HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2003 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Barry and Kurasch
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer, Planner Lata Vasudevan and
Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 22, 2003.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of January 22, 2003, were approved as
submitted with one correction to page 5.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: Zutshi
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 February 6, 2003.
.REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman 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 February 12, 2003 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02-269 (397-22-051) – CUTLER, 14480 OAK PLACE: Request for Variances to
allow an existing 190-foot section of wall to be in excess of the City Code maximum 6-feet in the side
yard setback and to remain 7-feet, 6-inches; for a 56-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to
exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall; and a 25-foot
section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to
be constructed 6-feet tall. The Planning Commission will also consider allowing a structure to be
constructed within 10 feet of an Ordinance protected Oak tree. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows:
• Advised that staff has provided no formal recommendation to the Commission regarding the issue
of placing a structure within 10 feet of a protected tree.
• Described the Variance requests:
• Variance One: Seeks height exception for a 190-foot section of wall on the north and
northeasterly sides of the subject parcel. Zoning allows a 6-foot maximum height. Portions of
the wall are 7.5 feet high, which would categorize it as a structure. Fences less than 6 feet in
height do not require permits. Fencing in excess of 6 feet in height requires building permits.
• Variance Two: Seeks a 6-foot high wall along a 56-foot portion at the southwest side of the
subject property, which represents the front property line of the Cutler property and rear
property line of the Breck property. A 25-foot section of this proposed 56-foot wall would fall
within the front yard setback, for which zoning limits fence heights to 3 feet or less whereas Mr.
Cutler is asking for 6-foot height. Stating that there are several easements (access, public
services, sanitary sewer and a landscape agreement between the Cutler/Breck properties. Added
that while the City is not a party to these easements and has no authority to enforce the
provisions of these easements, they have become a discussion item as part of this request.
Commissioner Roupe asked for further information on the easements.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the 56-foot long section overlaps the landscape easement by nine to
10 feet but does not deny the Brecks access. Added that a portion of the 190-foot wall sits over a
circular easement that had been required by the Fire Department, an issue that was the subject of
litigation.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the litigation had concluded.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied that the litigation concluded in 1992.
• Added that the wall is actually less intrusive on the easement than what was previously there.
• Said that the Commission needs to focus on the facts that relate to the three mandatory findings.
• Provided language from the City Code regarding the purpose of a Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 3
• Advised that both City and State law requires findings of fact to support issuance of a Variance.
• Said that the three specific findings of fact in the Saratoga Code include: the finding that there are
special circumstances that make the property unique (shape, typography, etc.); the finding that
issuing a Variance would not represent a special privilege; and the finding that the issuance of a
Variance would not be a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare.
• Suggested that the three Variance requests be discussed individually.
• Said that the 190-foot wall affects two adjacent properties.
• Described the subject property as being a 27,000 square foot parcel within an R-1-10,000 zoning
district.
• Reminded that flag lots are required to be larger and that the lots in the area range from between
6,000 and 35,000 square feet.
• Mentioned that this subject site has access from both Oak Place and Saratoga Los Gatos Road.
• Advised that the typography of the property includes a gentle slope and that the property has a
higher elevation than three of the contiguous properties do.
• Reminded that the Cutler property has 10 contiguous properties, which impacts the ability to
maintain privacy. With the surrounding properties being single-family residences, there is nothing
particularly unique in that situation. However, the easement, 12-foot offset and 10 contiguous
properties together could be counted as unique conditions.
• Said that the City’s Code Enforcement Officers concur that there are numerous fences in excess of
six feet in height in the immediate vicinity per Mr. Cutler’s exhibit.
• Said that as for the issue of public health, safety and welfare, the Commission would need to
determine if this would create detrimental conditions. If so, why. If not, why not.
• Added that two property owners support the request with conditions.
• Spoke to the issue of special privilege by reminding that this property is not similar to the typical
R-1-10 as the applicant’s front yard is Mr. Breck’s rear year. Mr. Breck could build a 6-foot high
fence in the same area as Mr. Cutler seeks to build by right, simply because it is his rear property
line.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that the physical address has nothing to do with the
determination of the front yard.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied no.
• Said that the Mr. Cutler wants his 56-foot wall to be six feet high instead of the allowed three feet
for a front yard wall.
• Added that another 25-foot fence section intersects with this 56-foot section and is in the front yard
setback but is on the Cutler side property line. Again, the height limitation on the Cutler side is 3
feet while the adjacent property owner (Goldman) could install a six-foot high fence since this is
his rear yard.
• Stated that size, shape, typography and location unique features are the same for the 25-foot section
as for the 56-foot section.
• Said that if the Variance is granted for the 190-foot wall, it would be determined to be a structure
and the Commission would be required to determined if said structure could be allowed to remain
within 10 feet of a protected tree.
• Reminded that the Commission had discussed this issue with the previously-reviewed 300 foot
section of wall and found the horizontal footing to be a structure and left the determination as to
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 4
whether it should be left or removed to the discretion of the City’s Arborist. The Arborist said that
more damage would be done to remove than to leave it in place.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it had been the intent of the Commission to look at the wall in its
entirety but was not able to do so. Asked whether if the Commission decided not to approve if the same
conditions imposed for the 300-foot section could be imposed.
