Loading...
PC 04-14-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torm Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 14, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoncy, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Ciddy WordeH, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Woflcs; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 24, 1997 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the March 24, 1997 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Com. Roberts Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Summary of staff workshop: Chair Harris requested that the summary be amended to reflect tho discussion relative to the possibility of Mr. Cotton performing both geologic review and geotechnical review for the City of Cupertino. MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue the approval of the summary of the staff workshop until April 28, 1997. Com. Austin Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a letter from Paula Theiss relative to the K Mart issue; and a letter to Don Brown from the Department of Housing and Community Development, Sacramento relative to the draft amendment to the housing plan. Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 14, 1997 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 4-EXC-97 Lance G~elbracht 22336 Regnart Road Hillside exception to construct a 700 sq. ff. addition above an existing garage with a O-foot second story setback from the first story downhill wall plane. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REMOVE FROM CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Location: 25-U-76 (Mod.) Sunnyvi~w West 22445 Cupertino Road Use Permit for one story 1,610 sq. ff. addition of an auxiliary dining room and service kitchen and office. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 28, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: 2-U-97 Fumio SMa (Paul's Restau~t) 1.0700 De An~ Boulevard Use Permit for a 900 sq. R. addition and interior renovation of exis~fing restaurant. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Ex~npt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 28, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to remove Item 1, Application No. 4-EXC-97, fi.om the calendar, and continue Items 2 and 3, Application Nos. 25-U-76 (Mod.) and 2-U-97 to the April 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-97 and 11-EA-97 Peter Ko/Cupertino Village Associates Southwest comer of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 14, 1997 Use Permit for a new one-story 6,000 SCl. lc. commercial retail building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 21, 1997 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to construct the 6,000 sq. R. commercial building at the previous site occupied by a service station. Staff recommends approval of the application and the Planning Commission's determination will be forwarded to the City Council meeting of April 21, 1997. Ms. Michetle Bjurman, Planner, referred to the site map and reviewed the location of the proposed commercial building. She noted that the request for the use permit would require an allocation fi.om the General Plan. She said that the applicant was concerned with condition No. 2 outlined in the resolution regarding development allocation, specifically that the proposed wording was too limiting. Staff supports the proposed change to the wording as outlined in the resolution. Ms. Bjurman discussed another concern relative to landscaping vs. parking. Referring to the overhead of the pad building site plan, she discussed staff's ceneem that it was a si~t, nificant site to the city, and that the total landscaping of slightly more than 15% was inadequate. Proposed condition No. 9 relative to landscaping is proposed by staff to address the concern. She discussed staff's proposal relative to the parking spaces to respond to the property owner's concern that it would limit their marketability for a fast food restaurant, Boston Market. Staff does not feel it would limit their marketability and they would be able to apply for a conditional Use Permit to convert any of the landscaping over parking. Referring to an overhead of the exterior elevations, Ms. Bjurman discussed the issue of building setback, noting that the 1:1 on the setback to building ratio was a precedent established through the Stevens Creek Conceptual Plan. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the changes to the conditions of approval relative to 4.4 of the resolution document pertaining to the arbofist's requirements to save the ash trees. She pointed out that if the bus turnout is installed, the trees would need to be removed, and replacement would be dictated by the landscaping plan, stating the conditions for replacement. She said that a further condition would be that no bonding be required tithe building was censtrueted simultaneously with the installation of the bus turnout. Ms. Bjurman said that the CC&R condition No. 6 is not applicable as it applies to residential and not general commercial; she also noted there was a typographical error on the storm drainage fee, which should he $1,400. A discussion ensued regarding the removal of thc ash trees, wherein Ms. Bjurman said all the ash trees on Wolfe would be removed for the bus tomout. She explained the reason for the removal of the bonding on the trees. Mr. Peter Ko, Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners, 18 No. San Pedro Street, San lose, thanked Ms. Bjurman for her cooperation on the project. He clarified that the ownership of the main shopping center and the pad building were two different groups. He noted for the record about the parking condition that the plmming department came up with, that removing 14 stalls for the landscape reserve, 8 stalls would be permanently removed and 6 stalls would be parking reserve for the future, stating that if they had full use they could convert 6 stalls to parking. He said that if Boston Market, Noah's Bagels, Starbucks Coffee and a bakery, with 2500 sq. R. of restaurant for Boston Market, 65 Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 14, 1997 seats would just mm fl~ minimum se~Jng requirement and parking; and if adding another full use, it would be difficult for leasing if ~here is more than one full use. He asked if the condition could be revised to have all the 14 stalls be landscape reserve, not for p~rmanent r~rnoval, because tbey would have to return for a Use Permit; iftbe condition could be that 14 s~ls would be landscape reserve for the basis ne~l~cl in the future. Mr. Ko said that relative to the setback, the buildinE along Homestead and Wolfe Rd would have a 2 feet overhang, but above the storcfront windows and on both ends would be trellis. He said that if the Planning Commission felt there was too much encroachln~a into the landscape or the patio of the concrete space, the trellis element could be pulled back to 5 or 6 feet to make the Lrellis shorter. On the corner of the 45 degree angle of the building, thc corner of the building would be similar to the main shopping center/supermarket overhang which is thc same height, about 18 feet, with a 5 foot overhang, which could also be cut back to 3 or 4 feet. Hc said it was landscape space under the overhand and could be cut back for more light into the building. In reaponse to a question from Com. Doyle regarding the setback from the sidewalk after completion, Mr. Ko said that it was 15 feet from the property to the building line, and about 10 feet from the sidewalk to the trellis. Mr. Ko once again clarified that there were two groups involved in the ownership; one for the main village shopping center and one for the building pad. He said as architect for the .two buildings, he was attemptiag to keep the color, roof material, siding and building height similar. Referring to the drawings, he illustrated the location of the two trees that would be removed for the bus turnout, and the location of the trash enclosure. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Ko slated that the storefronta were glass from the floor to ceiling. In response to Chair Harris' question about a reciprocal parking agreement with the center to allow for landscaping and parking, Ms. Bjurman said that the property owner has not discussed whether it was somethin~ he would approve, because he was trying to promote a high number of re~aurant usea within the main center. He has agreed to an casement but is not sure he wants somethinE reciprocal at this time. She said there was no specific plan that controlled the center section. Discussion continued whcrein Mr. Ko and stuff answered questions about the building elevation and monument sign. Chair Harris opened the hearing for public comment. There was no one who wished to speak. Chair Harris summarized thc issues: should there be a base on thc building; should thc building be pushed back on thc site? chaagc the overhangs? is thc building too close to the street? want 24 inch box trces? approval of amended conditions? temporary or permanent landscaping/parking? trash enclosure location; development allocation/size of buiJdln~ building style and materials. Com. Roberts said relative to thc building allocation and size of thc building, he felt it was not in the City's best interest to devote 3,500 sq. ft. from thc general alloWaent to enable a developer to build a complex of fast food restaurants at such an important entrance to thc city. He said he was opposed to the proposal on those grounds. He said he was further opposed to the minimal setbacks to the street, and at such an important intersection would rather see a larger setback which would mean a smaller building. Com. Roberts added hc was opposed to thc idea of the bus turnout around the corner from a busy intersection with a minimal setback to the street hindering people's vision of whether or not there is a bus there. He said that the overhangs are included in the setback issue, and being too close to the street was tied into it. Hc said that for approval, he would favor larger trees. He said he felt it Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 14, 1997 was not in the city's interest to establish parking conditions that would later permit fast food restaurants on the site; he felt the trash enclosure should be adjacent to the building. Summarizing, he said that the application was not one he would approve. Later in the meeting, he indicated he would favor instituting the base, and not approve the floor to ceiling glass for the building. Com. Mahoney said he approved the building size; materials should be compatible with the remainder of the center; was not opposed to the setbacks; amended conditions appropriate; relative to the parking, he said the 8 stalls should be landscaped, and the remaining 6 be parking; tree replacement appropriate; trash enclosure location per staff recommendation. Later in the meeting, he conenrred with the rationale for not approving the floor to ceiling glass on the building. Relative to the policy for entries into the city having a vertical element, Com. Doyle expressed concern about the building because of the glass gable, stating be felt it would appear to be a large billboard for the property owner because of the back lighting and glow. He said he felt the distance from the property line was not appropriate, and the present site has very large greenbelt with double rows of trees with canopy. He said he was concerned about the setbacks and the overhangs and being too close to the street, stating that if the two elements are linked together with a very large vertical element on the site, the size of the building would have to be reduced from the 6,000 sq. f~. whether it is a development allocation or not. He said he felt the magnitude of the request was too large. Com. Doyle said that larger trees were more appropriate. He said the amended conditions were appropriate; landscaping of the site should be maximized, therefore the permanent 8 would be appropriate and the associated temporary parking spots. The trash enclosure per ~aff recommendation was appropriate. He said that he did not feel the buildings should be floor to ceiling glass, as it creates too much clutter, and the appearance is better from the street; restaurants are more appropriate with a 3 or 4 foot wall. Com. Austin said she would like to see the size cut back so the setback is 18 feet; materials should blend in with the rewaining buildings; overhang appropriate if it is 18 feet high and 18 feet back; she said it was too close to the street; said she would prefer pear or flowering trees for quick growing and sheltering rather than large trees which would hide the center in the future. She said she was not in favor of temporary landscaping and felt it was not appropriate to give up the parking. She said she was not in favor of something as large as a Boston Market. Com. Austin said she would prefer to have it scaled back and changed. Overall, she said she was not in favor of the application. Chair Harris said that although not opposed to a fast food restaurant, it was not appropriate for the Homestead and Wolfe location. She said that she felt it should be pushed back on the site and if it were pushed back on the site, they could retain a reciprocal parking agreement with a similar ownership; it was appropriate for 6,000 feet. If the reciprocal parking agreement could not be attained, the building would have to be smaller because it is too close to the street for aesthetic reasons, it is a gateway building, and it is dangerous for the bus coming around the corner. She recommended that the bus turnout be further down the street. She said she felt the floor to ceiling glass was inappropriate, and as a city gateway, there should be a base. Chair Han4s said she felt the overhangs were a quality item and should not be sacrificed, and they should be on the building once the building is pushed further back. She said she felt 24 inch box trees to replace mature ash trees were too small; 3 for 2 was appropriate but a minimum of 36 inch box trees. She said that the trash enclosure should not be close to the entry doors, and suggested moving the trash enclosure down the site fully screened from Homestead and the center, with shrubs higher than 2 feet, and a conscious landscape plan not intruding on the neighborhood. She said she felt it should be landscaped per staff Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 14, 199'/ recommendntion, and that the solution was not to restrict the parking, but rather gain parking from the center. Chair Harris summarized that many issues had t~ be ~dd~ssed before agreement on approval would be reached. Issues were that some felt the building should be moved back; some felt the building is too large; the design issue of a base; the parking/landscaping need further work. Com. Roberts questioned if there was no other objection about making an allocation from the General Plan to permit a fast food e~ablishment at the city entrance, when in fact the General Plan discouraged fast food establishments. Com. Doyle responded that he did not equate the program with the fast food establishment, and stated that it was foremost that there be a quality building appropriate for multiple uses. Com. Roberts said that the concept presented was for a complex of fast food establishments. Ms. Bjurman clarified that the application was for a general retail building, with no request for a Use Permit for a fast food establishment. Com. Roberts said it was difficult to establish the applicant's intent without his presence at the meeting. Ms. Wordell said that if a fast food establishment were to be considered, the applicant would have to return with that application. A discussion ensued regarding the approval of fast food establishments, wherein Com. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission was criticized for approving the Taco Bell on DeA-n~ Boulevard. Chair Harris said she did not have the same objection to fast food establishments, because all of the community could not afford to go to sit down restaurants and should not have to go to another community for that service. Ms. Wordell clarified that drive-thrus were discouraged in the General Plan, but no mention of fast food e~tablishments. Mr. Ko clarified that the application was not for restaurant use, but for general retail use, and would return for a Use Permit for a restaurant when needed. Chair Harris explained that the objection was to the overall application, not just the use. Mr. Ko said that he would change the building design to include a 3 foot base along Homestead and Wolfe Road; the comer overhang feature could be reworked. He requested approval or denial of the application with cie. ar direction. The Planning Commission provided more direction to the architect for more setbacks with a similar design; 1:1 ratio (18 feet) from the inside oftbe sidewalk; 3 foot base for the building; and 36 inch box trees. Referring to the overhead site plan, Ms. Bjurman suggested a ~verse design of the building so that the building wns setback and the parking in a different location, to allow a view to the bus turnout. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant the Negative Declaration on Application 11-EA-97 Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to deny Application 4-U-97 for reasons set forth in the discussion, relative to the site being situated in a key location in the city, and requiring more setbacks, additional green, base required, replacement of trees. Com. Roberts Application Denied 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minugs 7 April 14, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-U-97 Lily Hal-Fang Lee 21621 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to allow financial office uses and storage in an existing 2,864 sq. t~. building as per previous approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to operate a finm, l¢ial ot:~co and storage in the existing 2,864 square foot building. The building has been vacant since 1992. The issues of eoncem relate to the common roadway behind the building and the three adjoining properties which needs resurfacing, and a parking deficiency. The Planning Commission may wish to limit the number of employees to two. The building does not comply with Cupertino building codes with the addition of an unapproved restroom facility. Another eoneem is the roadway and landscaping improvements. A comprehensive improvement plan should be required specifying parking and alsleway layout dimensions, traffic control signs, street trees, drainage as well as landsenpe plans. Two additional concerns relate to the debris in the side and rear yards which should be removed prior to occupancy and the need for new white paint around the bont windows. Staff recommends approval of the application. Referring to a location map, Ms. Wordell reviewed the building site and proposed elevations, and illustrated the office space and storage space. She summarized that an improvement plan would be required to show the full improvements in the roadway as well as the landscaping on the site and state right-of-way area; with the requirement that the landscaping plan be returned for architectural review. She said that the debris removal and need for paint were also issues. Com. Austin commented that the building had been presented to the Planning Commission many times over the years. She said that the previous owner posted a bend to repair the street, which was never accomplished. Chair Harris opened the hearing for public input. Mr. Ed Wooleber, representing Ms. Lee, said that he was assisting in processing the application with the city. He said that the use of the buildin~ was for office and storage space. Ms. Lily Hui-Fang Lee, co-owner of the building, said that she purchased the building in October 1996 said that she now understood the re~tdetions outlined in the .~afle report, but prior to purchasing the building was not aware of them. She questioned why she was responsible for paving the area, including the adjacent buildings. Ms. Wordell clarified that there was an existing agreement entered into with the prior owner that he would be responsible for the paving; however, the condition was never fulfilled. She said that the building inspector did go to the property and confirmed problems still existed. In response to Chair Harris' question, MS. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works Department, said that the $4,000 bond which was established in 1991 is not presently sufficient to accomplish the work. She said that the agreement is contained in the file, and any purchaser has the ability to check into the file Planning Commission Minutes s April 14, 1997 to see the conditions ~-~,'hcd to thc property. She clarified that the paving was for the entire lot, not just the applicant's building area. Ms. Word~H ~xplalned that in 1991, all four property owners entered into an agreement that thc one property owner would make the improvements, but all four would agree to maintenance of the lot in the future. Com. Mahoney explained that it had been a public street, and it was mnrle into a private street, and it was part of the agreement for approval of the building. Ms. Lynaugh said she was not certain of the present day cost for the paving, but that when the other building owners were approached that the bond was available to do the paving work, one owner indicated that only 50% of the work could be accomplished with the $4,000 bond available, and that was a f~w years back. Ms. Lynaugh stated that the improvement plan is on file and the applicant could have viewed it. Ms. Lee said that she would comply with the city requirement of a maximum of two employees, and retain the building space as office and storage space. She noted that the unapproved restroom had already been s~noved from the building, In response to Mr. Wooleber's question about the state right-of-way, Ms. Wordell stated that the agreement stipulated that the property owner would landscape the entire area, which was the same condition the previous property owner had. He said that he would examine the records as only a portion of the state right-of-way was in front of the said property. Mr. Ron Smith, 10077/79 Santa Clara Ave., expressed concern about the additional traffic the building would create because of the storage element of the building. He said he felt the noise and quality of living in the area, and property values in the area would decrease because of the commercial application of the building. He said he felt it was not appropriate to approve the use of the building. Mr. Jack Wedgewood, 21621 Stevens Creek Blvd., said that he was a co-owner of parcel 60 and shared the parking area with the Monta Vista Inn. He reviewed the history of the building, stating that the original use of the building was a hay and feed store, accounting for the large amount of storage space. He said that a previous owner converted the building into a records storage building. He said that the city abandoned the street to the property owners, and his office building and the Monta Vista Inn had a reciprocal parking agreement. One of the conditions of the previous owner was that the street was to brought up to the conditions of the ~naindor of the parking in the area, which was not accomplished. He said that the $4,000 bond does not accurately reflect the cost of bringing the lot in line with what remains, He said that the problem existed because the previous property owner was gnmted a Use Permit without doing the lot paving in advance. He said that the box on the state property presents a problem with the landscaping of the state fight-of-way. Mr. Wedgewood said that parking is a major problem for the asea because there is room for only two cars on each side oftbe street. He pointed out that any type of usage that would bring in additional cars temporarily or permanently on a chily basis will impact the businesses. He said that he was concerned about the granting of a Use Permit without the other requirements being fulfilled before occupancy. He requested that the Planning Commission consider not granting a Use Permit until the conditions are fulfilled. Mr. Michael Periclis, 21619 Stevens Creek Blvd., owner of Monta Vista Inn, expressed concern about g~unting of a Use Pennit before the paving is completed. He said that it was not possible to control the parking, and that some people from De.AnTa College parked there also. In response to Com. Doyle's question about the agreement, Mr. Peficlis said that the terms of the agreement were a Plmming Commission Minutes 9 April 14, 1997 result of the property owners not wanting the street and were forced by the city to take it. The owner was willing to pay for the expenses of the paving in order to have the Use Permit granted. Mr. Munir Kureshi, owner of the animal hospital on parcel 43, which includes two lots, said that there are daily parking problems with unauthorized vehicles being parked in the area of the businesses and another building would only add to the problems. He requested that the city investigate the parking problem before granting the pen'nit. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the h~ng. Chair Hams summarized the issues: whether to grant the Use Permit; whether to require the previous conditions for improvements imposed on the previous owner; street improvements and landscape improvements; whether to restrict the number of employees to two; ~moval of debris; and painting of trim. Com. Roberts asked general counsd what the limits on building use were. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attomey, said that she would research what usage would be permitted on the building with no parking. She said that the Planning Commission could require that the conditions be fulfilled prior to oecupuncy. Ms. Murray stated that she would also research the issue of requiring a private citizen to mail~tain state right-of-way. She said that there were legal issues involving the property. Ms. Wordell said that the prior use was for microfiche storage and the proposed use was attempting to make it comparable to that prior use. She said that the State will maintain the fight-of-way but will not make the improvements. Com. Doyle said that he felt the use of the building should be approved, but that the conditions relative to the improvements should be met prior to granting the Use Permit. He said that the owner should not be denied use of the building because a precedent exists for the application. Com. Austin concurred, stating that a bond should be placed; limit employees to two persons; and the conditions met prior to granting of the Use Permit. Com. Doyle clarified that a bond was not necessary if the conditions were met prior to occupancy. Com. Mahoney agreed with that the conditions should be met prior to granting the Use Permit. Com. Roberts said that he also agreed that the conditions should be met prior to oecupaney, and that he felt a more explicit use plan for the building was needed, specifying that there would not be a frequent need for trucks and other large vehicles delivering and picking up items being stored. He said it should be a feasible parking plan within the boundaries of the site, or otherwise reach agreement with the other owners for reciprocal parking in front of their buildings. Chair Harris said that she felt the city was at fault for not enforcing the past restriction, and did not calculate enough of an impmvemeut bond and timely enforce the use of it. She said it was not appropriate to bind the present owner to the city's error. She said that she felt occupancy should be limited two employees, dean up the debris in the yard, and paint the windows; however, the city abandoned the area and caused the problem. She said that the parking problem relative to other vehicles using the parking area was not the applicant's problem, and that four parking spaces for two Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 14, 1997 employees and pickup and delivery vehicles was appropriate. Chair Harris said that she was in favor of granting the Use Permit without the restrictions. Com. Mahoney said that he was in favor of the restrictions because they were the same restrictions for the same reasons as six years ago. Chair Harris said she felt it was the city's job to make sure it was done before an occupancy permit was issued and the bond was sufficient if tbey did not do it. MOTION: . SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 3-U-97 with the prior obligation to thc improvements as stated in the model resolution. Com. Mahoney Coms. Roberts, Chair I-Ia~is Passed 3-2-0 Chair Harris noted for the record that her reason was that she wanted fewer restrictions, that she did not oppose the use, but was opposed to holding the particular owner to something that was not enforced previously. Com. Roberts said that he opposed it for different reasons already discussed relative to inadequate parking and i~_adequately explicit description of use of the building, including frequency of deliveries, and requirement for loading zone. Ms. Wordell stated that the decision was final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1-TM-97 Emily Chen 21855 Dolores Avenue Tentative Map to subdivide a parcel into two lots of 11,373 and 8,498 sq. ft. ENVIRONMENTAL DI~TI~LMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Stuff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for subdivision of a parcel/nto two lots, which if approved would include a flag lot. The presentation noted that 7 trees are proposed for removal; and outlined the drainage system. Staff recommende approval of the application. Referring the overhead map, Ms. Wordell illustrated the proposed lots and noted the flag lots adjacent to them. She reported that the applicant was requesting a minor change to add a 5 feet easement to the parcel itself, not to the west as originally shown. Staff supports the minor change. Ms. Wordell said that staff was suggesting a condition that should the property subdivide in a flag pattern, at that time the property owner would grant reciprocal ingress and egress access for the flag lot. Ms. Wordell indicated the trees to be removed or retained. She noted that the video's reference to the 5 foot oak should have been 5 inches. Chair Harris opened the hearing for public input. Ms. Emily Cben, applicant, said that the flag lot was consistent with the Monta Vista neighbofaood, and asked for the Planning Commission's support oftbe application. Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 14, 1997 Mr. Carl Crosswhite, 21871 Dolores Ave., said that he resided nex~ to the proposed lots, and that his lot would also accommodate a flag lot. He said that he was not planning to subdivide in the near future. In response to a question from Com. Austin, he said that the large pole was a power pole and would be removed, as the power lines would be underground. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Ms. Lynaugh reviewed the drainage in the area, and noted that there were not major problems in the area. She said that the problems existed for properties that had no improvements along their frontage and had a low area in comparison to the sUeet. In response to Com. Roberts' question about a future provision for providing urban services for the area because of the development, Ms. Lynaagh said that there was not a master plan for the area because there are no major problems in the area. A discussion ensued relative to addressing the cumulative effect of the applications for development, wherein Ms. Wordell reported that in earlier discussions, Public Works indio~_t~ that the surface system is the appropriate system for the city, that it was not a failed system. In the long run, as the storage drainage fees are accumulated, a master plan storm drain system could be addressed. Ms. Lynaugh explained that as the development occur, curbs and gutters are installed, which are the facilities to carry the water to areas where there are storm d~ain~. As the area gets built up, the curbs and gutters are installed so they will carry the water away from the area to where there are storm drain facilities. She indic~t~ it would improve as development occurs, and although they may be only installing curbs and gutters and in some areas sidewalks, storm lines per se may not be installed, but they are installing storm facilities. The curbs and gutters ean'y the water away to a system much more efficient than where there are unimproved areas. She said that Public Works does look at the new maps and re, ali?e that it is an area of new development. Even though there is not a storm chain or catch basin on every comer, the water is draining offheeause of the topography of the land. In response to Com. Doyle's suggestion of advance planning rather than acting in a reactive mode regarding the drainage, staff was requested to submit a plan from Public Works at a future meeting relative to a future plan for the subdivision and development in this particular area where the density keeps increasing and the amount of flat space, having not dealt with the drain, or what other criteria or attributes would be considered consider to make the decision to convert from surface water to underground. Ms. Wordell clarified that the drainage plan has been approved for the lot. Ms. Lynaugh explained that the drainage fi~e was adopted through the adoption of the master storm drainage plan and cuvers the maintenance of the existing system. Even though a property may not have the system on its street, its water is being drained off to a system and will at some point get into a storm drain system. In response to Com. g~oherts' question about installing drain pipes, Ms. Lynaugh said that the developer is required to install the line at the time of the application. If the developer installs a line, they get a credit toward the installation of their line of the fee. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application I-TM-97 according to thc model resolution, with the change that the flag would be 20 feet wide, and a condition be included that they be required to have reciprocal access should the lot to the west develop. Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Plmming Commisslou Miuutes t~ Apd~ 14, 1997 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS Chair Harris discussed the Economic Summit scheduled for April 29, from 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon. 7. Schedule site visit related to the Diocese development application. Following discussion, there was consensus that the site visits to St. Patrick's Seminary and Portola Valley Ranch would be scheduled for Smurday, May l?th, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on April 28, 1997. Approved as Amended: April 28, 1997 ,especu lly Submittea, Recording Secretary