Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER LINDA RODGERS Chair Hunter introduced and welcomed the newest member of the Commission who is participating in her first meeting of a three-year term as Planning Commissioner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Garakani placed his name for consideration as Chair. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Commissioner Hunter could be re-elected. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Municipal Code prevents a Planning Commission Chair from serving consecutive terms. Motion: Upon motion and second, Commissioner Garakani was selected to serve as Chair. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Uhl nominated Commissioner Nagpal to serve as Vice Chair. Commissioner Nagpal recommended that Commissioner Zutshi be nominated for Vice Chair. Director Tom Sullivan said that Code does not preclude the Vice Chair from serving two consecutive terms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 2 Motion: Upon motion and second, Commissioner Nagpal was selected to serve as Vice Chair. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of March 10, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 3. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Zutshi was absent and Commissioner Rodgers abstained) REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 8, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b), except for Item No. 2 for which the Planning Commission action will be final. ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Emma Wykoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Suggested that the City consider ways to improve and enhance their notification process. • Said that recently, she was not properly notified of an approval for which she had general concerns. The City has old mailing information for her property although this information had been updated with the County Assessor’s Office. • Suggested that notices be sent to the physical address even if the database has a different address for the owner. • Thanked the Commission for hearing her concerns. Commissioner Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan if his staff is aware of these questions. Director Tom Sullivan said that the County sells the City of Saratoga the information used for mailings. Both City Ordinance and Government Code require that these mailings go to the owner’s address included on the Assessor’s roles. In many cases, there are absentee property owners. Commissioner Uhl asked how often this information is updated. Director Tom Sullivan replied once a year. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Schallop asked why not mail both to the site and the owner’s address, if they are different. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this would double the mailing. Commissioner Schallop suggested that this be done only if the two are different. Chair Garakani said that Planning Department staff would look into this issue further. *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) – Appellant DUVALL, Site Location – 18325 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit for property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, seeking reversal of that denial. • Stated that the request for the removal of a Coastal Redwood was reviewed and denied administratively on February 11, 2004. The appellant appealed that decision on March 2, 2004. • Reported that the Planning Commission considered an appeal of another Tree Removal Permit application for this same tree that had been approved administratively. The Commission granted that appeal, overturning the administrative approval. • Explained that since that time, the City has adopted a new Tree Ordinance. As a result of the new Ordinance, the City Attorney felt that there were sufficient changes in the required criteria that the City could allow this property owner to re-apply for a Tree Removal Permit. • Stated that when staff looked at the criteria under the new Tree Ordinance, it was determined that most of the required criteria could not be met in order to support approval of this request. • Said that the City’s Arborist reviewed this tree and submitted a report in which options were offered for dealing with the repaving of the driveway, which has been greatly damaged by the tree’s root system. One option would be to use standard base course material and the other would be to use structural soil mix, which allows the roots to go down deeper. Either option would work. Option 1 would last about 10 years and Option 2 would last about 15 to 20 years. Commissioner Schallop asked if staff is surprised by the different assessment offered by the City’s Arborist and the report provided by the property owner’s Arborist. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop asked if the property owner could be required to provide a replacement tree if this one were to be removed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could do so. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff if the goal to preserve and protect is the starting point of the Tree Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that seven of nine criteria could not be met and wondered how many must be met in order to approve such a request. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Tree Ordinance does not set a minimum number of criteria that must be met in order to support an application to remove a tree. Commissioner Schallop asked if the same criteria are considered when removing a tree for new construction. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added that it could be suggested that a proposed structure be relocated on a site to preserve a tree instead of removing it. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether the age and number of trees on a property are taken into account and whether a removal might be approved if there was overcrowding of trees. Director Tom Sullivan answered that if there are sufficient trees so that the removal of one would not severely impact the property it could be a basis for approval. He added that this property has two large Redwoods in the front yard, one at the mid point and the second at the street, adjacent to the driveway. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mrs. Gunde Duvall, Appellant and Property Owner, 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has owned this property since 1968 and is proud to live in this beautiful City. • Explained that this large tree is located right next to the driveway and is on top of sewer and gas lines. • Said that she understands the importance of trees and loves trees as much as anyone else. • Informed that she worked for years in the fields of property management and real estate. • Reminded that the City had originally given permission for the removal of this tree but that her neighbor, Mr. Tom Corson, appealed that decision. • Pointed out letters from PG&E and Valley Concrete and advised that she could lose her insurance coverage for this property as a result of potential hazards as a result of this tree. • Said that the tree’s roots are beneath the driveway and must be removed as it is causing a risk of having people fall and get hurt. • Stated her hope that the City could give her the answer she needs before anything happens. • Asked for the Commission’s help with this. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Gunde Duvall if she has any documentation from her insurer to support her concerns about loss of insurance coverage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 5 Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied no but said that there is a good chance that they will cancel. Commissioner Nagpal asked if her insurance company is aware of this situation. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied that her agent is aware but the main office is not. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist is present this evening. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied that the Arborist is out of town for 10 days. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist had reviewed the recommendations of the City’s Arborist. Mrs. Gunde Duvall said that many different people she consulted advised her that taking this tree out is the only solution. Commissioner Hunter asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist saw the two options outlined in the City Arborist’s report. Mrs. Gunde Duvall reported that the crack in her driveway continues to grown larger. Commissioner Nagpal stated that the City Arborist’s report states the belief that some roots can be removed without causing mortality of this tree. Did Chris Hall, her Arborist, see that report. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied no. Chair Garakani pointed out that Chris Hall wrote his report just three days ago. Miss. Elizabeth Mercado, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that she is six years old and would feel bad if this tree got cut down. • Presented her drawing of the tree to the Commission. Ms. Mary McGuire, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Declared the fundament issue being that this tree impacts the entire neighborhood. • Stated that it is a beautiful tree and a landmark and that she would like to see it preserved. • Pointed out that the gas pipe is only a two-inch pipe. • Cautioned that a petition that will be turned in was presented to people for signature without telling them the facts. She was able to explain the other side to one person who had signed it. • Asked for help in keeping this neighborhood beautiful. Chair Garakani welcomed the next speaker and advised those in attendance that Ms. Lisa Kurasch worked on the updated Tree Ordinance as well as having served on the Planning Commission. Ms. Lisa Kurasch, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga: • Said it was nice to see the Commission this evening. • Urged the Commission to take staff’s recommendation seriously as this is an issue of properly using and interpreting the new Tree Ordinance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 6 • Stated that this application is for a new driveway and does not represent a safety problem, adding that she has sufficient confidence in City staff that if this were a safety issue, they would have information to that effect. • Took issue with the fact that the nine criteria cannot be met in order to support the removal of this tree. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Lisa Kurasch if she has seen this driveway. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied yes. • Added that there are alternative methods available for installing a new driveway on this property. • Recommended that staff’s decision be looked at seriously and upheld. • Suggested that perhaps the gas main could be moved. • Expressed her pleasure that the new Ordinance is coming up for a test here. • Reminded that this is a 161-inch circumference tree, a landmark tree. Chair Garakani: • Asked how Ms. Lisa Kurasch would look at this request if there were danger involved. • Reminded that the property owner is concerned. She is willing to pay to fix the situation but not for the potential consequences if someone were to be injured on the property as a result of the current conditions. • Asked how Mrs. Gunde Duvall can be assured that if this tree falls, it is not her fault. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied that there are no guarantees anywhere. • Reminded that the required criteria to support removal have not been met and that there are alternatives to removal of this tree. • Said that more information in support of the stated safety concerns raised are needed. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Lisa Kurasch about the equivalent value in replacement trees being required to allow the removal of this tree. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied that the tree is valuable to the community and would be difficult to replace. • Said that the context needs to be considered. This is an exceptional tree. People value this tree. Commissioner Uhl asked about moving the gas line. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is PG&E’s gas main line for this neighborhood but it would be physically possible to relocate it. Mr. Jim Dillinger, 18326 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that a lot of people are present and there is a big concern in dealing with feelings and emotions of one side of the issue versus the other. • Pointed out that this property owner is trying to alleviate a problem and that the main issue is not the driveway. • Said that this tree’s roots are branching off in every direction. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 7 • Reported that the Arborist drilled only in one area when evaluating this tree. • Said that Mrs. Gunde Duvall is not just concerned with fixing the driveway. The damage caused by the roots of this tree are impeding the water flow down the street. Water stays puddled with no place to go. The curb is damaged. Who pays to fix it. • Stated that no one is protecting Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Advised that the yard is a mess with roots above grade. • Pointed out that the solutions offered by the City’s Arborist provides a 15 to 21 year solution for Option 1 and a 20 to 25 year solution for Option 2. Therefore, he believes that someone else will have to deal with this issue again in 15 to 20 years. • Stated that this is a street issue and a yard issue. It is the City’s mandate to protect the citizens of Saratoga. • Said that the top half of this tree is almost barren. It is stressed per one Arborist’s report. • Pointed out that the only one who gets some shade from this tree is Mr. Tom Corson and he has three other trees in the area providing him with sufficient shade. • Stated that this is not a heritage tree as it was planted about 45 years ago by a homeowner. • Declared that the big question for staff is what changed in the criteria whereby they could approve a removal of this tree a year ago but could not support the same request now. He read some of the criteria from the previous staff-approved Tree Removal Permit. At that time, the City wanted this tree out and only changed its position when others complained. • Stated that Mrs. Gunde Duvall is asking for your help not for any type of monetary gain but simply because this tree is a hazard. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether PG&E’s letter outlines potential damage to the gas main by this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger: • Replied no. • Elaborated by adding that this two-inch gas pipe is located directly beneath this tree. • Cautioned that with 30 years in fire service, he warns that no one wants to see a natural gas fire. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this gas main is impaired. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. As of this moment it is not impaired. However, the potential problem is of concern. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this tree is the same age as the house. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no, the house is slightly older. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Dillinger how long he has resided on this property. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied approximately 13 months. The situation is twice as bad as when he first moved in. He added that he moved onto the property with the understanding that the tree would be removed and the driveway replaced. Right now, he cannot use this driveway. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that preventative steps could have been taken in years past and asked why they did not occur. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Jim Dillinger: • Explained that Mrs. Gunde Duvall had applied for and received a Tree Removal Permit but it was overturned upon appeal. • Added that since that time, he put barrier tape up and parks his truck over a crack to prevent anyone from tripping over it. • Said that Mrs. Gunde Duvall wants to deal with the entire problem, the potential impacts on the gas main, the water runoff issue and the uneven grade in the front yard. Mr. Mo Tajik, 18312 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified his property as being across the street. • Agreed that when it rains the water puddle sits there. • Said that he loves trees. This one is beautiful and he looks at it every day. • Expressed his opinion that the potential hazard supercedes the beauty of this tree. • Stated that the removal of this tree would not take away from the beauty of this street as there is another lovely Redwood tree located close by on this property. Chair Garakani questioned whether the roots of that second Redwood tree might not be compromised should this tree’s roots be dug out after it is cut down. Mr. Mo Tajik replied that this second tree is further from the street and curb. Mr. Julio Bermudez, 18360 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Explained that the reason he bought a home in this area is because it is beautiful and picturesque. • Said that it is unfortunate that this tree was planted in this particular location. • Stated that this tree creates a potential City liability if someone should trip and become injured. • Said that there are a couple of good options. Chair Garakani said that he too is concerned about liability. Mr. Wayne Garrahan, 18422 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga: • Asked staff for a definition of a heritage tree. Director Tom Sullivan said a tree is designated as being a heritage tree by the City Council. This is not a heritage tree. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviews trees under consideration for heritage tree status and then forwards a recommendation on to Council. Council can so designates a tree as being a heritage tree. Mr. Wayne Garrahan: • Identified himself as the Vice President of the neighborhood Homeowner’s Association. • Stated that it was a big mistake to plant this tree in this poor location. • Said that there are two large trees on this property and that this one is creating problems including standing water, where mosquitoes can breed, and tripping hazards. • Declared his love of trees too. • Cautioned that he is loath to plant any new trees on his own property for fear that he would be prevented from removing it in the future should the tree become a problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 9 • Suggested that this tree be looked at and that the Commissioners put themselves in the shoes of this property owner and come up with a reasonable solution. • Stated that if there were 10 Arborist reports, there would be 10 different recommendations. • Described his experience when living in Campbell whereby one large tree on a neighboring property lost two large limbs, one of which fell onto his house while the second just missed the gas main. • Said he understands the emotional appeals for the retention of this tree but that the property owner has offered a replacement tree. • Appealed to the Commission to use good sense. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Wayne Garrahan if his comments represent the HOA or his own views. Mr. Wayne Garrahan said that he is representing himself as a local homeowner. Ms. Doris Livezey, 1107 Little Oak Circle, San Jose: • Said that she resides in San Jose and is a representative of Our City Forest. • Stated that trees are a wise investment for the community. • Agreed that this driveway is an atrocious sight but that it can be properly corrected without removal of this tree. • Agreed that this tree was planted in a poor location. • Said that trees are beneficial, offering cooling, sound attenuation and habitat for birds and squirrels. • Suggested that this tree can be saved. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Doris Livezey if the pruning of roots for this tree would create a stability issue for the tree. Ms. Doris Livezey replied that a large portion of this tree’s roots are under the driveway. However, if done properly, there would not be a stability issue for this tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Doris Livezey if she is an Arborist. Ms. Doris Livezey replied no. Chair Garakani pondered whether an Arborist would provide liability for their work. Ms. Doris Livezey commended the City for its Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Doris Livezey if the Coastal Redwood is native to the area. Ms. Doris Livezey said she did not know. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Coastal Redwood has a very large taproot and is one of the least likely species to come down. Ms. Doris Livezey agrees that it has one of the deepest taproots around. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Larry Clark, 1217 Autumnsong Way, San Jose: • Identified himself as a friend to Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Said that this tree was located without any foresight about how large it would grow. • Suggested that the bottom line here is liability. • Advised that he used to work for Valley Concrete and gave an anecdotal account of seeing a tree fall over after having had its roots removal and even though the process had been supervised by the City of San Jose’s own Arborist. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark what species of tree that was. Mr. Larry Clark said he was not sure but that it was an older tree. Commissioner Rodgers wondered about the qualifications of the supervising Arborist in that situation. Mr. Larry Clark reminded that it was the City of San Jose’s own Arborist. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the age of the tree has been verified and how long the driveway has been in this condition. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark if he pours concrete driveways. Mr. Larry Clark replied that he used to. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark for the general depth of a driveway. Mr. Larry Clark said that it ranges between five and five-and-a-half inches in depth with base rock and a four-and-a-half inch slab. Mr. Richard Williams, 18396 Purdue Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he is present to speak on behalf of this property owner, Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Stated that this situation is unfair to the tenant on this property and to the property owner. • Suggested that someone look at both reports. • Pointed out that a two-inch gas line can do a great damage to the general area. • Informed that the driveway is unusable right now. • Stated that this is a fairness issue. Mr. Chris Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this issue should not be about a few neighbors but the whole neighborhood, using good use and common sense. • Stated that this tree continues to cause damage and any steps recommended only offer a temporary solution. • Declared that this tree was improperly located on this property and that its roots must be damaging the utilities beneath it. • Suggested the benefits of having the City foster an environment whereby trees are evaluated for their appropriateness prior to planting. • Said he was concerned about the opposition to this request as having self-interests as opposed to this owner’s interests. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 11 Ms. Georgeann Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said that trees are needed to provide photosynthesis and aesthetic appeal. • Questioned what assurances could be offered that there is a long-term solution available. • Stated that there is life-threatening damage that has occurred. • Wondered who would be willing to assume the liability if Mrs. Gunde Duvall cannot get insurance for her property. • Said that if the City has any liability, that means she personally does too as a taxpayer. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Georgeann Wiles where Purdue is in relation to this property. Ms. Georgeann Wiles replied that her street is the second street from the north. Ms. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Stated that during the last public hearing on this particular tree, she spoke before the Commission. • Said that she has planted 16 trees on her own property. • Pointed out that many mature evergreen trees have just disappeared in the neighborhood as well as the canopy of a large magnolia. • Expressed concern over the declining number of trees in the neighborhood. • Suggested that the City coach homeowners on how to best locate trees on a site. • Said that if there is a way to save this tree, to go with that path. • Agreed that it is a tough call. • Pointed out that this particular homeowner owns several properties in the neighborhood and that some speakers may support her for that reason. However, she herself has no vested interest in this property. Ms. Angie Fredrick, 18377 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in the area for 46 years and is a past school administrator and member of the Saratoga Public Safety Commission. • Said that her prime concern is the safety of people and that a hazardous condition should not be retained. • Expressed her support for this property owner who should be allowed to remove this tree. Mr. Paul Morris, 18325 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his support for this property owner. • Questioned if this tree stays, what is the plan for the street and curb repairs. • Said that roots on the street side would also probably have to be shaved back too. • Stated that he would like to see this property owner prevail. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed that Commission that she resides within an adjacent subdivision but had the opportunity to grow up on this street, having spent her first 18 years there. • Stated that this tree has been subject to 25 years of benign neglect. • Reminded that the original application last year was for the removal of both of these Redwood trees. • Gave a list of reasons to retain trees as well as identified a list of organizations devoted to the preservation of trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 12 • Said that we need to find a way to co-exist with these mature trees and that liability is not a valid argument here. • Said that she lived for 10 years among the Redwoods in Santa Cruz and that they don’t just fall down. • Pointed out that the Arborist says this tree is stable. • Said that she spoke with PG&E and was told that a gas line is easy to move. • Provided photographs of neighborhood trees. • Asked the Commission to review its options and consider extending the life of this tree. Chair Garakani asked whether Ms. Lara would be willing to help this property owner with the liability. Ms. Elizabeth Lara countered that this owner has neglected the tree. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this is the wrong location for this tree and asked Ms. Elizabeth Lara what species of tree she would plant there. Ms. Elizabeth Lara said she would defer this question to her father, standing beside her this evening. Mr. Olegario G. Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that nothing could replace this tree. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Advised that her father is 83 years old and has lived in Saratoga for 60 years. • Added that another neighbor, Mr. Tajik, removed six trees illegally. • Stated that a tree is a living thing and that a neighborhood without trees is a dead neighborhood. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he previously submitted a letter. • Questioned being charged by a previous speaker with having ulterior motives. • Advised that legal issues have come up and that the local homeowners association has been disbanded by the Superior Court. • Opined that Mr. Dillinger has nothing invested in this neighborhood. • Said that this issue was previously reviewed and that there are no new facts here. • Said that the biggest issue is the gas main and that this is a real slippery slope that could be precedent setting. • Said it would be wrong to overturn this action since the Planning Commission previously determined that this tree must stay. • Added that the updated Tree Ordinance is supposed to protect trees and that this tree deserves protection. Mr. Ivan Burnett, 18468 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has been in the area for 42 years and has seen a lot of changes in the area. • Said that he himself lost four or five trees. • Reported that most of the soil is adobe, which does not allow roots to go down through that. All of the roots of this tree are way up high. • Said that if these roots are cut, there would not be enough left to hold this tree up. • Argued that cutting its roots off cannot repair this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 13 • Added that the issue of puddled water is that it breeds mosquitoes. • Stated that no one can park in this driveway as it is too dangerous. Mr. Jim Dillinger, speaking in rebuttal for property owner Mrs. Gunde Duvall: • Stated that the support for Mrs. Gunde Duvall is ten to one. • Rebutted Mr. Corson’s charge that he is just passing through. • Said that maybe he won’t stay in this house forever, but he is here in the community to stay, having moved here from Oregon. • Added that attacking an individual has nothing to do with this issue. • Asked the Commission to please look at the liability. • Assured that no Arborist would be willing to assume the liability for what may or may not happen following their cutting of a tree’s roots. • Thanked the Commission for doing this hard job. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Implored the audience to not let this tree divide a neighborhood. • Said that so many of them have lived there for so many years. • Agreed that this is a difficult discussion and the Commission made it last summer. • Pointed out that she has a standing water issue on her own property. • Thanked the representative from Our Urban Forest for attending this meeting. • Said that the loss of trees will affect all of us. • Stated that everyone has some level of liability. • Suggested that pervious pavers are an alternative for the driveway. • Said that this is a beautiful tree that looks healthy. • Advised that she will support staff’s recommendation since the City has a well-qualified Arborist and his recommendations were clear. • Added that people are much smarter now about trees and taking care of them when building driveways. Commissioner Schallop suggested focusing on the criteria rather than the competing experts. Asked if a safety issue was raised in the PG&E letter. Director Tom Sullivan reported that since the last Planning Commission action lots of discussion has occurred regarding the issue of the gas main between himself, PG&E and Mrs. Gunde Duvall. The gas main can be moved if it is a concern. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a tough situation. • Pointed out that the City’s goal is to preserve its trees. Trees are assets and not liabilities while driveways are liabilities and not assets. • Stated his desire for a stronger argument that all possible efforts have been made to preserve this tree and his belief that not all of the possible efforts have been taken. • Said that due to the need to preserve trees, he is supporting the City staff recommendation to deny this request to remove this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 14 Chair Garakani said that if roots are cut on two sides of this tree, the driveway side and the street side, he questions whether this tree could survive. Expressed concern for potential for danger. Commissioner Uhl said that this owner could have taken every effort to preserve this tree. Reported that he personally had to cut a portion off of his own roof to accommodate a large Oak tree that is growing right next to his house. Commissioner Nagpal: • Pointed out that the Arborist recommends cutting back the roots only on the driveway side. It does not need to be done on the street side as the Arborist did not review that option. • Suggested the need for a more detailed technical review. Commissioner Rodgers said that the applicant needs to remove the roots to fix the driveway that is in appalling condition. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that on Bohlman Road ditching was done on both sides of a row of redwood trees. These trees remain in great shape today. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the Arborist’s solutions are 10 to 20 year solutions and suggested sending this back for further review. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the street would be resurfaced as a way to address its current condition. Director Tom Sullivan said that the existing rolled curb could be removed. Commissioner Schallop asked if a replacement tree of equal value is a viable option. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Tree Ordinance calls for protecting Coastal Redwoods when possible. She added that it would be difficult for a new tree to become established in this type of soil. Commissioner Nagpal expressed concern that nothing has been done in an attempt to deal with this situation over the last year. Chair Garakani reminded that the remedy for this property owner was to cut down this tree. Mrs. Duvall is worried that this tree could fall. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the City of Sunnyvale makes it a practice to pull up concrete and look below. Perhaps that step should be required of this driveway to better assess the situation. Commissioner Uhl supported that idea, saying that the Commission does not have a complete idea of all options available. Commissioner Nagpal said that even if they are not able to save this tree, at least all efforts would have been attempted. Pointed out that tonight’s is a completely new hearing. Agreed that this tree was planted in the wrong location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 15 Chair Garakani stated that this driveway is a liability and it should be totally removed. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that per the Arborist’s report the roots can be removed from beneath the driveway without mortality of this tree. • Reiterated that with the change in criteria under the recently adopted Tree Ordinance, staff changed its position from last year as now there are alternatives to removal. Chair Garakani reminded that the root removal is recommended for the driveway side only while there are root problems from every direction. Director Tom Sullivan said should the Commission elect to continue action on this item to the next meeting, staff will need specific direction on what additional information is desired. Commissioner Schallop supported the idea of coming to a decision this evening with the applicant having the option to appeal to Council. Stated that soliciting more reports would simply equal a battle of the experts. Commissioner Hunter said that with the removal of the one Redwood tree by the driveway, there is also the potential for the second nearby Redwood to be compromised. Commissioner Rodgers stated that there are acceptable methods of repairing this driveway per the Arborist and pointed out that the applicant’s Arborist’s report is not as detailed as the City’s. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this owner could appeal a denial to Council. However, the owner needs to demonstrate that she has done everything possible to preserve this tree. Chair Garakani: • Questioned the wisdom of sending something to Council if the Planning Commission can work to solve this situation. • Stated that he is here to make sure the City of Saratoga’s residents are best served. • Advised that he looks at this situation from a perspective of what would he want to do if this tree were in his yard. • Said that he came to serve on the Commission due to the issue of trees. • Suggested that more data be provided to allow the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Schallop reminded that staff would require more specific direction on what is required. Commissioner Hunter asked if anyone has a motion. Commissioner Uhl said that it would be important to establish a replacement value in the event that this tree cannot be saved. He said he wants to see a long-term solution and not just a 10-year solution. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the Arborist and staff should be instructed to provide. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that it is extremely expensive to send the Arborist out and that it costs approximately $2,500 to remove a tree of this size. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Nagpal said that information that is important is which roots could be trimmed while retaining the tree’s stability. Commissioner Hunter suggested that the existing driveway be pulled up so that the Arborist could reassess the situation. Director Tom Sullivan advise that there would be a lot of expense for the property owner without knowing what the Planning Commission and/or Council is going to do. Commissioner Uhl said he would like more facts for the Planning Commission to consider at the next meeting or to send this matter on to Council with a denial and let the Council make the decision. Chair Garakani said that more facts are needed. Commissioner Rodgers asked what type of information. Chair Garakani said whether the roots in the other directions must also be removed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission voted on whether to accept staff’s recommendation to DENY an Appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140) to allow the removal of a 161-inch Redwood tree on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: Garakani, Nagpal and Schallop ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None The motion failed to reach a majority and an amended motion was made: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of the Appeal of an Administrative Decision, denying a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140) to allow the removal of a 161-inch Redwood tree on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, to the next regular meeting on April 28, 2004, with the request that the City staff pursue additional information: 1. Longer term solutions for the condition of the driveway in order to support retention of the tree; 2. Establishment of a replacement value if the tree is to be removed, 3. Evaluation of whether the removal of one tree will jeopardize the viability of the second nearby Redwood tree and 4. Establishment of a compliance schedule and timeline, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 17 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-042 (386-41-040) Appellant CHIN, Applicant KENIGSBERG, 20067 Karn Circle: Appeal of an Administrative Design Review Application, which proposes to construct a 225 square foot ground floor addition and a 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square foot two-story home at 20067 Karn Circle. The property is 13,120 square feet and is zoned R-1- 12,500. Appellant Chin, owner of an adjacent property, has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a “Notice of Intent to Approve.” (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed to the owners within 250 feet of 20067 Karn Circle on February 19th. • Stated that a neighbor appealed this action based upon privacy impact concerns. • Said that staff had required the applicant to use an obscured glass on the proposed new bay window for the remodeled master bathroom to eliminate privacy impacts from that window onto the neighbor’s property, however, the appellant was not satisfied that this would eliminate the impacts on his property. • Advised that staff visited the neighbor’s property and finds that there is sufficient landscape buffering in place between the two properties. There are no unreasonable impacts on the privacy of the neighbors and this project meets all required findings. • Informed that a letter of support was provided by the Greenbrier Homeowners Association for this remodel and addition. • Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution denying this appeal and approving Application #04-042 with conditions. • Reminded that the Commission’s action is final. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Paul and Elaine Chin, Appellants, 20052 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time and visit to his property. • Said he is a former director of the Greenbrier Homeowners Association. • Expressed concern over the massiveness of an imposing structure invading open air space and creating a negative and crowded feeling equaling visual pollution. • Stated that this addition is too much, too close, too high and too near. • Said that this imposition of excessive bulk should not be imposed upon him. • Said that the separation between properties is a critical factor in establishing the flavor of a neighborhood. • Asked that the Commission help keep Saratoga, Saratoga. • Said that this project would have negative impacts on his home and neighborhood. • Worried that this addition would result in privacy issues, as the result of overlooking into his yard. • Suggested that the motivation for this addition is simply to enhance the sales price of this home. Commissioner Hunter advised the Chins that she went into the neighbor’s master bedroom. These neighbors just want to enhance their master bath and closet, which is very tiny right now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 18 Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this is the master bath that is being extended. Mr. Paul Chin reiterated his concern that it’s more, close and high. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Chins had looked out to their home from this one to see what the view would be. Mr. Paul Chin said that he feels guilty appealing this request but this is the proper way to object. He added that these are nice neighbors. Commissioner Rodgers complimented the Chins on their beautiful yard. Chair Garakani pointed out that the large Magnolia tree in the Chins’ backyard is already larger than this structure and the new addition. Mr. Paul Chin explained that this tree was put in by a previous owner and is only partially effective as a screen. Chair Garakani said he tried and determined that it would take a real effort to see around this tree. Asked if the Chin’s issue is the enjoyment and use of their yard. Mr. Paul Chin replied the use of both the yard and house, the overall ambiance. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that varied rooflines are proposed which offers better articulation of this house. Chair Garakani reiterated that this addition would not be visible from the Chin property as a result of the Magnolia tree and the second story is an already existing condition of the neighbor’s home. Asked Mr. Paul Chin what rooms are on the second floor of his home. Mr. Paul Chin replied the master bedroom and a study. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Chins are already looking at a two-story structure from their home and that a mature hedge is in place as well as another screening tree, a Yew. She added that the use of an obscured glass, fixed bay window instead of a functioning clear window would not affect privacy on the Chin property. Mr. Paul Chin said that he has resided on this property since 1990 and always sees their house. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Paul Chin if he could offer any suggestion for a compromise. Mr. Paul Chin replied he wanted no perception of bulk and therefore no addition to this neighbor’s house. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the setback requirements have changed in the last 10 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 19 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that about two years ago the Ordinance was amended regarding side yard setbacks for second stories, which extended the required setback. Will and Linda Kenigsberg, Applicants, 20067 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Advised that they had offered the Chins the opportunity to go over their proposed plans and to view their house from their second story but were unsuccessful in doing so. • Said that Mr. Chin told them he does not want any modifications to their home. • Informed the Commission that they ran their plans buy the other neighbors and obtained a letter of support from the Homeowners Association, which represents 159 of the 176 families. • Said that their home is the same model as the Chin home. It is a beautiful house but the master bath does not match the rest. They want a larger closet in their master bedroom and an exercise room downstairs. • Stated that they have resided in their home here since 1971 and plan to live there for the remainder of their lives. They have zero intentions of selling despite what Mr. Chin claims is their motivation. Their children will likely live there after them. • Rebutted the points made in the Chin’s written statement. • Regarding the charge that this addition results in visual pollution, their home right now is a two- story with flat walls. Their new design offers more character and articulation and is fully within required setbacks and design guidelines. • Pointed out that they are adding about 370 square feet to the existing 2,900 square foot total. The second floor addition will be setback. The height of the extension will be lower than the maximum height of the house. • Regarding the Chin’s charge of environmental pollution, he explained that at the time he and his wife purchased this home, they had the option to buy a larger model but elected not to. • In response to the issue of property values, they said that they cannot understand that argument by the Chins. As the value of this home improves, so does the value of their home. Their neighbors will not suffer by their improving this home. • Stated that the Commissioners looked through their bathroom window and could see that no view is available into the Chin yard as a result of the magnolia tree. With this modification, only one window will face the Chin house and it will be obscured glass on a fixed window. There will be less opportunity than there is currently with the existing operating window. Ms. Linda Kenigsberg: • Said that they retained an architect to design their addition and he did an excellent job. His design will add beauty to the home and neighborhood. Mr. Will Kenigsberg added that they wanted an aesthetically pleasing addition to their home that did not look like an add on. Commissioner Nagpal thanked the Kenigsbergs for allow the Commissioners to go upstairs and see the view from their upstairs window overlooking the Chin property. Mr. Tim Evjenth, 20068 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Stated that he has been a broker for 32 years and is a neighbor. • Said that he too owns the same floor plan and has lived one year in this neighborhood. • Advised that any addition on this home adds value to the neighborhood and that no other neighbors are concerned about this proposed addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 20 • Added that if he could, he would do the same but does not have the necessary setbacks. Ms. Marylee Hoiness, 20031 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a representative and former president of the Greenbrier Homeowners and Taxpayers Association. • Stated that this proposal was discussed by the HOA this past week. • Advised that as there is no Variance required or any view impediments, there is no reason not to support this application. Mr. Paul Chin thanked his neighbors for their excellent points and stated his chief concern being the perception of bulk, explaining that his is the only house impacted. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there is good screening on site and a fair amount of articulation with this addition. • Agreed with the staff report and recommendation to deny this appeal. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed. • Said that since 1971, things have changed and people expect to have a lovely master bath today. • Supported the denial of this appeal as this is a legitimate addition with good screening provided and therefore no problem. Commissioner Rodgers: • Also agreed. • Suggested that the view of this home from the Chin property will actually be better. • Stated that the second layer of setbacks does not create any impact. • Pointed out that there is a magnificent screening magnolia. • Stated her intent to vote with staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that compromise is usually sought. • Stated that everything possible has been done to minimize bulk, height and size of this addition and equals a good compromise. • Expressed his support. Commissioner Schallop also agreed. Chair Garakani: • Said that he does not like bulk and mass himself but with sufficient screening and articulation this project can be supported. • Stated that staff looked at this proposal very carefully and he would be supporting the staff recommendation for approval of this addition. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal. seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied an Appeal of an Administration Design Review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 21 approval (Application #04-042) to allow a 225 square foot ground floor addition and 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square foot two-story home at 20067 Karn Circle, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is a final action on the part of the City. The only recourse for the Chins would be to file a civil action within 90 days with the Superior Court. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-014 (397-13-047) MURRAY, 14330 Chester Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single story residence. Both the additions and the new roof will be greater than 18 feet in height; therefore the project requires Planning Commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed roof and additions is 22.5 feet. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,482 square feet. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior and brown tile roof. The gross lot size is 42,776 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000 (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Commissioner Nagpal advised that she resides within noticing distance and will have to recuse herself from this item. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a one-story addition with a new steeper roof pitch that is greater than 18 feet in some areas, which requires Planning Commission approval. • Provided a technical correction to the staff report whereby the maximum height is 22.5 feet. • Described the house as approximately 5,300 square feet and using pale yellow stucco and a slate roof. The trees on site would be retained. The lot is 41,000 square feet and located within an R-1- 40,000 Zoning District. • Stated that staff is supportive of this application and is recommending approval. Chair Hunter sought clarification that the higher roof is on the main part of the house and the additions would have shorter roofs. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Applicant’s Representative: • Stated that the steeper pitch is sought to achieve the Province/Normandy style of architecture desired by the property owners. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 22 Commissioner Hunter said that she has no problem. This is a nice design that is well done and she is supportive. Chair Garakani said that this addition will match the area and will look better with these additions. The design looks good. Commissioner Rodgers said that the only concern was the removal of impervious materials beneath Trees 8 and 9. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter. seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #04-014) to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single-story residence at 14330 Chester Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Nagpal *** Commissioner Nagpal returned to the dais following the conclusion of Public Hearing Item No. 3. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan asked Chair Garakani to stop by the office to sign the Resolution for Item No. 2 in order to start the clock on the 90-day time frame during which any Court action would have to be filed. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Heritage Preservation Commission and that there are two new members of that Commission with one vacancy to be unfilled until October. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation to Commissioner Hunter for her leadership as Chair over the past year. Chair Garakani congratulated Commissioner Rodgers for her marvelous job done tonight at her first meeting as a Commissioner. COMMUNICATIONS Verbal Staff reminded that the City is currently advertising for volunteers for a Citizen Advisory Commission for a General Plan Land Use Element Update. It is anticipated that the committee will meet over a two- year period with monthly or bi-monthly meetings. Interested persons should contact the Planning Department for more information. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 23 Written Letter from Vini Sarup regarding neighbor’s fence color: Commissioner Hunter asked whether the Commission should consider an Ordinance to regulate the color of houses and fences on the Hillside. Director Tom Sullivan said that if a color is approved under a Design Review Approval, the owner must obtain an amendment in order to change the approved colors. However this home did not go through a Design Review process. Additionally, there are no regulations about fence colors. Size, materials, height and setbacks are covered by Ordinance as well as how much fence enclosed area is allowed in Hillside Zoning Districts. There is nothing on colors. Asked if the Commission feels that such a regulation should be developed. Commissioner Rodgers asked how this would be implemented. Director Tom Sullivan said that an amortization schedule could be set up, however, this could create a huge Code Enforcement issue for the City. Commissioner Schallop suggested that it be limited to homes on the Hillsides that are visible from the valley. Commissioner Uhl questioned whether other cities have such rules. Commissioner Schallop suggested establishing benchmark communities. Mr. Vini Sarup, 12906 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he had discussed his neighbor’s pink fence with him and the neighbor later painted his house trim and garage door the same pink as the fence. Chair Garakani suggested this issue be added to a future agenda. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it would be a while before it comes up. Chair Garakani reminded that he wanted to include the issue of security cameras, which he talked over with Council. They suggested that this issue also be agendized for the Commission in the future. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk