Loading...
PC 11-23-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HE~LD ON NOVEMBER 23, 1998 SALUTE TO TIrI~ FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Commissioners absent: Doyle and Mahoney Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted written communication from the Baptist Church; a written request from applicant H. Abtahi to continue Application 13-U-98 and 29-EA-98; and a letter from the Rose Court Homeowners Association concerning the Chen application. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-98, 29-EA-98 Hamid Abtahi 10121 Foothill Blvd. Use Permit to convert the auto repair portion ora service station to a convenience store. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from November 9, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Application 13-U-98 and 29-EA-98 to the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 34-EA-98 Amendments to Accessory Structure & Tree Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide P annlng Commission Minutes 2 November 23, 1998 Consideration of modification to Chapter 19.80 Accessory Building Structures and Chapter 14/18 (Heritage & Specimen Trees) related to privacy protection measures. Tentative City Council Hearing Date: January 4, 1999 Request continuance to December 14, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to postpone Application 34-EA-98 to the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No. Applicant: Location: 21qASA-98 Quality Design Concepts (Walgreens) 10795 S. Blaney & 20075 Bollinger CNW Comer) Modification of architectural plans to install spandrel glass rather than clear glass windows Planning Commission decision final unless appealed MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 21-ASA-98 of the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 2a. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 23-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 1-1 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,602 sq. ft. residence in Unit 1, Lot 1 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 2b. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 24-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 1-10 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,780 sq. ft. residence in Unit 1, Lot 10 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 2C. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 25-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 1-7 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,780 sq. ft. residence in Unit 1, Lot 7 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 23, 1998 2d. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 26-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 2-20 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,780 sq. ft. residence in Unit 2, Lot 20 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 2e. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 27-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 2-1 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,778 sq. ft. residence in Unit 2, Lot 1 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 2f. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 28-ASA-98 O'Brien Group .Lot 1-3 Cristo Rey Drive Architectural review of a new 4,610 sq. ft. residence in Unit 1, Lot 3 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item, noting that a total of 178 new single family homes have been approved for Oak Valley on former Diocese property. Items 2a through 2f are for six new home designs for Neighborhoods 2 (Unit 1) and Neighborhood 3 (Unit 2). Staffhas reviewed all six designs and recommends approval; however is concerned with the design of Lot 1 in Neighborhood 2, particularly the two turrets and the security gate. Recommended modifications are outlined in the staff report. A decision on the applications will be considered final and not for, yarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the site plan and discussed staff's concerns with the architectural design of Lot 1-01, which included two turrets which staff felt were not appropriate to the rural atmosphere called for in the General Plan. Staffrecommends that the smaller turret on the left elevation be modified to a square element, and the entry turret be reduced in height to 23 feet. She also noted that a security gate was included in'the architect's rendering, which staff did not approve. Mr. Steven Zales, O'Brien Group, said that the security gate was only a part of the architect's rendering and not part of the application. He said that if the city objected to the round form of the turret on the left elevation, they were willing to square offthe element, which he explained was a sitting area offthe master bedroom. Relative to the 25 foot turret, Mr. Zales said that the applicant prefers that it remain as part of the design. Mr. Frank Stoltz, architect, answered questions about the various elevations. He discussed the features of Lot 1-03 which depicted a farmhouse style and answered questions relative to the window trim. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 23, 1998 Com. Stevens said that the homes were large homes on large lots in a unique area and he was in favor of unique homes. He said that he liked the turret design; however, agreed with staffthat the 25 foot height on the major turret would better complement the area at 23 feet, and he did not feel that the smaller turret needed to be squared off. Com.* Stevens ~-aid he felt the homes fit the unique area very well. He said the security gate was not an issue as it was not requested in the application. Com. Harris said that she would not approve the application as she did not like the barn feature on Lot 1-03 and felt that the window should have more trim. She also said that did not like the large amount of concrete in the driveway area. Relative to Lot 1-01, she said she concurred with staff recommendation to lower the center turret to 23 feet, and she supported their recommendation to square offthe smaller turret similar to Lot 2-01. Com. Harris said that the other four designs were suitable. Chair Austin said that she was in favor of all the designs, including the turrets and the barn design. She said she agreed that the larger turret should be lowered to 23 feet and that the security gate was not an issue. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 23-ASA-98, Lot 1 with the omission of the security gate (at the request of applicant) and the height reduction of the center turret from 25 feet to 23 feet Chair Austin Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-I-0 · MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 24-ASA-98, Lot 10; 25-ASA-98, Lot 7; 26-ASA-98, Lot 20, Unit 2; and 27-ASA~98, Lot 1, Unit 2 according to the model resolution Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Applicati.on 28-ASA-98, Lot 3, according to the model resolution Chair Austin Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-1-0 PUBLIC ItEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-U-98(M), 16-EA-98 (construction of 8 townhomes) Judy Chen 7359 Rainbow Drive (easterly most apartment lot on north side of Rainbow Drive - next to freeway) Use Permit to demolish an existing apartment and construct an 8 unit townhouse development on a .34 acre parcel. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 23, 1998 To rezone a .34 acre parcel from P (Res 20-30) to P(Res 10-20) Tentative City Council Hearing Date of January 4, 1999 Continued frotn Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an existing 6-unit apartment building and construct a 7-unit townhouse project on a .34 net acre parcel on the comer of Rainbow Drive and Highway 85. The application also involves rezoning the parcel from a Planned Residential Development with a density range between 20-30 units per gross acre to a Planned Residential Development with a density range between 10-20 units per gross acre. The tentative map will be submitted at a later date. Staff feels that architectural changes continue to improve the overall design but still fall short of meeting the Planning Commission's expectations. Staffhas reviewed the applicant's most recently 'submitted plans and believes the resubmittal fails to address the following areas: mar building setback; providing additional landscaping; and stepping down of building 1 to create a terracing effect for the development. Staff recommends that the architect and applicant return with another design msubmittal. If the Planning Commission decides to submit a recommendation to the City Council, it would be tentatively forwarded to the City Council at the January 4, 1999 meeting. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, reviewed the outstanding concerns, which included the interpretation of stepping down the building; rear setbacks of the building, additional landscaping to the rear of the building for privacy; and issues relating to drainage. The concerns were outlined in the attached staff report. Mr. Bert Viskovich, Public Wgrks Director, explained that drainage was categorized into three different levels: a storm facility in the street, the street itself, and an overland or release flow. He noted in this particular case, there are facilities in the development to the north that allow it to flow for those very low flows, and he noted that most of the city's storm facilities are designed only for a three or five year event, namely that every three or five years the capacity of the system is burdened to the point where water is in the street; and the street then becomes the conduit carrying the water. He said that when it fails, the creeks are also in a position where they can't take any more water and flooding then occurs. He reported that with the particular project, with a graded manhole cover some of the water could be redirected into the inlet. Responding to Com. Harris's question regarding the impact on the neighbors, Mr. Viskovich said that there is some ponding that occurs, and the ponding would be alleviated through the graded manhole cover installed to the north of the project, and when those storm facilities can't handle the water, the water will go down along the trees and out to Rainbow Drive, which is called overland flow. He said that in all projects that don't have street frontage, there has to be overland flow to release the water into the street to get into the local channels. Mr. Mark Hines, representing the applicant, reported that Mr. Sloan, the amhitect, had obtained a copy of the previous Planning Commission meeting tapes, and endeavored to respond to the two concerns conveyed to the applicant; which were to obtain setback equivalent to the Landmark property and attempt to have some stepping of height to provide for a variety of height. Mr. Tom Sloan, project architect, referred to an overhead of the elevations, and reviewed the proposed changes to address the concerns. He noted that wall heights had been dropped; the overall massing of the roof on each unit was reduced by dropping ridge heights and varying the Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 23, 1998 heights from 34 feet down to 30 feet at the end. He noted that without chopping out entire bedrooms from the upper floor, it was as close as they could come without creating flat roofs. Referring to the site plan, he illustrated the proposed increase i_n setbacks from 10 feet to 11 feet. He said that staff was still concerned with the overall massing on Rainbow Drive, but he felt it was unjust to compare it to a building approximately 4 miles away. He aid he felt it was fair to compare it to the existing Landmark development next door. He continued his presentation and answered questions about the design of the development. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Sonny Lundin, 7363 Rainbow Drive, representing the Rose Court Homeowners, referred to the street elevation at Rainbow drive, and addressed outstanding issues of concern. He said that they would prefer shorter building heights; slan,ted roofs similar to the others; and setback from property line to be 13 feet. Mr. Kevin Witt, resident, 20618 Gardenside Drive, asked the Commissioners to review his handout. He pointed out that at the previous Planning Commission meeting he attended, it was stated that setbacks should be increased to 13 feet, which was not the case with the proposed development, which in reality was only 10 feet. He said that the landscaping should include a 15 gallon tree, some 24 inch box trees, some tall cylindrical trees to provide privacy to his yard. He said that drainage should include some room away from the sound wall to allow natural flow out to Rainbow. Mr. Witt pointed out that the building height remained at 34 feet and was not broken up. He said that there is no street parking in front of the development, and that 7 parking spaces was not adequate for the development; and there were no laundry facilities in the townhouses. He requested that restrictions be placed on weekend construction so that work could not begin before 9 or 10 a.m. Mr. Chris Crafford, Presidem, Gardenside Homeowners Association, expressed appreciation for staff addressing the potential flooding situation. Relative to setbacks, he said he felt it was unacceptable that the architect did not adhere to the Planning Commission's previous specifications of 13 feet minimum. He noted that additional landscaping was necessary to provide privacy to the homes facing southward to the development. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting; In response to Com. Harris' question regarding the issue of the preservation of the 80 foot cedar tree, which Mr. Crafford had questioned in his letter. Ms. Gil responded that the cedar tree was not scheduled to be removed. In response to Com. Stevens' question relative to building height restriction in the area of the nursery, Mr. Cowan stated that it was a mixed use area which could exceed the 28 foot maximum for single family neighborhoods in the area of Rainbow. Com. Harris said that she was willing to approve the environmental aspect of the application and the zoning change; and willing to continue the item if the applicant felt there was more work to be done relative to the Use Permit. She said she felt the setbacks need to be greater and the total overall height reduced. She said she liked the redesign of the roof, and the cutouts were a fair attempt to meet the spirit of the request; but yet too much of the roof still remained at 34 feet and the overall impact will be that of a 34 foot building. She said the need existed for still more rear Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 23, 1998 landscaping, which could include shrubs for privacy. Com. Harris said that she was not comfortable with the drainage issue; however, Public Works felt it was workable. Com. Stevens said that his original concern relative *to the budding height still was an issue; he said that the louvering or modulating the roof was an interesting approach and was attractive. He said the cliff effect still existed and his recommendation opposed that particular one. He said the one building should be reduced to a maximum of 30 feet; there was a still a window indicating a loft, but no indication of a loft on the plans. Hopefully the redwoods will grow to mitigate the privacy issue. Relative to the privacy situation, he said Cupertino was in a Canyon with three story buildings surrounding it. Although he did not like three story buildings, the cost of property and desirability of residing in Cupertino was a factor. He said he felt the setbacks should equal those of the neighbors on both sides. Referring to the preliminary landscape plan, he illustrated the setbacks and said he would prefer to see them higher than 11. He said that he was still concerned about the height of the building and objected to the application on that issue. Chair Austin said she was not in favor of the zoning, and that she felt it should be 6 rather than 7. She said she felt the 34 foot height was excessive; more privacy landscaping was needed; rear setback to be further away; need to define the meaning of stepping. Relative to the interpretation of stepping, Ms. Gil clarified that the Planning Commission wanted building No. 1 lower than the other buildings. Chair Austin continued by stating that she was satisfied with how the drainage issue was being addressed. She said that she was not in favor of the application as presented and would prefer to continue the item so that more work could be done on it, or appeal it to the City Council. Mr. Sloan said that he would appeal a decision to City Council if necessary. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 16-EA~98 Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 6-Z-98 change from P(Res 20-30) to P(Res 10-20) Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to deny Application 6-U-98 based on the staff recommendation that the applicant did not meet the request of stepping down the rear building to create an overall terracing effect; did not provide additional landscaping along the rear property, and did not increase the north setback to at least the same setback as the adjacent development; and did not present a concept of reducing the height of the building below 34 feet. Com. Stevens Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 23, 1998 Mr. Cowan noted that the application would be forwarded to City Council for the January 4 meeting. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-TM-98, 12-Z-98, 3~-EA-98 - First Baptist Church of Cupertino 10505 Miller Avenue (portion of church property) Rezone 2.26 acres of a 5.96 acre lot from BQ (Quasi-Public Building) to R1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Subdivide 5.96 lot into 10 lots ranging in size from 6,120 square feet to 9,000 square feet and a remainder lot for the church. Tentative City Council Hearing Date of January 4, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to rezone and subdivide a portion of property off Miller Avenue owned by the First Baptist Church of Cupertino to allow the development of 9 new single-family residences; the historic McCubbin Residence will be located on the l0th lot in the new subdivision, and the surrounding land retained for church use. Staff has reviewed the application and identified many unresolved issues; and requests that the Planning Commission discuss the issues and direct the applicant to work further on the application. The seven issues for Planning Commission review include: (1) Staff finds that the project does not conform to two General Plan policies related specifically to parks. (2) A zoning plat map and legal description of the area to be rezoned has not been submitted and the issue of whether to proceed with a BQ Quasi Public zone vs. the R-! single-family residential zone for the McCubbin must be resolved. (3) Staff is concerned with how closely located the large fir tree and magnolia tree are to the proposed right of way. (4) Staff is concerned with the proposed relocation of the McCubbin house which is identified as one of two historic structures on the church-owned property. (5) Staff points out a design deficiency with the proposed cul de sac and an existing single family residence which is located on the southwest comer of Miller Avenue and the proposed new right of way. (6) The Public Works staff finds that the proposed project lacks certain required sidewalks and proposes a right of way that is too narrow. (7) It involves circumstances with Cupertino's Parks planned policy relative to the relationship of the proposed single-family lots in Creekside Park. Staff notes that they have attempted to work with the applicant Mr. Stanley Wang to minimize development disincentives, but thus far he has not agreed to suggested staff changes. If the applicant remains disinterested in the redesign of this proposed project, staff recommends denial; however, thgy first recommend that the Planning Commission provide Mr. Wang and the church with specific guidance on the project and the community development staff be on hand to provide the necessary assistance. Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed plan for the subdivision and the owner's plans to save the McCubbin Residence, although the Historical Committee did not list the residence on the priority list established. He noted that if the lot is zoned Conventional RI-6, there may be difficulties in achieving the setbacks to make it workable. If the residence remains as a parsonage for the church, he said it was possible that it could remain zoned as BQ which has more flexibility. Referring to an excerpt of the Public Safety Section of the General Plan, Mr. Cowan discussed the past practice and purpose of implementing a policy intended to circle public parks with streets. He illustrated examples such as Jollyman, Hoover and Wilson Parks. Mr. Cowan reviewed the optional plans which included 7 homes or 9 homes, instead of 10; and discussed potential compromises to accommodate the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 23, 1998 Mr. Mary Kirkeby, Civil Engineer, referred to the site plan and discussed the proposed plan for the 48 foot wide street, with a proposal for restricted parking on both sides, since there is no use on either side of the property other than for access. 'He said that widening the street to 56 feet would cause the loss of one pine tree that was presently salvageable. He added that there were sidewalks on one side out to Miller Avenue which made it accessible to pedestrians, and that it complied with fire department standards. Mr. Kirkeby pointed out that it was similar to the street on the 5 lot subdivision off Stelling Road, which had the 40 foot right away which was under consideration for considerable time. He said that by taking the street around the corner lot on Miller, it would create a hardship to the church because it would impact the parking lot where the church office is. He noted that the owner of the house surrounded by three sides of the street showed no opposition to the street location. Relative to the historic house, he requested that since it was low on the Historical Society's priority list, it not be conditioned for removal. He said he was not opposed to having it zoned quhsi-public and that if the house was moved, the church would retain it for their use. He said he felt the main issue of the entire project was the orientation of the subdivision to the park, and noted that there were similar situations in existence in other areas of the city. As shown in the illustrations discussed by Mr. Cowan, there appeared to be houses backing up to the parks in almost every park because of pre-existing conditions. Mr. Kirkeby concluded that he felt there were valid reasons for defending his original proposal and was not receptive to the options suggested by staff. In response to Com. Harris' question relative to the fir tree, Mr. Kirkeby said that although the fir tree was close to the right of way, there was no apparent reason to remove the tree because of his proposed street. Mr. Cowan pointed out that it was possible to swerve the sidewalk around and pinch the street down where the tree is located and still maintain a wider street. Mr. Viskovich commented that relative to Mr. Kirkeby's proposal, Public Works did not find any problem with narrowing down the entry, and encouraged less asphalt and less maintenance for aesthetic reasons, if there is no parking required. He said that in this particular case, the entry does not serve any public parking needs, therefore the narrowness in the beginning was appropriate. He said that Mr. Cowan addressed the visual access concerns and there were ways to design the cul de sac for emergency access and turning movement. He said that fencing generally required permit parking which would require more enfomement. Chair Austin opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. T. C. Wang, discussed the issues of parking and fences. He said that he did not feel many homeowners would like to open their front door to a fence. He expressed concern about children jumping over a fence to get to the park, and the potential of debris collection by a fence. He said if there was a walkway and permit parking, there would be many calls to the city from neighbors relative to enforcement of the parking. He said that relative to the General Plan policy conceming neighborhood safety and crime, a closed secure cul de sac would be more desirable for the community and neighborhood watch. Mr. A. Baker, Pastor of First Baptist Church, expressed concern about the large open space located close to his house, and his concern for his family's safety. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Viskovich for his willingness to accept the 48 foot width for the road which would allow for preservation of the fir tree. He said he would also like to retain the parking lot and update the Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 23, 1998 property which housed three churches, and asked that consideration be given to approval of the proposal. Mr. John Bozek, resident, illustrated the location of'his property, and noted the location of the termination of Alderbrook Lane. He expressed concern about the purpose of the ordinance just for aesthetic reasons, and cited problems associated with debris gathering and loitering in the area; and urged that consideration be given to the safety of the neighborhood. Ms. Nicole (last name unknown), real estate broker, illustrated the location of a comer home which was on the real estate market for some time, and discussed the potential problems associated with access to neighborhood parks, fences, and permit parking. She said it was important that the developers provide full disclosure to potential home buyers that the home is located near an athletic field, a church, and the buyers understand the ramifications of such because of noise and traffic. Chair Austin closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Viskovich said that the concept of openness is to not allow closed areas or pocket areas within parks. Pastor Baker illustrated the area where the church planned to build an auditorium and office building, and the location of the parking lot. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Viskovich answered questions. Com. Harris said that if the surrounding area was R1-6, it was appropriate. She said she was unsure about the overall development as the plan calls for a chain link fence with no access for children. She said it was unattractive, and the potential existed for debris to gather and people loitering at night. She said safety was an issue and the police should have the ability to police and access the area without driving around to the other park entrance. She said she was not in favor of having a house with three streets surrounding it, and would prefer a different street alignment with possibly only two streets. Com. Harris said that she was not in favor of losing the large fir tree, and would prefer the 48 foot street width with one sidewalk. Com. Stevens complimented the city and the applicant for their consideration in preserving the McCubbin Residence in the proper manner, and if appropriate, if the city could help defray the cost of maintenance of the house on setbacks, by chosing either R1 or BQ, he would favor that because it would be mutual consent. He said that the design of the park illustrated three des gns of various parks showing roads around them, but none with parking in the center. He said that Creekside Park had ample parking in the center of the park and therefore the visibility either for police or people was convenient. He said he felt the applicant's plan was superior because it does not allow for a fence to be opened at the end of the street. He said he would not challenge the city requirements for street alignment or street width. Com. Stevens said he felt it was a suitable plan. Chair Austin said that she concurred with Com. Harris and Com. Stevens. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 32-EA-98 Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes ~ November 23, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 12-Z-98 to be R1-6 except for the lot containing the McCubbin Residence, and that the appropriate zoning plat map and legal description be filed by the applicant_before being forwarded to the City Council; therefore the McCubbin Residence would remain in BQ zoning Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the applicant's plan of closing off the cul de sac, with three lots at the end, with a redesign, so that there is a lot behind the lot with three streets The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Cowan distributed a copy of the standard conditions of approval which apply to most subdivisions. He noted that approval would be for the subdivision per the applicant's drawing, and the standard specified Public Works' conditions MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 5-TM-98 according to the model resolution and original drawing, per all subsequent applications in the model resolution that would be applied; with emphasis of protecting existing historical trees Chair Austin Com. Harris Coms. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 2-1-0 Com. Harris noted for the record that she supported the subdivision as prescribed by the applicant as to the key issue, which is closing it off against the park, and said her issue related to creating a situation where there would be a house surrounded by streets on three sides OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 7. Cancellation of second meeting in December A brief discussion ensued regarding the cancellation of the second December meeting. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to cancel the December 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Corns. Doyle and Mahoney Passed 3-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Stevens commended Mr. Viskovich for his efforts in resolving the recent overflow on Bollinger.