Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 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 Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of September 24, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 24, 2003, were adopted as submitted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. David Mighdoll, 13664 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time and said that he wished to follow up from the last meeting. • Stated he had a correction to the minutes on page two, wherein when Commissioner Zutshi asked “if it could be clearly seen that there is a difference in natural grade between this house and its neighboring properties,” he replied yes. (Chair Hunter advised Mr. Mighdoll that this clarification would be noted in the current minutes rather than representing a correction to the already adopted minutes.) • Distributed photographs that he states depicts the grade differences and reminded that the pre- existing grade is in question. • Disagreed with Director Sullivan’s contention that this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. • Declared that anything above the approved 16.5 feet height should not be approved and/or allowed. • Pointed out that the grade depicted on the plans is not correct. • Implored the Commission to take action and that independent review by a third party occurs. Chair Hunter informed Mr. David Mighdoll that the Commission has been provided an update report by staff. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 2 Director Sullivan advised that a copy has also been mailed out to Mr. David Mighdoll in today’s mail Chair Hunter added that Mr. David Mighdoll’s comments would be included within the minutes. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would also contact the City Attorney to ascertain jurisdiction. Mr. David Mighdoll said that that he was surprised that this issue was not on the agenda. Chair Hunter said that it was not asked to be placed on the agenda. Mr. David Mighdoll said that he thought it was justified to be agendized. Chair Hunter said that staff will look into this further. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter 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). Director Sullivan advised that there is one exception to the appeals regulations on tonight’s agenda. The Planning Commission’s action on the appeal of the Tree Removal Permit will be final. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-195 (510-01-003) QUICKE, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane: Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000, had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (Continued from Meeting on September 24, 2003) (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a change to an architectural feature on a tower element is significantly different than the building plans, which is also significantly different from what actually got built. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 3 • Said that the Commission approved this project in November 2000 and that building permits were approved in June 2001. • Stated that the neighbors to the rear, the Bakers, complained about the project. • Added that staff tried to work out this issue between the applicant and the Bakers but was not successful. • Stated that staff had advised Mr. Quicke that he had a few options including the option to seek a change in the Design Review Approval or making the feature look like the approved plans. Mr. Quicke is here to request a change in the Design Review Approval. • Described the policy for any changes to an approval. The initial approving authority must approve any changes. If the Director approves the initial plans, the Director can consider amendments to that approval. For any approval granted by the Planning Commission, any substantive changes must be brought back to the Planning Commission. • Stated that this change is sufficiently significant to warrant being brought back to the Planning Commission for any amendment to the approved plans. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission’s action this evening is appealable. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This item could be appeal to Council. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is any other means to deal with this situation. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that Code is pretty hard nosed. For instance, there can be no final occupancy issued if any of the approved architectural details are not installed. • Pointed out that there are two items on this evening’s agenda that reflect changes to approved plans, this item and a driveway. • Stated that if changes are minor, there are handled administratively. However, this is not a minor change. Deciding what is minor requires a judgement call by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether this issue would come back to the Planning Commission were it not a tower element. Director Tom Sullivan said it would due to the height. It requires Design Review and notification to the neighbors. Commissioner Barry: • Stated out that a communication from the applicant’s attorney was distributed along with the minutes from the original Planning Commission meeting in November 2000. • Pointed out that she was absent from that meeting. • Read a portion from page 3 into the minutes, wherein Commissioner Jackman asked about the height. Mr. Gould’s response was that per Code, the height is two feet above the height of the roofing. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if the Commission should be reviewing this element as if it were a new element. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 4 Chair Hunter asked if it should be treated as if it were not already there. Director Tom Sullivan replied technically yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bob Quicke, Property Owner and Applicant, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga: • Stated he would like to discuss the process and his neighbors’ reaction. • Advised that the first key event was in November, when they presented plans to the Planning Commission for approval. • Added that since that time they have had many meetings with the Planning Department and submitted revisions to their plans. • Assured that there is an audit trail with the history of the plan changes. • Informed that the Building plans were approved and they began to build their house. • Said that one change occurred with the glazing system, where they went to a lighter construction as opposed to glass block. • Advised that the project was completed in July 2003. • Said that they were surprised, shocked and distressed when this issue came up. • Stated that they went to considerable expense to do the right thing and have tried to resolve this matter through several discussions with the Bakers. • Said that they have proposed to plant additional screening trees to fill the gap in the existing screening landscaping. However, no agreement could be reached with the Bakers. • Said he spoke with other neighbors and they are fine with the house and tower as built. • Added that as people stop by, they often say this is a fine looking house. • Stated that it is pretty self evident that they tried to follow City processes. • Asked the Commission to accept this resolution. Commissioner Barry pointed out that per the original minutes the flue was to be two feet above the roofing materials but is now six feet taller than that. Commissioner Schallop said that all could agree that this represents a significant change. Commissioner Barry clarified that this does not simply represent a glazing element change as mentioned by Mr. Quicke. Mr. Bob Quicke said that they moved from a vertical skylight to a horizontal skylight structure. Said that if they had been advised by the City that this was a material change, they would have come back before the Commission prior to implementing that change. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Quicke what alternatives there are today short of matching the original plans. Mr. Bob Quicke said that the options they are proposing range from additional landscape screening to changing the color scheme so windows on this feature are not so prevalent. They are proposing screening trees as the best option being the most pragmatic with the minimum impact. Mr. Bill Gould, Project Architect: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 5 • Clarified that the flue is situated two feet above the roof per Code requirements. • Added that the skylight is four feet higher than the ridge as approved. • Said that while a material change was made, they are not trying to deceive anybody by going with a horizontal versus vertical skylight feature. Commissioner Garakani asked for a clarification on the differences between the approved and installed skylight. Mr. Bill Gould: • Said that the horizontal slopes while a vertical or clearstory skylight is the same as a window. • Added that they had to determine best how to build this skylight so it would not leak. • Reminded that the change was reviewed by Building when they went from glass block to pane glass. Chair Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan if he was on staff when this project initially went through the review process. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Mr. Bill Gould: • Stated that they never thought that they were doing something that was not open book. • Said that this change was reviewed in an open way and that they worked with the City. • Added that this was not slipped through but rather was a major aspect of the plan review. Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for Mr. Bob Quicke: • Stated her desire to clarify for the record that the Commission can make the necessary findings to grant this change. • Stated that this skylight feature does not interfere with the privacy and/or views of the Bakers. There is no impact on natural landscaping. • Added that the Quickes have offered to plant additional landscaping. • Stated that this change has no impact on the height or bulk and is compatible with the structure. The skylight is no more bulky than a chimney. • Informed that the original skylight approved as four feet tall while the revised skylight is only slightly taller at five feet, ten inches. Again, not taller than a chimney. • Said that this home is compatible with other two-story homes in the neighborhood and is consistent with the Design policies. • Advised that they have relied in good faith on the City’s processes and that it is unfair and unreasonable to deny the Quickes’ request. Mr. Jay Ross, Attorney for the Bakers (the rear neighbors to the Quicke residence): • Said that they provided a letter and photos taken from the second story window of the Bakers’ home. • Stated that this change represents a very significant impact on the Bakers’ views. • Added that something has been constructed without neighbors having the opportunity to comment prior to said construction. • Read from the minutes of the original meeting (November 2000) wherein it is clear that additional screening landscaping was already conditioned as part of the original hearing and motion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 6 • Pointed out that some of the previous screening is no longer there and now more of the Quicke house is visible from the Baker residence. (Showed photos from 2002 and some taken recently for comparison.) • Stated that prior Planning Commission proceedings need to be honor and that this element was discussed originally. • Said that they are now stuck with an element that is not consistent with the original plans. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ross from where on the second floor at the Baker home these photographs were taken. Mr. Jay Ross said that they were taken from a second floor bedroom. Commissioner Barry asked about the contention from the Baker side that the feature is eight to twelve feet high with opposing counsel says it is six feet high. Mr. Jay Ross said that their measurements offered are an approximation. Commissioner Schallop said that Mr. Jay Ross and his clients, the Bakers, have expressed concern over the process that allowed this element change. Asked if they are comfortable with the process now that this change is before the Commission for consideration and where it will be considered as a new element. Mr. Jay Ross said that it could not be ignored that this element already exists. He added that it is only fair to consider equities for the Bakers also. He added that there is an indication that the Planning Commission may have gone a different direction if it were not already in place. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this item has received public notice with the neighbors being advised of this hearing. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This matter was noticed to property owners within 500 feet. Mr. Jay Ross pointed out that the Baker home is located directly behind the Quicke home. Other neighbors don’t have as direct an impact. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the Commission will consider this as if it were a new element. Mrs. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that Saratoga is the most beautiful town, a restful peaceful place. • Added that the Quickes are lovely people and they are happy to have them as neighbors. • Pointed out that their home is the only home directly impacted by this skylight tower, which is located dead center as viewed from their master bedroom window. • Said that when she first noticed this element, she called the City and found out this was a material change from the approved plans. • Stated that she trusted the City. • Added that while this is not consistent with the original plans, an interim person approved this change. • Said that this is her reality and she is emotional since her voice was not represented and did not matter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 7 • Said that this is a significant intrusive structure that is visible from her bedroom and looks like a lighthouse. • Stated that they don’t see what we see. This feature is right in the middle and one’s eye focuses upon it, like it would focus upon a piece of art centered on a wall. • Stated that this intrudes on her view and she should have had a right to express an opinion. • Said that she was let down, that she trusted the process and that this is a huge concern for her. • Added that this might impact the future sale of her home and that it would take ten years for pine trees to grow sufficiently tall to obscure this skylight from view from her home. • Said that she feels violated and that this is a huge issue for both she and her husband. • Said that she had thanked Mr. Quicke for his efforts to correct but that she wants to see the skylight taken back to what was approved. Commissioner Garakani asked what was approved and whether the Bakers had seen the original plans. Mrs. Sandy Baker replied a skylight but what has been constructed is a turret. She added that her husband has seen the original plans. Mr. Jerry Baker agreed that he had seen the original plans from 2000. Commissioner Schallop said that this is really off point. The Commission must review this element tonight and make a decision. Commissioner Garakani said he simply wants to understand both sides, the Quickes and the Bakers. He asked Mr. Baker if he had reviewed the original plans. Mr. Jerry Baker said that while he is not an architect, what is there now is not what he originally saw. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Commissioners have both the original approved plans and the revised construction plans in their packets. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mrs. Baker for speaking from her heart. Added that she thought the site was well screened except for one spot. She asked Mrs. Baker how she would feel if mature trees could be installed that would create an instant green wall. Mrs. Sandy Baker said she would feel as if she were being boxed in and added that the leaves would also fall off, eliminating their screening effect. Mr. Michael Barry, 19935 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that he lives across the street from the Quickes. • Said that while he cannot see this from the same perspective as from the Bakers’ bedroom, while approaching this home from either direction, he finds this home to be a pleasant change from a range house mentality. • Added that this home is not some monstrosity but rather is a refreshing change from monotonous “MacMansions,” offering an interesting change in architecture. • Said that this issue is simply a tempest in a teapot with just a couple of degrees of view impacted, a narrow window in that view. • Said that this blends in well. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 8 • Reminded that mature trees are not cheap and the leaf issue is a moot point as conifers do not shed their needles all at once. • Said that this is simply one person’s angst and that this skylight feature will not impact anyone’s quality of life. Mr. Bob Quicke said that he has engaged a landscape gardener that will investigate possible screening trees. He assured that he is very serious about this screening. Chair Hunter asked why the tree canopy appears smaller than before. Mr. Bob Quicke said that the silk tree had a number of dead branches, which were pruned out. These will grow back in even better. Said that it is his intention to get the right landscaping in place to have an immediate screening impact. Mr. Bill Gould said he wanted to clarify that the skylight is significantly shorter than a chimney and that Code dictates a chimney height. He added that it appears to him that the two photographs taken from the Baker residence were taken from different vantagepoints. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Gould if they are willing to change the color of the trim. Mr. Bill Gould said that there is a high contrast between the window trim and the paint behind it. They are willing to paint the vinyl trim of the window although it would have to be repainted regularly for maintenance. Commissioner Barry asked if the trim is intrical to the glass and if they could replace it. Mr. Bill Gould replied yes, the trim is intrical to the glass. He replied no, they could not replace the trim from between the dual panes of glass. Commissioner Garakani asked the reason for the skylight feature. Mr. Bill Gould replied to bring in light to an interior area of the house. Mr. Bob Quicke said that while other options were considered, they were not accepted and landscape screening was settled upon as the best option. Mr. Jerry Baker said he wanted to clarify that he took both pictures from the balcony off their master bedroom. Added that this is not simply a skylight but rather a tower. When it is lit up at night, planes will try to land. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Schallop asked when considering bulk if they should look at individual elements or the house as a whole. Director Tom Sullivan replied the whole house. Commissioner Nagpal asked if they should use the design criteria. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 9 Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that in the past, the Commission has looked at view and privacy impact issues very carefully and took a strong stand. If something looks directly into someone’s living space, it is either mitigated or not allowed. However, a view issue is looked at differently. It is fair to say that more attention is paid to front elevation view (bulk and mass) issues and that an element that stands out from the front elevation would not be looked upon favorably. • Said that this element looks nice from the front but stands out from the rear of the house. Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Barry what she thinks now. Commissioner Barry said that she would wait to hear from everyone else before commenting further. Chair Hunter suggested to staff that it would not be a bad idea to establish a specific definition of the term “view.” Commissioner Garakani stated that privacy and view are two separate issues. Commissioner Schallop: • Agreed with Commissioner Barry about review of front versus rear elevations. • Said that he is looking at this element tonight as a new element with a focus on Design Review findings. • Added that it does not help to look at what occurred in the past but rather is worthwhile to look at objective findings. • Said that avoiding unreasonable interference with views and privacy are important but that there are no privacy impacts here since one cannot see out from inside this home through the skylight. • Stated that he would not want to look at this element from his own home but that the role of the Planning Commission is to determine if this is unreasonable. • Said that he is leaning to the idea that screening landscaping is the reasonable solution that would best resolve this issue. • Added that he can make the necessary findings to leave the element as it is with mitigation measures. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated her agreement with Commissioner Schallop for the most part. • Agreed that there is no privacy impact issue as no one will look out toward the Baker home from this tower. • Supported the provision of screening landscaping and changing the color of the white vinyl trim on the windows of the skylight. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there are two key issues, privacy and obstruction of views. • Agreed that the skylight does not result in privacy impacts. • Added that view impacts can be mitigated with landscape screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 10 • Advised that the color scheme recommendations could soften the impact of the skylight structure itself. • Said that the impact is larger from the back than from the front elevation. Chair Hunter: • Said that this is very difficult. • Said that the turret stands out with six windows around it and that the windows have to be painted out. • Suggested the planting of a big redwood on either the Baker or Quicke property as this is a rapid growing tree. • Advised that were this coming before the Commission brand new, she would not like for this element to be this tall. Commissioner Barry said that she is comfortable with the general direction the Commission is taking and suggested a Condition of Approval that would either specify the specific screening tree or require the neighbors to agree to one together. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Condition require a Redwood tree or tree of similar characteristics. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that if this were before him tonight, he would not accept it. • Said that if the Commission is supposed to look at this as a new design, he would suggest that several windows facing toward the rear neighbors be blocked or darkened so they will not be visible at night. • Added that as much as the Quickes want daylight in their home during the day from this skylight, the Bakers want no extra light to be visible at night from this skylight. • Suggested having the designer look into these suggestions. Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bob Quicke said that they could remove the lights from the tower but hoped that with the screening landscaping, they would be allowed to leave the color of the tower as is. Mr. Jay Ross asked that the Commission give specific direction. Commissioner Barry said that she was interested in the Bakers’ preference. Mrs. Sandy Baker said that she would like the vinyl replaced as having a single color could help obscure the skylight tower. She added that the metal on top is large. Chair Hunter reminded that the flue is required by law. Mrs. Sandy Baker expressed a preference for landscaping that grows quickly. Mr. Jay Ross said that he would defer to staff expertise to decide on which tree specimen could achieve that objective. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Bill Gould asked that mitigation be worked through with staff. Chair Hunter said that if necessary any action can be appealed. Director Tom Sullivan suggested an evergreen with dense foliage large enough to fill the gap in the existing screening landscaping. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether it might be possible to make the roof at a higher pitch to screen the flue. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He said that the two feet of height separation is required under the Building Code. Mr. Bill Gould said that both the Building and Fire Codes have this specific requirement. Commissioner Garakani had suggested amending one of the proposed Conditions to allow no emission of light at night. This proposed amendment died for lack of a second. Another amendment was proposed to remove all contrast (including interior grid) from the windows but did not pass. (Two voted for, four voted against and one absence). Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a design modification to a previously approved project (Application #03-195) to revise the tower element height and allow the addition of windows to the tower, on property located at 19892 Mendelsohn Lane, with the following Conditions of Approval: • The flood light fixtures are to be permanently removed from the skylight tower; • The white vinyl exterior trim of the windows is to be painted to match the base color of the house and said painted trim is to be properly maintained; and • Evergreen screening is to be maintained to sufficiently screen the entire back property line, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reminded that there is a 15 day appeal period for this action. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-211 (503-69-030) Appellant CURRY, Site Location – 21851 Via Regina: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately three feet and eleven feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 12 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a neighbor has appealed an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit due to erosion concerns. • Stated that the Arborist’s report described the two Eucalyptus trees as being non-native, non- ornamental with weak structure, poor maintenance and messy. The report contains replacement recommendations. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all five findings are required. Director Tom Sullivan replied a preponderance should be met. Commissioner Schallop asked if it was a totality or a balancing of the required findings. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission should not look at just one finding, it should be more inclusive. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission should consider the easement issue raised or if that issue represents a civil matter. Commissioner Barry asked about the status of the easement and the contention that the appellant is the holder of the controlling interest for this easement. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a fine line between a civil easement issue and a City action for a Tree Removal Permit. Commissioner Schallop asked about the relevance of the reasons given for the tree removal. Director Tom Sullivan said that the reasons should be taken into consideration. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Robert Kahn, attorney for the appellant: • Identified his clients as Mr. Lawrence and Mrs. Curry, a married couple. • Said they had provided the Commission with a letter. • Described the easement that recorded land rights and stated that the Lawrence/Currys have control of the area where these trees are located. • Said that the stated reasons for removal included allergies and concerns about danger to the neighbor’s residence. • Pointed out that the trees are not located anywhere near any structure, being at least 125 feet away or more. • Added that these two trees, which represent an oasis, are actually located closer to the Lawrence/Curry residence and there is nothing in danger from these trees. These trees are located off to one side of the property and that they are not even sure why removal is even being sought. • Said that there are also two large heritage Eucalyptus trees located at the entrance of Via Regina. • Stated that the two properties have rights to control this area. This area represents a slope control area for the Lawrence/Curry property. The Lawrence/Curry driveway is contiguous to the area where these trees are situated. These trees are the only plantings in this area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 13 • Informed that at one time, one person owned these two properties. • Stated that the criteria within the Code requires five findings of support. • Said that these trees serve a purpose and are attractive and there is no real reason for their removal. • Pointed out that the purpose of a Tree Ordinance is to save trees, including these more than 30-year- old trees. Commissioner Schallop asked if as a holder of an easement, whether the Lawrence/Curry family should have been a co-applicant to the processing of a Tree Removal Permit. Mr. Robert Kahn said that while the easement does not mention exclusive rights, it does mention controlling rights by the Lawrence/Curry property. Commissioner Schallop asked if the rights include the issue of tree removal on the easement. Mr. Robert Kahn said that it includes issues of grading, drainage and planting. Trees represent a planting. Commissioner Schallop asked about whether these trees are removed with the trunk left intact. If the roots are left intact, there would be no impacts on the erosion control function. Mr. Robert Kahn said that while he is not an Arborist, he knows that once a tree is cut it is a matter of time before it stops holding the earth. Suggested an alternative of having an Arborist determine which limbs have a potential for danger and removing those limbs only. Commissioner Schallop asked whether Mr. Robert Kahn’s clients could plant other trees in the easement as replacement of these removed Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Robert Kahn advised that the other property owners (Cosentinos) have placed a fence at the zero property line and have blocked access by the Lawrence/Currys to this area. Added that there is no love lost between these two households. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Kahn whether the Lawrence/Currys have planted on this easement. Mr. Robert Kahn said that they have maintained the easement. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that included planting anything new. Mr. Robert Kahn said he did not know but believed that they have maintained rather than planting new landscaping. Mr. Tom Lawrence said that previous property owners planted the two Eucalyptus. Ms. Jennifer Cosentino, 21851 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Stated that she loves trees and finds it ironic to be here before the Commission on the issue of tree removal. • Said that she has planted 14 trees on her property had has plans for another 14 trees. There are already 28 mature oaks on her property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 14 • Advised that they had received a Tree Removal Permit but her neighbors appealed. • Said that she believes these two Eucalyptus trees to be a double threat to both her family and home. • Pointed out that her residence has a shake roof. • Said that the larger of the two Eucalyptus trees is located 75 feet from her unborn son’s nursery. • Cited as an example the huge Eucalyptus tree that came crashing down at Saratoga School. • Added that these Eucalyptus trees are responsible for 20 deaths in Oakland and are considered combustible due to the oils they contain, of concern due to the shake roof on their home. • Said that Connie Curry removed about 75 percent from three Eucalyptus trees on her own property about five months ago. • Declared that they have been harassed and lied about. • Said that they are not moving and that this represents a control issue rather than a tree issue. • Advised that she would be giving birth to her son next Thursday. Mr. Matt Cosentino, 21851 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Said that these are but two Eucalyptus trees on an Oak studded property. One of these Eucalyptus trees is small, the other is large. • Stated that these trees are dangerous. • Said that this removal would not infringe upon the Lawrence/Curry easement. The easement right is for slope control and there is not a trail. • Pointed out that Eucalyptus trees are shallow and prone to falling over. They would not prevent soil erosion. • Added that this is not a major hillside and that this tree could actually contribute to soil erosion. • Stated that they are willing to plant replacement trees in the area and are willing to get consent from the easement holders on what species is replanted. • Said denial of the Tree Removal Permit would mean that they are losing the right to the enjoyment of their property. • Added that the health and safety powers held by the City should grant it the authority to allow this removal despite the easement. • Advised that there is still access to the easement area from the Lawrence/Curry property through a gate. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has read the staff report and that he finds the bashing of Eucalyptus trees to be troubling. • Opined that this applicant has not met the criteria for tree removal. • Asked why buy this specific property if they are allergic to Eucalyptus trees. • Said that he is concerned that there is no Arborist’s report and/or replacement plan. • Stated that the Tree Removal Permit process needs to be tuned up. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Corson if he had gone to the site. Mr. Tom Corson replied no. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Agreed that there is a lot of unnecessary Eucalyptus bashing. • Said that Eucalyptus are beautiful trees and so what if they are not native or ornamental. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 15 • Stated that these two Eucalyptus trees are large enough to be protected. • Said that a tree lives because of its leaves and branches and that erosion control is a big issue. It is important to protect the soil. • Stated that she has seen the impact from soil erosion following tree removals. • Suggested that good forestry practices be followed in this City. • Said that there are no grounds to remove these trees and the City’s staff member who inspected the trees raised no issues. • Expressed her hope that the Commission will side with the appellant. Commissioner Garakani questioned Ms. Elizabeth Lara’s tree knowledge as compared to an Arborist, pointing out that the Arborist has said that stumps staying in ground will continue to help prevent erosion. Mr. Der Torrosin, 21977 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Declared that these trees are on Cosentino property. • Said that about 10 years ago, another Eucalyptus tree fell from the Lawrence property onto the roadway. • Stated that erosion control is a big issue. Mrs. Jennifer Cosentino: • Stated that Eucalyptus trees poison the ground and nothing can be planted beneath these trees. • Said that this area has been raw soil for the last 30 years and nothing has been done to improve the landscaping in this area. They want to do something now. Mr. Robert Kahn said that the Cosentino home is uphill from these trees and they could not fall onto their home even if the tree were likely to fall uphill. Added that the easement was in place when the Cosentinos purchased their property. The fact that the Lawrence/Currys had control over this easement area was known by the Cosentinos when they purchased their property and that the concern over danger from these trees is not supported. Commissioner Garakani asked who overall controls this land and would assume liability if something should occur and this tree should fall over causing damage. Mr. Robert Kahn said both properties would be held responsible. This is a non-exclusive easement. However, there is no eminent danger of either of these trees falling over. Commissioner Garakani rhetorically asked what if one of these trees falls and lands on a car of someone visiting the Lawrence/Curry property. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Hunter: • Advised that she knows a lot about Eucalyptus trees and disagrees with the Arborist’s report. • Stated that Eucalyptus trees don’t drop the most limbs, Oak trees do. • Added that 450,000 Eucalyptus trees were planted in the San Diego area and these trees represent a huge part of California. They have been planted to serve as a barrier between fruit trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 16 • Said that using wood chips is not a preferable soil erosion control as they will simply float down the street in a good rain. • Said that she does not find these two Eucalyptus trees particularly attractive but agreed that they would fall downhill rather than uphill. • Disagreed that Eucalyptus trees poison the ground. It’s difficult to grown anything beneath any tree. • Said that there is no apparent reason to remove these trees but that they should be trimmed since it does not appear that they have been trimmed over the last 30 years. Commissioner Zutshi agreed with Chair Hunter and said she cannot support removal. Added that Oaks shed also as evidence with the fact that she has to clean out her pool several times a day to remove debris from the surrounding Oaks. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated his belief that the landowner should have the right for the enjoyment of their property. • Said that he loves trees and believes these owners will mitigate the removal of these trees by planting replacements. • Advised that he has seen Eucalyptus trees fall down onto homes although he does not see an eminent danger to this family here. • Expressed support for this Tree Removal Permit with the replanting of the area. • Suggested the method of topping off the tree, leaving the trunk and roots in ground to serve the function to prevent soil erosion. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that other types of trees also fall over. Chair Hunter added that it is an urban legend that Eucalyptus trees fall over more often than other species of tree. Eucalyptus trees have been widely planted for erosion control. Commissioner Schallop asked staff for the Arborist’s general impression of Eucalyptus trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Eucalyptus tree can drop limbs when there is a significant temperature change in a day. Said that he has seen them planted to serve as wind breaks for strawberry fields. Their wood is strong and one has to consider their location. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that in general she hates to see a tree free from disease come down. • Added that she is able to make the argument to support a few of the required findings. • Agrees that there is no apparent eminent danger from these two Eucalyptus trees. However, the applicant wants to remove them for the enjoyment of their property. • Said if the allergy to these trees can be documented medically, she would take that impact seriously into consideration. • Supported the idea that retaining the stumps could take care of the erosion issue. • Pointed out that there are more than 40 trees on this property, which helps put this removal into perspective. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 17 • Said that she could actually go either way here but that she hates to see removal without compelling reasons, including clear health issues. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that these Eucalyptus trees are a mess. Eucalyptus trees are not a natural tree to California, having been imported. • Added that Eucalyptus trees do break. • Said that these property owners should not be stuck with trees planted by the previous property owner. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out and questioned why the staff member inspecting the Eucalyptus trees only marked off one of the criteria on the inspection report. Director Tom Sullivan said he could not answer why and pointed out that this was not done by an Arborist but rather within a Building inspection report. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that in future more than one criteria should be met to support such a report. Commissioner Barry said it does not make sense not to have a replanting plan and questioned how replanting can occur if the stumps are left in the ground. Said that it is important to maintain the hillside in its existing condition. Commissioner Nagpal suggested replanting with native trees. Commissioner Barry agreed and proposed either Oaks or Redwood trees. Chair Hunter advised that when the stump is dead, it loses its ability to hold soil within five years. Commissioner Garakani disagreed. Chair Hunter pointed out that she studied to be a landscape architect at UCLA. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Chair Hunter, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees on property located at 21851 Via Regina, due to the following findings that did not support this removal: • The trees are not diseased or in eminent danger nor do they interfere with utilities; • The property owners can have the economic enjoyment of their property without taking down these trees; • The topography argues in favor of leaving these trees to help prevent soil erosion; • The trees do provide scenic beauty; and • This property is able to support these trees; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi NOES: Garakani, Nagpal, and Schallop Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 18 ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None This resulted in a tie vote. Upon consultation with staff, it was determined that the appropriate follow up action is to bring this vote back to the full seven-member Commission to break this tie vote. Commissioner Uhl will be asked to watch the meeting tape prior to the next meeting. Mr. Robert Kahn asked if the Commission at that time will accept additional information. Director Tom Sullivan said no. This will simply be on the agenda as a Commissioners Item for a vote. Mr. Robert Kahn said that his client had been denied access to copies from the file. Director Tom Sullivan said that everything in the file is of public record. However, any plans that are copyrighted cannot be copied. Mrs. Jennifer Cosentino again questioned liability should a tree limb fall. Director Tom Sullivan advised Mrs. Cosentino to consult with her own attorney to receive the appropriate response to that question. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-182 (397-04-026) – FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road: The Applicant requests modification of building plans and development conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the modification of building plans. • Said that if the Commission initially approved a project, changes to modify that approval must come back to the Commission. • Stated that this project consisted of a single entrance and the applicant wishes to convert that into a circular driveway. • Said that the original approval was granted in January 2001. The project is now completely framed up. • Said that the project site has a large 166-foot frontage. There is no street parking along the applicant’s side of the street. A circular driveway will allow guest parking to occur on site. • Said that this change would have a minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood as half of the homes in the area include circular driveway. • Said that this proposal results in the removal of two trees. The City Arborist has looked at the site and feels that the other trees on the property will more than mitigate the removal of these two trees. • Added that the applicant will be planting a large number of 24-inch box trees on this property. • Recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 19 Chair Hunter said that one of the proposed trees for removal is leaning over but asked why the second tree needs to be removed. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the driveway could impact that tree. By removing these two trees, the circular driveway will not touch the canopy of the other trees in the area. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the lot coverage has been recalculated as a result of this driveway change. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Linda Formico, Applicant and Property Owner, 14456 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is available for any questions. • Advised that once they began construction on their home, it became clear that this property needed a circular driveway. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the tree protection fencing. Ms. Linda Formico said that they worked with City staff on placement of protective fencing. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that the applicant is working with the Arborist on the entire project. Commissioner Nagpal stated that she loves circular driveways and feels that it is a good idea to use them on Sobey Road. She stated that this circular driveway will be an asset and she is all for it. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Garakani agreed, saying he has no objection. Commissioner Zutshi agreed, saying that this is a good idea in this area. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved Application #03-182 to allow modification of building plans and development conditions to add a circular driveway to the proposed project at 14456 Sobey Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2003 Page 20 APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. The proposed amendment implements Programs 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (TOM SULLIVAN) Due to the lateness of the hour, Director Sullivan suggested that this item be continued to the next agenda. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS PC Minutes from Previous PC Meetings: Chair Hunter advised staff that it is important that the Commission be provided with previous Planning Commission minutes for any items returning to the Commission from staff rather than from the attorney of an applicant. Discussion of Application #03-02-182, Sagarchi, 13089 Quito Road, and whether this project still requires a Study Session with the Planning Commission: Director Tom Sullivan advised that in the opinion of Assistant Planner Ann Welsh there is no need for a Study Session on this project. The Commissioners concurred with that impression. COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on September 3, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk