Loading...
PC 12-12-94 ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 1994 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: commissioners Absent: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Roberts Com. Austin staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II Colin Jung, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 28, 1994 - Regular Meeting Com. Harris amended the minutes as follows: Page 11, 7th paragraph, add the words "because of the inequity that would be created by significant fluctuations in the interest rate." after the words "will not work..." WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR Item 2: Application 1l-TM-94 and 25-EA-94 - continued to the meeting of January 9, 1995 Application 9-U-94, 3-Z-94, 8-TM-94 and 27-EA-94 Continued to the meeting of January 9, 1995 Application 9-EXC-93 - Removed from calendar Application 81,152 - Heart of the city - continued to the meeting of January 23, 1995 Item 6: Item 7: Item 9: MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to postpone and remove the items as listed above. Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Interpretation of the Residential Hillside Ordinance regarding the requirement to offset a second story addition 10 feet from the first story wall plane facing a down slope condition at 22050 Regnart Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 2 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to approve the consent calendar Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 . Application NO(S): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-U-94 and 29-EA-94 Barry Swenson Builder First Development Corp. Southwest corner of Stevens Boulevard and Tantau Avenue Creek USE PERMIT to construct a 3 story 56 unit affordable apartment project and a 1 story 4,000 sq. ft. commercial building. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report dated December 12, 1994. He noted since the last meeting the applicant has reduced the number of units from 56 to 44 and the unit mix has been sightly changed, as outlined in the staff report. Regarding the commercial building, Planner Robillard stated staff believes the best orientation of this building is to face Stevens Creek Blvd. This will result in 14 parking spaces on the commercial site. He stated if one parking space is designated for the studios and mini studios and two spaces for the one and two bedroom units this would require 57 spaces and result in 13 remaining parking spaces which can be used for guest. He stated if six of the 57 spaces were shared with the commercial, the commercial site would have the required 20 parking spaces. He noted changes in the resolution have been made to reflect this and other changes, as outlined. He noted the shared parking agreement would result in l.59 parking spaces per unit. Planner Robillard reviewed the Stevens Creek Specific Plan and compared the proposed development. He noted since the project does not conform with the conceptual zoning plan there will have to be an amendment to that plan for this property. Mr. Robillard presented a Development/Density Comparison Matrix and noted staff recommends approval subject to the revised conditions. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Planner Robillard stated the average unit size is approximately 450 sq. ft. He also reviewed the proposed parking. Com. Harris suggested the following wording to be included in the condition regarding parking "These parking spaces shall be designated for each unit, there will be an additional 13 parking spaces undesignated". Applicant Presentation: Ms. Nancy Hendee, Community Housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 3 Developers, stated they are in partnership with Barry Swenson. She stated they talked to the neighbors and noted it is important to work with the developer, neighbors and the city. She noted the proposed development corresponds with cupertino's demographics. She added that there is a high demand for smaller units and these units will provide housing for entry level positions who work in Cupertino and want to live here. She stated the density has been reduced after discussions with the neighbors and noted they have removed most of the three story structures. She noted parking has increased and there is a 10 ft. landscaping buffer proposed. Ms. Hendee reviewed the city and county's responsibility to provide affordable housing. Mr. Matthew Thompson, Architect, noted the distance between Stevens Creek and the units is consistent with other buildings in the area. He reviewed the landscaping buffer for this area as well as the density proposed. He noted they are proposing less that 45% FAR and believes the proposal does not represent over building on this site. Com. Doyle asked about potential project extension with the adjoining vacant land? Mr. Thompson stated the land is owned by another property owner and was included only to suggest that it could be reasonably developed in the future. Com. Harris asked what "stable customer base" Ms. Hendee's comments? She also asked management and reserves will come from? means as addressed in were the money for Ms. Hendee stated the normal turnover for apartments is 50 to 100 percent and believes the units proposed are more stable. Regarding the money, Ms. Hendee stated what they are looking at is a combination of private conventional financing and the affordable housing pool from both the city and county. She noted it would be a one time long term loan and this would allow cash flow to be sufficient to provide for adequate management for the life of the affordable units. Ms. Hendee stated a number of issues came up at the neighborhood meeting. She stated, through good management practices, they will ensure that they will be a good neighbor. She added they will have on-site management. Regarding the number of people in the project, it can be limited through the funding. She stated the project is designed towards working adults and the maximum potential children would be 12. Mr. John Gibbs, Supervisor McKenna's office, stated he attended both the neighborhood meetings as a large portion of the residential adjacent to this property is in the County and in supervisor McKenna's district. He noted the revised plan is closer than the original plan. He added he will continue to monitor the project to ensure the interest of the neighbors are met. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 4 the city asked the county to be involved in joint planning issues and will be available to answer any questions. Com. Doyle asked what the top two issues were at the neighborhood meetings? Mr. Gibbs He noted project. more. stated the density was an issue as was the jurisdiction. there is some misconception about the nature of the He added as the project moves forward, people will learn Mr. steve Lopez, 10375 Tantau, questioned verification of were the income is coming from to pay rents for these units. He stated the neighbors discussed the possibility of identifying this in the CC&R's. He noted this project is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and believes the turnover will be much higher than addressed, because of the size of the units. He stated 50 affordable units should not be developed on the one site, but should be disbursed throughout the city. Mr. Mike Greenfest, l0381 Bret Ave., questioned the commercial building and noted no-one has taken a look at the viability of that being rented or leased out. He expressed concern about no area for children within this project and noted the developer can not discriminate against who lives in this complex. In response to commissioners question, Planner Robillard stated the applicant proposed the commercial building and noted the affordable housing guidelines of the city will be applied to this project. Ms. .Mary Ellen Chell, Executive Director, Cupertino Community Serv~ces, addressed the issue of high rent in cupertino and noted people paying 80+ percent of their income on rent need help. She stated affordable housing is needed in Cupertino and urged approval of the proposed plan. Mr. Don Eldridge, 18980 Barnhart Ave., stated he is in support of affordable housing, but feels there is still a density problem with the proposed plan. He noted there are l6 parking spaces behind his home and this causes concern with regards to noise and privacy. He also expressed concern about the lack of green areas on the proposed project especially for children. Mr. Eldridge also expressed concern about traffic coming and going at late hours as well as security. Ms. Marilyn Howard, 867 E. Estates Dr., stated she is a local property manager and affordable housing is needed. She noted she attended both neighborhood meetings and believes some concerns have been met. She added she toured property managed by Community Housing and they are well maintained. Ms. Howard also noted she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 5 talked to a police officer who stated affordable housing is not targeted for crime. She urged the planning commission to approve the proposed plan. She added turnover in the property she manages is due to people not being able to afford the rent. Ms. Denise Everham, 10307 Judy Ave., expressed concern about the integrity of the neighborhood. She expressed concern about rental properties in general. Ms. Everham stated she is against high density in this area because it is surrounded by single family homes. She also expressed concern about traffic and parking, and noted a more appropriate density would be 10-20 units. Mr. Allen DeRidder, 19146 Anne Ln., noted the neighbors met twice wi th the developer and stated the neighbors drafted a letter, outlining their position, and presented it to Community Housing Developers at the second meeting. He added density is the main issue and they would agree on 20, 800 sq. ft. units with a maximum of two story height. He stated he drafted a petition outlining objections to the proposal and collected signatures. Mr. DeRidder addressed soil contamination because of a previous tractor ranch on this site. He also noted the previous boat shop had an underground tank. He stated both these issues need to be addressed. He noted additional units on the adjacent vacant piece of land is unacceptable. He added the planning commission should listen to the neighbors most affected and reiterated they are not against affordable housing, but against high density. Mr DeRidder presented the petition and letter to the commission. Mr. Carl Guardino, Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group, Santa Clara County Housing coalition, gave brief background information on the above two groups. He noted the manufacturing group has been long concerned about affordable housing because it is a key economic competitiveness issue. He noted after thorough review of the plans, both groups are in support of the project for the following reasons: 1. Affordability to working people. 2. Access to commute alternatives. 3. Reputation of the builder is excellent and the project will be well built and affordable. He noted Community Housing Developers have a good reputation for rental projects and urged approval. Ms. Ge~trude Welch, 10605 Gascaigne Dr., noted she has lived in Cupert~no for 21 years and is representing the Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County who are concerned about the lack of affordabl~ h~using. s~e spoke in favor of the project proposed and noted .th~s ~s the k~~d of project that would keep people in cup~rtlno who want ~o llve here. She noted she has inspected many proJects by CommunIty Housing Developers, and all were excellent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 6 She stated the proposed development is close to transportation and a good design, it also helps meet the affordable housing state mandate. Mr. Eric Weaver, 960 W. Hedding st., San Jose, Lenders for community Developers, stated this group was formed specifically to finance affordable housing. He noted they did extensive studies for the need for affordable housing and the impacts on communities. He noted as a result of the study affordable housing will not reduce property values. with regards to environmental issues, any lender involved in this project will require such studies. Mr. Weaver stated that studies have not shown a correlation between crime and density. He stated the developer has an excellent reputation and believes it will have no negative impact on the community. He stated on behalf of the Lenders for community Development he would urge approval. Mr. Ron Walker, 19l60 Anne Ln., stated he has spent numerous hours working on this project. He noted the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development is a close knit community. He stated they live in single family homes on large lots and expressed concern about property value with the high density proposed. He stated at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors proposed 20 units and no three story. Mr. Walker noted he toured property developed by community Housing Developers and noted this was surrounded by other apartments and duplexs. He urged the planning commission to deal with the density issue and consider the neighbors concerns. Regarding environmental issues, matters are dealt with through District and the Fire District. Planner Robillard stated these the Santa Clara valley Water Mr. Cowan stated staff will look into this. Ms. Hendee stated the property was evaluated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District and both parcels have received case closure. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal, representing CURB, stated CURB supports, with reservation, the proposed affordable housing development. She stated in support, they believe that residential use should be a high priority in land use decision making in order to recapture a balanced vital community. She stated the proposed development will help meet the goals of the general plan. Ms. Burnett stated this development is located on a major bus line and will provide affordable housing for the low income employees. She addressed the proposed office development by Tandem and noted this would require housing. She stated the height proposed for the development is consistent with the general plan. She stated ClJRB's reservations are that the density is still higher than most CURB PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 7 members would approve, however the size of the buildings will limit the number of people. She noted there is a concern about the lack of green open space and noted there are no recreational facilities in this area. In conclusion, she stated CURB supports the development and encourages the planning commission to act so this can go before the council. Ms. Burnett presented her comments in writing. Corn. Doyle questioned the congestion at the intersection of this development? Planner Robillard stated the level of service is within the standards. Corn. Doyle asked if the proposal exceeds the conceptual plan density as stated today? Planner Robillard stated in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Conceptual zoning Plan the density ranges between 10-20 units per acre. Corn. Doyle questioned how the list of potential occupants is constructed and how many of those people are likely to be working in cupertino? Ms. Nancy Hendee stated they receive referrals from Cupertino Community Services and will also target the primary employers. She noted cupertino is a desirable place to live and they will have no problem obtaining a list of people who work in cupertino and want housing. Mr. Cowan primarily project. the same with the stated the priorities established for the city are for BMR units as opposed to a straight affordable He noted the commission could add a condition to adopt priority list. He stated these units will be marketed local industrial firms within cupertino. Corn. Doyle stated the parking issue needs to be addressed more. He noted the setbacks and design are good, the density is too high, open space green areas are not adequate for children and would advocate disbursing the units throughout the city. He would also like to see more of a mix in the units and does not want to see the concentration of low income housing on one site. Corn. Roberts stated the project has improved over the previous plan with the reduction of units and height, and the parking is better. He expressed concern, in general, about neighborhood protection, but does see a need for affordable housing. He believes the management practices proposed will provide assurances that this project will be well managed. He spoke in favor of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 8 Com. Harris supports the neighborhood meetings and the reduction in density. She expressed concern about the project as presented, because it is a transient tenant project and would not approve a project that will have a 40% turnover. She stated there is a problem with the parking arrangement. Com. Harris added she looked at a project in Campbell which was 750 sq. ft. units and no turnover in two years. She noted she would like to see something like this in Cupertino. She added the project is too dense on this site. Chr. Mahoney spoke in favor of the project and stated they are providing affordable housing and utilizing the land. He believes these are apartments for young adults and it does fill a need in the community. He stated the design has improved. Planner Robillard pointed out that the 4,000 sq. ft. commercial building will be deducted from the commercial pool of 250,000 sq. ft. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSEWr: 4. Com. Doyle moved to approve a negative declaration Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin Com. Roberts moved to approve 10-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: add a condition that applicants shall be evaluated according to the priority list established by the city for affordable housing; There will be 13 undesignated parking spaces; The 250,000 sq. ft. of allocated commercial space for Stevens Creek Blvd. will be reduce by 4,000 sq. ft. ; Include all modifications presented by staff earlier. Com. Mahoney Failed 2-2-l Corns. Harris, Doyle Com. Austin Application No: Applicant: property Owner: Location: 9-TM-94 Emily Chen Henry Lozano 20800 McClellan Road lJSPE PERMIT to subdivide .96 acres into four lots. staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report. She presented a map showing the typical configuration of cul-de- sacs throughout the city. She noted the applicant has proposed a four lot subdivision which will require rezoning to Rl-7.5. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the applicants proposal of four lots and staff's PI~ING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 9 proposal of three lots as outlined in the staff report. Planner Bjurman stated it is staff's belief that the applicant's proposal creates a poor design of the lots. She noted there are no special circumstances to warrant a four lot subdivision and staff would recommend approval of a three lot subdivision. She noted a 3,000 sq. ft. home would be allowed on lots 3 and 4 as proposed by the applicant. She stated staff recommends approval of a three lot subdivision with lots 3 and 4 combined. Planner Bjurman noted she received a letter from Mr. and Mrs Fisher requesting a continuance. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, stated that the lots proposed have their own character. She reviewed the possible site plan, included in the staff report. She believes that the floor plan on lots 3 and 4 will be easier to build on and noted lot 3 will be a one story building. She stated the houses proposed will not decrease property value to surrounding neighbors. She stated the neighbors have enjoyed the open space, but the property owner has a right to develop his property. She noted objections to the plan proposed by staff. She stated this is Mr. Lozano's last piece of property he owns and is depending on this subdivision for his financial needs. The commissioners briefly discussed approving this project prior to discussing the zoning. Ms. Bjurman stated typically the zoning would be discussed with the project, but there was an advertising error. Mr. Cowan stated if the commission approve this project they are pre-judging the zoning. He noted a condition indicates that the map will only take affect if and when the zoning is approved. In response to commissioners, Planner Bjurman stated the reason staff recommends Rl-7. 5 is to establish compatibility with the adjoining property which was rezoned Rl-7.5 in 1989. Chr. Mahoney asked what the setback would be on lot 3. Ms. Bjurman stated the setback is 20 ft., but it can go lower if there is a certain amount of useable rear yard. She stated the setback could be lOft. Mr. Henry Lozano, 853 Hollenbeck, sunnyvale, stated he has owned this property between 30 and 40 years and lots 3 and 4 meet the building guidelines. He believes that lots 3 and 4 will be the most desirable as they are the furthest from McClellan Road and they both have large back yards. He noted the pine trees on the property line provide privacy. He stated the subdivision proposed by the applicant provides a unique character to each lot and believes the proposed subdivision will be good for the community. He urged approval of the 4 lot subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION MI~~TES December 12, 1994 Page lO Mr. Greg Wong, 831 Kim st., stated he neighbors who are opposed to the following reasons: has a petition signed by the 4 lot subdivision for the 2. 3 . Lot 3 is 5 to 10 feet from the property line. He also noted they have not had the opportunity to meet with the developer as requested at the last meeting, The subdivision has awkward style, There will be a serious loss of privacy and decrease in property value, Concern about traffic congestion, Fire safety issue and half a cul-de-sac causes concern, regarding fire truck access. 1. 4. 5. With were wong regards to fire safety, Ms. Bjurman stated the proposed plans reviewed by the fire district and they gave a clearance. Mr. presented the petition for the record. Mr. Jim Fisher, 20820 McClellan Rd., stated his concerns are privacy, visual confrontation of proposed structures and crowding. He noted the three lots proposed by staff will give Mr. Lozano a nice return on his property and address the neighbors concerns. He stated the restriction to 3 lots is consistent with the adjacent property. He noted Mr _ Alvarez has no plans to redevelop his property in the near future. Mr. Fisher stated he is also opposed to the road being 8 ft. from his bedroom. Ms. Betsy Fox Fisher, 20820 McClellan Rd., stated the property is zoned Rl-10 and would like this matter to be continued to be heard with the zoning application. She presented a petition with signatures from neighbors who feel strongly about the development of 3 homes. She also expressed concern about further subdivision of the larger lot. Mr. Gary Leighton, 7571 Erin Way, stated he purchased his property 23 years ago and has major concerns about the proposed development. He noted they are in favor of 3 lots. He noted of the 28 trees on this property 24 are proposed to be removed and only 4 will remain wi thin the development. He expressed concern about additional noise pollution and privacy impacts with the proposed tree removal. Mr. Leighton pointed out that the pine trees are on lots 9 and 10 on Erin Way. He also expressed concern about the half cul-de-sac. He stated the neighbors did not hear from the applicant as discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Jim Keenan, 7565 Erin Way, stated he has lived on his property for 35 years and objects to the proposed plan because of the poor symmetry involved. He believes the irregular lots will result in strange looking buildings. Mr. Keenan stated the property lines, will at some point represent a fence. He noted he presently has 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 11 neighbors on his fence line and if the plan proposed by the applicant is approved he will have 5. He asked the commission to consider approving a lot subdivision and also stated he was disappointed that the developers did not talk to the neighbors. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjurman stated lots 3 and 4 combined would be allowed a 6,000 sq. ft. house. Com. Roberts stated he regrets considering the subdivision before considering the zoning change. He stated he does recognize that the applicant has a right to develop his property in a reasonable way, but city has also the right to establish conditions for an orderly development. He spoke in favor of 3 lots and to remain in the Rl-IO zoning. Com. Harris spoke in support of a continuance to consider the zoning before making a decision on the subdivision. She stated if it is zoned R1-10 it should be 3 lots, but if zoned Rl-7.5 she would support 4 lots. She noted she is not opposed to the configuration submitted by the applicant as it ~s a creative solution. She stated planning for 50 or 60 years in the future is not realistic. She reiterated that she would like to talk about the zoning and then the subdivision. She noted at this point she would support 4 lots. Com. Doyle stated time. He noted he to the neighbors. design. he would support a 3 lot subdivision at this is disappointed that the developer did not talk He stated he is opposed to the half cul-de-sac Chr. Mahoney stated he would support a 3 lot subdivision at this time for the same reasons as addressed above. He noted 3 lots fit on this parcel and anymore would be overcrowding. The commission discussed the three lot subdivision and the lot configuration. Com. Roberts addressed the cul-de-sac and stated if it is extended back further, which would be consistent with a J lot subdivision, then the Alvarez property, which is non-conforming, could be larger and this is the time to think about that. The commission and Ms. Chen agreed to continue this to hear the zoning. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to January 9, 1994 Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 12 5. Application No: Applicant: property Owner: Location: 7-TM-94 William F. Klein william and Greta Klein 10187 stonydale Drive TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .47 acre parcel into two lots with a designated remainder lot. staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report dated December 12, 1994. She noted the proposed easterly most lot would gain access from a private drive which extends from Creston Drive, and stated the existing private drive currently provides access for three homes. She added because there is no street parking, two additional on-site parking spaces would be required. Regarding the oak trees, Ms. Bjurman stated trees l, 3 and 4 are in good health, tree 2 is in poor health and may fail within the next 10 years. She noted the arborist suggests removal and replanting one 36 inch box oak tree between trees 1 and 3. Planner Bjurman stated staff recommends approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Bjurman stated the existing owner has ingress/egress to the private drive and would grant the rights to the remainder lot. Com. Roberts questioned the tree condition regarding the bond issue. Ms. Bjurman stated, in the past, staff recommended that a bond be held for five years, but are finding it difficult to manage term type conditions and are suggesting that the bonds be released upon completion of final building inspection. Com. Roberts stated this is counter to the arborist's report. Also testimony regarding the diocese property indicated that you have to wait at least two or more years to see the affect on trees. He stated if this is a precedence he would vote against this project. Mr. Cowan stated it is impractical to track the trees for five years. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mary Nelson, civil Engineer, stated he has no objections to the conditions of approval and would request approval as proposed. He stated they retained an architect to prepare a drawing of the proposed house, he presented thi s to commissioners. wi th regards to the trees on the lot, Mr. Nelson stated the arborist has suggested in his report that construction could be within 15 ft. of the trunk of the tree. He stated the arborist's report also indicated that tree 2 is not in good health. Com. Doyle stated his only concern is tree #2 and it should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page l3 saved if possible. tree condition as the two year bond. He stated he does not support the change in the addressed by staff. He noted he would support Com. Roberts stated this is a reasonable request and in an instance like this, were tree 2 will not survive, they should relax the condition. He stated he would like the tree replaced in a more appropriate location on the property. He spoke in favor of bonding the three heathy trees for two years. Com. Harris spoke in favor of the application and added the three healthy trees should be bonded for two years after the final building inspection. Chr. Mahoney concurred. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Roberts moved to approve 7-TM-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification: Cond. 2 change to a two year bonding after final building inspection. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin MOTION: In response to Com. Doyle's question regarding the removal of tree #2, Ms. Bjurman stated the applicant will have to apply, through the tree ordinance, for removal of the tree. It will have to meet specific criteria to be removed. She stated staff have the right, at that time, to require the replanting of a similar tree. 8. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: lO-TM-94 Emily Chen Hongtao and Emily Chen 10430 N. Blaney Avenue TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .78 acre parcel into four lots. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report dated December 12, 1994. He noted the subdivision is consistent with the zoning and general plan. He noted all mature trees will be saved and staff recommends approval. Com. Harris requested that the tree condition, read the bond to be held for two years after final building inspection. A~plicant Presentation: Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, stated she agrees with the staff report. MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to approve 10-TM-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with a change --~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 1994 Page 14 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: in condition 2 to read "...two years after final building inspections. Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Austin REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris asked, since two commission seats are up for re- appointment, can existing commissioners finish discussions on the diocese property. Mr. Cowan stated there is no provision in the law to allow this. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT adjourned at 1994. Having concluded business the Planning commission 10:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting of January 9, Respectfully submitted C~ M . f1,c£.L.Ltc/c.\, Catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk