Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 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, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 22, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 2003, were adopted with a correction to page 12. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop were absent and Commissioner Barry abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 6, 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 Tom Sullivan clarified that the action taken on the two Consent Calendar Items will be final. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 2 Chair Hunter reminded that the two Consent Calendar Items are before the Commission to break a tie vote, which was reached at their respective Public Hearings. Commissioner Barry said that she was under the impression that the vote must be taken when all seven Commissioners are in attendance. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City Attorney advised him to put the items on the next agenda at which there would be a quorum. There is a quorum tonight with five Commissioners present. The Commission needs to break the tie. Commissioner Barry asked to have Item No. 1 taken off Consent Calendar so that she can state the basis for her vote for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR – ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-221 (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way, Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03-151: A neighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition to the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Applicant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a “Notice of Intent to Approve.” The motion at the October 22, 2003, Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Barry absent). Therefore, this item is placed on the agenda for a deciding vote to either support the appeal or deny the appeal and approve Administrative Design Review Application #03-151. (LATA VASUDEVAN) There was no additional staff report provided on this item. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that she has read the minutes of the October 22, 2003, Planning Commission meeting at which this item was originally considered. • Assured that she is prepared to vote this evening on this item. • Said that the basis for her position is the belief that this home is already a legal two-story home. • Added that the way the home may have been used in the past is not a basis to review this home as anything but an existing two-story. • Stated that she is satisfied that privacy issues have been dealt with and that, from a Design Review standpoint, the changes to the front of this home will represent an improvement. • Suggested that an alternative that is available to this neighborhood is to seek a One-Story Overlay District designation for this neighborhood. This option can be pursued if a majority of the neighbors want to see this Overlay District imposed on their neighborhood. Chair Hunter saw that Mr. Frazier is asking to speak this evening. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Public Hearing was closed on this item at the last meeting. Tonight’s action by the Commission is simply deliberation on the matter and a vote. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 3 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-221) and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval to allow a remodel and addition to an existing two-story residence on property located at 20305 Seagull Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** Commissioner Uhl asked to have Item No. 2 taken off Consent Calendar so that he can state for the record the basis for his vote. CONSENT CALENDAR – ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-211 (503-69-030) – CURRY (Appellant), CONSTANTINO (Applicant) – 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 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. The motion made at the October 8, 2003, Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Uhl absent). Therefore, this item has been placed on the consent agenda for a deciding vote to either approve or deny the appeal. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) There was no additional staff report provided on this item. Commissioner Uhl: • Expressed his desire to come up with some way to achieve a win-win situation. • Said that adding a requirement to plant native trees of equal or greater value should be imposed. • Stated he would support removal of these trees as long as they are replaced and that the replacement trees are placed in a mutually agreeable location to both sets of property owners. Chair Hunter said that the desire of the appellants is to retain the soil and prevent erosion from their property. Suggested that there is the option to cut the trees but leave the stumps in place and allow them to reshoot themselves and be maintained as a hedge. Commissioner Garakani suggested that perhaps retaining walls could be constructed to help mitigate soil erosion. Chair Hunter pointed out that it would be cheaper to keep the roots in place and allow these trees to reform themselves as a hedge. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the final outcome be worked out with City staff. Chair Hunter asked if Commissioner Uhl is recommending additional trees be planted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Uhl said that since this hillside had trees, they should be replaced, perhaps with Redwood or Oaks. Stated that he would only support the removal of these two trees with a requirement for their replacement. Commissioner Zutshi said that she too supports with a combination of soil erosion mitigation and tree replacement. Chair Hunter stated that she cannot support the poisoning of the stumps to prevent their regrowth. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan if a discussion of Conditions of Approval is appropriate at this point. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Commissioner Barry: • Stated that it is not acceptable to her to see these two Eucalyptus trees cut down and a long period of time passes before the road issue is fixed. • Said that she also does not support the slow poisoning of the roots but rather they would have to be removed by grinding. • Said that the road should be supported. • Expressed support for either Oak or Redwood replacement trees or some other native species. • Said that with these Conditions of Approval, she is reluctantly okay with the removal of these trees. • Suggested that the Commission specify a size for the replacement trees. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Condition will call out for equal value but suggested that the Commission impose a specific replacement tree box size. Chair Hunter suggested that the Condition stipulate that the replacement trees must be native. Commissioner Garakani said that small trees would not mitigate erosion and that mitigation to prevent erosion of the road should be imposed. He added that this would result in a win-win situation with these mitigation measures. Commissioner Uhl asked for a suggestion on size of replacement trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-211) and upheld the Administrative Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of two Eucalyptus trees on property located at 21851 Via Regina, with the following added Conditions: • That the roots/stumps of the two removed Eucalyptus trees not be poisoned but rather be outright removed and/or grounded; • That the property owner be given the option to leave the stumps in place to allow them to re-sprout and grow into a hedge; and/or • That the property owner be required to support the road by mechanical means; and • That the replacement trees be native species of equal or greater value and at a minimum be of 36-inch box size, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 5 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-184 (393-18-010) Appeal of Administrative Decision, SAADAT (Appellant): Hamid Saadat, property owner of 19681 Junipero Way, has filed an appeal of an administrative decision which requires the following: replacement trees, a cash payment and tree removal costs for a neighbor’s tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant’s actions. The administrative decision was made after the appellant caused severe root damage to several trees. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant, the owner of 19681 Junipero Way, had mitigation imposed as part of an administrative decision. This mitigation includes replacement trees, a cash payment and tree removal costs for the removal of a neighbor’s tree, which suffered root loss and subsequent damage due to work undertaken on the appellant’s property. • Said that staff is recommending the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit for Tree #1 and Tree #2. Commissioner Barry said that she was unable to locate Tree #4 when she visited the site. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that Tree #3 and Tree #4 are located very close to each other. Chair Hunter added that both are Monterey Pine trees. Commissioner Uhl added that Tree #1 was an Oak. That tree is gone. Said that during the site visit he had asked if the valuation was based prior to the damage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the valuation was based prior to damage but that the trees were not in 100 percent condition. Commissioner Uhl said that the Oak was not in good health according to the report. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said this is true. Commissioner Uhl asked if the tree inspection occurred after the August construction on the driveway was done. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The report was prepared following the damage to the tree but the value was based on the tree prior to that damage. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the valuation is based upon 1992 guidelines. Questioned if valuations are different now, 11 years later. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 6 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that per page 16 of the Arborist’s report, the most current methodology was used. Commissioner Barry asked staff to comment about the letter distributed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the City Attorney prepared a response to the appellant’s attorney’s letter. In summary, a Tree Removal Permit was required for removing or destroying trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City Attorney addresses the issue of absolute authority regarding the removal of trees, including when damage is caused to a neighbor’s tree. Chair Hunter added that, in this case, major root damage was caused. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that these roots were damaging the concrete on the neighboring property and stressed the importance of proper tree placement on a property. Chair Hunter pointed out that this tree was planted 30 years ago. Commissioner Barry said that it is a valid point to consider the placement of new trees. She added that the failure to obtain a Tree Removal Permit is a real issue. Commissioner Uhl said that it is clear Tree #1 was already declining but that Tree #2, #3 and #4 are beautiful. Questioned staff to verify that there is no way now to save Tree #2. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Hamid Saadat, Appellant and Property Owner, 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga: • Said that he was in the process of replacing the cement driveway between these two properties, a driveway that was damaged due to trees. • Advised that when he purchased this property, the Real Estate Agent told him he was buying this property “as is” and would have to repair the concrete driveway. • Stated that he also paved a new area and needed to remove old concrete in order to pour new concrete. From the entrance to the garage and behind the garage has new concrete. • Explained that four trees were involved. Tree #1 was an Oak that was located exclusively on his property. Tree #2 was on Mr. Hernandez’ property, located close to the shared fence. Tree #3 and Tree #4 were also on Mr. Hernandez’ property, one being 15 feet from the old driveway on his property and the other being 20 feet away from his driveway. • Added that all he did was removed old concrete. • Stated that the City’s inspector told him that he caused damage to four trees. • Said that he agrees that he must pay to remove and replace Tree #1 and that he also agrees that he must pay for the removal of Tree #2. • Said that the tree was actually encroaching and trespassing onto his property and that the other owner should share the cost. He is willing to pay the cost of replacement for Tree #2 but that his neighbor should pay for the replacement landscaping. • Pointed out that there is no evidence to support the fact that Tree #3 and Tree #4 were damaged in any way. Therefore, there is no basis to make him replace those trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 7 • Advised that he should not be limited to just one tree service company but rather should be able to solicit competitive bids from eligible tree companies in a fair bidding process. • Said that he would be willing to plant along the side property line and that there should be a mandatory setback for the placement of trees on a property line to avoid such problems as this. • Stated that it is only fair to have he and his neighbor share the responsibility here. Commissioner Garakani asked if Tree #3 and #4 have already been removed. Mr. Hamid Saadat replied no, the trees are still there. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if work is done within the drip line that causes damage to a tree, the person who caused the damage has to pay for those damages. Mr. Hamid Saadat pointed out that his neighbor’s tree was bent over and leaning to his property. Mr. Paul Hernandez, 13020 Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Said that Tree #3 has a spread of 50 feet and Tree #4 has a spread of 45 feet. • Said that Tree #1 was an Oak located on Mr. Saadat’s property. • Stated that Tree #2 is a two-trunked Monterey Pine. • Said that Tree #3 and #4 are both Monterey Pine trees located on the left of his property. • Explained that he heard construction noise next door and saw massive roots being removed from the ground. • Advised that this tree was a nice tree that provided screening and privacy, including screening off views of power lines from his property. • Stated that Tree #2 has been taken from him and that is why he is here. • Pointed out that his neighbor is suing him because his tree grew under the neighbor’s driveway. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Hernandez what type of construction equipment was used in the driveway removal. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Replied that it was some sort of front loader and/or bobcat. There was a lot of equipment. • Said that he was not there when the destruction took place but saw one huge main root that had been removed. • Said that he saw that lots of damage had occurred and called Saratoga Tree Service because he wanted to see if these trees could be saved. • Explained that Saratoga Tree Service concurred with the evaluation of the City’s Arborist that the trees should be taken down. • Stated that he trusts Saratoga Tree Service to do work on his property as they have done work for him previously. • Said that the estimated value of the trees does not get much of a replacement and that he will not get the same amount of screening and coverage that he once had. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Paul Hernandez what his Arborist is proposing for Tree #3 and Tree #4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Paul Hernandez replied that they suggest he just watch and see. Perhaps they are far enough away from the construction to have not been permanently damaged. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that they just propose to leave those two trees alone and not take any pro-active action. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that Tree #2 was the prime focus. Between 30 and 40 percent of the tree roots for Tree #3 and Tree #4 were damaged. He will have to wait and see if they can survive. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez if he was aware of the damage to the cement driveway on the Saadat property prior to this work. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he had never had occasion to look over the fence and that the driveway was usually well covered in pine needles from the tree. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez if he finds it fair to have a tree from his property damaging his neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he did not know of any damage and that the previous neighbor had never said anything about damage. He added that this tree was in place when he bought his property. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Paul Hernandez how he would have treated the situation if he learned his tree was damaging the neighboring driveway. Mr. Paul Hernandez said that he would have had to think about what is his responsibility. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the final paragraph in the City Attorney’s letter. The damage to the driveway would be a civil issue between two property owners and not an issue for the Planning Commission to consider. Commissioner Garakani said that he had a similar experience occur when he moved to Saratoga. He had to remove trees from his property that were damaging his neighbor’s property. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Pointed out that had the old driveway on the Saadat property been removed by hand and with care rather than through the use of heavy construction equipment, his tree would have been much less impacted. • Added that the new driveway is now twice as wide as it was previously as Mr. Saadat is trying to take advantage of his property for on-site storage of a trailer. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Paul Hernandez what his preference might be for the replacement of Tree #2. Mr. Paul Hernandez replied that he would look at the recommendations of the Arborist. Chair Hunter said that he would have to be careful about placement of trees since his pool is nearby. Dr. Ralph Wood, 19661 Junipero Way, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 9 • Said that he has lived on this street since 1966. Mr. Hernandez built his home in 1969/1970 and planted his trees a couple of years thereafter. • Said that he has two neighbors, both of whom he likes. One neighbor is new and the other he has known for 20 years. • Pointed out that under Ordinance nothing is supposed to occur within 10 feet of an Oak tree. Additionally, Tree #2 should never have been planted where it was planted. • Recommended that the Tree Ordinance be modified so as not to allow trees to be planted within 10 feet of a property line to avoid problems such as this. • Added that it is crazy not to be able to prune a tree from a neighboring property that is growing over a neighbor’s property as is part of the new Tree Ordinance. • Suggested that property owners on both sides should have equal consideration. Chair Hunter pointed out that 10 feet would bring a tree too far in on smaller lots. Dr. Ralph Wood said that one has to plan ahead with landscaping. Ms. Maria Guerra, 19660 Junipero Way, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided on this street for six years. • Advised that she too has power lines in her backyard and that her neighbor has three very tall pine trees whose roots come into her yard. They are not yet lifting her foundation but they are impacting the fence. • Said that she is here in support of Mr. Saadat and is concerned about the Tree Ordinance. • Pointed out that Mr. Saadat’s driveway was pretty broken up. • Explained that trees located at the back property line are trimmed every so often by PG&E. The work is badly done causing shock to the trees. • Stated that trees should not be planted that closely to a fence. Commissioner Barry reminded that the Tree Ordinance is coming up again before Council. Ms. Maria Guerra said that she is aware of that fact and said that she would love to participate on the Tree Committee. Commissioner Garakani suggested that she approach the Mayor. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Tree Committee is already formed and finalizing their work. Commissioner Barry added that the preparation work is done and Council’s action will be final. The most productive thing Ms. Guerra can do is attend the Council meeting and/or send a letter expressing her views. The work of the Tree Committee is already done. Ms. Marti Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Expressed that she is appalled that this has occurred. • Added her dismay at the prevalence of monster homes in the City. • Said that she is concerned about fast traffic, which makes it dangerous for her mom to walk in her neighborhood. • Stated that she is fed up and tired. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Hamid Saadat: • Stated that he is sorry this has happened and that this damage was not intentional. • Pointed out that the tree was located so close to the shared fence to avoid its debris from falling into the pool on the neighboring property. Instead the pine needles would accumulate on his property. • Said that the roots seen by his neighbor were from Tree #1. The trees were approximately 30 years old, which is closed to their natural age. • Questioned where replacement trees should be located in order to avoid a similar problem from occurring again. • Said that he is willing to put in screening shrubs as he did between his property and Dr. Wood’s property. Shrubs provide good screening and privacy. • Assured that he is not going to sue Mr. Hernandez and that he is hoping to come to some agreement tonight to resolve this situation, coming to a compromise and finishing it here. Commissioner Barry asked about the valuation per Mr. Saadat’s Arborist. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that his Arborist, Deborah Ellis, provided a letter. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Hamid Saadat whether this driveway is his main driveway or a secondary driveway. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that it runs along the main driveway to the side of the garage and to the back. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Saadat why he did not secure a permit. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that he did not think his work would cause damage and did not think he required a permit for what he was doing. He pointed out that the loss of the Oak tree from his own property is a big loss to him. He had plans to install a box around that tree and plant it with flowers. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Hamid Saadat how much impervious surface he has on his property. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised Mr. Hamid Saadat that if he plans on doing any paving he should come to the City to ensure that he does not exceed maximum allowable coverage. Mr. Hamid Saadat said that his property is 20,000 square feet and he would not surpass allowable coverage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous warned that coverage includes the building footprint and driveway. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that it is unfortunate that beautiful trees have been damaged here. • Stated that it appears Mr. Saadat is trying to work with his neighbor and is willing to pay for the removal of Tree #1 and Tree #2. • Suggested that it is not clear how much damage has been caused to Tree #3 and Tree #4. • Expressed concern that this represents a secondary rather than primary driveway and that trees take precedence over a secondary driveway. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 11 • Said that Mr. Saadat should pay for Tree #1 and Tree #2 with the value of $6,790 being fair. The cost should be shared in the spirit of compromise. Commissioner Zutshi: • Pointed out that there is often not enough information available to new residents and that she is not sure how to remedy that problem. • Said that Tree #2 is severely damaged and disagreed that Mr. Hernandez should have to pay any part of removal of that tree. • Added that Tree #3 and Tree #4 look fine and that Mr. Saadat has to pay for Tree #1. Chair Hunter: • Agreed that this situation is indeed most unfortunate. • Pointed out that Mr. Hernandez’ backyard is greatly impacted with the loss of this tree as he will now have to stare at power lines. • Said that the heavy equipment used by Mr. Saadat’s contractor has caused the problem and that Mr. Saadat must bear the cost for removal of Tree #2. He should also be required to replace Tree #1. • Suggested that a bond for Tree #3 and Tree #4 should be imposed on Mr. Saadat to ensure their survival and, if they do not survive five years, their replacement with the funds from the bond. • Stated that Mr. Saadat should have been home and/or should have notified Mr. Hernandez of his construction plans. Now Mr. Hernandez has a bare backyard, which has caused a tremendous impact. Commissioner Garakani: • Agreed that this is a very unfortunate situation. • Suggested one way to have new owners made aware of City regulations is to have sellers provided Codes to new buyers at the time of sale. • Said that there is no proven damage to Tree #3 and Tree #4 and that he does not believe he can support the imposition of even a bond on those two trees as there is no evidence of damage. Chair Hunter pointed out that Tree #3 has been assessed as having 30 to 40 percent damage to its roots. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that the Arborist’s report is recommending that nothing be done for Tree #3 or Tree #4. • Added that Mr. Saadat is responsible for the replacement and payment for Tree #1 and Tree #2. • Suggested that the replacement tree on the Hernandez property not be planted in the same place. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed the importance of evaluating the existing condition and what was done today as opposed to what has happened in years past. • Said that it is clear that a Tree Permit should have been obtained and was not. • Said that the only way to be consistent in imposing fines is to use the City Arborist’s valuations. • Stated that it is reasonable that Mr. Saadat be allowed to solicit competitive bids for the work to be done with the removal of the tree on Mr. Hernandez’ property. • Stressed the importance in consulting with Mr. Hernandez on the tree replacement. • Supported the bond for Tree #3 and Tree #4. Commissioner Uhl: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 12 • Said that the $7,000 figure is a reasonable amount. • Expressed his support for a bond in case Tree #3 and/or Tree #4 do not survive. Commissioner Barry stressed the importance is supporting the Tree Permit process. Cautioned Mr. Saadat to pay attention to the impervious coverage on his property to avoid any grief in the future. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the removal cost for Tree #2 be subtracted from the $6,970 value of the three trees. Commissioner Garakani asked what type and size of tree should be required. Commissioner Uhl suggested that either the Commission could specify or allow the neighbors to decide. Commissioner Barry pointed out that $3,200 was for the replacement of the Oak on the Saadat property. She said that the money needs to be spent and the neighbors need to agree. Commissioner Uhl suggested letting the neighbors agree as to the placement and species of replacement trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (Application #03-184), upholding the Administrative Decision against Mr. Hamid Saadat, owner of 19681 Junipero Way, to impose the requirement for replacement trees, a cash payment and payment of the tree removal costs for a neighbor’s tree, and imposed Conditions for a Tree Removal Permit as follows: • That the City Arborist’s Report will be the basis for the valuation; • That the cost of removing Tree #2 will be subtracted from the valuation amount; • That there will be agreement with the neighbor for the replacement trees selected so as not to have undue imposition and impact; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Uhl asked whether the bond is a cash bond. Director Tom Sullivan replied that often these bonds are taken as a Certificate of Deposit, which earns the property owner interest. Commissioner Uhl suggested a bond amount of about $1,000. His formula was to add the $2,100 and $1,400 values of the two trees to reach a total of $3,500. He then multiplied that by 30 percent, which represents the percentage of potential damage to the trees, from the total value of Tree #3 and Tree #4. Commissioner Garakani said that he wants Mr. Saadat to be able to go to competitive bid for the removal of Tree #2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 13 Director Tom Sullivan said that by omission, the applicant could go to competitive bid. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission conditioned that Mr. Hamid Saadat, owner of 19681 Junipero Way, is to obtain a bond in the amount of $1,000 for five years to guarantee the survival of Tree #3 and/or Tree #4 and/or to pay for replacement should either tree not survive that five year period, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #03-100 (397-19-027) – CILKER, 15143 Alondra Lane: Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new one-story residence consisting of 5,972 square feet with a 1,000 square foot basement on a 40,719 square foot lot within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The maximum height is 26 feet. • Described this as a unique location off a dead end street on a curve. A very small envelope is seen from the street. Mature trees surround the site. • Stated that the proposed materials include cedar shingle board and batten siding with stone veneer. The siding will be stained a natural green. The roof is metal in a brown tone. • Said that the home will blend with the surrounding landscape and meets Design policies. It minimizes the perception of bulk since the majority of the house is 15 feet high. The mature trees are to be maintained. The home will integrate with the environment as it will be surrounded by the existing canopy of trees and will blend due to the colors and materials. The home will protect the privacy of adjacent properties as it is a single-story home on a large lot. • Advised that there are 19 protected trees of which five will be removed. The City Arborist is recommending replacement trees. The applicant proposes to plant six 36-inch box Maples, two 24- inch box Oaks and three 36-inch box Redwoods. They will plant a lot of new large box trees above and beyond the recommendations of the Arborist. • Stated that no negative correspondence has been received. • Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is present. Chair Hunter expressed concern about the siding color and use of a metal roof. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this project represents a unique site and architecture that is a woodsy type of architecture. The roof is a metal standing seam roof that is often seen in heavily wooded areas such as Tahoe. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Uhl questioned the use of a bright green. Commissioner Garakani said that this green is for the window trim. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the driveway and breezeway material. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the breezeway between the house and cabana creates an outdoor area that will keep the rain off. It represents the highest point of the project. Commissioner Barry questioned the use of orange. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that there is no orange but rather a natural wood is being depicted on the drawing that appears to be orange. Commissioner Uhl asked about Tree #2. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Tree #2 would be going. Chair Hunter pointed out that trees often have to be removed when a house is being remodeled or rebuilt. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Victor Lee, Project Architect: • Said that he met on site with the Commission and heard reservations about the metal roof. • Assured that he has used metal roofs extensively in Menlo Park, Atherton and Los Altos Hills on contemporary style structures. He displayed some examples from Architectural Digest as well as two other photographic examples. • Pointed out that his clients both originally had different architectural preferences. One wanted Mediterranean style architecture while the other wanted a rustic cottage. • Said that the City’s new library has a metal roof that is very handsome. • Explained that metal roofs are practical as they hold up well to storms and severe weather. They are stable and easy to repair. They do not suffer from rot or pestilence. They are a lifetime material and are totally fireproof, which is important as evidenced by recent events with the Southern California fires. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Victor Lee if he had considered the use of slate. Mr. Victor Lee: • Replied, yes, a slate roof is nice but also out of their budget. This metal roof is low maintenance. The public has not been exposed to it as much here in Northern California. • Urged the Commission to please consider this roof and said that if the color is wrong they can alter it. • Reminded that the maintenance and longevity of this metal is called for. Commissioner Garakani asked if they had considered installing copper tubing below for photovoltaic energy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Victor Lee said that this is not planned for at this time. Chair Hunter asked about the breezeway. Mr. Victor Lee said that it would serve to connect the pool house with the family room of the main house. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the material of the floor of the breezeway. Mr. Victor Lee replied tile. The driveway will be asphalt. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the project is maxed out in its use of impervious surface and asked where pervious surfaces could be used if asked to reduce the amount of impervious. Mr. Victor Lee replied that pavers could be used for the driveway. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 Commissioner Garakani asked if the interior height above 18 feet has been double counted. Director Tom Sullivan said this practice has been removed from the Code with the recent update. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that this applied to smaller lot zoning while this site is R-1- 40,000. Commissioner Barry said that this project is not visible. Suggested that this project might represent a good opportunity for the Commission to Condition this project to require this property owner to consult with neighbors on the replacement trees selected. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the neighbors are not impacted. Chair Hunter: • Stated that she is against metal roofs. • Expressed concern that to allow a metal roof here will open the door and said that she is not sure she is ready for that just yet. • Pointed out that Saratoga does not have snow. • Said that a metal roof would set a precedent and questioned if such roofs are wanted in the Hillside. • Said that this would represent quite a change and that there are other materials available that are more appropriate. • Said that this is a very unusual design that is too contemporary for her. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if they had any issue with the use of metal roofing. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that Associate Planner John Livingstone initially had similar concerns. This project was discussed in a staff meeting and the proposed metal roof was found to match the architectural style of this building. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 16 • Agreed that this would be one of the first such residential metal roofs. If the roof material is changed, it would have to match this architectural style. This material does match the style. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that he likes this design, finding it to be leading edge while not “in your face.” This is where architecture is going. • Stated that the architect has made a very conscious effort to blend this house into the site. • Asked what level of precedence would be established if this metal roof were to be approved. Chair Hunter: • Said that this home is not the least bit compatible with the existing architecture in the neighborhood. • Suggested a similar material but not metal. • Pointed out that there has been no metal approved during her tenure on the Commission. Commissioner Zutshi said that the metal roof matches this house’s architecture. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that it would not go with most other styles of architecture. Commissioner Zutshi said that it would not be a shiny metal. Commissioner Garakani said that energy efficiency is a concern. If copper tubing were located underneath, the homeowner would have free hot water and said that he promotes this idea. Commissioner Uhl said that this is a first step. Commissioner Garakani agreed and added that he prefers this metal roof to the commonly used red tiles. Commissioner Uhl asked again about precedent impacts. Director Tom Sullivan replied that every Design Review case is measured under its own merits. Commissioner Barry suggested making a finding that this metal roof is approved as it is integral to the architectural design. Commissioner Uhl suggested a Condition to require the driveway surface to be of pervious material. Chair Hunter said she would not support this project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-100) to allow the construction of a new one-story home with basement on property located at 15143 Alondra Lane, with the following additions: • That an additional finding be made as to why the metal roofing material is approved as it is integral to the architectural design and with the hope that it will be a step toward energy efficiency in the future; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 17 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the following Conditions were added to the above motion for approval: • That the applicant be required to use pervious pavers for the driveway; and • Condition that the applicant consult with neighbors on the types of replacement trees; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #02-182 (389-14-037) DORCICH ORCHARD SUBDIVISION, 13089 Quito Road: Request for Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan for a six-lot subdivision of the 1.97 acre property located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The R-1-10,000 zoned parcel would be subdivided into lots ranging from 11,118 square feet to 13,371 square feet. The six lots would take access from the proposed private cul-de-sac. The existing historic farmhouse would be restored and moved onto Lot 4, which is the end of the cul-de-sac. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a six-lot subdivision at Quito and Martha. • Reminded that the applicant previously proposed a seven-lot subdivision at the September 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. • Added that the revised plan has eliminated the access to McFarland and consists of regular shaped parcels, ranging in size from 11,118 to 13,371 square feet. The road width would be 35.5 feet with parking allowed on both sides, except for in the bulb. • Informed that the applicants conducted two neighborhood meetings on September 29th, one in the morning and the second in the evening. No one attended the morning session but 12 neighbors attended the evening meeting. • Said that the revisions appear to have met the concerns. • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the project again and supported the relocation of the Heritage Farmhouse to Lot #5. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry asked for the reasoning for the relocation of the Farmhouse. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the neighbor abutting the previous location did not want a two-story residence adjacent to their property. Chair Hunter said that the Farmhouse would be a feature if placed in Lot #5 at the middle of the cul de sac. Commissioner Barry asked if the letter received is objecting to the current placement of the Farmhouse. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 18 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She said that letter also indicates that they do not want a sound wall as they have concerns of sound impacts from a wall. This issue would be considered during the Design Review phase. Commissioner Uhl questioned why details such as fencing, trees, etc. are not considered at this time. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the applicant would have to provide plans for landscaping along the right-of-way along both Martha and Quito Road. Each lot will be reviewed individually during Design Review approval. Chair Hunter reiterated that tonight’s action is just for the subdivision. Commissioner Barry asked whether the first action of the Commission would be to approve the environmental action. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Project Developer, introduced his associate, Mr. Sia Hashemi, who will make their presentation. Mr. Sia Hashemi, Project Representative: • Stated that this is a two-acre lot, which will be developed with six individual R-1-10,000 lots with a minimum of 11,000 to 13,000 square foot lots with two-story homes. • Assured that the Heritage Farmhouse would be preserved and remodeled. • Added that no security gates are proposed and a sound barrier will be constructed against Quito Road. • Assured that they plan to keep the neighbors involved and to meeting the R-1-10,000 requirements. • Said that they reduced their subdivision from seven to six lots, which has an $800,000 financial impact. • Said that they met for the third time with the Heritage Preservation Commission. The first time, the Heritage Farmhouse was proposed at the end of the cul de sac. When there was objection to that placement, they offered either Lot #4 or Lot #5 for placement of the Heritage Farmhouse. Lot #5 was selected, facing the driveway. • Said that they have widened the street from the initially proposed 28 feet to the current 35.5 feet. The minimum requirement is 30 feet. Fire requirements are for 35 feet in order to allow parking on both sides of the street. This makes the street a public street instead of private. • Advised that there is no longer need for a lot line adjustment and that there will be no access from McFarland. • Stated that they followed staff recommendation to set the garages back to allow a longer driveway to accommodate additional off street parking. • Discussed trees, saying that nine trees are outside the perimeter and not on the property itself. Tree #38 is exceptional. They will follow all Arborist recommendations to maintain and preserve trees. The large Fig tree will be preserved. Two trees are impacted #29 (ranked as marginal) and #28 (ranted as fair). They will remove all poor specimen trees as they are a fire hazard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 19 • Stated that they tried to meet with all neighbors and met 23 by going door to door as well as by holding Open House. They held two neighborhood meetings on September 29th and provided their email, fax and cell phone numbers. They met 40 to 50 people from the neighborhood. The noticing radius was 500 feet. • Asked the Commission to approve this subdivision. • Thanked staff, particularly Ann Welsh. Mr. Christopher Ducote, 18569 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his house is located on the north end of Lot #3. • Said that he attended the Heritage Preservation Commission because he is adamantly against having a two-story located next to his home. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that the home designs are not under consideration this evening, just the subdivision. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the plan says two-story. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that this is a subdivision plan only. Director Tom Sullivan added that there are no floor, site and/or elevation plans under consideration. The subdivision requires conceptual stuff but the only action is the Tract Map. Mr. Christopher Ducote said that he has experience with adjacent property trees destroying his garage floor and that he wants input on future tree placement. He added that all his concerns have been met except for the limitation to single-story homes. Ms. Janet Lynch, 18581 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the developer for meeting the conditions put forward. • Expressed concern about the two-story issue and the issue of sound walls. • Said that there will be a big impact in taking out an orchard and that she wants this project to fit the tone of the neighborhood. Ms. Encarna Panadero, 18325 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is happy that most concerns have been met. • Said that she is worried about the loss of the orchard and the impact of walls. • Stated that she does not want to see her neighborhood divided. Mr. Po-Yung Chang, 13043 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that he lives next to the property on a busy street. • Expressed concern that a sound wall may direct sound to his home. • Stated that he was never informed of any meetings and said he would appreciate an invitation to any future meetings. • Said that he did not want the historic home located next to his because it is a large two-story structure. Ms. Marti Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she has lived in Saratoga her whole life. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 20 • Said that she did not believe Mr. Dorchich would like this project at all and she does not like it. • Stated that traffic is bad already and it is not safe for the elderly or children to walk. • Suggested that big homes do not fit in this neighborhood and that the neighborhood as it used to be is no longer. • Said that the decisions being made by the City are not good ones, including the Commission and Council. • Said she is worried. • Compared a City she recently visited in Washington State that is much like Saratoga used to be. • Said she is scared for the safety of her parents. • Explained that a man chased her father to his home when he perceived that her father had somehow cut him off in traffic. He yelled at her father in front of his own home. • Said that she has collected 1,800 signatures against this project. Chair Hunter said that many of the concerns being raised by Ms. Foster are more appropriately addressed to Council. Commissioner Barry added that the statements made by Ms. Foster against the work of the Commission and Council are not fair. Mr. Robert Block, 18596 McFarland, Saratoga: • Said both he and his wife want to reiterate their concerns about the idea of two-story homes on these new lots. • Suggested that the developer consider basements in order to limit heights of these new homes. • Said that those lots adjacent to existing single-story homes should be developed with single-story homes. Commissioner Barry asked if anyone had canvassed the neighborhood to determine the number of single versus two-story homes. Mr. Robert Block replied no, he has just spoken with some of his neighbors. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon, Saratoga: • Said that a neighborhood poll was conducted in February at a Community gathering. Of the 50 people there, 82 percent were in support of single-story. • Expressed concern about traffic impacts including construction traffic and the moving of the farmhouse. • Said that a Traffic Study is an important piece of information. • Said that of 13 Redwood trees, only four are expected to survive. • Said that she still has concern about the survival of trees and questioned why tree retention issues cannot be finalized right now. • Pointed out that there are currently no sound walls along Quito. • Suggested that the sound wall be approved in a review process like homes are reviewed. Chair Hunter reminded that trees are considered at the time that Design Review occurs. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that a site plan is needed to review trees. A landscape plan for the right-of-way along Quito and Martha will be submitted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that no sound wall is being approved. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that sound walls are not a part of the subdivision application but rather will be considered at the time of Design Review. Mr. Sia Hashemi: • Reminded that several sensitive issues, including building heights, sound walls and trees, are not subject to approval tonight. • Said that houses will impact only four trees. • Encouraged neighbors to contact him. • Said he appreciates the opportunity to speak with neighbors re privacy issues such as window placement. • Reminded that today the issue is only the proposed lots and other issues will be resolved at a later time. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the Initial Study prepared for Application #02-182 to allow a six-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani said that he has no issue with this revised six-lot subdivision and that the staff and applicant came up with a great subdivision taking into consideration the feedback provided at the September public hearing. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that he is very concerned about turning an orchard into a subdivision. • Stressed the importance of putting reviews and conditions in place and involve neighbors. • Said that he needs to see details such as walls, trees, etc. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application #02-182 to allow a six-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, with the Condition that a number of meetings and reviews are scheduled with neighbors to review individual buildings, landscaping, walls and public right-of-way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 22 Commissioner Barry said the issue of demolition equipment will be specified when specific proposal comes forward for development. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that a condition be added to the previously adopted motion to require a staging plan and construction schedule to be prepared. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission added a Condition of Approval to Application #02-182 requiring that a staging plan and construction schedule be prepared for this six-lot subdivision on property located at 13089 Quito Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal, Schallop ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Joe, 13135 Martha Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that on one would buy the orchard to retain it as an orchard since is has been so badly neglected. Chair Hunter reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION #03-233 (C-N ZONE BOUNDED BY LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment, City of Saratoga: The Saratoga Zoning Regulations expressly prohibit drive through windows in all commercial zones. The City Council has determined that there is sufficient reason to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and report back their findings regarding the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Council recently adopted a Resolution of Intent directing the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing to establish an Overlay Zone allowing drive through services. • Explained that the Code currently expressly prohibits drive through windows Citywide. • Said that Council is recommending that an Overlay Zone be created to allow drive through windows in this specific area. • Informed that Council has given fairly specific direction on what it wants to be studied and take action on. • Explained that drive through windows creates more traffic and results in 40 to 60 percent more sales. While the pollution created by use of drive through windows is greater, this area is already pretty heavily auto related. Other drive through type uses in the immediate area are a gas station and car wash. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 23 • Pointed out that across the street, in San Jose, there is a drive through window currently being remodeled. • Said that for this area, the concept of having drive through windows is not out of the question. The area is at the intersection of two arterial streets. Commissioner Barry asked if this area is where the Wherehouse and Kentucky Fried Chicken are located. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. There is also an auto parts store and a Jack in the Box restaurant. Chair Hunter said that in Mountain View a Krispy Crème business continues to have long lines. There is no tax generation. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that in the staff report it is mentioned that a Use Permit would be required. This requirement is not called out in the Resolution. Director Tom Sullivan said he put that requirement in the staff report to have the Commission discuss the idea. If the Commission wishes to put the requirement for a Use Permit into the Resolution’s Conditions, it can do so. He added that corporate architecture can be modified. Commissioner Garakani asked what the purpose is for this change. He pointed out that if there is no drive through, parking is required. There is a convenience factor in a drive through restaurant. Commissioner Barry asked if the Planning Commission is to give direction to conduct a Public Hearing. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this evening’s activity represents a Public Hearing. Chair Hunter said there appears to be a great feeling of urgency by Council. Commissioner Barry asked if this Overlay is in specific response to Krispy Cream. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Commissioner Zutshi said she has no problems. This is a heavily commercial area with a lot of stuff going on. There is no impact on residential uses. Commissioner Garakani asked if a Traffic Study was done. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff will require Traffic and Circulation Studies for specific uses. Commission Barry said that this requirement should be a Condition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2003 Page 24 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application #03-233 supporting the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Cancellation of November 26th Planning Commission Meeting: Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the next meeting has been cancelled as it falls on the day before Thanksgiving. COMMISSION ITEMS Gateway Subcommittee: Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Gateway Subcommittee has finished its work. The matter will go to Council next Wednesday. Those within 500 feet of a commercial zone will be notified of the Council hearing. This will be a very large mailing. The Subcommittee did not reach a unanimous consensus. Tree Ordinance Subcommittee: Director Tom Sullivan said that the Tree Ordinance Subcommittee had a productive meeting and came up with consensus. First reading of the Revised Tree Ordinance will take place on December 3rd. He offered to provide a copy to the Commissioners by email. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk