Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch Absent: Commissioners Roupe and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 23, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 23, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Barry APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 13, 2002. As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular minutes from the November 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that meeting were continued to the next meeting on January 8, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he is present to discuss the ongoing problem of 18312 Swarthmore Drive. • Stated his belief that improper noticing occurred and concern that this project underwent an administrative approval as opposed to a Planning Commission review. • Informed that he hand delivered a letter advising of the removal of six 45-foot liquid amber trees without benefit of a permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 2 • Added that work had begun on the lying of the foundation without a permit and that the existing home was demolished without a permit. • Asked that this developer be dealt with according to law and that permits should be cancelled until the infractions are corrected and the project is abated. • Said that he is extremely concerned, has addressed his concerns over several occasions and has yet to see any resolution to his concerns • Added that he has no right to appeal due to the fact that the project was not properly noticed. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Corson which property on Swarthmore he is addressing. Mr. Tom Corson replied the single-story on Swarthmore. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that the correspondence and issues raised by Mr. Corson have been referred to the City Attorney, who is preparing a response. • Added that the permit for the house construction was issued today. • Assured that he would refer any new concerns raised this evening to the City Attorney. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as her father, Mr. Ole Lara’s, representative. He is the owner of 18324 Swarthmore Drive. • Said that she is a resident of Saratoga. • Asked the Commission to cease and halt further construction of this home. • Declared that she received a defective notice in September in which she was not made aware of the right to challenge by appealing any decision to the Planning Commission within 10 days. The notice said nothing of the right to appeal. • Added that it was not clear to her that this was an administrative process representing a notice of intent to approve. • Requested that the Director reconsiders and provides proper noticing with the inclusion of the 10- day right of appeal. Commissioner Hunter said that she assumes staff cannot review the City Attorney’s response with the Planning Commission this evening. Director Tom Sullivan assured that the City Attorney’s response would be copied to Commission. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Stated that she identified the person who removed the trees. • Requested that the Planning Commission takes a closer look and stop construction. • Said that the project does not meet architectural compatibility and the removal of the trees has resulted in a loss of privacy. • Added that this matter is of great importance to her and her father. Commissioner Barry asked whether the tree issue was forwarded to the City Attorney. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he learned of the matter this afternoon. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 3 Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that the plans for this project were not submitted in good faith. Commissioner Garakani asked if this project was before the Planning Commission before. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. The Code calls for administrative design review for new dwellings under 18 feet in height and/or consisting of less than 6,000 square feet. Anything larger is referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Commissioner Garakani asked what occurs if there are objections by neighbors. Director Tom Sullivan said that if objections are raised, he attempts to set up a meeting between the applicant and neighbor to try to work the issues out. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is the practice, when noticing these administrative hearings, to advise the neighbors of their right to appeal. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the notice used in this case is the same notice that has been used for a number of years. It will be changed from this point forward. Added that a consideration is being made for the possibility of setting an administrative hearing instead of simply an administrative notice. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that at this point the trees are down and the house has been removed. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the permit has been issued and the project obtained approval in September. Ms. Elizabeth Lara reminded that work began on the foundation on Monday, prior to the permit being issued. Chair Jackman pointed out that Director Tom Sullivan has a good handle on what is going on with this matter and will continue to work out the issues. 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 5, 2002. 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 REVIEW OF ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED FOR 14480 OAK PLACE, CUTLER (397-22- 051): The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to review the findings and recommendations of an Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Barrie Coate regarding the impacts to ordinance protected oak trees from the construction of a structure closer than 10 feet to an oak tree. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows: • Reminded the Commission that on August 28, 2002, the Commission granted an appeal to Mr. Breck. As a result, the City Attorney prepared a substitute resolution regarding a 300 foot section of Mr. Cutler’s perimeter fencing. • Advised that the conditions and recommendations by the City Arborist are contained in this new resolution. • Stated that this evening represents a follow up action to August 28, 2002. Commissioner Garakani questioned the adequacy of the bond amount of $100,000 or $25,000 per tree when the estimated cost per tree is $35,000. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the bond is in totality and not per tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the resolution provided as a table item is identical to the resolution contained in the staff report. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out additions to the newest copy. Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing a time frame for the accomplishment of all remediation measures. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is fairly well spelled out but cautioned that some of the activities will occur over a period of years. Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance of having a calendar time frame and recourse in the event that necessary actions are not accomplished. Asked what would occur in the event that necessary actions are not taken. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it would become a City Attorney issue at that point if the applicant has chosen to disregard the Planning Commission and its resolution. Chair Jackman asked Director Tom Sullivan whom should be called to address the Commission first. Director Tom Sullivan replied Mr. Breck, since he is the appellant. Followed by Mr. Cutler. Each can address the Commission for up to 10 minutes. Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Provided a handout to the Commission in which he provided the list of issues. • Said that there should be non-compliance penalties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 5 • Stated that his number one concern is the five tree violations, which have resulted in a loss of visual screening. This leaves them with a blank wall instead of natural screening. • Asked that each of these five violations be prosecuted. • Declared that the aboveground structure footings should be removed. • Advised that the Planning Commission resolution should refer to the whole wall and not just the 300-foot section. • Stated that the bond should also cover the removal of trees, that the tree valuations are too low and that the bond period is too short and should be for a period of 12 years. • Said that what has happened here is not normal and that there should be penalties for the damage to date and not just for future damage. Penalties should be based on damage since April and not just from this December. • Added that an assessment of excessive pruning was not done and should be factored into the resolution. • Said that fill dirt should be removed and proper drainage put in to protect tree roots. • Said that it is unclear to him if his appeal has had a long-term effect. • Stated that he wants a full canopy survey of trees and that no trenching or compressing should be allowed. • Pointed out that the trees have declined since April. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if something has been left out of the resolution. Mr. Bill Breck said issues of trenching and compressing. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if he is disputing the depth of the continuous footings. Mr. Bill Breck replied yes. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what he believes the dimensions of the footings to be. Mr. Bill Breck replied that they are five feet wide near his home. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what further building on site is anticipated at this point. Mr. Bill Breck responded that this is just the “tip of the iceberg” as this damage to date is prior to the main house remodel. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Advised that he is here to provide further clarification. • Assured that the City has approved all grading and footing done on his property as well as having approved all tree trimming done. • Added that the Code Officer told him that he could prune up to 30 percent. • Said that it is disrespectful to hold him and his family up as a poster child against trees. • Pointed out that an engineer monitored construction of this wall. • Stated that anger is being misapplied against him when it should be applied against the process. • Declared that he felt Commissioner Kurasch owes a public apology to him for comments and innuendoes made about him at previous meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 6 • Charged that he is the victim of racism and prejudice and that one neighbor called him a “dirty Jew.” • Said that he believes the Planning Commission has supported this disrespect. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is willing to extend an apology to Mr. Cutler if he feels that he has been wrongly accused and would forward that apology. Mr. Mitch Cutler thanked Commissioner Kurasch for her apology. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler what he means about funds owed him by the City. Mr. Mitch Cutler: • Replied that had he been told before, he would have stayed within any perimeters. However, this was never done. • Assured that he has followed every single rule and regulation. • Complained that he is being held hostage to the mistakes of the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked if he came to the City before or after he started construction on these large footings. Added that the last action taken was to look at the repercussions to how the wall was constructed. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he was following the instructions of the City of Saratoga and work began after he believed he had approvals. Added that his neighbors are upset since the City did not do its job. Chair Jackman admonished Mr. Cutler that no racial slurs were heard at any public meetings. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he heard them from his neighbors. Chair Jackman expressed regret that there appears to have been a great number of misunderstandings in this matter. Director Tom Sullivan: • Clarified that Mr. Cutler originally had approval for a six-foot wood fence in this area. Concrete footings for a wood fence do not require permits. • Added that during a site visit on the subject of trees, it was noticed that the forms for footings were of a size that would require a permit. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for continuous concrete footings for a wood fence. Commissioner Barry questioned whom the gentleman was who is with Mr. Cutler this evening. Mr. Alan Noodleman, Esq., identified himself as the attorney of record for Mr. Mitch Cutler. Commissioner Garakani asked if the design of the fence was approved. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied yes, the 300-foot section of concrete wall was approved. The appeal is about a 150-foot portion near trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 7 • Stated that the tree regulations do not permit the building of a structure within 10-feet of protected trees, unless the approving authority says that it is okay to do so. • Added that he approved the horizontal portion but did not consider it a structure or pavement. • Said that subsequent to his decision, Mr. Breck appealed that decision and the Planning Commission determined that it was indeed pavement. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this is a legitimate process set in Code and that there is nothing illegal in that series of occurrences. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this is a normal set of occurrences. Mr. Mitch Cutler challenged that Director Sullivan is misleading the Commission in that no Arborist report had been required prior to work beginning on the wall. Chair Jackman asked Director Sullivan where the Commission should proceed now. Director Tom Sullivan replied to allow interested members of the public to speak to this matter during the remainder of the public hearing. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Bill Breck. • Asked that the bonds be secured immediately. • Said that this is a huge project that has been going on for years. • Stated that there are still eight large trees that need tree bonds. • Said that the City should collect a penalty for the tens of thousands of dollars in damage to trees. Commissioner Barry asked that Mr. Noodleman, Attorney for Mr. Mitch Cutler, who is standing in the audience taking notes, be seated as she finds his behavior to be intimidating. Mr. Alan Noodleman advised that as he suffers from five degenerating discs, remaining seated for any long period of time is difficult and painful. Commissioner Barry accepted Mr. Noodleman’s explanation and relented in her request that he be seated. Mr. Alan King, 14472 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Said that Tree 4 and 5 are on his property. • Thanked the City Arborist and Planning Commission. • Handed his own arborist’s report, which states that trees are likely to decline in five years. • Said that he had several conversations with Mr. Cutler. • Urged the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendations and to put as much force into it as the Planning Commission can. Ms. Letha Matas, 20378 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated that Mr. Cutler is destroying their property and placed a portable toilet next to their bedroom window. • Called Mr. Cutler a “naturally mean man” who has not discussed anything. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 8 • Asked to turn over the remainder of her time to speak to Mr. Breck. Chair Jackman asked Ms. Matas if the portable toilet has been situated on her property. Ms. Letha Matas replied no but that it is as close as it can get to her property. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Matas how she sees this situation being solved. Ms. Letha Matas replied by moving the potty and fixing the things he must fix. Said that there are all kinds of things wrong. Mr. Cutler was pouring cement despite stop work orders. She said that he is not a nice man. Commissioner Garakani told Ms. Matas that she did a great job expressing her view and did not need to turn her time to speak over to Mr. Breck in order to get her point across. Mr. Frank Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated that the wall has been constructed on their easement and that he would like to see it come down. • Asked that the remainder of his allotted time be given over to Mr. Breck. Chair Jackman advised that speakers cannot simply give their time to speak over to others who have already spoken but rather must speak for themselves. Mr. Frank Matas: • Said that he used to get along with Mr. Cutler for about one and a half years. • Added that nowadays Mr. Cutler just does whatever he wants to do and the City just allows it. Director Tom Sullivan asked if access is blocked. Ms. Letha Matas said that trees have been planted and cars are parked in such a way as to block access. Commissioner Barry asked what the purpose is for this easement. Mr. Frank Matas replied as a turnaround. Ms. Letha Matas added that they can no longer park their boat there while they had previously done so for over 22 years. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that this easement is not an issue before the Commission this evening. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided here for four years and her dad has for 60 years. • Said that it is shocking to see oak trees located on Oak Place being removed. • Expressed surprise at the issuance of over the counter permits without Planning Commission involvement. • Stated that she has done some research, including from the City of Palo Alto and UC Davis. • Said that benefits from trees include habitat, shading and screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Barry pointed out that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission has done a lot of work to revise the City’s Tree Ordinance, which has gone forward to the City Council. Ms. Tracey Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Said that one of the issues that most concerns her is comment made by the Planning Commission, innuendoes that they have done things underhandedly or on the sly. • Suggested that all issues are a way of backpedaling by the City to cover its mistakes. • Said that she objected to references made by one Commissioner about Canary Palms not being indigenous and therefore not a desirable tree to plant. • Said that much of beauty is due to planting of non-indigenous materials in places such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo. • Said that this influence on the design of her property is unwarranted and that they should be permitted to plant to their own personal taste. • Asked the Planning Commission to reanalyze its position. • Said that they had spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Matas prior to their project starting and the Matases had loved their plans. • Added that they had a friendly relationship with the Matases prior to construction and assured that they have done nothing to their easement. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Cutler about her feelings over the health of trees. Ms. Tracey Cutler replied that she could not address each problem as identified by Mr. Coate but assured that they have done and will do whatever is possible to keep trees healthy. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission is simply dealing with violations and has asked for mitigation on other types of projects in the past. Ms. Tracey Cutler: • Said that she understands but feels that boundaries have been overstepped. • Expressed concern that it is being implied that they (the Cutlers) hate trees. • Added that she does not want to be told what she can or cannot plant on her property as this would be a further intrusion into private citizen’s rights, something which she must take a stand on. Commissioner Garakani stated that the cutting down or excessive trimming of trees and the improper construction of this stone wall has brought about a lot of hardship. Asked how to fix this situation so the hardship goes away. Ms. Tracey Cutler assured that they will do what they can do but still it needs to be discussed as to what they feel is reasonable. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he is happy to comply with most of the Arborist’s requests but expects an apology from the City for its illegal activities. With the resolution of the fence issue, he will get started right away. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler to what illegal activities he refers. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that this issue is between attorneys. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Barry said that she is having a little trouble coming to terms with constructive comments with the comments just heard. Pointed out that Mr. Cutler did not initially allow Barrie Coate onto his property. Mr. Mitch Cutler denied that and called this accusation a complete fabrication. He added that he simply expected the appointment for Mr. Coate’s site visit to be made through his attorney. Commissioner Barry pointed out that once attorneys are involved things change. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied if the attorneys work out the issues, he can move forward with mitigations. Chair Jackman said that it appears that the attorneys need to work out issues prior to continuation. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the resolution under consideration is the result of what the Commission asked to do. The City Attorney has helped prepare this resolution. Commissioner Barry agreed that the Commission can discuss actions. Ms. Tracey Cutler: • Stated that all the neighbors are insinuating that her husband, Mitch, is a mean man and does not care about others. • Declared that this representation is not true. • Pointed out that oftentimes problems arise when construction activity occurs. • Reminded that prior to construction beginning, they had no problems with their neighbors. • Said that this issue with the fence and the City (as well as one complainant) is how the contention began. • Said that they had been open about their plans and indicated a willingness to work with neighbors. • Said that this situation has been unfair to them. Mr. Mitch Cutler: • Agreed that their relationship with their neighbors was great for three years. • Added that since that time, difficulties that have arisen are mostly due to one neighbor who has rallied the others. • Suggested that the City and Planning Department be held accountable. Mr. Bill Breck: • Stated that Mr. Cutler feels he has the right to do anything. • Pointed out that he once smashed a surveyor’s equipment. • Agreed that the easement lawsuit is a separate issue from this easement concern. • Asked the Commission to stick to the Code, which states that when trees are damaged and/or destroyed, they must be replaced with similar trees. • Said that he is very concerned that this requirement will be ignored. • Asked if the 10 neighbors adversely impacted must file lawsuits to get appropriate action by the City. • Stated that this has been a horrid summer with numerous violations by the Cutlers that will result in 12 years of trees dying to look forward to. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 11 • Declared that he expects the requests outlined in the document he distributed to be incorporated into the resolution. If not, they will be back. • Said that it has been a long time to wait for any restitution. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan if he has had an opportunity to review the document distributed this evening by Mr. Breck. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Barry: • Said that in it Mr. Breck suggests that there are omissions in penalties and recommendations for drainage and removal of fill. • Stated that she would like to have the City Attorney’s reaction, that the Planning Commission could discuss mitigation issues and the City Arborist can look into drainage and fill issues raised. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that this item was before the Commission in August as an appeal of an administrative decision regarding building within 10 feet of a protected tree. • Added that the Commission granted that appeal and directed the City’s Arborist to prepare a report with mitigations and a determination whether the horizontal portion of the wall is best removed or left in place as well as to establish a valuation on the trees. • Said that Barrie Coate was directed to use the most recent report edition in establishing valuation. • Said that if there are penalties imposed, citations are issued, which are infractions. To impose an infraction the activity should be immediate or witnessed. • Added that the penalties imposed were agreed to between Mr. Cutler and the City Attorney. • Cautioned that the Commission needs to separate this request for penalties from what is before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Barry: • Said that in general she is happy to go with Barrie Coate’s recommendations but would like to add a condition that if valuation has not been based on the most recent table, it should be corrected to do so. • Added that soil removal should be done is a way that guarantees good drainage. • Said that during the bonding period, if construction is done in the area (within 10 feet of rootline) use of platforms will be required as a mitigation measure. Commissioner Hunter said that she is being very silent this evening because she is not sure what to do. Said that she finds this situation to be overwhelming and will continue to listen carefully. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the most recent version of the resolution specifically the time frame for accomplishment. Stated that how mitigation will be accomplished is an important issue to her and supported inspections by the City at supportable intervals. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the timeframes included within the conditions with a January 1st deadline, no later than 15 days, no later than 30 days, February 28th, etc. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Barry suggested the creation of a compliance calendar. Chair Jackman agreed that this would be helpful. Commissioner Kurasch asked if litigation is the next step if compliance is not achieved. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch expressed agreement with Commissioner Barry. Added that installation of any additional hardscape should be prohibited under said tree canopies. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that condition 9 requires a landscape plan be submitted for review by the City Arborist and that soil removal shall be done in a manner that does not further impact the trees with flooding or ponding of storm water. Commissioner Kurasch said that she likes hearing the public feedback and reminded that the Commission tries to come together for the public good. Commissioner Garakani: • Said he would like the opportunity to speak to two things. • Said that law and regulations have to be obeyed by all. • Stated that it appears Mr. Cutler was under the impression he had approvals he needed to proceed while the neighbors feel their interests are in trouble. • Suggested that this is not worth fighting with neighbors and that these neighbors need to get together and go forward, finding what can be done to make things better and working together. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she would support the resolution with the additions proposed. • Said that she is sorry that this has happened. • Pointed out that the Commissioners are all citizens of Saratoga too and are appointed to try to do a job here. Chair Jackman suggested approving the resolution and going forward with the mitigations. Commission Kurasch said that work needs to be done to improve the process and asked staff for the purpose for the bond. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the bond is in the event that one of four trees should die during the bond period. Chair Jackman asked how long this bond would be in effect. Director Tom Sullivan replied nine years. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a bond is routine. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 13 Director Tom Sullivan said that bonds are not uncommon for trees potentially impacted by construction, both on the subject property and/or on adjacent parcels. Asked if the Commission would like a critical start date table in the resolution. Chair Jackman replied yes. Commissioner Barry: • Called it a compliance calendar. • Said that it is clear the decision may not please either side. • Reminded that the legal aspects are out of the purview of the Commission. • Said that there is a common value held by residents to protect trees, particularly oak trees. • Agreed that something went very wrong and that the Planning Commission has tried to mitigate that damage, including working to change the Tree Ordinance. • Expressed support to lean more heavily on prevention of future tree damage. Chair Jackman restated that the Commission supports the resolution with the addition of a critical start date/compliance table, soil removal and the inclusion of the six items for the fifth tree. Commissioner Barry reminded that the valuation table in effect has been called into question. Director Tom Sullivan said that whichever valuation table was in effect when Barrie Coate performed his review is the appropriate one to use. Commissioner Barry asked about the inclusion of a requirement for use of platforms for the protection of trees in the event of any construction near the root line. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this could be a subset of Condition 9. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission accepted the recommendations of the City Arborist with the added conditions stated by the Commissioners as it pertains to the mitigation of damage to trees on the property located at 14480 Oak Place, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:59 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 14 APPLICATION #02-138 (517-08-062) – BROWN, 14775 Oak Street: Request for Variance approval to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicants seek a Variance to allow a new basement to be constructed below an existing single-family resident, a house that intrudes the front and exterior side setbacks. • Said that the Variance is required to allow the basement to also intrude into the setbacks, beneath the existing footprint of the house. • Said that there are three findings that must be made and staff feels this project meets all three. • Stated that the finding of special circumstances can be made in the affirmative. The lot is unique in both size and shape. It is half the size of the typical lot in the district. It is a restricted lot since it is a corner lot. Denial of a Variance would deprive this owner a common building practice of locating a basement below the footprint of a house. • Said that this request can be found not to represent a special privilege. This is a non-conforming corner lot with an existing building. This basement will not alter the physical appearance of the house while allowing the owner more living space. • Advised that this proposal does not represent a detriment to public health, safety or welfare. • Said that no trees on the property are proposed for removal and a $2,500 tree protection bond will be secured. • Informed that no negative correspondence has been received and nine letters of support from neighbors were received. • Said that the applicant has provided a site plan that has been stamped by a licensed surveyor. • Recommended approval of a Variance. Commissioner Barry asked why the square footage is not identical for the first and basement levels. Asked if there is a condition regarding construction plan conditions for trucks and dirt. Chair Jackman asked about a zero setback on Oak. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the zero setback is not against the street but rather against the property line. Mr. Bill Brown, 14775 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he is a 26-year resident of this home, which he remodeled eight years ago. • Said that his family, including two children, needs more square footage. • Stated that he is a basement specialist and that installing a basement is the logical way to achieve the additional square footage. • Made himself available for questions and said that some of his neighbors are present. Chair Jackman stated that this is one of the best and most complete proposals the Commission has seen. Commissioner Kurasch asked how long it would take to install this basement. Mr. Bill Brown: • Replied about three months and that it would take about two to three weeks to dig it out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 15 • Assured that they would keep the neighbors informed of their construction activities. • Advised that he installs basements in Los Altos, Palo Alto and other communities. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Brown for providing an article on basements. Mr. Bill Brown said that a basement is the logical way to go. Commissioner Garakani asked for a cost comparison in installing a basement over going up. Mr. Bill Brown replied that it is more costly to install a basement over building up. Mr. Ray Persico, 14761 Sixth Street, Saratoga: • Expressed support for the Brown application. • Said that he had needed such a Variance himself and hopes to see this one approved. Mr. John Hollingsworth, 14739 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the next door neighbor and expressed his support. • Stated that he also had submitted a written letter of support. Marilyn & Walt Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga: • Said that they are neighbors. • Advised that Mr. Brown constructed their own basement about nine years ago at which time they too obtain a Variance. • Stated that they can testify that Mr. Brown builds good basements. • Said that they are happy when neighbors improve their homes as this improves the neighborhood overall. Commissioner Barry asked the Marchettis about parking conditions on St. Charles. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti said that it is as bad as it has always been. Mr. Walt Marchetti said that, as it is a very narrow street, parking should not be allowed along it. Chair Jackman suggested that this issue be referred to the Public Safety Department. Director Tom Sullivan said if the Commission so wishes he will make the referral. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti added that if a fire truck were to come down the street while cars are parked, they could not get through. Mr. Jerry Gurley, 14724 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in his home for 33 years and knows the Browns as excellent neighbors. • Stated that they are nice people and that everyone likes them. • Declared them a credit to the City. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Garakani said that this is a very good project and that he is all for it. It meets the requirements for a Variance and he is happy to approve it. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is the kind of supportable project she likes to see all the time and that it should be cloned. Agreed that it is very supportable. Chair Jackman said that she is very supportive too and prefers a basement over a second story. Commissioner Hunter said that she too is totally in support and finds a basement is better than building up. Agreed that this is a nice application. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that it is clear that staff applied strict interpretations to make the three necessary findings. This proposal meets all the tests and fits into the City’s philosophy to build a basement rather than building up as it allows the neighborhood stay the way that it is. Commended the neighbors on their positive relationship. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Variance (Application #02-138) to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house, which intrudes into the required setbacks, on property located at 14775 Oak Street, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2002) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that this item was continued from the meeting of October 23, 2002, as only four Commissioners were present at that meeting. • Said that meetings, workshops and study sessions have been held. • Said that the progression of the recommendations is depicted through the multiple columns. The fifth column reflects the recommendations of the Commission generated at a Study Session. • Gave a rundown on the process, which included additional Task Force meetings on July 26 and August 23. • Offered a new option to the Commission, which would be to recommend to Council that the street improvement aspect, done and going to bid for spring/summer construction, is enough and that these Gateway Design Guidelines may no longer be necessary. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 17 • Reiterated that the public area is gong to get done in the next year and that these proposed Design Guidelines are for private facades. Commissioner Kurasch asked why they were implemented in the first place. Director Tom Sullivan said that there was a desire to have a specific plan in the Gateway area. Commissioner Barry asked about the impact on mixed use. Director Tom Sullivan replied that citywide standards for mixed-use zoning is pending and that a Citywide Sign Ordinance update could deal with signs. Commissioner Hunter asked about lighting issues. Director Tom Sullivan said that this issue too could be done Citywide. Commissioner Kurasch asked what appeal process would be in effect with these Gateway Design Guidelines. Director Tom Sullivan replied that a Design Guideline functions like an Ordinance and if an applicant exceeds 50-percent trigger that results in hardship, a Variance can be requested. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:42 p.m. Mr. Al Saah, 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified his property as being one of three parcels that comprise Park Saratoga. • Said that he had been excited about the prospect of these guidelines and appreciates the efforts of Director Sullivan and his staff. However, he now has concerns. • Said that he wrote a letter two weeks ago outlining his concerns. • Said that the proposed buffering conditions would be detrimental to him, as he would lose 18 of 37 parking spaces. • Added that with these guidelines, he could not rebuild what is there now. • Said that this could result in a loss of property value of about 50 to 60 percent in the future. • Said he supports a five-foot setback but not a 20-foot buffering setback. • Recommended approval of the Gateway Design Guidelines without the 20-foot setback requirement. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if his property is triangular. Mr. Saah replied yes. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if there are lots of parcels with similar conditions to his. Mr. Saah replied no. Chair Jackman asked for the potential of a Variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 18 Director Tom Sullivan sought to clarify that Mr. Saah’s property is actually a rectangular shaped lot and the buffer is five feet while the setback is 30 feet. What is being discussed that would be different is not to allow parking within the required buffer area. Commissioner Kurasch asked how viable such a Variance request would be. Director Tom Sullivan said that this offers good grounds for a Variance. Commissioner Barry said that a Variance might be a vehicle to deal with these guideline requirements. Mr. Saah: • Accused Commissioner Barry of supporting the Guidelines since the beginning and said that he should not be required to obtain a Variance due to an unfair condition. • Suggested accepting the guidelines without the 20-foot buffer zone. • Pointed out that there has never been a survey done on the impacts on properties. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Mixed Use Guidelines were set aside by the Planning Commission until after the completion of the Gateway Design Guidelines. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to put parking in another location and put the building back. Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in her home since 1967 and served on the Task Force since November 1995. • Added that originally both residential and business property owners were represented with the intent to redevelop and beautify the area. • Advised that most recently meetings were more heavily attended by business owners. The July meeting was heavily attended by business owners. • Gave examples of homes impacted by having commercial building constructed adjacent to residential with the impacts on loss of privacy. • Said that she too is unhappy with the proposed buffers and setbacks but because they are not enough. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mallory for her idea on what would be adequate. Ms. Sue Mallory replied more than 25 feet. Commissioner Garakani asked what buffering would be required if the commercial building is only one story. Ms. Sue Mallory replied that she did not know. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has commercial properties on two sides now. • Said that when a major remodel consisting of 50 percent or more occurs, he wants to see current standards upheld. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 19 • Said that he would like to see the Guidelines go forward with the requirement for design review and with no parking allow in the back if next to residential uses but also supported Director Sullivan’s recommendation of putting these guidelines on hold for one year. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that he offered this as another option but not as a recommendation. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Walker about the potential impacts to a commercial property owner in losing use of 20 feet of their property. Mr. Jeff Walker agreed that this is a tough call to have to make. Ms. Kristin Davis, 20344 Zorka Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is here as a resident of the Gateway area having lived here her whole life. • Said that she is a former business owner on Gateway. • Reminded that her family had nothing to do with the construction of residential units at the rear of Azule Crossing but rather sold the property. • Advised that her grandfather bought this land in 1937 and it was commercial at that time and probably before. • Said that she appreciates the residents’ concerns as she lives in a one-story house with a huge two- story home located behind her. • Said that the intent of the Gateway Design Guidelines is to enhance a business district. • Added that she too has been involved since November 1995 but that discussions had been held for decades. Many involved have dropped out saying, “why bother?” • Stated that commercial property owners have rights and are part of the community also. This represents a changing of the rules and their livelihoods are at stake. • Said that all sides have made compromises and agreed that perhaps these Guidelines may need to be put aside. • Said that this issue is important to everyone involved and that she does not want to see anyone suffer. Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Mentioned that he was present at the last public hearing date. • Said that he is a representative of the residents who attended meetings over the years. • Said that a letter dated October 11, 2002, outlines their concerns. • Said he has reviewed the recommendations and is in disagreement. • Suggested that the Gateway Guidelines do not represent the residents and that the City’s failure to appoint a balanced committee from the beginning has complicated the process and caused a failure to reach agreement. • Declared that he loves the City and agrees with its long-range goals. • Expressed respect for the Planning Commission’s hard work but said he does not feel its recommendations represent the interests of residents. • Asked that their names be removed as offering any endorsement to these Design Guidelines. • Added that he is unhappy with the proposed option to table these Guidelines altogether. • Said that this area has been treated as a second class area. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Mallory what his suggestions are to fix this situation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Jack Mallory said clear objectives must be developed and the participants on the Task Force cannot be changed midway through the process. Chair Jackman said that she agreed that a balanced Task Force membership is important. Mr. Jack Mallory said that he had had very high hopes. Chair Jackman assured Mr. Mallory of her belief that the Planning Commission can come up with goals. Commissioner Barry said that it appears Mr. Mallory has concern with all possible outcomes. He does not want to see the Gateway Guidelines simply set aside and he does not want to start all over again. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Planning Commission’s action will represent a recommendation of action for Council to consider. Commissioner Barry said that the next step is a hearing before the Planning Commission and asked the other Commissioners for their preferences, be it the alternative to set aside these draft Gateway Guidelines in lieu of a City wide Mixed Use Ordinance, which would be a broader set of guidelines. Director Tom Sullivan said that that this is one more alternative recommendation that the Commission can forward on to Council. Commissioner Kurasch said it appears the residents have both process and product concerns. Said that she is not certain exactly what they are seeking per their memo. Mr. Bill Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for taking on this difficult and thankless task. • Said that the Gateway Design Guidelines includes takings from both residents and commercial interests. Commissioner Kurasch stated that these guidelines only do so much and Design Review does the rest. Mr. Bill Guthrie said that he agreed that the most important issue is the distances between the structures. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the existing setbacks are. Director Tom Sullivan replied that right now the distance between structures is 30 feet. Mr. Bill Guthrie said that the proposed changes in the Gateway Design Guidelines are detrimental to residents in this respect. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:42 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that it is part of the Planning Commission’s job to look at these draft Gateway Design Guidelines closely and not to simply pass them along to Council to work on issues the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 21 Commission should have worked out. Suggested offering benefits to the commercial uses to make up for the buffering requirements. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned the Commission not to mix up the Gateway Design Guidelines with Mixed-Use Guidelines. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission work more on this and make the residents, commercial property owners and City all happy. Director Tom Sullivan said that one thing both the residential and commercial property owners agree upon is the need to provide some parking in the front. Commissioner Kurasch said it is important to find some consensus. Suggested a 20-foot setback with the second story set back in a step back fashion. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is what is proposed for the rear and side with a 10-foot minimum front setback. Cautioned that there is no reason to hurry and that another Study Session can be arranged. Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission elects to have another Study Session, it should be because the Commission thinks the document is close. Said that it has been heard tonight that the process did not lead to a document that those who worked on it feel good about. Chair Jackman expressed support for the idea of an additional Commission Study Session in order to incorporate some things heard this evening into a compromise. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if a specific individual project was under consideration here, there would be lots of freedom. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that there was some reason seven years ago to form a Task Force. • Said that this is so difficult to consider. • Added that the idea was to enhance the commercial uses and reminded that this City is a bedroom community and not a commercial community. • Stated that these differences appear almost impossible to solve and that all the Study Sessions in the world may not solve these differences. • Said that initially she had felt this process was going along too fast. At this point, she said it is time to make up minds and send this issue on to Council, who are elected officials while this Commission is not an elected body. • Stated that she is not sure the Commission can solve these problems. Chair Jackman said that the Commission can polish them up enough to send on to Council. Commissioner Hunter expressed that she is ready to send the Guidelines on to Council right now and let them be Solomon. Added that Council is elected to make the hard decisions on behalf of the community. Reminded that the City needs a commercial tax base. Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposed Guidelines represent a substantial improvement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 22 Chair Jackman expressed why not wait to proceed until the streetscape is completed. Commissioner Kurasch proposed having an exclusion for those properties that do not fit or develop a formula whereby the area of net loss resulting from a required buffer shall not exceed 10 percent. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Part 2, Page 3, regarding the applicability section whereas over 50 percent in improvements represents the thresh hold from which requiring compliance would kick in. Suggested that the Commission might want to add more criteria and/or a method for issuance of a waiver. Commissioner Garakani suggested a simple plan to have existing property owners, both residential and commercial, plant buffering landscape immediately so that it begins to mature to a point to offer sufficient screening in the event that the commercial properties redevelop in the future. Commissioner Barry reminded that these relate to future development. Commissioner Hunter stated that she likes Commissioner Kurasch’s idea to give an out if a property cannot accommodate a buffer. Director Tom Sullivan said that he is not in a position to develop those sorts of standards tonight but understands the general gist that the Commission would like to have an waiver process under the appropriate conditions. Commissioner Hunter said that Al Saah was eloquent in presenting his case before the Commission and can do so again before Council. Commissioner Barry expressed support for forwarding the draft Gateway Design Guidelines to Council with the addition of minimum standards for lots which would be compelled to comply, including lot length, width and area. Added that the Mixed-Use standards will relate to the entire City from the Gateway to the Village. Director Tom Sullivan added also the PA zones, all commercial and office zones are also potential mixed-use areas. Commissioner Barry said that it will be harder to come up with guidelines for all areas. Director Tom Sullivan said that guidelines speak to intent. Commissioner Barry suggested general guideline statements with implementation based upon Design Guideline issues with all specifics off the table. Chair Jackman expressed her support to move this item on to Council. Director Tom Sullivan said that findings will be needed to help guide future Commissioners to implement goals and policies. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 23 Commissioner Kurasch said that she is comfortable having more specifics contained within the Guidelines, saying that she finds them to be clarifying. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Gateway Design Guidelines would be more specific than the Village and Residential Design Guidelines. Commissioner Barry said that she likes that these Guidelines focus specifically on the Gateway. Chair Jackman said to send the matter on to Council. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has more areas of concern including the fact that there is no consensus on the illumination of signs. Commissioner Barry said that signs should be pulled out of these guidelines and dealt with on a citywide basis. Commissioner Kurasch said she has a simple suggestion to page 14 regarding landscaping to require 36-inch box trees to achieve a 20-foot minimum height. Asked if shrubs are included or only trees. Added that there is no consensus on buffers and setbacks. Commissioner Barry said that security lighting (page 16, part 13) should include the added language “shall be the less obtrusive possible.” Added that if asked should the Commission deal further with the issues of setback and buffers, her opinion is no. Commissioner Hunter agreed that these issues are too complex. Director Tom Sullivan said that the necessary text will be provided with the drawings and applicability standards. Commissioner Barry asked if Council wanted to send this matter back to the Commission or Task Force, whether they would have the option to do so. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry said that if the Council wants more work from the Commission, it will be sent back. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Commission has participated in the process over the last six months. Chair Jackman agreed that it is time for it to move on. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission forwarded on the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Gateway to Council for its consideration and final approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 24 ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE): Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Second Dwelling Units for various R-1 Residential Zones. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will implement both the City’s Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866. The Housing Element anticipates that 45 new second dwelling units would be constructed over the next five years. Assembly Bill 1866 requires the City to treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner. This new law does not allow the City to conduct a Public hearing to consider the proposed new second dwelling. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the rules of the game have been changed for a significant part of the ABAG mandated housing units, secondary units, with the passage of State Assembly Bill 1866, which will be passed into law next year. • Informed that with this legislation, a City will no longer have discretionary review of second units. • Added that standards can be established including issues such as parking, access, number of bedrooms and appearance but these issues must be yes and/or no issues and not issues allowing discretion. If an application complies with the basic standards set forth, a building permit must be issued. If not, no permit is issued. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that he is in awe of the Planning Commission, having been present all evening, amazed by the work it does. • Offered his commendations and thanks. • Said that he hopes whatever could be done would be done to protect small lots. • Recommended adding a requirement that any time a home is completely torn down, that request be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to approval of the demolition. • Added that the noticing was ludicrous for this home on Swarthmore, having been sent only to ten property owners. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that changes to require this action would have to be made to the Design Review Section of the Ordinance. At the present time, if the replacement home is less than 18 feet high and/or less than 6,000 square feet, such action is not required. Commissioner Barry asked if lot size can be a criteria for allowing or disallowing second units under this new legislation. Director Tom Sullivan said that no lot size can be excluded outright but that all existing Zoning Ordinance requirements for a particular zoning designation would have to be met, including coverage, FAR and setbacks. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 25 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will implement both the City’s Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866 regarding how the City will treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner without the requirement of a public hearing, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the December 25, 2002, meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on January 8, 2003. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that the Purdue house denied by the Commission was appealed. Council upheld the appeal and overturned the Commission’s denial. Asked that Council refer such situations back so allow more extensive Design Review. Director Tom Sullivan said that concerns of the Commission need to be carefully articulated within a Resolution for Denial to deal with such circumstances as having an appeal upheld by Council. COMMUNICATIONS Written: Facsimile communication from Mitch Cutler requesting a Study Session with the Planning Commission regarding a Variance application for fence height. Director Tom Sullivan advised that Mr. Mitch Cutler is seeking a Study Session with the Commission. Chair Jackman stated that she feels any such discussion needs to be held in a public arena. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that the Commission needs the benefit of a staff report and that this is not a Study Session type issue. Director Tom Sullivan agreed with Commissioner Barry. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 8, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk