CC 10-07-68 adjourned
CITY OF CUPERTINO, State of California
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
Phone: 252-4505
95014
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD OCTOBER 7, 1968 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
H.\.LL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Noel.
Councilmen present: Beaven, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel. Absent: Council-
man Dempster. Also present: City Attorney Anderson; City Manager
Storm; City Clerk Ryder; Recording Secretary Lucie M. Matzley.
Planning Commissioners present: Irwin; Buthenuthj Puetz; Frolich.
Absent: Commissioner Hirshon. Staff present: Director of Public
Works Finney; City Engineer Boyd; Senior Planner Laurin; Assistant
Planner Nuzum; Director of Parks and Recreation Parham.
Mayor Noel explained to the audience that this meeting had been
called for the purpose of determining the thinking of the Planning
Commissioners who had previously recommended a change in the
Planned Development Ordinance, which change had not been passed by
the City Council but referred back to the Planning Commission for
further study and reconsideration. Subsequently, the Planning
Commission had reconfirmed their original recommendation to the City
Council and, because of the fact that there were certain questions
left unanswered, this meeting had been called to ascertain the
reasons for the vote by both the Council members and the members of
the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Chairman Frolich recapitulated the discussions
that had taken place during the previous meetings of the Planning
Commission. It had been the consensus that combinations of uses
other than Commercial and Residential for anything less than fifteen
acres was meaningless. Developers should know at the time of
application what they want on smaller parcels. If the desire was a
matter of speculation only for larger parcels, the request for re--
zoning probably would not be for Planned Community.
cc- 27
call to order
roll call -
council
roll call -
planning
reason for
'meeting
defined
discussions
summarized
Councilman Fitzgerald wondered if the Planned Community zoning would
not aide the City in restricting and controlling some of the uses councilman's
the City feels should not be in a Commercial zone. The reply to this inquiry
was that specific uses could not be pinned down in a Commercial zone. I
In response to a question from the C~ty Council, City Attorney Anderson
said a Use Permit was a grace and not a right so that any reasonable I
condition may be attached. Rezoning,-, howeve.." is not too success- attorney's
ful a vehicle for attaching conditions and are susceptible to misuse. opinion
He thought a goo,', c "'11 1n $.' ,could be if the acreage in question was
large enough to have a development within itself irrespective of
effects on contingent property the Planned Community was better.
page 2
statement
discussions
concluded
adjournment
Minutes of the City Council October 7, 1968
CC-27
Joint discussions cont'd
It was Attorney Anderson's statement that this is not a test of
Commercial as it should be compatible with the surroundings,
Mayor Noel concluded the discussions with his thought that if a
reduction to the ten acre minimum was put through now, it would be
difficult to increase it later, If the fifteen acre minimum was
adopted now and found not to be satisfactory, it could be reduced
at a later date. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Fitzgerald
seconded and it was passed unanimously that the meeting be adjourned,
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p,m,
APPROVED:
Mayor~~~
ATTEST:
ft d, fl-
City Clerk