Loading...
PC 05-23-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, cupertino, california 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1994 6:00 P.M. Meet in city Hall parking council/planning commission Field Trip. Lot for Joint city 7:30 P.M. city council Chambers for Planning commission Meeting ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Joint Planning commission/City council field trip to 11845 Upland Way to review Application No(s): ll-EXC-93 and 3-TM-92 (Mod.), a proposal for residential hillside development. Commissioners and councilmembers will convene at city Hall at 6:00 p.m. to be shuttled to the site. Staff recommends that the Planning commission discuss item 10, ll-EXC-93 and ]-TM- 92, as the first order of business after the field trip. Councilmembers Present: Bautista, Sorenson, Burnett, Dean, and Mayor Koppel. staff Present: Don Brown, City Manager: Bert viskovich, Director of Public Works: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development, ciddy Wordell, city Planner, Colin Jung, Associate Planner: Bill cotton, Consulting Geologist. The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Present at the site were: Mark Sandoval, Architect: Mory Nelson, civil Engineer: Dean Affeldt, Applicant's Geologist: Mr. and Mrs. czisch, Property Owners: and other neighbors. Planning Director Cowan gave an overview of the site visit. He noted this is a fact finding field trip and no decisions should be made at this time. Mr. Bill cotton, City Geologist, gave a presentation on the following: a) regional geologic and seismic setting b) local conditions c) comments on geologic report for ll-EXC-93 d) buildability of site with conditions Mr. Cotton answered questions of the Council and Commission and noted a home can be constructed on any lot, as long as it is build soundly. He pointed out that the slope of the parcel is not the problem and retaining walls are designed to deal with stability of the home and the soil. The Council and commission reviewed the site from the uphill location as well as the downhill location. Mr. Sandoval pointed out the trees proposed to be removed and gave a brief discussion on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 2 the height of the home proposed. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:20 p.m. and the City Council adjourned to the Meeting of May 31, 1994. The Planning commission reconvened their meeting at 7:30 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL All Commissioners were present. staff Present: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Thomas Robillard, Planner II; Vera Gil, Housing Specialist. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 1994, as presented Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- No Discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Item 7: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ApDlication 6-U-94. 2-Z-94. 3-TM-94 and l2-EA-94 - Emily Chen - Request continuance to the Planning commission Meeting of June 27, 1994 Com. Harris moved to continue item 7 to the meeting of June 27, 1994. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None The Commission moved to item 10 at this time. OLD BUSINESS 10. Application ll-EXC-93 and 3-TM-92 - Mark Sandoval: Report from Planning commission to City Council. Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report reviewing the difference in the old and revised proposal as outlined in the staff report. He added the original elevation was three story and has been reduced to two story. Mr. Jung stated the new proposal has decreased the building square footage, changed the design of the house and is now built more into the hillside. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 3 added the applicant has reduced the amount of downslope retaining walls and eliminated the flat front yard area. He stated the reduction in square footage is actually reduced by 200 sq. ft. and the other 800 sq. ft. is the basement proposed below ground level. He stated staff believes the revised proposal is an improvement and the visibility from the valley floor has been reduced. Also, the existing landscaping plan will provide adequate screening. Mr. Jung noted the proposed changes to the RHS Ordinance do bear relationship to this proposal, one is the increase in the maximum flat yard area and the other is the second story off-set. He stated this proposal would comply to the proposed changes if they are approved by the city Council. He added staff recommends approval of the revised plan. Planner Jung answered several questions of the commission. He noted the basement will be a finished room and there will be access from the outside. He noted grading will not exceed the maximum limit. Chr. Mahoney questioned the pipeline issue? planning Director Cowan stated this project is still in the pipeline and the Commission should use the General Plan standards as opposed to the ordinance standards. Com. Harris questioned the tree retention? Mr. Jung stated the only tree proposed for retention is the 12 inch oak tree. New landscaping will replace the trees removed. Com. Harris questioned the 25 ft. acquisition of land from the neighbor and the shifting of the house which could cause problems with the uphill slope according to the geologist report. She stated she would like to hear some more specific information about this. Mr. Cowan stated the initial geologic work performed by Mr. Cotton had to do with the subdivision map and there was a lot line adjustment to shift one line 25 ft. to the northwest. Mr. Mark Sandoval, Architect, introduced Mr. and Mrs Czisch, the property owners. Mr. Dean Affeldt, Geologist, stated the 25 ft. lot line adjustment had to do with a slide area identified on the site. He stated the recommendations made regarding the strengths of the soils will still be applicable to the plan before the Commission and with respect to the 25 ft. shift, the same recommendations will apply. Com. Roberts expressed concern about the size of the home and asked about the depth of the vertical disturbance? Mr. Mory Nelson, civil Engineer, stated the altitude difference from the bottom retaining wall to the top retaining wall is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 4 approximately 25 ft. Mr. Nelson explained the activity behind the house and the retaining walls. He noted the cut behind the home delineates the affect of the grading and stated increasing the height of the wall will reduce this cut. Com. Doyle questioned the height of the home and asked why there was not more of a reduction in height given that the elevation was reduced by one story? Mr. Sandoval stated the house has been lowered 2 ft. and moved along the site. He also noted the second story does not project out, the plans are incorrect. Mr. Jung stated the house steps upslope, as indicated on the architectural drawings. Mr. Sandoval explained the location of the basement and the outside access. He also noted the new proposal eliminates the massiveness. It was brought back to the Commissioners for discussion. Com. Austin stated according to the city's Geologist, building on any slope can occur if built soundly enough. She stated the revised plan is an improvement, but still believes the house is too big for such a steep slope. She stated she is not in favor of the revised plan. Com. Doyle believes the size of the house is irrelevant, but is concerned about the visible mass. He also expressed concern about the height of the home from the front and has concerns about the overall project. Com. Doyle stated he would like to see the height reduced and believes stepping the house back would help. Com. Roberts stated it is hard to consider this project as being a pipeline issue. He noted there is a cumulative problem when building large structures on steep slopes in terms of drainage. He believes the house is still too big, and would not be in favor of the project at this time. Com. Harris addressed the appeal to the Council who requested that the house be significantly reduced. She does not believe this is proposed in the revised plan. She expressed concern about the slide area and noted the geological review needs to be completed before making a decision. She stated progress has been made, but does not believe city Council direction has been followed. Chr. Mahoney stated he agrees that the house has not been significantly reduced. He noted he is no longer concerned about the geology after the discussion at the site with the geologist. Com. Doyle asked if the City Council discussed the size of the home? Mr. Cowan stated council was interested in the visible mass, but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 5 the concept of the basement was not discussed. He stated there are two approaches, either ask the applicant if he would like to continue this or file a report back to Council. Coms. Austin, Doyle and Mahoney expressed concern about visible mass. Com. Roberts expressed concern about drainage and geological concerns. Com. Harris stated the revised proposal does not meet the mandate of the council. Mr. Sandoval reviewed the size of Mr. pressley's revised plan is actually smaller than his home. like clear direction from the commission. home and noted the He noted he would Chr. Mahoney stated the key issue of the Planning commission is the visible mass, he stated the applicant has the alternative to reduce the home or go forward to the Council. Mr. Sandoval stated they will provide the landscaping and noted the past approval from the commission was based on the landscape screening and the pipeline issue. He noted the landscaping plan will help the drainage problem and help mitigate the mass. Com. Doyle stated the visible mass is his concern and if set back further it will help. Mr. Sandoval stated each level is currently setback 10 ft. which is a requirement of the new ordinance. Chr. Mahoney stated the commission must decide if a two story home is acceptable or not, because any reduction in height may eliminate the second story. Corn. Harris asked what was Mr. Sandoval's impression of the Council's direction? Mr. Sandoval stated he was asked to reduce the size of the home and do geological testing. He noted the pool was eliminated which eliminated some of the wall mass. He also added the five year growth of trees will screen the house from the valley floor and only the roof top will be visible. Mr. Sandoval stated with the basement as proposed they have eliminated much of the mass bulk. Com. Harris asked what if the commission approved this plan and the City Geologist indicates the slide problem can not be dealt with, with a footprint this size? Mr. Cowan stated the geologist indicated a home could be built, but if subsequent additional field work necessitates a much higher wall, this will have to be reviewed by the Planning commission. He stated it is important for the Commission to develop a policy on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 6 geology, but not to get into the technical details. Com. Mahoney stated after more testimony from staff and the applicant he is convinced that minor changes will not make a difference to this proposal. He believes the revised plan has met the potential spirit of the Council's direction. Com. Harris stated after the field trip and the basement concept, this plan would be acceptable on the site. She stated her concern was that the applicant did not meet the mandate of the council. She stated as a Planning commissioner she would approve this project. Chr. Mahoney stated a majority of the Commission believe the visible mass is a concern. He noted there are also concerns about drainage problems and Council's direction not being followed. Com. Harris stated a two story home is acceptable, but the width of the home is her main concern. Chr. Mahoney concurred. Corns. Doyle and Austin expressed concern about the height of the home. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 . Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-ASA-94 Gate of Heaven Cemetery Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Review of a statue and niche feature at an existing cemetery. Com. Doyle requested the removal of item 3 of the consent calendar. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve item 2 of the consent calendar. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 3. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 51,638.1 Measurex corp. Measurex Corp. One Results Way ASA application to approve security fencing and additional road entrance landscaping for Measurex Corporation. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and noted in 1985 ASAC approved a fence around Measurex, but the fence was never installed and the permit has expired. He stated the current request is to reinstate the plans that were approved in 1985. Planner Robillard stated the color proposed is blue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 7 ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Joe staci, Measurex, Facilities Manager, stated the color blue is the same color as used on the roof of the CEC building. Com. Doyle asked if the fence could be extended on Bubb Road, towards McClelland. Mr. staci stated this is a possibility. Ms. Ann Anger expressed concern about the blight on Imperial Avenue and asked what Measurex is going to do about this? MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 51,638.1 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the fence extended, to be worked out with staff. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-ASA-94 B.C. Golden Gate Cali Financial Services company 10385 S. De Anza Boulevard ASA review and approval of exterior architectural modifications and sign exception to an existing restaurant. staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and noted the original proposal was for seven wall mounted signs and four logo signs. He noted the applicant met with staff and staff agreed that the recommended signs look disproportional to the building. He stated staff recommends two Boston Chicken signs with 24 inch letters and three four foot high logo signs one on the east, west and south elevations. He noted the ground sign will be maintained. Corn. Harris questioned the parapet? Planner Robillard stated the plan is to remove the hip, add the parapet and then add the canopy. APplicant Presentation: Mr. Russ Watson, Architect, stated the canopy is 4 ft. dimension. He stated they have attempted to reduce the signage and believe they are at a point where they are at minimum adequate identification from the road. He added the color of the logo will be red and black and he concurs with staff's recommendations. In response to Corn. Doyle's question regarding fast food restaurants, Planner Robillard stated there is no difference in sign requirements. He also noted he can not recall any other business in town having so many exceptions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 8 Com. Austin spoke in favor of staff's recommendations. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the number of exceptions. He spoke in support of 18 inch letters and reducing the number of signs proposed. Com. Roberts concurred with Com. Doyle and believes the commission may be setting a precedence by approving the exceptions. Com. Harris stated the sign ordinance was developed with the help of the Chamber of Commerce. She does not believe it is necessary to have the additional signs. She spoke in favor of 18 inch letters and reducing the size of the logo signs. Com. Harris also expressed concern about the canopy and does not feel it is in keeping with the architecture along De Anza Blvd. She objects to the words on the canopy and believes it is additional advertising. Chr. Mahoney stated he supports staff's recommendation. The Commissioners discussed which signs they would approve and Com. Harris suggested approving the monument slgn, the logo sign on the west and one sign on either the south or east elevation. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve application 4-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following amendments: one set of Boston Chicken signs and logo signs on the east or south elevation, one logo sign on the west elevation and a monument sign. Letters should be 18 inches high and logo 36 inches high. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 5. Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-ASA-94 San Jose Awning Co., Inc. Peter Thomas (Hamasushi Owner) 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard Review for a new entrance canopy on an existing restaurant, and an exception to allow the letter height to exceed the limit allowed by Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting the proposal is to add an awning to the Hamsushi Restaurant. He added the proposal meets the Stevens Creek Zoning Conceptual Plan and the exception is for the Japanese characters. Staff believes because of the shape of the awning, the Japanese character blends well, and therefore recommends approval. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve application 6-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING 6. Application 1-GPA-94 and 3-EA-94: Consideration of amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan. (1-280 and stelling Rd.) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Residential, High Density 20-35 d.u./gr.ac. ASSESSORS PARCEL NlJMBER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 326-07-037 Quasi-Public/ Institutional 326-02-051 & 326-02-052 CommercialjResidentialResidential, Med.jHigh (Homestead Rd. and Maxine Dr.) lO-20 d.u.jgr.ac. Staff Presentation: ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report dated May 23, 1994. She noted HCD has suggested several changes which would render the element in compliance as outlined in the staff report. She stated staff is proposing they make up the shortfall in housing by increasing the number required by 737 and this will be done in a number of ways, one of which is to add 3 new sites. The first site is two parcels located on Homestead and Maxine. They are currently designated commercial/residential and staff is proposing a General Plan change to residential, med-high 10-20. She outlined the zoning of the surrounding area. She noted this could be a transitional area and details could be worked out at the use permit stage. The second site is a one acre parcel on Stelling and I-280 and the proposal is to also redesignate residential high density. She noted apartments could be potential zoning. She outlined the surrounding zoning areas. She noted they are planning to increase the total potential for the Bubb Road area. The commissioners discussed the number of potential units. Ms. Wordell stated HCD wants the City to promote opportunities for more housing, such as second units. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Ms. Gailynne Bouret, 10924 Barranca Dr., expressed opposition to the med-high rezoning on the two parcels located on Homestead and Maxine. She spoke in support of very low density which is in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. She expressed concern about two story homes because of the incline of the property. Ms. Bouret also expressed concern about additional traffic if the zoning is changed. She noted the two parcels in question are above her property. city Planner Wordell stated the neighbors have expressed concern and this would be addressed at the design stage. Ms. Bouret submitted a petition opposing the med-high density. Ms. Fran McIntyre, 10931 Maxine Dr., stated she opened her school in 1993 and it has grown. She noted there is a great need for quality child care in the City and they moved into this area with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 10 the hopes of building a high quality child care facility. She noted any rezoning of the property would damage the uniqueness of the area and expressed concern about med-high density zoning. Mr. Gary Hansen, P.O. Box 2905, Saratoga, Principal with Pacific Capital & commercial who are currently the developers under contract to develop the gas station property under the current zoning. He noted he looks at properties in terms of the overall perspective of the neighborhood. He stated there is a very high traffic count on this area because of highway 85 and that noise is an added problem which has a significant impact on residential homes. Mr. Hansen stated a two or three story development on this site would have a significant impact on the surrounding residential area. He presented a color rendering of a development done in Santa Clara which worked successfully. He described this development and believes it would fit into this area. He stated he is not opposed to residential development, but commercial development in transition would work. He stated he requests that this property retain its commercial/residential zoning. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Hansen stated he is representing the people currently under contract to purchase the property. He noted they purchased the property with the intent to develop it as commercial. He added they would have no objection to mixed-use development and believes objections would come from the neighbors. ci ty Planner Wordell stated there is some commercial potential existing on this site and that is the footprint of the gas station, more commercial would have to be granted by the Planning Commission and city Council. She pointed out the maximum number of units on the gas station would be 34 and 38 on the school site. Mr. Kelsey Patterson, Valley Church, stelling Rd., would like to see the property on Stelling left as is. commercial is a better use for this property. stated they He believes Ms. Pamela Hoopes, 22071 Hibiscus Dr., stated she has lived in her home for 19 years and has seen many changes to this area. She noted noise from the freeway is one of the disadvantages of living in this community, but the community is small and they would like it to stay as is. She noted there is a current problem with traffic in the area and would be opposed to any high density development which would increase the traffic problem. She noted the neighbors would like to maintain the,community as it exists. Mr. Ed. Bloom, 22150 Wallace Dr., stated there would be more people at this hearing, only they were not notified. He expressed concern about rezoning the property to high density housing. He noted the residents depend on the Planning commission to keep their community as it is. He stated people do not buy into an area to have an apartment building developed next to them. He does not believe this is an appropriate location for apartments. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 11 Ms. Bea Bradley, 10952 Barranca Dr., stated she concurs with the previous speakers and med-high density is not appropriate for this area. Ms. Florence Heng, 22110 Wallace Dr., stated if she knew they would develop apartments in this area she would never have purchased her home. She also expressed concern about increased traffic. Mr. Franklin J. vavak, 10861 Maxine Ave., noted he has been a resident for 43 years. He asked if an EIR is necessary for this project? He also expressed concern about density and traffic. The public hearing was closed. City Planner Wordell stated this document is a draft as HCD needs 45 days before approving it. Com. Harris spoke in support of leaving the zoning as is on the gas station site. She believes the purchaser of the property purchased the property based on the current General Plan. She noted she has no objection to changing the school site as recommended by staff because it looks like the school will be on the site for many years. Regarding the property at I-280 and Stelling, she would support rezoning to high density. Com. Roberts spoke in support of rezoning the site at I-280 and stelling to high intensity residential use. He stated the other two sites on Homestead and Maxine should be studied more, but he would leave as is for now. Com. Doyle also spoke in support of rezoning the site at 1-280 and stelling and leave the two sites at Homestead and Maxine as is. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Doyle, but the density at I-280 and stelling should be minimal. She noted there is an existing traffic problem at Homestead and Stelling. Com. Roberts stated the Commission needs to be careful about over- reacting to the excess units. Com. Austin expressed concern about the total number of housing required. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of leaving the two sites at Homestead and Maxine as is and changing the zoning at 1-280 and stelling. The Commission agreed that the recommendation to Council would be to recommend sites 115 and 116 are left as is and redesignate the site at I-280 and Stelling. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend granting a negative declaration. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 12 SECOND: VOTE: Cam. Harris moved to recommend approval of l-GPA-94 (draft) sUbject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the removal of sites 115 and 116. Com. Austin Passed 5-0 MOTION: 8. Application 8l,159 and 13-EA-94: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code to regulate the processing of combined development applications which invol ve differing review bodies. Planning Director Cowan stated the changes are housekeeping matters. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to recommend 81,159 and 13-EA-94 subject subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Austin Passed approval of application to the findings and MOTION: 5-0 9. Draft Housing Mitigation Manual. Ms. Vera Gil, Housing Specialist, presented the staff report noting the changes made by the commissioners at the last hearing have been incorporated. The Commissioners asked various questions regarding the changes. 1. The ten percent (10%) mitigation requirement for residential is not adequate to address the needs of affordable housing in cupertino. Com. Roberts suggested that the new Council may be in favor of a higher mitigation requirement. Ms. Gil explained that the developer has the option to build a unit on or off-site. She noted if they cannot provide the unit they do have the option to appeal to pay the in-lieu fee. Com. Harris suggested changing the title of section 2.2.3 to In- Lieu Fee/Alternative site option. 2. The Mitigation Manual should make reference to the use of the in-lieu fee. Com. Harris stated the last sentence in this section needs to be clarified 6. Include in the list of eligible applicants immediate family of cupertino residents. Com. Harris believes there needs to be a definition for immediate family members. She suggested limiting it to parents and children. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 13 The Commission briefly discussed this and Com. Harris suggested adding Cupertino resident property owners, other Commissioners agreed that this was not necessary. 8. Add a statement regarding the appeal process for section 2.6.2 Also add examples of hardship cases. Com. Harris stated there should be a time limit tied to this. The Council agreed that section 2.10.3 should read: "Any portion of this manual may be appealed for ruling. A written request is required from the appellate within 14 days of written notification of the ruling. The request should be addressed by the Community Development Director. Any appeal will be referred to the Affordable Housing Committee for recommendation within 30 days. The recommendation from the Affordable Housing committee will then be forwarded to the city Council for final ruling. All City Council rulings on the appeal are final." Ms. Gil pointed out that affordable housing units are exempt from park fees. No public was in attendance to comment. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of the draft Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing and the amendments made at this meeting. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris stated she would like a tour of the historical home on the Chen property prior to the meeting on this. It was agreed that Cams. Harris and Austin would go. Com. Harris asked has there been a decision made that houses over 100 years on the historical list would be preserved? Mr. Cowan stated the only way to require that historical homes be preserved is to create an historical zoning district. He noted an ordinance would be created. Com. Harris suggested that a decision should be made as to which homes should be preserved. Mr. Cowan stated he would send a letter to the Historical Society asking them to update their list. He read the strategy from the General Plan regarding landmark rehabilitation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 1994 Page 14 Com. Harris stated she would like a recommendation from staff on how to implement the preservation of historical homes. Com. Harris stated when the council overturns the decision of the Planning commission she would like the minutes of that city council meeting. Mr. Cowan suggested Commissioners call him and he will mail out a copy to them. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT Having adjourned at 11:15 Computer Simulation concluded business the Planning p.m. to May 25, 1994, 6:00 P.M., Workshop, Conference Room C. commission Wednesday, Respectfully submitted rr~ M. P.oW).nrd catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk Approved by the Planning commission at the Regular Meeting of June 13, 1994. Attest: 1J¡t ?m-~ Kim smith, city Clerk Chair