Loading...
PC 05-09-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 9, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: vice Chr. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Roberts Com. Harris commissioners Absent: Chr. Mahoney staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II Vera Gil, Housing specialist of Community APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Doyle amended the minutes of April 25, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 9, 3rd paragraph, last sentence should read "He stated if single story homes are developed this will have a significant impact on the trees, but noted single story homes may be acceptable if setbacks are not adequate." Com. Harris amended the minutes of April 25, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 8, 3rd paragraph, the words ..... a larger footprint" should be replaced with ..."one story homes..... 2. Page 9, 1st paragraph, the word "immediate" should be inserted before "surrounding". 3. Page 10, under New Business, 2nd paragraph should read "Com. Harris questioned the possible abuse of the in-lieu fee." 4. Page ll, 2nd the criteria parents of priority." paragraph should read "Com. Harris also addressed for purchasing BMR units. She noted children and Cupertino residents should also be given a MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of April 25, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 2 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 1994, as amended Com. Roberts Passed Com. Mahoney 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR Item 2: Item 7: Application l-GPA-94 and 3-EA-94 - General Plan Housinq Element Amendment - continued to the Planning commission Meeting of May 23, 1994 APplication 80.052.2 and 10-EA-94 - Larqe Day Care Homes - continued to the Planning commission Meeting of June 13, 1994 Planning Director Cowan also noted that item 5, Application l-Z-94 and 2-EA-94, should be continued at this time because notices sent to property owners were incorrect. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Harris moved to continue item 5 to the meeting of May 23, 1994. Com. Austin Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-ASA-94 B.C. Golden Gate Cali Financial Services Company 10385 S. De Anza Blvd. ASA review and approval of exterior architectural modifications and sign exception to an existing restaurant Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting the applicant is planning to remove the existing awning and signs of the Rendezvous Cafe. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add 2 ft. to the parapet and the building will be painted a light gray with a new awning added above the windows. He noted staff has no objections to these changes. Planner Robillard stated the second request is for a sign exception. The applicant is proposing 24 inch high signs instead of 18 inches and 7 building PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 3 mounted signs instead of 2. He added staff recommends approval of the sign exception for one additional logo sign and approval of the architectural modifications. In response to Com. Harris' questions regarding the awning, Planner Robillard stated the current color is black and red. He pointed out that awnings are consider an architectural feature and not a sign. He noted a ground sign, plus two signs on the building are allowed, as cited in the ordinance. Com. Roberts asked if this business will fall under fast food restaurant? Planner Robillard stated this is a sit down restaurant. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present, therefore it was a consensus of the Planning commission to continue this item to the next meeting in order to allow the applicant to comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 . Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 81,151 and l-EA-94 city of Cupertino Citywide Amending various sections of Title 17, Signs, of the cupertino Municipal Code, including regulations for political signs and sign sizes Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting the proposed modifications are in response to recent Planning commission action regarding tenant names on ground signs for office building, compliance with federal laws for political signs, and housekeeping items. Ground signs: Planner Robillard stated the current criteria states that the size of tenant names on all ground signs shall be a minimum of 6 inches in height and 4 inches between names. He noted the Planning Commission found that these criteria were too restrictive for office and industrial buildings as they do not need the same visibility requirements as retail centers. He noted the proposed amendment applies for the size criteria for commercial ground signs only. Political Signs: Planner Robillard stated the proposed will remove the reference to location restricts for signs. This amendment was based on the advice of amendment poli tical the city PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 4 Attorney. Housekeeping Items: Planner Robillard stated section 17.44.080 makes reference to an incorrect section of the municipal code and this will be corrected. section 17.44.030 states a hearing is required for sign exceptions and the correct language should require a public meeting. Com. Austin asked if other cities have restrictions on political signs? Planner Robillard stated other cites do according to the city Attorney the location of the political signs. have similar problems, but city cannot regulate the Com. Doyle asked about enforcement? Planning Director Cowan stated the Code Enforcement Officer will monitor the signs. The public hearing was opened. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17, sign, of the Municipal Code, subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 81,156 and 9-EA-94 city of Cupertino citywide Amending various sections of Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside Zones, of the cupertino Municipal Code, including regulations for flat yard area and second story off-sets Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting changes are proposed in the following areas: Lot Area zoning Designation; Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area; and Second Story Off-Set. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 5 Lot Area zoning Designation: Planner Robillard stated the present RHS zone does not effectively regulate lot size and in order to prevent re-subdivision of large lots in a previously approved subdivision, the zoning code must be amended to reflect the minimum lot area designations. He stated a required minimum lot size is not appropriate for new subdivisions in the hillside areas, therefore staff recommends that Chapter 19.40.140C(2) be deleted since it establishes a minimum parcel size. Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area: Planner Robillard stated they have had several applications were the limitation of 1000 sq. ft. was too restrictive and staff believes a more acceptable area is 2000 sq. ft. of graded yard area excluding driveways and footpaths around the sides of the building. Mr. Robillard stated this would also allow for more flexibility in the design of the home. Second story Off-Set: Planner Robillard stated the current ordinance requires that the second story downhill elevation be off- set at least 10 feet from the first story wall line. He stated if there were jogs in the house this causes a problem for the second story to be also off-set 10 feet in this area. He stated staff suggests at least 75% of the second story downhill facing wall plane be set back at least lO feet from the first story downhill wall plane. Com. Harris asked if the change was made, is there an appeal process? Planner Robillard stated the applicant can apply for an exception. Com. Roberts asked what criteria would be used to categorize a particular property? Planner Robillard stated during the rezoning process of lots, they would take the maximum lot size for a grouped area and designate that number, so the largest lot cannot be resubdivided. He stated this will be done on areas as they develop. He noted natural features of the property will also be considered. Com. Austin addressed the deletion of Chapter 10.40.140 C(2), Planner Robillard stated if they establish a minimum lot size, it may preclude clustering. Com. Roberts addressed the flat yard area and believes if this is to be re-evaluated, they should also revisit the maximum house size and maximum footprint. He believes the most significant problem has been with the house size. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Roberts regarding revisiting the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 6 house size. She also expressed concern about the 2500 cubic yards of grading. Planner Robillard stated staff surveyed several different cities with regards to hillside grading. The result was one of the basis for the 2500 cubic yards. In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding the second story off-set, Planner Robillard stated the same would apply for a third floor. The pUblic hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Bigler, 11230 Bubb Rd., stated the 1000 sq. ft. flat yard area is not adequate and 2000 sq. ft. would be more appropriate. Regarding the house size, Mr. Bigler stated people will not be permitted to build 6500 sq. ft. homes on 1/4 acre lots, but they should be given the opportunity if they have large lots. Mr. Bigler stated the amendment to the grading will encourage developers to step the homes down into the hillside and follow the contour of the land. Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Rd., stated more restrictions make it more difficult to develop homes and restrictions should be tied to the size of the lot. He noted the house size should have some direct relation to the size of the lot. He expressed concern about the 2000 sq. ft. limitation on grading and noted this puts serious restrictions on the architecture and design of the home. He stated people should be sensi ti ve to the rural environment, but there should be more flexibility in the ordinance. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Planning Commission is establishing minimum thresholds and exceptions can be applied for if an applicant wants to deviate from the thresholds. The public hearing was closed. Com. Austin stated she would relationship to the lot size. are all connected and should like to reconsider the house size in She noted slope density and grading be addressed. Com. Doyle pointed out that if a developer wants an exception, this must be reviewed by the planning Commission, who can have flexibility. Com. Roberts expressed concern about the implementation of the proposed lot area zoning designations and asked staff to provide examples as to how this would be implemented. He stated he would like to expand the discussion to include house size. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 7 Com. Harris stated if the Planning commission wish to expand the discussion to include house size this should be separately advertised as she believes this is an important aspect. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the history of the RHS zoning, Planner Robillard reviewed the process which the city council and Planning commission went through to establish the RHS zone. Com. Harris stated the Planning Commission should review problem areas brought before them. Com. Doyle stated he does not want to review the RHS zoning designation as this was reviewed in great detail at several meetings. Regarding the house size and flat yard area, he believes it is appropriate to address these on an individual bases. Planner Robillard pointed out that in addition to the 6500 sq. ft. cap there is also a FAR requirement. Com. Austin spoke in support of staff's recommendations for Lot Area zoning Designation, Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area and the Second story Off-set. She stated she would like to revisit maximum house size again, in relationship to lot size. Com. Harris asked about subdivisions in the hillsides? Planner Robillard stated there is a minimum lot size in the subdivision act, which allows a subdivision of 20 acres. He stated it would be based on slope density formulas. Com. Harris spoke in support of staff's recommendations for Lot Area Zoning Designation, Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area, but expressed concern about the Second Story Off-Set. She believes if staff's amendment is imposed, houses built in the hillsides would be of similar design. She stated she would support this, but these sections need to treated in the spirit that they do not want to define architectural style. Com. Roberts stated he supports Lot Area Zoning Designation, but is concerned about Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area. He noted the second story off-set proposed by staff is a step in the right direction, but should allow more flexibility. Regarding the Maximum Graded Flat Yard Area, Com. Roberts stated there were other objectives the Planning Commission considered when they decided on the maximum 1000 sq. ft. yard area. He stated the problem is large homes on steep slopes and this needs to be given serious consideration. He believes the Planning Commission needs PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 8 more information before making a decision on this. Com. Roberts stated if the Planning commission relax on this criteria, it has a cumulative affect and he could not support it, as proposed, at this time. Com. Doyle asked how many potential sites will be affected by the lot area zoning designation proposed? City Planner Wordell stated the seminary property, Kaiser property and approximately 10 hillside properties will be affected. She stated if there are lots, such as the Seminary or Kaiser property which have not been subdivided, staff would propose to leave it RHS wi thout a number. She noted if property is not subject to subdivision, and already achieved its subdivision ability under the existing general Plan, a number could be put on it. She noted the zoning would occur at the time of subdivision. Com. Doyle spoke in support of the lot area zoning designation and would support the maximum graded flat yard area proposed, but would not eliminate the 2500 cubic yards. He expressed concern about the second story off-set and noted the wording would have to reflect that the second story must be at least the same wall plane as the first story. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to continue this item to June 13, 1994 Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-1 Com. Mahoney 5. Application No(s): Applicant: Location: 1-Z-94 and 2-EA-94 City of Cupertino West Foothills of cupertino REZONING various hillside properties encompassing 185 net acres in the Regnart Canyon Area MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue Item 5, Application No. 1- Z-94 and 2-EA-94 to the meeting of June 13, 1994. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Chr. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-U-94 and 15-EA-94 Landmark Development Same Gardenside & Rainbow USE PERMIT to construct 6 townhomes on an ll,761 sq. ft. parcel in a Planned Development residential zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 paqe 9 staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report noting this is a request to obtain a conditional use permit for a 6 unit townhome project. She noted four items of concern are parking, privacy, private outdoor space and General Plan conformity, as outlined in the staff report. Parking: Planner Bjurman reviewed the parking requirement for this townhome project and noted there is a deficit of 11 parking spaces. She noted the site plan shows two parking spaces adjacent to the entrance drive, but public works does not permit these because of safety issues. She stated this increases the deficiency to 13 spaces. General Plan Conformity: Planner Bjurman noted the density for this property is 20-35 units per acre and the applicant's proposal is 17.6 units per acre. She stated there are strategies in the General Plan which encourage residential property development at the upper limits of the density range. She noted due to site constraints, the site could yield two additional units for a total of 8 units, reduce the total building area and reconfigure the parking arrangement, they could then achieve a 24 dwelling unit per acre. She stated staff recommends denial due to inadequate on-site parking and failure to comply with residential density requirements. Com. Austin questioned the parking requirement for apartments? Mr. Cowan stated there is a greater demand, in theory, for parking for the larger townhomes than there is for a smaller apartment. Com. Harris asked if this particular proposal reduced the number of bedrooms, would this help the parking deficit? Planner Bjurman stated it would, but there would still be a parking deficiency. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding moving the two entrance parking spaces east and west, Ms. Bjurman stated it could not be done. The public hearing was opened. Aoolicant Presentation: Mr. Larry Guy, Landmark Development, passed out handouts to the commissioners. He stated the site is 11,700 sq. ft. but there is a 20 ft. easement along the westerly portion of the site. He noted they may be able to obtain 5 ft. from the Sanitation District. He noted the rear of the property is restricted by 10 ft. because of the PG&E requirement. He added this leaves approximately 8,500 sq. ft. usable land. Mr. Guy noted he did discuss other options for this site with staff, but believes the best proposal is the six units proposed. Mr. Guy reviewed the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 10 parking ordinance for multiple use developments from other cities, as outlined in the handout. He reviewed the parking provided in the Gardenside project and noted if there is excessive parking, people may convert garages into living space. Mr. Guy believes that financing would not be available for apartments and if there was more density this would cause more traffic problems. He added the townhomes proposed will upgrade the neighborhood and there is a lot of architectural detail to make the project more attractive. Mr. Guy addressed the two parking spaces at the entrance and noted a meandering sidewalk, as discussed with Public Works, would allow for appropriate visibility. He noted this is not an adequate site for rental housing and there are other sites in town more appropriate for high density apartments. Com. Harris asked Mr. Guy how he feels about the condition in the parking regarding garages for parking vehicles only? Mr. Guy stated they are agreeable to this and garages should not be used for storage. He noted they would also restrict the guest parking for guests only. Mr. Michael Nielson, 20643 Gardenside Circle, Gardenside Homeowners Association, reviewed the General Plan zoning of this area. He noted Rainbow Drive is no longer a straight road and therefore any increase in traffic will be hazardous because of highway 85. He stated the parking requirement is excessive. He spoke in support of the development as proposed, but would like to see the project shifted 5 ft. Mr. Doug Timewell, president, Gardenside Homeowners Association, stated as a community they support the proposed development and are opposed to high density along Rainbow. He noted the property in question is on a hairpin turn and higher density will cause more traffic problems and overflow parking onto adjoining sites. He noted garages should be for parking of vehicles only and this should be enforced. He added this is not an adequate site for high density. The public hearing was closed. Com. Austin asked about moving the project 5 ft. as addressed by the developer? Planner Bjurman stated this would not affect the parking unless they reduce the size of the units. Mr. Cowan stated the Planning commission should look at the aesthetics of cars parking in the public right-of-way. ~- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 11 Ms. Bjurman noted the size of the units include the garages. Com. Harris stated the parking deficit is not acceptable and there is an existing parking problem on Rainbow Drive. She stated the Planning commission need to decide if there should be apartments with parking under, or five units with more parking. Mr. Cowan stated the General Plan indicates 20-35 units per acres, and the Planning commission must make a finding if they deviate from this. He noted staff is being consistent with the General Plan in asking for the higher density range. Com. Harris stated if this project is approved it would require a General Plan change and more parking. She noted all the surrounding units are townhomes, so this would not be inconsistent with what is developed and what is planned to be developed. She noted parking is not adequate for six units proposed. Com. Doyle stated during the General Plan hearings the Planning commission decided the density along this corridor and now the challenge is to come up with proposals that will meet the density requirements. He stated he has a concern when deviating from the General Plan. Com. Roberts believes it would be a step backwards to approve lower density. Com. Austin stated there is a parking deficit problem and the density of the General Plan should be adhered to. Cams. Harris, Doyle and Roberts concurred. Mr. Larry Guy stated he would like a decision from Planning commission at this time and would appeal the denial to the city Council. SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: Com. Austin moved to deny application 5-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing as outlined in the model resolution. Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-l Com. Mahoney MOTION: OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 8. Presentation by the historical value of Cupertino Historical a residence located Society on the on the Anderson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 12 property, 10943 Phil Lane, Cupertino, CA. Ms. Tenassa Handl, 10721 Morenga Dr., read a story she wrote for school regarding the historical home. Ms. Jeannie Ryder, Historical society, stated the children in the neighborhood love this house. She gave a brief history of the home and stated she has known this house since 1959. Ms. Ryder read a proposal made to the City council in 1975 regarding the preservation of historical homes. She stated in 1975 when the report was written the Anderson house was in San Jose. She stated in 1977 the house was to be implemented in the preservation of historical homes, it never happened. She stated the city should consider saving this historical home and the developer of this property is agreeable to this. She does not believe that the additions proposed to this home will affect the historical value. Ms. Ryder noted many people have great interest in preserving the historical home. Planner Bjurman pointed out, because of the Planned Development zoning, the City can require a consistency in the architecture. Ms. Henretta Marcott stated she has seen many changes to cupertino and historical homes have not been saved. She believes this home should be repaired and not changed. Ms. Emily Chen, Developer of property, stated she is in favor of keeping the historical home, but does not want to move it. Ms. Lisa Christiansen stated she works in a historical building and believes this home should be saved and put to good use. 9. Draft Housing Mitigation Manual Staff Presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Housing Specialist, presented the staff report. She noted the document establishes the procedures to implement the housing mitigation as required by the General Plan Housing Element. Ms. Gil stated the guidelines for this element were discussed by the Affordable Housing Committee and the Planning commission and were implemented in the General Plan. She noted they now exist in the General Plan as programs. She noted the office and industrial component was adopted in November 1993 and the residential component is similar to the office/industrial with a few differences. Ms. Gil reviewed the in- lieu fees for up to 7 units and the housing mitigation for 7 units or more and also reviewed policy 2.2.2, Mitigation Requirements. Com. Roberts questioned the 10% criteria as stated in section 2.2.2 and addressed the mitigation requirement for office/industrial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 13 Ms. Gil stated the figure for the office/industrial was agreed upon by the three major companies and the City Council. She noted the Affordable Housing Committee and the Planning Commission recommended a higher percentage for residential mitigation, but this was lowered by the City Council. She stated the nexus study shows that all development generates a need for housing. She noted the office/industrial is lower than what is recommended by the nexus study. Mr. Michael Bruner, 1144 Debyshire, Sobrato Development, stated that the industrial mitigation assumes a developer has built 100,000 sq. ft. He stated it should be clarified in the document as to why the City has not required retail development to provide mitigation. Regarding the in-lieu fees, Mr. Bruner stated no consideration has been given to the diverse housing in Cupertino. Mr. Bruner when through section II: Residential Mitigation of the document and made several changes. These changes were presented to staff to be incorporated into the document if necessary. Com. Harris stated many issues were raised by Mr. Burner which are valid. She noted she would like to have his comments reviewed before approving this. Com. Roberts questioned the in-lieu fee option for both residential and office/industrial and how this fee is used? Ms. Gil stated the fee goes into the general fund, but is restricted to be used for affordable housing only. If it is not used for affordable housing it will be returned to the developer. She noted if the money is not used within five years it is also returned to the developer. She stated there is a list in the manual which prioritize what the funds can be used for. Com. Harris stated this statement should be included in the text and also stated that if the money is not used it will be returned to the developer. Com. Doyle suggested the Affordable Housing Committee review Mr. Burner's comments for applicability. Com. Harris expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 regarding the rental units being sold. She asked if some units were sold below market rate (BMR) and the rest of the complex was converted to rental, would the developer be required to have BMR rentals? Ms. Gil stated the BMR units sold would requirement for this particular development. be deed restrictions on all ownership units. meet the mitigation She noted there would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 14 Com. Harris also expressed concern about the in-lieu fee and believes this fee should be raised. She noted it should be indicated how the in-lieu fee is determined. She added there should be a statement which prevents a developer from developing in six unit blocks. She suggested some language to address contiguous development to a previously approved project in the last 3 to 5 years. Planning Director Cowan stated when property is divided to create the phasing, the Planning commission has control. Com. Harris addressed policy 2.2.6, noting priority should be given to children and parents of current cupertino residents. Ms. Gil stated the Affordable Housing Committee left this out as they felt it could be abused. She noted if this is added to the document it should have tight restrictions. Com. Harris stated she would like to see it in the overall statement. Ms. Gil noted for the office/industrial, the goal of the Council and the Major Companies was to reduce the commuters and priority was given to employees. She pointed out that a management company will administer this. Com. Harris stated she would like to see a comment regarding the administration of this. Com. Harris addressed policy 2.6.2 and stated she would like to see some comments regarding hardships and an appeal process. Ms. Gil stated they could cite examples similar to what is stated in the office/industrial. Com. Austin stated she concurs with Com. Harris regarding how the in-lieu fee is determined. She also noted the $l per sq. ft. is not adequate and should be addressed. She concurred with Com. Harris regarding the appeal process under section 2.6.2. Com. Austin stated retail does generate the need for housing and maybe this can be revisited. Com. Harris stated retail over a certain size should be considered. Mr. Cowan stated he can bring this before the council. There was a consensus of the Commission to reconsider housing mitigation for large retail or hotels over a certain size. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 15 Com. Doyle asked what the process would be to change the $1 per sq. ft. ? Ms. Gil stated this can be sent back to the Affordable Housing Committee with direction to determine a new fee. Mr. Cowan stated this was a Council decision. He suggested that this request and the request for revisiting the retail be brought before the council, before the Housing Affordable Committee considers this. Com. Roberts requested that the Council reconsider the 10% criteria as addressed in 2.2.2. Mr. Cowan addressed the gap between the market rate and below market rate units for some of the high end residential units and asked if this is a concern of the Planning commission? Com. Harris stated this was not a concern to her because of the higher profit for the higher priced homes. She stated maybe there should be a separate in-lieu fee for higher priced homes. Ms. Gil explained how the in-lieu was developed, noting a recommendation was sent to the council that it be 3% of the selling price of other homes in the complex and the Council stated it would be 2% of some land value to be determined at a later time. She noted if the developer cannot build homes on-site they can be build elsewhere or convert existing units into affordable housing units. Com. Roberts addressed 2.2.10 and noted there are no BMR units in the hillsides among $1 million homes and asked how this can be addressed? Mr. Cowan stated staff will address this. This item was continued to the meeting of May 23, 1994. 10. Discussion of possible meeting dates for the Heart of the city Specific Plan. City Planner Wordell stated there will be a workshop on June 7th for the public. She noted possible dates are June 13 or June 27 for a joint meeting with city Council and she would discuss this with the city Council and Michael Freedman. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris addressed a May tag Balloon Man. Mr. Cowan stated every business is allowed special promotional PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994 Page 16 items and will look into this. Com. Harris also address the paper sign at the Home Improvement Center. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Com. Austin addressed the Santa Clara County Manufacturers Group Child Care Guidelines. Mr. Cowan stated they did not discuss housing and this will be reviewed in October. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: adjourned at at 6:00 p.m. Having concluded business the Planning commission lO:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting of May 23, 1994 for Field Trip Respectfully submitted, catherine M. Robillard Minute Clerk Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of May 23, 1994. Al .1J7 I V~ ;f//7 Orrin Mahoney, Chair Attest: þMt~ Kim smith, city Clerk