plexes.
He offered copies of communications from the FIß to substantiate
his statement. The FHA suggested the cOnstruction of duplexes
across the street from four-plexes. This matter came u.p at the time
the final map was being considered, and the lots in question were
increased in size to allow duplex useage. He state he would present
more complete plans at the next meeting.
COmmissioner Adamo asked about the church property shown on
the map, and Mr. Oakes stated that the property is being held for
that useage.
The Chairman asked for comments from the ¡;>,udience. There
were none.
Moved by COmmissioner Leonard that the first hearing be closed.
SecOnded by Commissioner F'rolich.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Adamo, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy. Sr,yder
and Small
None
None
6-0
NAYS: COmmissioners:
ABSENT: Commissione!'s:
MOTION CARRIED:
H. REVISED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: First Hearing on revision of
Subdivision Ordinance No. 47.
Continued to r. ~xt meeting.
V UNFINISHED BUSINES3:
A. ORDINANCE 002(h): Amending Ordinance No. 002 which ordinance
incorporates Ordinance NS 1200 of the County of Santa CJara by
repealing "Professional Off:i.ce District" classification and adding
the classification "Profess:i.ol1:al Administrative Zoning" (PO":H) and
further by adding the classitication"Light Industrial Zoning
(Ml-PH). Continued.
Continued to next meeti¡<g.
-9-
B. ORDINANCE 89; Sign O~dinance. S1,bco~7dttee report. Continued.
Cownissioner Leonard offered a report rrom the subcommittee
consisting of COllli11issioners Adamo, Lbc;,al'd and Small, in the form
of a resolution as fol:,ows:
Bç.:'3o_l~ l:J:2!l..1'J.2. 6~
llHEREAS, our copies of Oré,inance 89 ¡¡tate on an appended
leaf that it was introduced 5/26/59, and passed 6/5/59
which is anI::! 10 daycl later, and therefore may have bee:l
passed as an "emergency ordinance"; and
WHEREAS, the text of the ordinance is one prepared by a
subcommó_ttee of the Planning Commission after extansive
debate; the seeking or öpinions from outdoor advertise~s
and the association of homebuilders; careful comparison
with various restrictive ordinances adopted by othe~
cities after careful study and many public hearing~; the
text in purple ink being intended for adoption as a
regular ordinance, but not indicating by dates or names
that it was so processed; and,
VlHEREAS the ordinance appeaxo3 to have. he,d reasonably
gene:.:'al public acceptance despite its restrictive n:.J.t'lre;
and
VìHEREAS, pleas for vdrianceB hu':? f\e'~'Iled C'"' lack major
mej:it excepting in C!!.SbS reque~\ting ;1101'2 Sl~:ttable i1ent-,
ifj,cation of shopping center' areas déveè,opecl to a
com~rehensive plan fer seve:c3.1 ,Jh0pS S0.·;~ -¡¡Jcll b6.ck from
roads ~ü th off,·street parlcin¿; intervening ann, l'oduCl<1g
legibility of store-fT'ont identific9.tion 2S seen frcT
vehicles travelling the ~1;reet,3 at normal speeds,
¡1)'0,",1 THEREFO'RE, BE IT RE'sOLVFD, t;,'3,t
If it is d2termined that C,!:'dinance 89 é.!1d 8<:¡-A vlere
regularl',\r j_nt!'oduc2d and pass¿d, and are not til1:2:2d with
I ... ._.,J
'emergency" aS~,Je(;ts, we rsüommend that a public hearing be
scheduled 'befox'e the Planning CO!!U1Üssion to dlscuss
possible changes çf' the ordlnanc'~ witi, :'0E1~~CCt to shopping
center signs (Sectior:s 2.09 and 1~.05L aud sucb o':~her
matters a.s ':~he City Council may vlish considered at :;>ubli-;
hearing.
DiscussìvD. a)'ose a" to wÏ1:etheX'
adopted as an emergency ol'dìn¿;'l1'~e.
the ordinance had 'teen adopted ä,S ê',
'Jr not ths ordinance h?d b(~en
Il1vestig~tion disclosed that
!'dgular ordinancf",
Commissioner Leonard sUßgeste1 tha.t a public hearing be
scheduled to discuss somc of the problems. He stateð th'J,t [,0r,1e
questions had been raised regarding how much arei', should be ;:,1.1.owc:'
for shopping center signs.
vlard Crump stated that some consideration should be; ;;iv(m to
subdivision signs. He stated that a sign 5' x 10' is iDad8cl'lé'.te
to advertise a subdiViE1ior,; that large:>:, signs would '::>2 8. gre8;i;
asset to the developer.
Georgo Oake~ s~ated chat subdi7ision signs ~rG more less of
a transient matter. ~hey can be done well or done poorly, Some
consideration sho;,lld b8 (';i vo;, to pen':1ants and flags f':;r s~"bdi'lìsion
advert~sin2' he said, s:i,nc," ':;h8 adver'c:;.sir.g of rmtdi visions requires
a certain awount of' óhc.vm1"J,nzh:i,p, FE: went en to 88~' that a 'Ilerchant
should be gj,VE:_1 'i~he :,~9rortunity tc 0.0 bupiLass a:~ :LS custor.lary in
the community. Being too s'v::.,,;("t dbout s11ch mattei'S 8,:3 s1~bd;;. vision
advertiBinc can and will aff,=ct. the morè.-1#le J:ê the ci.\::7elr..::Je:r.
Should th3 develo]ëér net be allQNedc:, c..d iTerti:F hi s p:coduct, he
said, he m::.y decide n:;~~ to dcovelop ti)ç a':'e3..
Moved by Co:r:mi:;;zi0n8y" SnyÚer that ti1.e abov2 resolution, No. 66,
be adopted, and that the sign o;:dinance be scheduled for a þubl~,c
hearing on October 23, 1961. Seconded by Cccnmissioner Ada no .
,,11'1,
AYES:
Commiss1(')ners;
Adamo, Frol1ch, Leoíìard, Rampy, Snyãer
and S;nall
None
None
6-0
NAYS: Com,11issj'Jners:
ABSENT: COW~SSlQners:
MOTION CARRIED:
C. RESOLUTION NO. 65: Imtiating t;he rezoning of the Chuck
property from M-l-H to :!'i-3··H and R-l:B-2; 235' x 1325' located on
the south side of Stevens c¡'eelc Road, west of' Blaney.
Continued to October 9, 1961.
D. MISCELLANEOUS:
None
VI NEW BUSINESS:
A. MISCELLANEOUS:
None
VII ADJOURm~NT:
The meeting was adjou~ed at 11:55 P.M.
APPROVED:
&J,2:-'§'!!!?dl_ _,.
Chainnan, Planning Com.i1Ì8s1nn
ATTEST:
Isl Lawrence K. Martin
ëitÿ ClerIc
--
-}1..