Chair Jackman brought the Goldman property section up.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Said that included a poured footing and that this footing is part of the 25 foot fence section and part
of the 300 foot section ruling that has already been made.
• Recapped his discussion to describe the specific Variance requests under consideration this
evening. A Variance to allow an existing 7-foot, 6-inch high 190-foot long wall to remain. A
Variance to allow the construction of a 6-foot high fence along a 56-foot portion where the Code
only allows a 3-foot height. A Variance to allow the construction of a 6-foot high 25-foot long
section of fence within a front yard setback where Code allows 3-foot height.
• Added that a determination would be required to be made that allows a structure to remain within
10 feet of Oaks along the 190 foot section if these requests are approved.
• Advised that the actions possible this evening are the granting or denial of these Variance requests.
If granted, the Commission can impose conditions of approval.
• Pointed out that the City Attorney has advised that Items 1, 2 and 3 for this request can be appealed
within 15 days but that Item 4 would be final and could not be appealed.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Item 3 appears to be an eastside property line.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed but pointed out that it is situated within the front setback area.
Chair Jackman asked if each request should be considered separately.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this would be the best way to proceed.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m.
Mr. Mitch Cutler, Applicant and Property Owner, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that he has presented his information and would waive his right to present anything further.
• Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked for a rundown on how this situation came to be. Said it appears Mr. Cutler
obtained permits but what was constructed was brought into question.
Mr. Mitch Cutler:
• Stated that he received permits on February 22, 2002, for the construction of the 7.5-foot high
fence. He said he considers this to be a six-foot fence but there is also a 1.5 -foot back fill area.
• Added that engineering plans had been provided and that the wall was built as depicted on the plans
and was finaled by the City on March 11, 2002.
• Said that following a complaint by one neighbor, Mr. King, the City reevaluated its position.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 5
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Explained that a permit was issued for a 190-foot fence not to exceed six feet in height.
• Said that the Department was requested to inspect what was installed and the height came into
question. Added that the only inspection on record is for the piers and staff does not say that this
wall was finaled.
Commissioner Roupe asked if height is measured from natural or finished grade.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Zoning Code (Section 29) defines measured height as being
measured on the low side from top to natural or cut grade and not from fill grade.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the purpose for the 56-foot section and why it is not all the way to
the front.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that this section does not enter into the landscape agreement area and that he
wants the wall for noise attenuation from Highway, privacy and to block views of the garbage
containers stored on his neighbor’s property.
Commissioner Garakani asked why Mr. Cutler does not continue the fence all the way.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied to adhere to the landscape agreement. Added that there are lots of boundary
issues and he has been advised by counsel to stay away from that area.
Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Described the proposal as Wall 1 (180 feet), Wall 2 (next 300) and Wall 3 (yet to come).
• Suggested that only Wall 1 be approved with conditions as it gives noise abatement and privacy to
her property.
• Said that five of her Oak trees have been heavily impacted by the construction of the wall and that
tree bonds are needed.
• Predicted that trees will die due to fill that has been brought in and that when these trees die she
wants the funds to be available to replace the four Coast Live Oaks and one Black Oak tree.
• Recommended that no additional paving or structures be allowed within 10 feet of any Oaks.
• Asked for Oak compatible screening.
• Suggested the addition of a lattice/trellis feature against the wall to hide the raw concrete and soften
its appearance.
• Pointed out that the entrance to the Cutler property is not from Oak Place as they say it is.
• Reiterated her recommendation that the first Variance request be approved and the other requests be
denied.
Commissioner Hunter said she saw a new fence on Ms. Davies property during the site visit.
Ms. Holly Davies said she would take down her fence if she can place trellis against the wall.
Mr. Patrick Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said he speaks on behalf of his parents and expressed his confusion on how a Variance can even be
considered since there are easements in place that have been overlooked.
• Pointed out that the easement appears on his parents’ deed.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 6
Commissioner Zutshi reminded Mr. Matas that the Commission has nothing to do with enforcement of
easements.
Mr. Patrick Matas:
• Said that seven months later, Variances are being considered.
• Pointed out that they still have a valid easement.
• Stated that his parents have secured a letter from their surveyor that documents that the wall
encroaches two feet into their easement.
• Said that his parents bought the property with the easement in place for fire access and that the deed
has not changed.
• Challenged that the City does not have the right to give a permit to allow building on his parents’
easement.
Commissioner Garakani asked whether prior to the wall if the Matas had objected when the new
wooden fence was installed on the Davies property.
Mr. Patrick Matas replied not at the beginning.
Commissioner Roupe asked the City Attorney to provide input.
Mr. Jonathan Wittwer, City Attorney, Wittwer & Perkin, LLP:
• Clarified that easement rights are between private property owners and that only a court can enforce
them, not the Planning Commission or even City Council.
• Added that if the City grants a Variance, it has no impact on the easement rights. To enforce an
easement, the parties would have to go to court.
• Recommended adding language in the event that this request is approved that states that said
approvals do not affect any easement or boundaries.
Mr. Frank Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he went to the City last year and was told by a planner that no structure could be allowed
to be constructed on an easement.
• Questioned the City’s contention that it is not responsible for enforcing that.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this issue would have to be dealt with in court.
Chair Jackman reiterated that the City cannot make a judgement on easement issues and that a court
would need to decide such issues.
Mr. Frank Matas expressed dismay that the City would allow construction on an easement.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the City does not itself put a structure on an easement.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the plans submitted depict the fence to be on the property line.
Mr. Frank Matas reminded that his surveyor has documented that the fence is two feet onto the
easement.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 7
Director Tom Sullivan said that this information was provided after the fact.
Mr. Frank Matas disagreed and said that the information was available prior to the wall being installed.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the City cannot determine where the easement is located as it
does not have jurisdiction to do so.
Mr. Frank Matas:
• Declared that it should not be his responsibility to tell the City what to do.
• Asked that no Variance be granted and that the wall be taken down.
Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has found gross mistakes in the packet.
• Stated that since this hearing is to consider three major Variances he would require more than three
minutes to speak to the project.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it is important to treat all speakers the same.
Mr. Bill Breck:
• Said that easements are depicted not just on the Grant Deed but also on the Subdivision Map.
• Advised he is here to protect trees and neighborhood values.
• Informed that Mr. Cutler has sent threatening letters to the neighbors.
• Declared that hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree damage have been inflicted.
• Said that the City has spent $200,000 trying to keep Cutler projects under control.
• Pointed out that this is not an incidental remodel and questioned why two residences are being
allowed on a single-family lot.
• Stated that there has been destruction of landscaping and natural screening that is destroying the
character of the neighborhood.
• Said that the City is feeling threatened by a Cutler lawsuit, which is a terrible situation that violates
the rights of he and his neighbors.
• Said he needs reassurance that the City is not being hobbled by any legal threat.
• Questioned why this hideous wall should be allowed and stated that kids deserve light, air and view
of trees.
• Asked why the Tree Ordinance is not enforced and said it needs to have legal teeth and be enforced.
• Asked why have a Planning Department if it is not enforcing property rights.
• Asked why have a Planning Commission if it allows a historic neighborhood to be destroyed.
• Urged the Commission to take action to deny these Variance requests and to require the removal of
the wall to allow an “open scenic oasis.”
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Breck about his objections to the 56-foot long fence at the side yard.
Mr. Breck replied that it would deflect noise from Highway 9 into his backyard.
Commissioner Roupe warned that the Commission is not even thinking about requiring the removal of
the wall. The questions at hand this evening are whether to allow a 190-foot section of wall to remain
7-feet, 6-inches high and whether two sections of fencing are to be allowed at 6 feet rather than 3 feet
high.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 8
Mr. Bill Breck said that he heard it is an option to require the removal.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Commission’s instruction to City Arborist Barrie Coate was to
review the 300-foot section of wall. Added that the horizontal footing was found to be a structure.
However, a six-foot fence itself is not a structure. Barrie Coate was to advise if the horizontal footings
were best removed or left in place.
Mr. Bill Breck said that he is still waiting to hear if Barrie Coate says that the above ground concrete
footings should be removed.
Commissioner Roupe said that it was below ground section that was focused upon.
Mr. Bill Breck declared that the 190-foot section is too close to trees.
Mr. Alan King, 14472 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that Code prohibits fences over six feet in height and concrete near Oak trees.
• Pointed out that the Cutler wall is 8 feet tall in places and that two feet of fill dirt was placed over
the roots of Oak trees.
• Said that many conversations have been held with Mr. Cutler and his representatives to no avail.
• Said that Mr. Cutler has threatened his neighbors repeatedly.
• Said that he signed an agreement to gain the assurance from Mr. Cutler that he would not cut any
part of their trees over the property line.
• Pointed out that both the City’s Arborist and their own privately retained Arborist say concrete is
damaging to Oak trees.
• Stated that the applicant has no intention of protecting these trees.
• Asked that the Commission deny this application and require the removal of the wall.
• Asked that funds be kept in the tree protection bond.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that if the Commission denies the Variance for the 190-foot length of
wall and Mr. Cutler reduces it to six feet in height, it would be allowed to remain.
Mr. Alan King said that this wall represents a structure near his Oak trees.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reiterated that at 6 feet in height or lower this would be a conforming
wall and not a structure.
Commissioner Garakani wondered aloud if a new application such as this one was received today,
would it be allowed.
Mr. Alan King pointed out that it has a wide footing and pier.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that such construction would not be allowed.
Mr. Jim Abrams, 14470 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said he has four points to make.
• Informed that he moved into his home in August 1997.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 9
• Said that while his is not an adjoining property to the Cutler site, he shares views.
• Stated that individual property owners have the right to do what they like as long as it is not against
Ordinance.
• Stated that there is now risk of trees falling as they are now damaged.
• Suggested that Codes are not being evenly enforced and stated that it is “easier to ask for
forgiveness than permission.”
• Pointed out an article from the San Jose Mercury News regarding a situation in Los Altos and asked
the Commission to help preserve their neighborhood.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Reminded that a permit had been issued for this wall and that the question is between the approved
6-foot height and the actual 7 foot, 6-inch wall constructed.
• Stated that the wall is there. To take it down now would found not fix the tree damage.
• Suggested mitigation for any tree damage.
Ms. Lee Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that while removing the wall would not put the trees back into their original condition, it would
deter others from breaking the rules.
• Said that this wall should never have been put up in the first place.
• Questioned the wisdom of approving a Variance to allow him to leave something there that is
already illegal.
• Reminded that they have a deed with a right of way easement and that this Variance would
represent the granting of special privilege.
• Gave various statistics for fence heights in the neighborhood and pointed out that although three
Variances have been issued for the immediate area, not one of them was for fencing.
• Urged that this application not be approved.
Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he does not live near the Cutler property but knows some of the involved parties.
• Said that these protected trees are older than most people present, and even the City of Saratoga
itself.
• Suggested that people must be the stewards of trees as trees are innocent bystanders.
• Encouraged the Commission to do what is fair for trees.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Corson what he specifically suggests.
Mr. Tom Corson replied extra protection of trees, if necessary.
Mr. Mitch Cutler:
• Said that while the Matas have had a survey done, he also had one done and believes that the
property onto which his wall is situated is his own. The surveys disagree.
• Pointed out that Barrie Coate was on site last week and found none of the roots on the King trees to
be damaged in any way.
• Added that the Kings have just build a fence on his property, a situation his attorney is working on
to remove.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 10
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the fence on the Davies property was in place before he built his own
wall.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied yes. He added that he came back onto his property about 1.5 feet to construct
his wall. Said that the wood fence on the Davies property is not to his taste.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that Ms. Davies is willing to remove her new wood fence if she is
allowed to place lattice against his wall to accommodate screening landscaping.
Mr. Mitch Cutler advised that he does not want Ms. Davies to anchor anything on his wall or to trespass
onto his property to do so.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the wall shared with the King property is lower than the rest.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that it is 1.5 feet lower as Mr. King objected. Now he thinks it looks silly being
lower than the rest.
Commissioner Hunter asked about two trees depicted on the photo provided by Ms. Matas.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that the wall was constructed with piers spaced every 12 feet and none of the
trees have been damaged whatsoever.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked who provided the photograph mentioned and took the time to
document on the back that the photographic exhibit was provided by Ms. Matas.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Cutler how passionate he is about trees.
Mr. Mitch Cutler advised that there will be between 50 and 100 trees on his property and that he is open
for comments.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi asked staff whether the fact that Mr. Cutler placed his wall 1.5 feet within his
property line makes any difference in how grade is considered.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied that earth on Mr. Cutler’s property has been filled to even out his yard. Fences are
measured on the low side to natural or cut grade, whichever is lower.
• Reminded the Planning Commission to discuss each request in sequence as presented in the staff
report and to relate each request to the three mandatory findings required to grant a Variance.
Chair Jackman mentioned the first item, the 190-foot section. Reminded that Code allows a 6-foot
height and Mr. Cutler is requesting approval of a 7-foot, 6-inch high wall.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the three mandatory findings required include the fact that a
Variance is required due to special circumstances of the property, that the Variance would not represent
a special privilege and that the Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, etc.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 11
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that she would not support this Variance request as she does not believe in Variances.
• Said that this request is difficult to support.
• Advised that her home is located on a flag lot with five contiguous neighbors.
• Said that public welfare is not enhanced with such a wall and that this Variance should not be
granted.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that if the wall were to be reduced to 6 feet, it would be in compliance.
• Said that he finds nothing to support special circumstances except that this is a flag lot with a
number of contiguous properties.
• Added that determining whether this is special privilege is difficult to assess, as it is hard to
determine just when other tall fences were installed in the immediate area and whether some of
them are grandfathered from current Ordinance requirements.
• Said that there is no issue of public safety but only the issue of the flag lot and desire for privacy.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that the Commission must be able to make all three
mandatory findings.
Commissioner Hunter said that she lives on a flag lot and feels that 7 foot 6 inch fences impinge on
others.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is unable to make all three findings except for one.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reiterated that all three findings must be made. Clarified that Finding
#2 means that this Variance would not give a special privilege that others in the neighborhood do not
have.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that approval of this Variance would result in setting precedence.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that each Variance request is reviewed on its own merits.
Commissioner Hunter expressed her opinion that such a Variance would influence future decisions.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the City is not legally bound to grant approvals in all other
cases.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she cannot support this request and finds the Variance to be
unnecessary.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that it is unfortunate to be dealing with something that has already been installed.
• Questioned how the Commission might consider this request had the wall not already been
installed.
• Pointed out that fencing higher than 6 feet is appropriate if living adjacent to a major roadway such
as Highway 9. In cases such as that, a higher fence might help reduce noise impacts.
• Said that he cannot see that need in this instance and therefore cannot support this Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 12
• Added that from the Cutler side the wall does not look bad but from the Davies side it looks like a
jail.
Chair Jackman said that she cannot make the necessary findings and expressed concern on how it can
be reduced in height. Added that that there are no special circumstances and that approving a Variance
would represent a special privilege.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission take a vote on the first request.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there are Conditions attached to a denial of a Variance to allow the trees
to be addressed.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Arborist report addresses the issue of trees.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that the Commission is not able to place Conditions on a
denial.
Chair Jackman asked what would occur if no Variance is issued.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied that the applicant will be required to reduce his wall to 6 feet
and as such it would no longer be considered to be a structure.
Chair Jackman asked how damage to trees would be handled.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Arborist report advises how to deal with tree issues and that tree
bonds are in place.
Commissioner Roupe said that he thought the report was pertaining to trees along the previously
considered 300-foot section only.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that there is a separate report for other trees impacted.
Commissioner Hunter expressed doubt that the applicant will protect trees as required seeing as Mr.
Cutler has already poured cement next to numerous trees.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that these types of concerns are part of the reason for the new Tree
Ordinance.
Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification that the current wall would be considered simply a fence
once it is 6 feet high or less.
Mr. Jonathan Wittwer advised it would not be considered a structure or pavement when less than 6 feet
in height and with no wide footings.
Commissioner Garakani asked if permits are required for a fence.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that no permits are required to install a fence 6 feet or less in height.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 13
Chair Jackman asked about the inclusion of footings.
Director Tom Sullivan said that footings are considered pavement and not a structure.
Commissioner Hunter said that she plans to attend the Council meeting when the Tree Ordinance is
discussed. Reiterated that she does not support a 7-foot high wall in nine people’s yards.
Director Tom Sullivan recommended that the fourth item be continued. If the Variance were possibly
appealed, the issue of allowing a structure within 10 feet of a protected tree would have to be revisited.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the Council generally knows of the Planning Commission’s discussion
and whether the Council gets the Planning minutes.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the minutes are provided as an attachment to the Council staff
report.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission denied a Variance (Application #02-269) for a 7.5 foot high,
190 foot long section of wall on property located at 14480 Oak Place as the
necessary findings cannot be made, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman identified the second request to allow a 56-foot-long section of fencing, as yet unbuilt,
to be constructed at 6 feet in height whereas Code allows 3 feet in height.
Commissioner Garakani said that he does not understand the need for this fence and, recognizing that
the adjacent neighbor is objecting, stated that he is not able to make the findings necessary to support
this Variance.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is not able to justify the 56-foot long, 6-foot high fence and supports
denial.
Chair Jackman said that she cannot support and added that the neighbor’s garbage containers can be
hidden with landscaping.
Commissioner Hunter said she believes this fence should be limited to 3-feet in height and not 6-feet in
height.
Commissioner Roupe said that he cannot support any of the necessary findings as there is no
compelling reason to grand a Variance for this section of the property line.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission denied a Variance (Application #02-269) for a 6-foot high,
56-foot long section of fence on property located at 14480 Oak Place as the
necessary findings cannot be made, by the following roll call vote:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 14
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman reminded that the third request is for a 25-foot long section on the southeasterly side of
the property to be allowed at 6 feet in height. Stated her belief that there is no reason to support this
request.
Commissioner Garakani said that he does not have a problem supporting this section at 6 feet and asked
why it could not be 6-feet all along.
Chair Jackman reminded that 25 feet under consideration is considered within front property lines per
Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that a 6-foot fence is allowed up to within 25 feet of the front property
line and then is limited to a 3-foot height. Said that one issue of special circumstance is that for one
property it is a front property line while for the other it is the rear property line. Said that there is
already an existing chain link fence and that this request would not be detrimental. Therefore he can
make all three necessary findings.
Chair Jackman agreed.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed.
Commissioner Garakani agreed.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved a Variance (Application #02-269) to allow a 6-foot
high, 25 foot long section of fencing on property located at 14480 Oak Place as the
necessary findings can be made, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission continued to a date uncertain consideration of a vote on
whether a wall greater than 6-feet in height is to be considered to be a structure, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 15
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this continued item would be properly advertised in the future in the
event that this item requires further consideration by the Commission. He added that he and the City
Attorney would prepare the resolutions representing tonight’s actions for consideration by the
Commission at its next meeting.
Chair Jackman called for a break at 9:17 p.m.
Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #02-238 (389-15-069) – VAN ATTA, 13235 McDOLE STREET: Request for
Design Review Approval to demolish a 2,120 square foot home and build a new two-story 2,694 square
foot home. The maximum building height of the residence will be 20 feet. The project also includes
demolishing 312 square feet of the existing 720 square foot detached garage. The lot size is 10,000
square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed that the applicant seeks Design Review Approval for a two-story single family residence
with a 20-foot maximum height. The existing 2,210 square foot residence would be demolished.
The new structure would consist of a 2,305 square foot first floor and a 389 square foot second
story. The lot is 10,000 square feet within an R-1-10,000 zoning district.
• Advised that 312 square feet of the existing 720 square foot detached garage would also be
demolished.
• Said that staff finds this new home to be modest in scale and would not appear much larger than the
existing single-family home it will replace.
• Informed that the applicant has secured the support of all adjacent neighbors with the exception of
one living around the corner.
• Said that the request complies with necessary findings.
• Made a few recommendations for modifications to the proposed design including the removal of the
proposed balcony on the second floor to be replaced with a four by four window opening.
• Advised that several letters have been received from neighbors seeking to prohibit any new two-
story homes in their neighborhood.
• Recommended a conditional approval and that the Commission weigh the concerns of the neighbors
when evaluating this proposal.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the height of the new home located next door to this site.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 18 feet.
Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that this proposed home would be 20 feet high.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 16
Commissioner Roupe said that this is a rather modest two-story house with just a 389 square foot
second floor. Mentioned that the lot is sufficiently large to accommodate that 389 square feet on the
first floor.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that this assumption is correct.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the concern is about building heights. Reminded that a single-
story home could be as high as 26 feet.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the existing driveway would be kept or removed.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied kept.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there are two two-story homes directly across the street from
this site and asked what their heights are.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that they are pretty large and guessed their height to be about 24 feet.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Philip Manilla, Applicant’s spokesperson:
• Advised that his fiancée, Ms. Van Atta, has resided on McDole Street for 16 years.
• Stated that the purpose for the project is to provide sufficient space for their new blended family
that includes four boys.
• Said that they have talked with the neighbors and received enthusiastic support from all but one.
• Stated that they had considered a basement plan but came to the conclusion that basement space to
accommodate children’s bedrooms was not a viable plan.
• Said that they also considered a single-story design but want to retain as much outside space
possible for their children to play.
• Said that it is not warranted to compare their proposal with another that was denied by the City, as
theirs is not massive as that one was.
• Asked the Commission to consider their proposal on its own merits.
• Said they feel this is a good project and is attractive and in keeping with the neighborhood.
• Asked the Commission for its approval of their design.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Manilla if he objects to the suggestion to remove the balcony.
Mr. Philip Manilla replied that they would like to keep this small balcony as a part of their master suite.
Commissioner Hunter expressed appreciation for the placement of the garage further back on the lot.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this is predominately a one-story neighborhood with only four two-story homes but said
that this may be a neighborhood in transition.
• Said that given the concerns raised by a number of neighbors over this proposed two-story,
suggested that the placement of story poles might be warranted. Doing so would entail a
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 17
continuance but this would offer a method to bring this home into perspective for those in the
neighborhood.
• Asked if the applicants are willing to consider this suggestion.
Mr. Manilla said that they have tried to model their home for the neighborhood.
Ms. Adele Hirosa, 13221 Paseo Presada, Saratoga:
• Stated that this home does not directly impact her but that she sent a letter stating her reasons for
objecting to allowing any more two-story homes in the Quito Park Tract as they would change the
character of their neighborhood.
• Said that this is a big concern.
• Declared that if this is approved, it will open the door for more two-story homes in their
neighborhood, which infringe on views and privacy of those around them.
• Stated that she takes offense to comments made that there are no existing views in their
neighborhood as there are beautiful views of mountains, sunrises, sunsets, trees, etc.
• Said that there are two two-story homes behind and a tall single-story structure beside her home.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Hirosa what she feels is an acceptable height for homes in her
neighborhood.
Ms. Adele Hirosa replied she did not know.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that most single-story homes are about 18 feet high and that this
proposed two-story home is but two feet higher at 20 feet. Added that the applicant could construct a
single-story home at 26 feet in height.
Ms. Adele Hirosa reiterated that if this is approved it will set precedent for other properties in the
neighborhood to go to two stories.
Commissioner Roupe advised Ms. Hirosa that if she believes that a vast majority of her neighbors share
her desire to retain a one-story neighborhood, there is a process available to secure the designation of a
One Story Overlay District such as was approved for the Saratoga Woods Area. Said that this would go
to Council and would limit homes to single-story except by Variance. Encouraged her to pursue that
idea with the City.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider, 18859 Dundee, Saratoga:
• Said that this looks like a lovely and modest home but that she does not want a two-story
overlooking her property, as there are no trees between her property and this one to offer screening.
• Stated that this two story would infringe upon her privacy.
• Said that this has got to stop somewhere.
• Said that windows from this home would look right into her yard.
• Suggested that most homes in their neighborhood are between 15 and 16 feet high.
• Agreed that she is the only neighbor to complain but pointed out that on one side is a renter, living
in a home owned by someone who has been in Asia for years. Another neighbor, Mr. Tran, buys
homes, sells them and moves on. The home behind the site is for sale.
• Stated that she has been in this community since 1978 and plans on staying.
• Said that out of 80 homes in the area only three are two-story.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 18
• Suggested that if this is an area in transition, the pattern should be for one-story with basements as
opposed to two-story homes.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Schneider if the photo just distributed is hers. Added that it
demonstrates what would be seen from this new home into her property.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that this is a good reason for the need to install story poles.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider said that she supports the suggestion to place story poles.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Schneider if her concern over the window and balcony overlooking
her property would be lessened with mitigation such as landscaping.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider said that she would have less of a problem if there was mitigation.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that landscaping could be planted on her side of the property as
there is not space on the subject site.
Commissioner Hunter suggested Italian Cypress as a good screening plant.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider said that she would love to have screening landscaping added if this project is
approved and agreed that it would need to be placed onto her property to be effective.
Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Schneider if privacy impacts are her only concern.
Ms. Kathleen Schneider replied yes.
Mr. Philip Manilla:
• Distributed some photographs.
• Asked the Commission to review their proposal on a case by case basis since there is no existing
single-story overlay in place for this neighborhood.
• Said that they are willing to work with Ms. Schneider in addressing her privacy concerns and that
they are willing to plant Italian Cypress or other trees of her choosing to assure her privacy.
• Asked that they be allowed to move forward as they are eager to begin construction this summer
and be moved into the new home by Christmas.
• Reiterated that they need the extra space to provide sufficient bedrooms for their boys.
• Pointed out that they are pulling their family room in by seven feet, which will also pull the balcony
back from the back property line by seven feet.
• Added that they will be using obscuring glass on one of the second story windows that faces the
side neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani expressed support for landscape screening, including more trees around the
perimeter.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 10:00 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 19
Commissioner Hunter:
• Described this as a late 1950’s/early 1960’s neighborhood with fairly big pieces of property on wide
streets.
• Predicted that this will turn into a two-story neighborhood in the future.
• Said that she is not against this proposal and pointed out that the second story is only 389 square
feet.
• Supported the installation of screening landscaping such as Italian Cypress.
• Pointed out that the balcony is not very large.
• Opined that second stories are the wave of the future.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Described the second story as being moderate.
• Said that the single-story home next to hers is 18 feet high while this two-story is but 20 feet high.
• Stated that she has no problem with the proposed balcony and supported adequate landscape
screening on all sides.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Expressed his pleasure at the fact that the home keeps basically the same footprint and setbacks.
• Said that it is not a bad idea to have some articulation.
• Said that he does not want to see anyone losing privacy and encouraged good landscape screening.
• Suggested a bond if the landscaping is planted on the applicant’s side but said if the landscaping is
placed on the neighbor’s side, it will be up to, and in the best interests of, that neighbor to maintain
that landscaping.
• Stated that this is a good project.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this is a nice design, a very modest two-story house for this predominately one-story
neighborhood.
• Said he is torn about supporting and encourages story poles although requiring them would result in
delays for the applicant.
• Said that this new home would not be a dominant factor in this neighborhood.
• Stated that the desire for two-story homes should be recognized as a trend and cautioned that the
neighborhood will probably see more two-story requests.
• Said he will support this applicant and agreed with the additional landscape screening.
• Asked about the window glazing for the large window over the bath.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said it is listed as being translucent.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the sliding glass doors off the balcony.
Chair Jackman said it appears to be the width of the balcony.
Commissioner Garakani said it appears to be four feet by eight feet.
Chair Jackman said that a balcony on the second floor interferes with privacy of others and that she
does not support the balcony. Said she will support this proposal although she hates to see a one-story
neighborhood become a two-story neighborhood.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 20
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the balcony is rather small and does not serve as a place to sit
down but rather as a way to watch over the children as they play in the yard.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that it would not be a sun porch.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Commission could condition additional landscaping to include
plant material placed on the neighbor’s property of species and size to be agreed upon jointly by the
applicant, neighbor and the Community Development Director.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #02-038) to
allow the construction of a new two-story home on property located at 13235
McDole Street with the added condition that screening landscaping be planted on
the rear neighbor’s (Schneider) property of a species and size to be jointly agreed
upon by the applicant, neighbor and Community Development Director and
installed prior to final occupancy, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #02-121 (503-27-068) – QIAN, 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE: Request for Design
Review Approval to demolish a 712 square foot home, a 126-square foot accessory structure and a 232-
square foot garage and build a new two-story 2,823-square foot home with 1,458-square foot basement.
The maximum building height of the residence will be 18 feet, 11.75 inches. The lot size is 7,500
square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for property located at 14261
Springer Avenue within an R-1-10,000 zoning district.
• Said that the lot is a non-conforming 7,500 square foot lot.
• Stated that the proposal includes the demolition of three structures totaling 1,069 square feet and
plans to construct a nearly 19 foot high, two-story residence consisting of 2,823 square feet with a
1,458 square foot basement.
• Described the architectural style as being Mediterranean.
• Said that the neighborhood consists of an eclectic blend of architectural styles and a combination of
one and two-story homes. There is no unifying design theme in this neighborhood.
• Stated that the applicant has secured community support and that the four abutting neighbors have
signed a petition of support.
• Said that two trees on the north side will be protected. An 11-inch Oak tree potentially could be
impacted by the construction of the basement and an Olive tree could be impacted by the garage.
• Stated that the Arborist is recommending moving the garage and staff is recommending reducing
the south side setback to six feet and increasing the north side setback to eight feet.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 21
• Stated that pier and beam design is proposed near Tree #6.
• Suggested to minimize the appearance of bulk, that the base of the home has a stone base.
• Recommended that the front façade windows be consistent across the front elevation with the
proposed round window changed to a matching square window.
• Said that the paths on the property should remain on grade and be made of pervious pavers.
• Stated that with conditions the necessary Design Review findings can be met.
Commissioner Hunter asked if Tree #6 is the Olive.
Planner Ann Welsh replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the portion of basement close to the Oak tree be hand dug.
Planner Ann Welsh suggested that the Condition could be imposed that an Arborist supervise that part
of construction to assure the health of the tree.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:20 p.m.
Mr. Paul Qian, Applicant and Property Owner, 14261 Springer Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that his new two-story home would be just less than 19 feet in height whereas a two-story is
normally between 23 and 24 feet high.
• Said he went to the Planning Office and got the Residential Design Handbook and has tried to
follow its guidelines in designing his home.
• Stated that he has spoken with his neighbors. One neighbor did not want a window directly facing
his window. Another wanted to retain trees.
• Said that he has selected a roofing material that matches the neighborhood.
• Sand that they will provide construction fencing to protect trees.
• Said that his property is not a flag lot. The neighbor immediately adjacent to him has property that
is two feet higher than his property. Their property is then four feet higher than the next neighbor’s
house.
• Described this home as their dream house and that his family, including two children, needs more
space as the current house is too small.
• Asked the Commission for its approval of his Design and thanked them for their consideration.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Qian if he agrees to the suggestion to change the round window
proposed to a square window.
Mr. Paul Qian said that is fine with him.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Qian if he is okay with the suggestion to move the house over by one
foot.
Mr. Paul Qian said he is fine with that requirement. Added that it has recently been determined that the
Oak in question is actually on his neighbor’s property.
Mr. Ron Martin, 14251 Springer Avenue, Saratoga:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 22
• Stated that he has no problem with Paul Qian’s residence and that his only concern is the protection
of the two trees.
• Added that he will be before the City within a few years with his own addition request.
• Questioned whether a tree bond is necessary.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant will be held to the conditions imposed by the Arborist and
that before the final occupancy is issued the Arborist will inspect all trees. If the trees are in good
health, the bond is released. It the trees are not in good health, the bond is not released.
Planner Ann Welsh added that the tree bond amount is $16,000.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the oak is leaning toward Mr. Martin’s house.
Mr. Ron Martin stated that he is aware of that fact.
Mr. Paul Qian asked for clarification as to who owns the tree.
Commissioner Roupe said that it appears to have been determined by the survey that Mr. Martin does
but that Mr. Qian will have the obligation to protect the health of that tree from impacts of his
construction.
Mr. Paul Qian thanked his neighbors and Planner Ann Welsh for their support.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about how the fence height is calculated under these conditions.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be measured on the low side of the property.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this is a good design.
Commissioner Hunter said that it is a nice project.
Commissioner Roupe said that it keeps a low profile.
Planner Ann Welsh said that it is 18 feet, 11 inches from natural grade.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-121) to
allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single-
family residence on property located at 14261 Springer Avenue with the added
conditions to:
• Move the house over one foot to the south;
• Require an on-site Arborist to supervise construction on the north side of the
basement;
• Require a pier and beam foundation near the Oak tree; and
• Change the proposed round window to a square window on the front elevation;
by the following roll call vote:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 23
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Mustard Walk/Business Development Meeting
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that she attended the Mustard Walk and found it to be a wonderful event co-sponsored by
the Arts Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission.
• Informed that she also attended the Business Development Meeting where she learned further
details about the planned 600-seat auditorium at Saratoga High School.
• Advised that this project does not come before the City’s Planning Commission as schools are
separate entities not under local jurisdiction.
• Expressed concern about the 56 foot building height so close to the street at Saratoga Sunnyvale
Road and Harriman.
• Said that the building is an ultra modern contemporary building and that the back of the building is
what will be seen from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Tall redwood trees will shield it somewhat.
• Stated that the funding is currently $2 million short.
• Added that despite any concerns she might have she believes about the building’s height and
proximity to the road that this will be a fantastic facility for the community.
Library Tour
Commissioner Zutshi announced a Library Tour set for March 5, 2003, at 11:45 a.m. and suggested that
any interested parties RSVP to assure sufficient hardhats are available for those who want to tour the
site.
Commissions Meeting with Council
Commissioner Garakani asked for details about the upcoming daylong meeting between Council and
the City’s Commissions.
Director Tom Sullivan explained that this would be an all day event on a Saturday. Council is there all
day and the Commissions will have the opportunity to meet with Council to discuss policies and goals,
The date is April 26, 2003.
Chair Jackman pointed out that there were observers present at tonight’s meeting who are interested in
applying to serve on the Planning Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 24
Director Tom Sullivan advised that Council has the requirement in place that any interested applicants
must attend at least one meeting in person.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written: City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on January 15, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
February 26, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk