Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 10, 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: Commissioners Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 12, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 2003, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-1-2; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop 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 December 4, 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Director Tom Sullivan advised that special assistance is available to ensure accessibility to any of the City’s public meetings in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Interested persons should contact the City Clerk’s office 48 hours in advance of a meeting to be accommodated. CONSENT CALENDAR – ITEM NO. 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Chair Hunter asked that this item be removed from Consent to allow the Commission to discuss it fully. She pointed out that height limitations of 26 feet do not apply to schools and is important to note since a 50-foot high building is currently under construction at Saratoga High School. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Austin Way is not included in the CIP. Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, advised that the Austin Way project is a part of the operating budget. Additionally, a signal on Saratoga is listed on the CIP as an unfunded project. Commissioner Barry sought clarification that the CIP is before the Commission for comment on consistency with the General Plan. She asked how projects came to be included on the CIP. Public Works Director John Cherbone: • Replied that many are maintenance projects. • Advised that he connected special projects in this CIP to the appropriate General Plan Sections to outline their consistency. • Added that some of the projects within the CIP would have environmental issues that would be dealt with on a project by project basis, at which time additional review will be done. Director Tom Sullivan advised that CIP projects were derived from three sources, the public, Council and staff recommendations. Public meetings and hearings were held before Council. The projects were ranked with some being funded and others being unfunded. Commissioner Zutshi questioned Policy 6 on page 9. Director Tom Sullivan advised that Bed and Breakfasts have already been implemented as a Conditional Use. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are plans to change the speed limit on Allendale. Public Works Director John Cherbone replied no, not at this time. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission found the City’s Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 3 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-078 (503-16-022) CHEN, 13280 Pierce Road): The applicant requests design review approval to construct a two-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 25 feet, 10 inches. The proposed residence, including garage, will be 4,032 square feet. A 1,969 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,597 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Pointed out a correction on page 4 of her staff report. • Explained that this proposed new home is compatible with the contemporary homes that can be found along Pierce Road. • Advised that the neighbors have seen the plans and that trees obscure view of this site. • Stated that the rear property owner has no objection to this new home. Their only concern is the continued cleanliness of their pool during the construction period. Staff has added a Condition of Approval to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. • Said that one neighbor raised privacy impacts. In response, the applicant flipped the footprint. The neighbor to the west was fine with the flipped design and the neighbor to the east is fine with the addition of screening trees. The requirement to add four 24-inch box evergreen trees was incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. • Stated that there are eight Ordinance-protected trees potentially impacted by construction of this home. Three are located on neighboring properties, two of which are Monterey pines and the third is a Sequoia. One tree, a London plane, is slated for removal as it will be impacted by the driveway construction. The tree will be replaced with a native species. • Said that this project implements features called for in the Residential Design Policies. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked about Tree #8 and asked whether the driveway impacts that tree. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Commissioner Zutshi asked about a carport feature. Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that there are garage doors on both sides of the garage so that it is possible to drive straight through that garage. Commissioner Barry asked if it were not standard to require compliance with BAAQMD requirements. Director Tom Sullivan assured that compliance is mandatory but that it is not typically specifically listed in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the size of bond is not specifically called out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 4 Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the Arborist specifies the bond amount. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Tree #8 would be removed. Planner Lata Vasudevan said it is proposed for removal. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mazad, Project Representative: • Advised that he is available for questions on behalf of the architect. Commissioner Zutshi asked what material would compose the carport floor. Mr. Mazad replied that it would be pavement. Chair Hunter pointed out that the reason for the planting of the London Plane tree was probably to screen visibility of the poles and recommended the planting of something else there. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence on property located at 13280 Pierce 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. 3 APPLICATION #03-167 (517-22-011) YANG, 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a one-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height with a gross floor area that exceeds six thousand square feet, therefore Planning Commission approval is required. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet, 6 inches. The proposed residence, including garage, will be 6,493 square feet. A 2,813 square foot basement is proposed. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior with orange clay tile roof. The gross lot size is 82,500 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000. The existing residence is to be demolished. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a one-story, single-family residence with a maximum height of 23 feet, 6 inches. The home will include a 2,813 square foot basement, beige stucco and orange clay tile roof. The architectural style is Spanish eclectic. • Said that the property is 82,500 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 5 • Stated that the majority of the residences in the vicinity are single-story, large-scale stucco with typical lots of one acre or more. • Said that the plans have been revised to include the Arborist’s recommendations and that no Ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. • Recommended approval. Chair Hunter asked for a color board. Planner Christy Oosterhous distributed the sample board to the Commissioners. Commissioner Barry asked for further details on the history of the previous removal of 75 trees from this property. Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that many trees were removed from the property without benefit of permits. The City levied a $150,000 penalty. Added that she believes this applicant was also the owner at that time. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that this proposal is before the Commission because it exceeds 6,000 square feet and because it is taller than 16 feet. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: • Said that when they revised the plans to save a large tree, they reduced the house by 350 square feet. Therefore the total square footage is now 6,150. • Assured that the roof tile they are proposing is not orange but rather a blend of reds and browns. Mr. Dave Flint, Project Representative: • Said that the property owner received bad advice, while he was still living in Seattle, which resulted in the improper tree removals. • Assured that the site was not clear-cut. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the need for such height when the roof pitch is low. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that the owner wanted tall ceilings. He added that the project must be measured to existing grade. In actuality, the perception of height will be about 19 feet. Commissioner Nagpal asked for comparisons between the height of the existing house with the new home. Mr. Dave Flint said that they felt strongly that the design would suffer if the home was too low. Chair Hunter asked if the home would be visible from Peach Hill. Mr. Dave Flint said that there are many trees and that behind the house is Piedmont. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Henry Chang, 15050 Bonnie Brae Lane, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the next door neighbor. • Asked that no new trees be planted along the shared fence. • Expressed doubts about adding a solid fence in this area. Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the landscape plan notes that no new plantings will occur in that area. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing chain link fence between these two properties with a new solid fence. These details can be worked out. Mr. Dave Flint said that they were under the impression that the Changs wanted a solid wood fence. He assured that they are okay either way. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that staff has required the wooden fence. Chair Hunter said that if in the Resolution, they don’t have to do so if they decide not to. Director Tom Sullivan said it would be better to change the Resolution. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification on the clay roof tile color. Mr. Dave Flint said that they are reddish brown and definitely not orange. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the actual brand be named. Mr. Dave Flint said that they are red clay Redlands tiles. Commissioner Garakani asked staff from where the notation came that the stucco not be pink. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this issue has been brought up by several Commissioners. Mr. Henry Chang: • Stated that he and his wife have just consulted and both believe that a fence would offer more privacy and that they would like to keep that requirement in the proposal. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this project offers a good example of when height for a home is appropriate. Declared this to be a good architectural design. Commissioner Barry said that she is pleased with the color board. Chair Hunter stated that this is a very nice design and that she hopes that it blends into the hills. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new one-story single-family residence on property located at 20100 Bonnie Brae Lane by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 7 AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #03-216 (393-37-029) LUN (Appellant), WANG (Applicant), 19932 Merribrook Drive: The City granted a Tree Removal Permit for five redwood trees located at 19932 Merribrook Drive (the Wang Property). A neighbor, Yong Lun, 19894 Merribrook Drive, has appealed the Tree Removal Permit. The trees are located in the applicant’s rear yard. The City Inspector issued the Tree Removal Permit based on information from the applicant that previous limb breakage had occurred, which damaged a neighboring residence, located to the rear (east). The appellant resides to the right side (south) of 19932 Merribrook Drive. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that an Administrative Tree Removal Permit to remove five Redwood trees was granted for five trees located at the rear of the applicant’s property. • Said that following that approval, the adjacent neighbor appealed. • Stated that information provided by the applicant reported previous limb breakage has occurred that resulted in damage to the rear neighbor’s property. • Reported that the Arborist’s report states that there is no apparent reason for approval of this Tree Removal Permit. The report adds that the trees simply need proper pruning and points out that there are actually six Redwood trees in this location. Commissioner Barry questioned whether the Arborist considered the close proximity between these six Redwood trees to the large grove of Oak trees. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Yong Lun, Appellant, 19894 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that these are five beautiful Redwood Trees that provide great privacy and shade during the summer months. • Pointed out that per the Arborist’s report these trees are healthy and simply need trimming. Therefore, it is safe to leave them in place. • Advised that two letters have been provided, one from her fourth grade daughter and the second from a sixth grade neighbor child. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether Ms. Yong Lun would take responsibility for damage that might occur should one of these trees fall onto her property. Ms. Yong Lun said that if the fall onto her property she would not blame the owners. The benefits from these trees outweigh any risk. However, she cannot speak for her neighbors. Mrs. Wang, Applicant, 19932 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in this home for 14 years and loves these trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 8 • Stated that these trees are located close to her backyard neighbors. • Said that a few years ago she had an Arborist look at the trees and that Arborist told her not to worry. Unfortunately, last winter about one-third of one tree fell onto the fence, into the neighbor’s yard and landing partially upon their neighbor’s roof. Luckily no one was hurt. • Pointed out that one cannot top a Redwood tree and that she was told that this location, at the bottom of a hill, was not a good one for Redwood trees. Chair Hunter assured Mrs. Wang that Redwoods are steady and strong trees. Mrs. Wang said that her only concern is that these trees are so close to her rear neighbor’s home and that she is concerned for their safety. Commissioner Barry thanked Mrs. Wang for allowing her access on the property today to see these trees since she missed the regular site visit tour. Ms. Penny Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Reported that on December 14th of last year, the top half of one of the Redwoods came down, breaking a portion of the fence and coming to rest against their roof. • Said that these trees are beautiful and that she does not want them taken out. • Stated her preference for having them pruned as they are not diseased. • Advised that she had planted three Redwoods on her own property about 10 years ago and today her yard looks like a park. • Informed that the removal of these trees would leave a big hole in the vegetation whereby they would be able to see the road. Chair Hunter asked Ms. Carr how long she has lived in her home. Ms. Penny Carr replied 23 years. She added that she believes these trees are about 35 to 40 years old. Chair Hunter asked for clarification that the Carrs had not requested that these trees be removed out of concern for safety. Ms. Penny Carr replied no. She added that it would cost the Wangs less to just have these trees cleaned up through appropriate pruning. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that there were no concerns for eminent danger from these trees. She also asked if it was the top half of the tree or simply branches that fell last December. Ms. Penny Carr said that it was branches. She added that one does not often hear of Redwoods falling over in storms. She said that it appeared as if this tree may have been hit by lightning. Commissioner Nagpal stated that it appears that these trees are not feared by the Carrs and expressed appreciation to Ms. Penny Carr for coming this evening. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Penny Carr if they would be willing to assume responsibility for any damage that might occur to their home and property in the event that branches and/or trees fall over in the future. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Penny Carr replied yes. Mr. Don Carr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Said that this is a tough question for which he does not have a good answer. • Stated that he likes these trees as they offer afternoon shade, cooling their patio. • Said that if there is a choice, they would like to keep these trees and clean them up. • Suggested that if the owner thinks it is best to remove them, they should have that right and he won’t stop them by saying no. • Informed that last December about a 50-foot portion of the tree fell off and about six to eight feet of it was on his roof. • Added that he took care of the problem and asked no restitution from the Wangs for the minor damage that occurred. • Declared that the Wangs are great neighbors. • Said that his choice would be to keep these trees but he would not stop the Wangs from taking them out. Chair Hunter asked if one tree offers more potential for damage than any other. Mr. Don Carr replied that all of the Redwoods are in a row. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is here to offer continuing support for trees, urging that these natural resources be kept when they can be kept. • Said that removal should only occur when there are significant reasons to justify the removal. • Pointed out that if the Luns had not appeal this decision, these trees would already be gone. • Suggested that the process for tree removals is not working right. • Declared that it is dangerous to discuss liability issues in relation to Tree Removal requests, adding that that is why God created insurance companies. Commissioner Garakani stated that while he too loves Redwood trees, he is also concerned that one not wait until a person, especially a child, dies before preventative action is taken. Said that if the Arborist certifies that these trees are okay, they should be kept if there is no good reason to remove them. However, at this time there are two differing reports and recommendations. Mr. Tom Corson pointed out that removal should not be done simply on an allegation of danger but rather only following substantiation of potential safety problems. Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated his support of this appeal to preserve these trees. • Said he reviewed the application and drove by the property. • Said that this is a similar situation as occurred in his neighborhood. • Advised that this is a false and misleading application as the house behind the Wangs is shown without setbacks. • Said that the situation last winter was a great test case and that the fallen branch just brushed the neighbor’s house. • Expressed surprise that a Tree Removal Permit was even issued as the Arborist has cleared the trees with a recommendation for appropriate pruning. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 10 • Said that the responsibility for any liability remains with the owner of the property and that asking neighbors to assume liability is outside of State law. • Pointed out that this area has six Redwood trees and that removal would result in tremendous damage to the neighborhood. • Stated that he did not want to establish this harmful precedence since these trees are safe per the City’s Arborist. • Asked that the Commission uphold this appeal and require the trees be trimmed instead of removed. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is sorry to have to be here tonight as she thought the Tree Ordinance would take care of situations such as this. • Said that she drove by the neighborhood and saw lots of mature trees. • Said that it is unfounded to remove these trees and does not make sense. • Pointed out that the City’s Arborist has stated these trees are healthy. • Said that she had the opportunity to live in the Santa Cruz Mountains with lots of Redwoods. While Redwoods drop debris and sway with the wind, she has never experienced one coming down. • Added that she can understand Mrs. Wang’s concern when she sees these trees swaying. • Said that she just wanted to make her thoughts known and hopes to see these trees kept. Commissioner Garakani invited Ms. Elizabeth Lara to his property to see ten large Redwood trees in the creek behind that he is working with CalTrans to remove due to eminent damage. Mrs. Wang, Applicant: • Thanked the Commission and said that she loves trees too. • Pointed out that since two of the six trees are missing their top portions, only four of them are still visible from her house. • Said that all are healthy but that she has concerns about liability and potential of injury or damage. Mrs. Lun, Appellant: • Stated her belief that it is too much to remove six trees simply because one portion of one tree fell down. • Suggested that there is more benefit to keeping them than removing them. • Expressed her hope that the trees be retained. Mr. Wang, 19932 Merribrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that it is very scary to see a big tree fall over into a neighbor’s yard. • Said that a tree service can do trimming but cannot guarantee anything. • Pointed out that they also have over 30 Oak trees in their backyard and that every winter some tree or other falls down. • Stated that Redwoods are so huge, estimating that they are about 100 feet tall and that they sway during storms. Chair Hunter agreed that the Wangs have a beautiful yard. Mr. Wang said that even with the removal of these six trees, they would still have a forest of trees in their yard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 11 Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wang whose home he is afraid for, his own or his neighbor’s. Mr. Wang replied his neighbor’s. Mrs. Lun, Appellant: • Reminded that the tree service is not an Arborist, they just remove trees. • Said that although the Wangs are concerned about liability, she chose to live in Saratoga because she loves trees. Everyone shares in the liability for trees. • Declared that she feels lucky to live here with the benefit of all these trees and that there is a package deal, good things come with some responsibility. Chair Hunter asked Mrs. Lun if she was aware that six trees were to be removed per the notice received. Mrs. Lun said that the first notice read one tree but that subsequent notice said tree(s). Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Hunter stressed to staff the importance to have accurate notices as the proposed removal of six trees is more serious than one. Added that it is disturbing that the Building Inspector looks at six trees for removal and gives permission to do so. Director Tom Sullivan assured that he won’t do this again. Commissioner Barry suggested that this issue be discussed further by the Commission later in the meeting. Director Tom Sullivan said that the issue could be agendized for a future meeting. Chair Hunter asked how many Building Inspectors there are. Director Tom Sullivan replied two. Planner Christy Oosterhous added that the Building Inspectors are working differently today than they did in September. Planning has been working with the Building Inspectors on Tree Ordinance update training. Chair Hunter: • Said that she is glad that this situation has come before the Planning Commission. • Said that one cannot have fear of our trees and that their beauty must be appreciated. • Added that removal would impact others. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he does not think that these trees should be removed but that he appreciates Mrs. Wang’s sincerity in the concern that these trees are close to her neighbors and believes that she is concerned for their safety. • Agreed that these trees are not diseased and that they just get heavy in the rainy season. The mitigation is to trim some branches so they are not as heavy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 12 • Said that instead of spending $8,000 to remove these trees, it will be better to spend less and trim them properly and go on enjoying their beauty. • Said it is clear the neighbors are not concerned about any risk from these trees. Commissioner Schallop expressed his agreement with the points made by Chair Hunter and Commissioner Garakani. Since the City Arborist’s report states that pruning can mitigate these trees, he cannot uphold their removal. Commissioner Nagpal said that she too supports the previous comments and finds that pruning is the best option. Therefore, she supports the appeal. Commissioner Barry said she supports the previous comments and feels that the City Arborist’s recommendations need to be relied upon. Asked for confirmation that the Commission’s decision is final. Director Tom Sullivan said correct. Commissioner Barry stressed the important of relying on the Arborist’s report since there is mitigation available. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the trees look very healthy and supported compliance with the recommendations of the Arborist. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned an Administrative Tree Removal Permit for six Redwood trees on property located at 19932 Merribrook Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal and Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #03-266 (397-16-128) RAHIM, 14350 Taos Drive: The applicant requests approval of modifications to a previously approved Design Review. Design Review #01-011 was approved on July 25, 2001. The dwelling has been completed at this time. The applicant desires to eliminate architectural details such as stone veneer, window fenestration and other architectural details. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of modifications to the Design Review Approval granted in July 2001. • Explained that this new home is now completed and a bond was posted to allow occupancy. • Described the eliminated architectural details as including stone veneer and other trim, some fenestration and a change in garage doors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 13 • Added that staff found these changes to be significant and could not make the findings to support. • Recommended denial of this request to eliminate architectural details. • Stated that the streetside/front elevation was constructed according to plans. Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Tom Sullivan what the Commissioner’s options might be. Director Tom Sullivan replied one is to say no to the modifications and require the home to be completed as originally approved. The other is to say yes, this home is okay as it is now. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Rahim, Applicant, 14350 Taos Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is asking for support. • Assured that they followed the plan as best they could and were surprised when it did not pass final occupancy. • Said that they did not understand why the back of the house is so important to the City. • Explained that the cost of building this home escalated and they made these changes to help lower costs. • Added that the reduced stone veneer is at the rear and cannot be seen from the road. It did not make sense to them to include it and it did not occur to them not to eliminate that detail when they obtained their original approval. • Stated that the house looks beautiful as it was proposed without these architectural details. • Explained that the garage is not visible except from the residence and that the garage doors they have installed have insulation that the originally proposed doors did not have. • Said that while the house was being built, they decided that it did not make sense to have fenestration on the doors at the back and that the windows looked more beautiful without divisions at the back. • Asked that the Commission not penalize them for an honest mistake. • Said that their neighbors agree with them that the house looks beautiful as it is and that it makes no sense to add these details where they are not even visible to anyone. • Added that their neighbors agree and have provided letters of support. • Said that adding these details at this point would represent an undue financial hardship without any apparent architectural benefit. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Rahim if his architect did not advise him that changes had to be incorporated onto the approved plans as it would have been so easy if done at that time. Mr. Rahim replied that the architect was not there often and assured that they had no intention of hiding anything. Chair Hunter asked staff how it learned of this situation. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that Planning staff are called to the site as part of the final inspection to ensure that the project constructed matches the approved plans and that all conditions have been met. • Said that staff had never received notification of or request for any changes prior to that inspection. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 14 Chair Hunter asked if planners go out to a site often. Director Tom Sullivan replied just at time of final inspection. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the final details such as these are installed at the end anyway. Director Tom Sullivan advised that any major changes to the conditions or details are subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Staff has the authority to approve minor changes. Commissioner Nagpal told Mr. Rahim that she appreciated his speaking with his neighbors and asked if he had received any negative comments. Mr. Rahim replied none. Ms. Salena Akhtar, Mr. Rahim’s wife, pointed out that the neighbors cannot even see the areas under discussion. Commissioner Schallop asked staff what makes it necessary to bring this back to the Planning Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied the extent of the change, which is a wholesale removal of a lot of detailing, is what brings this matter back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mark Thomas, General Contractor for the Project at 14350 Taos Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that a lot of time and money was spent on this project that resulted in this beautiful home. • Said that they used the best people to try to do the right thing. • Pointed out that one would have to be invited into the backyard to see the area under discussion. • Said that he did not think these changes were significant. • Said that mobilizing this project again would be inconvenient for the neighbors. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Mr. Thomas has worked in Saratoga for many years. Questioned why he is not aware of the need to go through the Planning Department for any changes. Mr. Mark Thomas said that the Planning Department has gone through many staffing changes and that in the past this would not be a big difference. Commissioner Zutshi said that the point is not the impact on neighbors but rather changing from an approved plan. Asked Mr. Thomas if he knows the procedure to change approved plans. Mr. Mark Thomas said that they did lots of material upgrades and that he apologizes if he made the mistake here. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that he looked at this project and agrees that it is a beautiful and magnificent home. • Agreed that the garage doors match the house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 15 • Said that while there is a difference at the back of the house, it can be mitigated with appropriate landscaping. • Pointed out that bushes would obscure those areas anyway. • Said that he is more concerned with the violations in the outdoor lighting on this site. • Said he has no objection to what has been done to the back and considers these to be minor modifications. • Stated that it would have been nice if these changes had been brought forward prior to being implemented. Commissioner Barry asked her fellow Commissioners how many, in addition to her, had been on the Commission at the time of this original approval in 2001. Chair Hunter and Commissioner Garakani replied that they had been. Chair Hunter said that the Planning Commission had asked for the stone veneer and that this is actually not a minor change. Commissioner Barry said that this is a procedural issue that has to be addressed. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that the failure is dialog that did not occur. • Said that all changes appear to be at the back and are not visible to neighbors. • Said that she is inclined to support this modification. • Asked what the Commission was thinking about when it requested this stone veneer. Commissioner Garakani said that the Commission typically discusses what is visible from the neighborhood. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that procedurally he wants the Planning Commission to see this as a material change. • Said that their role is to view this project now as if it were a new plan today and, if it were, would the stone veneer be required today. • Said that he senses that the focus would be on the front façade and those facades visible from the street and/or from neighboring properties. • Said that since these changes are not visible, he can agree to approve these modifications. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the top portion of the chimney is visible. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that the responsibility lies with the architect and contractor. In this case, it did not happen properly in advance. • Said that she does not see a problem with the back of this home and that the front of this home looks good. Commissioner Barry: • Said that she did not have the opportunity to see this house and that she would rely on the impressions of those Commissioners who did. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 16 • Said that the change to the chimney does not bother her and that the front elevation is more of a concern usually. • Stated that it was right for staff to bring this project back to the Commission in this case. • Said that requesting architectural detailing only on a front elevation would set precedent. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff will continue to insist on architectural details that are consistent on all elevations. Commissioner Nagpal stated that she is comfortable with this house as it is. Chair Hunter: • Expressed appreciation to staff and stated that approved plans should be followed through. • Said that she agrees with the points made by the other Commissioners and that these changes are not a problem for this particular house as they are located at the back of the house. • Assured that she would not feel the same way every time. • Said that she hopes this situation is not precedent setting and wants staff to keep as vigilant as they have this time. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that since the prepared resolution was for denial of these modifications, staff would bring a new resolution to the next meeting on January 14th for adoption under the Consent Calendar. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Cancellation of December 24th Planning Commission Meeting: Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the next meeting has been cancelled as it falls on Christmas Eve. Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting: Advised that the date for this joint session has been moved from January 7th to March 17th. COMMISSION ITEMS Study Session on Tree Removal Process: Commissioner Barry suggested that a Study Session be held with the participation of the Arborist and staff, open to the public, at which time education and dialog can occur about the process of approving Tree Removal Permits. Director Tom Sullivan recommended that this occur at the next retreat. He could ask the Arborist to attend at that time. The retreat will occur before spring. Commissioner Barry asked when the second reading for the Tree Ordinance would occur. Director Tom Sullivan replied at the next Council meeting, to be effective following 30 days. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 Page 17 Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk