Loading...
PC 02-24-92 . (-, � ��f. �� CITY OF CIIPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 � (408) 252-4505 - MINIITES OF THE REGIILAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION � HELD ON FEBROARY 24, 1992 f SALUTE TO THE FLAG: . I ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin � Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ` Michele Bjurman, Planner II Steve Dowling, Director of ` Parks & Recreation . Colin Jung, Associate Planner r Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney ' APPROVAL OF MINIITEB: ' Com. Austin corrected grammatical errors in the minutes of February � 10, 1992. MOTION•: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 1992, as amended. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed � 4-0 ABSTAIN: Com. Mann ' WRITTEN COMMIINICATIONS: Westfield, Inc. Rita Lynette Thomas & Donna Mehan � POSTFONEMENTS OR NE'W AGENDA ITEMS: Item 1: Application 10-U-89 (Amended) Portofino Development Corp�ration - Applicant withdrawn. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to accept the withdrawal of application 10-U-89. SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 2 - , OItAL COMMIINICATIONB: Mr. Donald Burnett, 729 Stendhal Ln., expressed concern regarding � ' the consequences of very large amounts of commercial/industrial � growth which is being addressed in the General Plan. He noted he ' has studied the Nexus Study and the Housing Needs Determination Report. He stated ABAG predicts by the year 2005 there will be � 163, 000 people working in the Bay Area who will have to commute from outside the Bay Area. He noted this is a problem and will have to be addressed. Regarding the Nexus Study, Mr. Burnett stated the decreased option requires a need for 5,000 new homes. He noted he sees no clear plan as to how the city will come up with the housing. He suggests that staff look at other approaches. Mr. Burnett stated housing is needed for Cupertino workers and corporations will have to participate in providing this. � Mr. John Marshall, 11101 S. Stelling, expressed concern regarding � inadequate notice of public hearings. Mr. Cowan noted the City notifies people 10 days in advance of + public hearings and will look into this matter. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR: - None ' OLD BOSINE88: � 1 2. Application No(s): 7-TM-91 Applicant: Lotus Dev. & Constr. Inc. Property Owner: Darrell Bradford Project Location: 10641 Madera TENTATIVE MAP to create a two lot subdivision from a 1.19 acre parcel. � Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. � She noted the Planning Commission continued the application in order to give the applicant time to obtain an arborist report on� � the three trees which are proposed to be removed and also for the applicant to complete a plot plan on the unencumbered portion of ' parcel 1. Ms. Bjurman reiterated comments from the arborist's report, noting trees 1 and 2 are in good condition, tree 3 is in fair condition. Removal of the three trees would be a small impact, when considering how heavily forested the parcel is. Ms. Bjurman noted a condition, which would require the applicant to plant a 24" box live Oak for every tree removed, is placed on the application. She presented a site plan as drawn by the applicant, noting he has met all conditions required by staff. She noted the condition requested by the Public Works Department as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommend approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24 1992 Page 3 In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Bjurman stated no other trees will be affected. . Applicant Presentation Mr. Barrie Barnes noted the trees that are � to be removed are below heritage size requirement. He has met all the requirements of the city and requested this be approved. In response to Com. Mann's question, Ms. Bjurman noted the applicant is restricted to one story on parcel 1 only. Com. Fazekas commended staff for a good report. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve application 7-TM-91 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Cond. 15, Parcel 1 building area to be 2300 s.f.; Cond. 16, Letter of approval shall be issued by the Public Utility approving driveway access j over easement prior to recordation of the final map SECOND: Com. Mackenzie ( VOTE: Passed 4-1 NOES: Com. Austin � PUBLIC HEARINGB: � � 3. APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan. Subject: Monta Vista area residential potential, residential design ► guidelines, parks, hazardous waste, non-point source pollution, hillside policies, city identity. City Planner Wordell noted that residential design guidelines and city identity will not be discussed at this meeting. PARRS: � Staff Presentation: Mr. Steve Dowling presented the report � outlining the recommendations from the Parks & Recreation Commission. He noted the Commission was influenced by the following three factors: 1. The park acquisition program outlined in the 70's and 8o's is nearing completion. 2. The closing of the schools in the last decade changed the character of some neighborhaod parks from simply passive areas to a combination of active sports facilities and passive family spaces. 3. A 25 year agreement with Cupertino Union School District insures retention of eight school grounds for organized.sports and recreation. He noted the concept was changed from a neighborhood program to a recreation and park space area. Mr. Dowling reviewed the modifications in the policies as outlined and explained in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24; 1992 Page 4 staff report. He noted the only property that is identified for acquisition is the Stocklemeir property. Com. Mackenzie suggested that the Parks & Recs. Commission loak at accessibility of a park as well as distance from a park.� Mr. Dowling stated this issue was discussed and there was mixed support. Com. Mann expressed concern about lack of park space for unorganized sport. She noted this needs to be addressed. Mr. Dowling stated there is lack of space for unorganized sport because of the demand for organized sport. He stated Com. Mann's concerns need to be addressed through a use policy. He noted the open space behind the Community Center has been preserved for unorganized sport, when it is landscaped. � Com. Mann questioned why Blackberry Farm is not included in the ratio, 3 acres per 1000. Mr. Dowling stated the reason Blackberry � Farm was not included is because it is more of an enterprise. Chr. Fazekas opened the public hearing. Ms. Nancy Hertert, San Juan Rd., asked when the open space zone will be addressed. � City Planner Wordell noted this will be considered as part of the preservation and development standards for the hillside areas. Mr. Donald Burnett stated a number of neighborhoods are deprived of parks because of arterial streets. He noted that if people could access the parks easily they would be utilized more. Ms. Nancy Burnett expressed concern that using schools for open space draws traffic and parking to neighborhood streets. Ms. Kathy Nellis noted that trails should be linked to other city linkages as well as to the open space. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Mackenzie regarding accessibility to parks. � I Com. Mackenzie suggested that accessibility be cons�dered by the Parks & Recreation Commission, adding to policy 3. There was a consensus to accept the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 5 Com. Mackenzie noted the Parks & Recs. Commission should look at ways of counting credit for Blackberry Farm. He suggested they also look into the private recreation zone. � Mr. Dowling noted it was the Commission's preterence to stay with public ownership. ' Mr. Cowan noted a topic to be discussed will relate to open space in commercial areas with mixed housing. MONTA VISTA RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL: Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She presented a map outlining the areas in Monta Vista which could , be increased for residential use as outlined in the staff report. She noted area 1 would increase by 5�, area 2 by 390, and area 3 by 27�. The benefits for increasing density are: 1) additional 76 ► residential units helps obtain housing goals; 2) Existing roadway can handle.the capacity and 3) area 3 is a good transition area for � increased density. The negatives for increase are: 1) reduces development standards, particularly in Area 1; 2) significant � change from existing and 3) loss of cottage character which is part of architectural heritage. ' ! She noted staff is not recommending the increased density in Monta Vista because of the insignificant number of residential units to � be obtained. Chr. Fazekas opened the public hearing. Ms. Elaine Adkins expressed concern about the increase in density as it would increase congestion in the area. She noted this will effect property values. • � Mr. Coe feels the area should be improved. He noted the area is � congested because of the Post Office and school. He requested the Commission reconsider Area 1, as the increase in density elsewhere is no benef it . � Mr. Bob Revolla noted his lot is 60 x 300 ft. He stated he has a second unit in the back and would like to be able to increase the size. Mr. Jerry Kocir, Saratoga-Sunnyvale,Rd., stated there are areas in the housing element which call for small residential homes and feels the increase in density is an opportunity to supply housing within the City. He spoke in favor of updating the area noting any new houses are increasing the property value. He spoke in favor of subdividing lots and feels this should be considered in Area 1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 6 An unidentified person noted the existing zoning in the County for his.property is R1-6. It was down zoned when annexed. He spoke in favor of the density increase. Ms. Fry, San Fernando Ave., noted Cupertino is a diverse city. She noted Monta Vista has a country atmosphere and should retain the unique quality. She noted increased development will not benefit Monta Vista. She noted she is not opposed to approving substandard lots. She feels the increase in density is a 20% increase as opposed to 5�. She stated there are other areas in Cupertino which provide the housing and this should be addressed on a case by case basis. Mr. Coe stated the corner lot on Dolores and Orange Ave. should be given special consideration. In response to Chr. Fazekas question, Ms. Bjurman noted the parcels in Area 1 are conventionally zoned single family residential. i Mr. Cowan noted that spot zoning may be inconsistent with the , General Plan density. Mr. Kocir noted a variance can be considered for exceptional lots. Com. Austin spoke in favor of staff recommendation and does not think the density should be increased. � In response to Com. Mackenzie's questions, Mr. Cowan stated in areas that were annexed into Cupertino from San Jose have been continued at R1-6. Ms. Bjurman stated the average lot size city wide is 6000 s.f. Com. Mackenzie spoke in favor of 0- 5 du/gr.ac. in area 1. Com. Mahoney stated the issue is to look ahead. � I Regarding the R1-6, Ms. Bjurman noted the City could change the � zoning from 7,500 down to 6,000 s.f., but there will be many deviations from the Standard Development Guidelines. She r:oted the conventional ordinance does not discourage flag lots. Com. Mann noted the increase may not necessarily give 76 units. She noted she may support the increased density if the mass of buildings is controlled. , Com. Mahoney asked if there is the option to do something specific in an exceptional case. Ms. Bjurman stated this is not an option in the existing General Plan. Mr. Cowan stated they can master plan 5 per acre and then develop a zoning plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 7 Com. Mann expressed concern regarding combination of lots and overcrowding lots. She feels this is degrading the character of Monta Vista. � Com. Mackenzie .stated if the City disallows flag lots, then he could support the increase density, but if flag lots are allowed, then leave as is. Ms. Bjurman noted staff does not recommend spot changing within the General Plan. Com. Mahoney feels if a case meets all the required standards then the application should be considered. ` Com. Mackenzie suggested a General Plan change in Area 1: 5 units to the acre with no flag lots. � Chr. Fazekas concurred with Com. Mann regarding the 76 unit increase developed and noted there is no neighborhood support for ( this change in density. � Ms. Pat Cola noted that corner lots lend themselves to diff.erent types of development. i Com. Mahoney stated he agrees with staff, but would be open to extraordinary cases. r Com. Austin spoke in support of Staff's recommendations. Com. Mackenzie suggested the following: 0-5 du/gr.ac.; no flag lots; minimum 60 ft. lot width; minimum 6,000 ft. lot size. He feels the city should be specif ic and the above should apply to area 1. ( The commissioners concurred with Com. Mackenzie and staff was directed to come back with this approach. � HAZARDOIIS WASTE � Staff presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report. Staff is proposing the Commission change the name to Hazardous Materials to reflect the City's concern with the transportation, distribution, use, storage, as well as the disposal of hazardous materials. Mr. Jung noted the three sources of hazardous waste are Manifested Wastes, Non-Manifested Wastes and Hazardous Waste Management Planning. He noted Cupertino does have a Household Hazardous Waste Day which citizens can participate in, but does not get much response. He noted the County is working on a year round service which will be available to residents of Cupertino. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 8 Regarding the General Plan alternatives, staff does expect a short term increase in Hazardous waste under all scenarios, but expect a reduction over the long term because of State laws. Within all development alternatives, fire services will have to be upgraded with regards to.the Hazardous Waste. � Associate Planner Jung reiterated the goals and policy options as . outlined in the staff report. Com. Mann questioned policy #4 and what the acceptable level of risk is. Mr. Jung stated the General Plan level was adopted and this will be revisited in the future. Chr. Fazekas opened the hearing for public input. � There was a consensus to go with staff recommendation. NON-POINT SOIIRCE , Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report. He noted this is a regional problem and the pollution is caused by the accumulated debris and chemicals on streets that are carried into the storm drain system and eventually into San Francisco Bay. He noted these pollutants are not treated sources of pollutants. Mr. Jung presented a chart outlining the Annual Load Estimates of Selected Non-point Source Pollutants from Santa Clara Valley. He explained the different land uses that contribute � to the Non-point source pollution. Mr. Jung noted the water quality is not good and other cities as well as Cupertino are working towards cleaning up San Francisco Bay. He noted the programs in which the City is participating. In response to Com. Austin's question regarding Regnart Canyon, Mr. Jung stated the Regnart Canyon development was approved on septic tanks. Mr. Cowan explained the reasoning behind this. � I Com. Mann suggested an addition to the polices, to reduce the + asphalt and concrete coverage within the City and to introduce seams to collect runoff and allow it to percolate into the soil. Com. Mackenzie noted this should be stated as an encouragement. Chr. Fazekas noted there was a consensus of the Commission regarding this item and also to reduce where possible the impervious coverage, investigate water recharge scenarios and increase landscaping. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT: Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting the key issue is intensity of development, but that PLANNING COMMISSION MINiTTEB Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 9 he does not have the formula to address this issue at this time. At this meeting discussion will be the timing and rate.of qrowth, and the growth limit line as well as development controls. He presented a diagram from the existing General Plan showing the open � space system and the urban service areas. He noted they are working with the County to determine the limits of growth. He talked about open space continuity along the western edge. He noted the issue is: should growth be considered beyond the urban service area. He noted the issue of controlling development can be established once density is agreed upon. Mr. Cowan showed a drawing explaining the different views from the ridgelines within the City. He discussed vantage points, noting the closer a person gets to the foothills the more silhouetting can be seen. He noted that ridgelines identified in the past can be changed. Mr. Cowan ` stated the Hillside Ordinance limits the height to 20 ft. He explained how the existing policy determines the height limit, but � there is a conflict. He noted the height limit is to try to � minimize the mass facing the valley floor. Mr. Cowan presented a drawing explaining the cut and fill, noting the existing General ( Plan does not address the cut and fill. He noted architectural design needs to be addressed stating it has not been regulated in � the past. It is possible to have an Ordinance which regulates design standards. I , In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Cowan pointed out vacant hillside land on the site plan map which are possible ' development properties. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding the height limit further down the hill and feels the current ordinance does not address this concern. Chr. Fazekas noted he had the same concern. Com. Austin expressed t concern regarding grading and noted the less grading the better. � Chr. Fazekas questioned how they could address the grading etc. without having extensive hearings. i � Mr. Cowan stated they could define how they want to treat the top of the hill. Com. Mackenzie suggested limiting how high the house can go above grade, encouraging the house to step down the hill. The Commissioners discussed the existing Hillside Ordinance and noted that color should be regulated. Com. Mann stated they need to avoid building large bright homes with huge fences around them on hillsides. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 10 There was a consensus that the downhill facing side should be 12 ft. maximum. Com. Mackenzie noted he would like a rule that the ridgeline could not be broken, the house must come down the hill far enough. , Com. Mahoney and Austin did not want houses built on the ridgelines. Com. Mann stated, depending on the depth of the lot on the ridge, a house could be set back far enough that it could not been seen. Reflectivity was discussed Ms. Wordell stated there is an evaluation process regarding development on hillsides and ridgelines. Regarding grading, Com. Mahoney feels the issue is long term impact , vs. short term impact. Chr. Fazekas addressed cripple walls created when no grading is � allowed. He noted that no grading over 30� should be allowed. � Regarding house size, Chr. Fazekas suggested the steeper the lot, , the less FAR, as in Los Altos. The bigger and flatter the lot the bigger the house; the house is proportional to the lot size. Ms. Wordell stated they can have a maximum size regardless of the size of the lot. Com. Mackenzie stated the issue is the mass of the vertical face as opposed to the size of the house.. Com. Austin stated the color of the homes in the hillsides should be more earthtone. � � Chr. Fazekas opened the hearing for public testimony. � Ms . Kathy Nel l is , 2 2 3 2 3 Regnart Rd ., noted her company deve loped 9 4 acres in Regnart and feels the Planning Commission has made decisions before having public input. She noted she has strong opinions regarding ridge top development as ridgelines are the most � solid piece of land in the hillside and the most safe place to � build. She noted magnitude is a concern, but this should not prohibit all houses being built on ridqetops. She feels there are things that can be done to reduce height and mass. Step foundations can be used, or the city could not allow a house to go more than one story above the ridge. Ms. Nellis noted homeowners in Regnart Canyon have solved problems regarding height and explained this. She stated color and design of a house contributes to size and mass, brown and grey colors should be encouraged. PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 11 Another solution to reducing the magnitudeis to put a retaining wall in front. Landscaping also helps reduce mass. ' She stated a tool the Commissioners should consider for large � developments is a photo montage. She noted this would give a sense of how the development will look in the setting. Chr. Fazekas stated he would be interested in receiving a letter from Ms. Nellis with her suggestions. She noted the more the City encourages building on the natural features, the less grading there will be. Com. Mackenzie agreed with Ms. Nellis that the Commission not get � into the design review process. He asked Ms. Nellis to give some thought to what staff can do in terms of writing an ordinance that is not ambiguous and staff can interpret. { In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Nellis stated they do ` not want a box effect in the hillsides, so developers should build into the natural features as much as possible ending up with a I dominant story with a smaller lower story. � Ms. Nancy Hertert expressed concern regarding individual lots and the grading as this can be damaging and dangerous to the lot above and below them. She requested that the Commission make sure the neighbors are informed of development and grading of the hillsides. . She noted drainage is very important in all hillside development. The ravines should be kept clear of houses and roads. In response to the Chr. Fazekas' question regarding noticinq of hearing for grading, Mr. Cowan stated it depends on the intent. If it is going to be a public hearing normal channels are followed. ' He said they will look into the noticing issue for grading. i Com. Austin requested a tour of some of the hillside development. I Mr. Cowan informed the Commission that staff will put together - general policies for hillside development and then get more � precise. � Ms. Wordell informed the Commission a member of the School Dist� would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jerry Matranga, Cupertino Union School District, stated the City and the School District have to work together. He noted the School District is considering its budget at this time and the impact hillside development will have on the School District, specifically transportation. Mr. Matranga explained that their funding base does not increase with increased services. If there � were a development which was remote from schools the cost of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 12 transporting the children would be costly. He stated it is important for the Commission to consider where the development is in relationship to schools. He noted they will work with the City ' and developers regarding this issue. He noted another issue is how � individual developments will impact the schools, and if the increased development require a school to be re-opened. � Com. Mahoney noted at previous hearings the School District stated they could handle all scenarios. Mr. Matranga stated they are prepared to work with staff and they can handle the increase in school children but need to work with staff . He noted they have a funding dilemma and they are trying to have the minimal impact on classroom instruction. In response to Chr. Fazekas' question, Mr. Matranga stated they transport 600 student and have bus routes in the hillsides. He noted if they have 1500 more students they will have to open a school. Com. Mackenzie concurred with Com. Mahoney regarding the School � District being able to handle all scenarios, noting it was stated � that the tax on new construction would provide for a new school. Mr. Matranga stated they could raise approximately $2 million, but this would not cover all costs to open a new school. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Matranga stated the School.District does not use public transportation, but has been informed that school children do use the buses. He stated the School District has not made a decision regarding transportation. Ms. Wordell noted the school responded on the hypothetical scenarios and at that time there was no hillside change proposed. With regard to City development, the report indicated that funding � sources Yiad not been identified. In response to Chr. Fazekas' question Mr. Matranga stated that all � school are within the student occupancy range they want. Com. Austin presented her views on hillside development, a copy of which was presented to the Commissioners and staff. With regards to the County plan on hillside development, Com. Mackenzie questioned the possibility of implementing the County's plan into the General Plan. Mr. Cowan stated they will look into this. Com. Mackenzie outlined on a map where he felt the hillside � boundary should be. The Commissioners discussed this. He PLANNING COMMI88ION MINOTES Regular Meeting of February 24 1992 Page 13 suggested the Commissioners take this home to study. In response to Com. Mann' question, Mr. Cowan explained the difference between the Hillside Ordinance and Modified Hil�side ` Ordinance. REVIEW OF DENSITY ATTRIBIITED TO THE FORIIM DEVELOPMENT: City Planner Wordell noted the City Council did require that the Planning Commission evaluate the appropriateness of the density that was attributed to the retirement center. Com. Mahoney asked if the units were determined by the number of acres and slope of the land. Ms. Wordell stated the 107 units were based on slope density. Mr. Cowan stated it is more of an institutional use as opposed to � residential. � Com. Mackenzie said he was on the Commission when this application was reviewed and noted if the development were separated into � individual lots trips would increase. , NEW BIISINESS: 5. Adoption of Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated all City Councils within the County have the responsibility of approving TDM tools and to have a uniform code. He noted it will go to the Council on March 16 and the Commissioners can contact him_with any input. Com. Fazekas reopened the public hearing on Hillside policies. ` Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, noted he would like to ` reserve the opportunity to comment at the next meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I Com. Mann stated she would like to know how the Commission feels ' about entertaining more planned maps at future meeting. She feels � these plans are inappropriate and premature as there is no use permit request before the Commission. Com. Mackenzie stated that staff said they need to put numbers to the whole City. He has a problem visualizing the numbers and the maps help. Mr. Cowan stated they could produce conceptual maps which are not quite so detailed, but have the appropriate information. PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES Regular Meeting of February 24� 1992 Page 14 Com. Austin stated that the maps are helpful to both her and the public. She would not want to limit people as to what they can present. Chr. Fazekas stated he does not object to the maps presented, but noted that exhibits to the Commissioners should be sent through staff . Com. Mahoney noted he finds the visuals very helpful. Ms . Nancy Burnett noted they do not rece ive the sta f f package unt i 1 Friday so they can not go through channels in order for the Commission to receive the information unless they approach them directly. Mr. John Sobrato also expressed concern regarding the timing of receiving staff documents. He noted they are trying to help with their maps, but staff should be directed to make their staff reports available 2 to 3 days in advance. Com. Mann stated that when these maps are being presented the public is getting'the wrong message. i There was a consensus that the next study session will be March il, 1992 at 6 p.m. 4. Annual report on the status of the City of Cupertino General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65400(b). City Planner Wordell noted this will be going to the City Council at their next meeting. . REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT: - None I DISCIISSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 24, 1992 Page 15 ADJOIIRNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:15 A.M. to I the next Regular Meeting of March 9, 1992 at 6:45 p.m. 1 . � Respectfully submitted, Ca k�� Nt � Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary ( Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of March 9, 1992 � � /s/ Daryl Fazekas ' Daryl Fazekas, Chairman Attest: 1 /s/ Dorothy Cornelius Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk Amended 3-9-92 P I I