Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Garakani Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 9, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 9, 2003, were adopted with a correction to page 6. (6-0-1; Commissioner Garakani was absent) 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 July 17, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Director Tom Sullivan clarified one exception in that the Appeal of the Administrative Decision to grant a Tree Removal Permit will be final with whatever decision is made by the Planning Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-019 (APN 503-82-027 and 028) – SHARMA, 13095 Paramount Court: Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with a 2,091 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 47,288 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23.5 feet. Continued from meeting on July 9, 2003. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new one-story 6,141 square foot house with 2,091 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The maximum height would be 23.5 feet. • Described this as a unique lot, located at the end of a road and abutting an existing vineyard. • Said that there is no consistent design pattern in the immediate area. • Stated that the proposed home would consist of stucco siding and stone in a light brown. The roofing would consist of brown tile. • Said that this project meets the Residential Design Guideline policies as it works around existing mature trees and incorporates a varying roofline and stone along the front façade, details that add character and interest to the project. • Stated that there is good privacy to adjacent properties and that this home exceeds required setbacks. • Advised that there are 23 protected trees on the site and that the applicant is proposing to remove two small palm trees located on the front property line. • Added that the Arborist’s recommendations have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. • Said that input was received from two neighbors and the applicant has attempted to mitigate their concerns. One change was a revision to the landscape plan to increase the distance of the pool equipment from the shared side property line by an additional five feet. Additionally, a six-foot high fence would also mitigate visual impacts. • Said that a grove of redwood trees had been proposed but instead African Locust will be planted, which grows to a maximum height of 30 feet, out of deference to concerns of one neighbor over losing distance views if trees grew too high • Said that the project is modest and fits in well on the site. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry said that it does not appear on the plans that the pool equipment has been moved. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the plan still reads redwood trees. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the distance for the pool equipment from the property line has been increased by five feet for a total of 12 feet in distance. Said that the right hand side of the plan should be clouded and pointed out that the redwood mentioned is for the fencing to screen equipment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Uhl asked if the neighbor has seen the revised plans and is comfortable with the changes. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he would defer response of that question to the applicant. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer and Builder: • Said that the plans speak for themselves. • Said he is available to answer any architectural questions and advised that the landscape architect is on vacation. Commissioner Barry asked about the amount of impervious surfaces and asked if inclusion of pervious pavers has been considered. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the amount of impervious surface is called out on the plans. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the amount proposed is close to the maximum allowed. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the applicant is proposing to use cobble pavers on sand and this is shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the site has 32.5 percent in impervious surface and that stone pavers will be used for the driveway. Commissioner Barry asked about the pool deck material. Mr. Marty Oakley said probably concrete. Commissioner Barry questioned the different window treatments on either side of the front entrance. Mr. Marty Oakley said that this architectural style is a traditional early Californian Santa Barbara style. What is proposed is conducive to that architectural design, including the fixed shutter to the right. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is symmetry everywhere but there. Mr. Marty Oakley countered that the only thing symmetrical is the fact that there is 14 feet on both sides of the entry. Commissioner Barry asked if the reason for this is functional or aesthetic. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the style of house is Santa Barbara, a very simple and elegant design. These features are aesthetic rather than functional. Chair Hunter asked how tall the entrance is. Mr. Marty Oakley: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 4 • Replied that the ceiling height is 14 feet, the roof/plate height is 15 feet and that the maximum roof height is 23 feet. • Clarified that two neighbors raised concerns. • Said that one is concerned about the location of the pool equipment and another with possible loss of views with the proposed planting of redwood trees. • These issues can be resolved with the planting of a lower growing tree and the relocation of the pool equipment. With the move of the pool equipment about 7 feet to the north and the inclusion of a four-foot redwood fence enclosure for the pool equipment as well as landscaping to better buffer the noise. The Goldfarbs were concerned with potential visual impacts between these two properties. They wanted assurances that the existing landscaping would stay. Said that they are proposing to install a six-foot high, redwood good neighbor fence along that side property line. Said that the Goldfarbs are still concerned and would like the fence to be continued down to the street. • Assured that they would do so if they can but can only go up to 30 feet from the front property line with that fence height. • Pointed out that the new house to the north of the Mathis property has a pool with equipment that is closer than this one will be. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Marty Oakley if these changes have been reviewed with the neighbors. Mr. Marty Oakley replied no, saying that he had just created the study before this meeting. Commissioner Uhl asked about a letter mentioned by Mr. Oakley. Mr. Marty Oakley said that Mr. Goldfarb can provide that letter. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the pool equipment could only be moved 7 feet. Mr. Marty Oakley said that this is the most logical spot for the pool to stay with the natural terrain. Commissioner Uhl asked if the fencing proposed falls within Code requirements. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that there is a 30-foot front setback wherein the six-foot fence height would have to drop down to three feet. Mr. Ray Azzi, 13020 Paramount Court, Saratoga: • Said that he is concerned about the total height of the proposed building. • Said that this is a sloping up lot with a large and very high building, which would increase the apparent size going up the hill. • Reminded that there is already an approved subdivision map for Kennedy Estates. • Said his second area of concern is water runoff. • Stated that a lot of water already comes down the hill in winter and that there is already a problem from up the hill for those down the hill. • Pointed out that this project is bringing more impermeable surface. Mr. Charles Goldfarb, 13075 Paramount Court, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 5 • Said he has reached agreement with the applicant regarding the fence and submitted a letter to that fact. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Goldfarb if he understands the three-foot height limitation for the first 30 feet with a six-foot height being allowed thereafter. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Goldfarb if there is a runoff problem. Mr. Charles Goldfarb replied yes there is a water runoff problem but that he has been told that drainage plans for this site should reduce that problem. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Goldfarb if his property is lower than this property. Mr. Charles Goldfarb said that there is a substantial elevation difference and their property is lower. Agreed that there is a runoff issue. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Goldfarb if he is satisfied with just having the six-foot fence height up to the 30-foot setback requirement or whether he also wants the fence to continue thereafter at the allowed three-foot height. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that it would be 41 feet back from the street before the six- foot fence could start. Chair Hunter suggested that this issue be left for staff to work out. Commissioner Uhl suggested screening trees or bushes. Mr. Charles Goldfarb said that he would like for the fence to go up to the window line at his house. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy, Saratoga: • Said that she owns several contiguous properties, including the vineyard, and that she does not think that her concerns have been properly conveyed. • Said that she objects to things being jammed into a corner of the property that should not be used at all. • Said that over the last 30 years she has watched an oak grove grow into a natural buffer. Now a center portion has been removed in order to position this house and pool. • Added that she felt that this was illegally done but when she sent a letter to the City to complain, it was ignored. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Kennedy what alternatives she would recommend. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy replied anything gained by the removal of the oak tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the proper permit was obtained. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. The necessary permit was obtained on August 6, 2002. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy questioned why notification was not required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 6 Chair Hunter said that in the future, with the pending adoption of a Tree Ordinance, such notification would be required but that it was not required in the past. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Kennedy if one tree was removed or many. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy said that she could not tell. Before it was a solid mass but now the center portion has been taken out. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Kennedy if she had discussed the proposed replacement trees with the applicant. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked how Ms. Kennedy would like the area screened so that her view is not impacted. Ms. Kathryn Kennedy said she liked the oak trees but it is hard to put them back. Added that pushing the house into that corner is increasing the appearance from the street. Mr. Marty Oakley said that the removed tree was not in good condition. It was just one tree and was removed with the required permit. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the purpose behind the removal of this tree. Mr. Marty Oakley advised that many of the branches were resting on the ground and pruning would not help it. Commissioner Nagpal asked if an Arborist had determined that the tree must be removed. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said he would defer that question to the owner. • Said as to the issue of runoff, this parcel is currently vacant. Once it is developed, the property will contain all the roof and surface drainage through two dissipaters on the property. This house will not make the runoff situation worse but rather will make it better. Additionally, if water from above this property drains down, it too will be handled with these dissipaters. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Advised that homes constructed with a basement require a grading plan by a licensed engineer. The geotechnical report was prepared and peer reviewed and approved by the City’s geotechnical engineer. • Pointed out Condition 6, which requires a Storm Water Retention Plan to keep water on site and percolate it. Mr. Marty Oakley said that this is a typical requirement in Saratoga. Said that it is important to maintain water on site and not disperse it to other properties. Said that the roof on this home has a shallow pitch that is in proportion with the size of the building. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Marty Oakley if he had considered siting the house more forward. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that the house has been sited dead center in the middle of the lot to minimize the need for cut and for fill. Said that the maximum cut will be four feet and the maximum fill will be two feet. • Stated that the house is not pushed back as there is still a 50 foot rear setback. • Added that the house siting is the best for this design. • Reminded that they saved all the trees and worked around all the constraints including slope, setbacks and trees. Chair Hunter asked why the African Locust tree was selected. Mr. Marty Oakley replied that this species only grows to a 30-foot height and that the Landscape Architect selected that tree. Added that Ms. Kennedy’s house is 15 feet lower than her grade and that she would hear her existing neighbor’s pool equipment but not this house’s pool equipment. Commissioner Nagpal asked what size African Locust tree would be planted. Mr. Marty Oakley said 24-inch box. Commissioner Nagpal asked how high these trees are. Mr. Marty Oakley replied 30-foot maximum height. Commissioner Nagpal clarified her question as to how high the tree would be when planted as a 24-inch box tree. Mr. Marty Oakley hazarded a guess of between 10 to 12 feet in height. Chair Hunter asked why not plant oaks. Mr. Marty Oakley said he could not answer that question as he was not part of that discussion between the Landscape Architect and the client. Stated that they had originally said they would plan whatever was suggested but that the neighbor never made a specific suggestion so they just chose something themselves. Added that if the owners agree, oaks are possible. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the water that drains through the dissipaters is considered cleaner. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he could not really say. Director Tom Sullivan said that it is generally better. Mr. Ray Azzi questioned when the site survey was done, which states there is no spring on this property. Mr. Marty Oakley replied March. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Ray Azzi said that kids like to go off-roading there and that he believes that there is a seasonal spring on this property and that there might be more water on the property than is believed. Mr. Marty Oakley reminded that they are putting in a basement. Chair Hunter suggested a Condition requiring the review of the Storm Drain plans. Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that they are reviewing Design Review. Mr. Marty Oakley assured that there is no spring on this property. Director Tom Sullivan added that the applicant’s geotechnical engineer’s report was peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical engineer. Commissioner Barry said that seasonal changes frequently occur in the City of Saratoga. Mr. Marty Oakley said that while they cannot stop what water comes on site from above, they will control what water is on the site. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zutshi said that while this is a big house, the houses around it are big too. Added that she has no problem with the height. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that in general the design looks quite nice and she is happy with it. • Said that the storm water issue is not a large enough issue to condition further. There are enough stopgap measures to address them. • Agreed that the fencing issue can be worked out with the Goldfarbs. • Said she is concerned about the removal of the oak tree and the selection of the African Locust because it is not too tall. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the tree removal issue is in the past. Commissioner Schallop said he is fine with the proposal. Commissioner Uhl said he is fine with the design and pointed out that the applicant has made significant effort to meet the needs of his neighbors. Suggested further review of the corner landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan said that this can be left for staff, the applicant and neighbor to resolve. Commissioner Barry said she would like to see pervious pavers required for the driveway and called out as a Condition. Associate Planner John Livingstone assured that this would be called out in the plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Barry suggested crafting a Condition to allow staff to work with the applicant and neighbors on the fence and landscaping issues. Chair Hunter: • Said that the design of the home is very nice albeit very large. • Said she could imagine the shock for someone living in the area a long time to see new large homes added to the neighborhood. • Said that she would be voting yes on this application with the stipulation that the applicant and staff works with the Goldfarbs and Kennedys. Chair Hunter reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Pointed out that several details have been deferred to staff. • Said that she has had experience with things being deferred to staff and that she did not think that staff did a good job. • Suggested that the neighbors would be better served if the Planning Commission not let go of these issues entirely. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Wyckoff what neighborhood she lives in. Ms. Emma Wyckoff replied the El Quito Neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the project of concern to Ms. Wyckoff was well under construction prior to the arrival of any of the current Planning staff. Mr. Charles Goldfarb said he wanted to clarified the understanding that his request for a fence was approved by the applicant and that the only issue is the fence height for the first 30 feet at the front setback. Chair Hunter reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new single-story residence on property located at 13095 Paramount Court, with the added condition that the applicant work with the Kennedys on the number, type and size of trees to be planted on the rear property line and to work with the Goldfarbs on the height of the side property fence within the 30 foot front setback, and to report back to the Planning Commission on the outcome of these details, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani ABSTAIN: None Associate Planner John Livingstone said that staff could update the Commission as a Director’s Item. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there should be a time limit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be brought back as soon as the issues have been resolved. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-140 (APN 403-27-030) – Appellant: CORSON, Site Location: 18372 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal permit at 18372 Swarthmore to removed a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. Continued from meeting on July 9, 2003. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an appeal of an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of one of two trees. The Administrative Decision can be appealed but the decision by the Planning Commission will be final. • Said that the appellant has provided a great deal of material. • Pointed out that there are lots of mature trees in this area and that the property owner had asked to remove two trees but only one tree was approved for removal due to damage to the driveway as shown at the site visit. This tree is considered to be placed in a bad location and that a mistake was made 50 years ago to plant this tree in a bad place. • Said that the value of the tree is derived by the Arborist. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the City defines what a heritage tree is. Director Tom Sullivan replied that in the proposed Tree Ordinance it is recommended that a Heritage Tree Committee be formed. Right now the only designated heritage trees are in the Heritage Tree Orchard. Chair Hunter sought clarification that in the future, upon adoption of the Tree Ordinance, that notices will be provided of such Administrative Decisions for Tree Removals. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter asked if staff inspectors go out and look at trees proposed for removal. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, if the trees are of a certain size. Chair Hunter asked if the City’s Arborist also goes out. Director Tom Sullivan replied not at this level. If necessary, staff would have the owner pay for an independent Arborist report. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any remediation techniques available. Director Tom Sullivan said that the most logical was to use pavers but that idea was rejected because of utility and sewer laterals. Added that if the driveway is removed and put back it, it would need his approval if located within eight feet of this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 11 Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Tom Corson, Appellant, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its attention. • Asked if the Commissioners have had time to read his two packets as it would save a lot of time if they had. • Said he has lived on Swarthmore Drive for 25 years. It was his first home and the only home he has owned. • Said that when he first moved in, there were three large trees, two in back and one in front. These were big huge conifers with large trunks. All three are gone today. • Stated that his backyard was as secluded as being in the woods and now he looks at power lines. • Said that there are two more trees on his own property in front, a Chinese Elm and a Redwood that is approximately 20 feet tall. • Added that he counts these two Redwood trees on his neighbor’s property as his too. If one is allow to be removed, this would equal four trees out of seven that are gone from his immediate area. • Said that the Redwood proposed for removal is a magnificent tree and the only reason given for its removal is that it damages the gutter and driveway. • Stated his disbelief that there is no requirement to replace this tree. • Asked the Planning Commission to think outside of the box, stating that they owe it to that tree, to him and his neighbors to do that. • Asked that this tree not be removed simply because the tree is inconvenient or costs the property owner money for maintenance. • Said that homeowners have a responsibility for their trees, to maintain them and to take care of any damage to concrete. • Handed out material from the City of Sunnyvale’s Arborist. • Distributed something in support of saving this tree as written by Miss Elizabeth Mercado, his five- year-old neighbor. • Provided data that gas mains have never been impacted by a big tree. Commissioner Uhl expressed appreciation to Mr. Corson for the truly commendable efforts he has devoted to this issue. Asked if any other neighbors, other than the three who have signed his materials, have also signed a petition in support of this tree. Mr. Tom Corson replied no. He added that the four households have worked on this issue together but that they did not attempt to petition the entire neighborhood. He added that the only one who wants this tree gone is the property owner. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that staff notified all property owners within 500 feet of this evening’s public hearing. Mr. Tom Corson expressed his appreciation for the way the City has dealt with him when he raised concerns over this Administrative Decision to allow this tree removal. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Corson for all his handouts and assured that she has read all materials and appreciated receiving it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 12 Ms. Elizabeth Lara on behalf of her father, Mr. Ole Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Read comments from her father to the Commissioners. • Stated that her dad has resided in Saratoga for 60 years, 40 of those years at this home on Swarthmore Drive. • Urged the Commission to save this tree. • Expressed his surprise that the City never notified him of the pending removal of a 110-foot tree as well as the fact that his neighbor also did not notify him. • Stated the potential for harm in the removal of this tree. • Said that the tree has a value and its removal would have impacts on property values in the neighborhood especially with no requirement for its replacement upon removal. • Pointed out that another property recently illegally removed six trees and that nothing was done to correct that situation when reported to the Planning Department. • Asked the Commission to please consider ways to save this tree. Ms. Mary McGuire, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in her home for 7.5 years and remembers the first time she drove down the street, appreciating the wide street, lack of sidewalks and beautiful trees. • Said that it is important to preserve that which makes Saratoga special. If this is not done, one may as well live in North San Jose. Ms. Encamara Panadero, 18325 Clenson Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in Saratoga for 28 years, four years in this home. • Pointed out that the six trees removed were not replaced with large trees but only with small trees. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Asked Director Tom Sullivan to describe a well-treed neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan said that it is a visual subjective analysis that observes that there are a lot of mature trees. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Declared that she is here to protect the life of a childhood friend, this Redwood tree. • Said that she lived on Swarthmore Drive for 20 years and played hide and go seek around this large tree, enjoyed its shade and many other memories. Said that the tree is home to birds and other wildlife and is a part of the local scenery. • Deplored the idea of executing this beautiful tree and asked when is this going to end. • Stated that she contact other organizations for ideas about how to save this tree. • Pointed out that in America the tree canopy is rapidly diminishing and it appears that no one in the City is enforcing tree protection. • Stated that this is a beautiful, majestic Redwood tree. • Pointed out that the timber value alone for a tree this size is from $14 to $35 per ton and from $25 to $45 per ton for a Coastal Redwood. With about 500 tons, the value of the timber alone is from $12,500 to $22,500. • Questioned how to place a true value on a tree that provides oxygen, shade and beauty. • Recited a poem about trees into the record. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 13 Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lara if she had asked these organizations what methods would allow the tree to be kept where it is.’ Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that it is considered to be more dangerous to remove this tree than it would be to simply leave it where it is due to the types of equipment necessary to do the job of removing the tree and its roots. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her love of the poem recited by Ms. Lara and asked her if there are any technical discussions on saving the tree, including steel plates and/or trimming roots and what the survivability might be if these techniques were to be used. Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that the discussion was primarily the decline of City forestation and canopy, which is a serious issue. Ms. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Expressed her sympathy over the neighbors’ concerns over trees. • Said that she herself is concerned about loss of trees. • Pointed out that a towering spec development was build on the property to the north of hers and that three elms have lost their crowns. Another tree on her property will have to be removed as it was damaged by a contractor installing a sewer lateral. • Said that she appreciates the effort of the neighbors to save the tree and encourage the Commission to do something. • Said that she loves trees and feels they are important and suggested a middle ground be reached. • Said she appreciated the efforts underway tonight. Mr. Mark Beaudoin, Arborist and Property Owner’s Representative: • Stated that this is a human versus tree issue. • Said that the biggest concern is trying to plant the right tree in the right location. • Described damage costs in other local cities from trees. • Said that replanting of a replacement tree in the same neighborhood should be required. • Suggested that perhaps the neighbors might share the cost of repairing the damage in lieu of removing this tree. • Agreed that this is a nice Redwood tree but that it is located too close to major structural improvements. • Warned that Redwoods need space and this is the wrong tree for this location. Chair Hunter pointed out that the City of San Jose is asking its residents to plant trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mark Beaudoin if he is here on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mark Beaudoin why the property owner had originally sought the removal of the two Redwood trees. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied that it is hard to grow anything beneath these trees and that they shade the entire front yard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Nagpal said that they appear very healthy. Mr. Mark Beaudoin said that they need more space to expand without doing further damage. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the tree would survive the installation of steel plates to limit the direction of the roots. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied that in order to install these steel plates, major roots would have to be cut, which could be detrimental to the tree. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mark Beaudoin if he resides in Saratoga. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if he visits Saratoga often. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied yes. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mark Beaudoin if he would be willing to become more involved in some sort of Tree Program for the City. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied sure, he would love to. Commissioner Uhl said that everyone agrees on the importance of trees but questioned the decision not to require replacement. Mr. Mark Beaudoin said that mitigation measures could be worked out and that it would actually be better to distribute trees to other properties in the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mark Beaudoin if he is aware of any occurrence of gas main damage due to tree roots. Mr. Mark Beaudoin replied yes, roots do break lines. Mr. Tom Corson: • Rebutted the idea that tree roots have resulted in gas leaks and pointed out a document for 1999 in which not a single such occurrence is documented. • Said that while installation of steel plates may be detrimental to a tree, cutting it down would definitely be detrimental. • Said that the issues raised to support the removal are not valid. They include economic interference, utility services and the overruling of the use of pavers instead of concrete for the driveway. • Stated that interference with utilities is not a valid reason to remove this tree. • Declared the tree to be irreplaceable. • Said that this property owner is not motivated to save this tree but that they should sharpen their pencils and come up with alternatives to the removal of this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 15 Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commission needs to use the five criteria outlined in the staff report to support its action on this matter. Reminded that the issue is simply Mr. Corson’s appeal of the Tree Removal Permit and not to define alternative designs in paving, etc. There is no vehicle to further condition this matter. Instead the property owner would have to hire someone to design an alternative. Commissioner Barry: • Thanked those who spoke for their eloquent statements and for all their research. • Urged them not to stop and simply go away after this case is settled. • Said that the City needs people who feel strongly and would be active to help with this issue. • Encouraged them to continue their involvement as it is not just this tree but rather it is a citywide problem. • Said that she has heard about the research from other cities. • Said that she feels very strongly that the Planning Commission and staff are on the same page about saving trees. • Agreed that the need for tree canopy and concerns over the ozone layer are serious issues. • Said that one could make just as good a case for not granting as for supporting the appeal. • Stated that the tree is an extremely healthy tree with no evidence that it interferes with utility services. • Said that it is not necessary to remove the tree for economic reasons since it would cost a lot to remove this tree. • Pointed out that typography issues do not apply in this case. • Said that the tree is considered to be a neighborhood icon and keeping it does not deny the property owner of property value. • Said that she did not believe the property could support a replacement tree in the same location. • Stated that she can make the necessary findings to support this appeal. Commissioner Nagpal said that the criteria is not there for Finding #1. Said that the economic enjoyment of the property does not require the removal of the tree although the driveway does need to be fixed. Said that Finding #3 does not apply. Concurred with Commissioner Barry. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the reason there is no vehicle for conditions is since this is simply an appeal. If the appeal is granted, the property owner can either do nothing or come in with a plan to fix the driveway. Commissioner Uhl said that a lot of great points have been made and that the Commission needs to think out of the box to save this tree. Said that City staff has been put in a bad situation and that they serve as strong enforcers of the values of the City of Saratoga. However, the Commission should appeal this particular decision. Commissioner Schallop said that while he appreciates what is being said, this is a great tree in the wrong location. Said he would deny the appeal since there are two trees in this yard. Added that if this were his property, he too would want this tree removed. Added that it was a mistake to place the tree in this location. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is torn between both options and cannot yet come to a conclusion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 16 Chair Hunter: • Said that she passed by a similar tree with pavers below it. • Agreed with what the others have said. • Said that she lost a tree on her own property that she sorely misses. • Stated that there is no reason to take this tree out. • Expressed disagreement that Swarthmore is a heavily treed street. • Thanked the neighbors for their fight for this tree. • Encouraged people to address Council with the Tree Ordinance is considered for adoption. Director Tom Sullivan said that the attached resolution can either be amended this evening or staff can bring back the final product as a consent item on the next agenda. Commissioner Nagpal suggested placing the revised resolution on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the neighbors consider the idea of helping with the costs of driveway repair. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal and overturned the administrative approval of a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a 161-inch, mature Redwood tree located next to the driveway on property located at 18372 Swarthmore Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Schallop ABSENT: Garakani ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter call for a break at 9:30 p.m. Chair Hunter reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-131 (397-07-039) – SHARMA, 15211 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence and attached three-car garage. More than 50 percent of the existing two-story residence will be demolished, therefore, the project is considered a new two-story residence. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,842 square feet. A stucco exterior siding and a concrete tile roof material are proposed. The gross lot size is 60,661 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of 50 percent of an existing two-story residence and construction of a 5,842 square foot, including garage, single- family residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 17 • Described the zoning as R-1-40,000, the maximum height as 25 feet and the actual lot size as 60,661 square feet with a 19 percent average slope. • Said that the proposed home would consist of a stucco finish and gray concrete roof tiles. The new home will not exceed the roofline of the existing residence. • Said that one revision is outstanding to require large windows on both sides of the front façade. • Explained that one Coast Redwood is expected to decline and is proposed to be replaced. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry thanked staff for providing revised plans. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that this application is before the Planning Commission as a courtesy since the sections of the Code to require such review have not yet been adopted. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous replied correct, adding that the applicant has been patient. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Ron Ikes, Architect: • Said he is available for questions. • Pointed out that the window in front is not being seen in perspective and that neither window could be seen simultaneously and it would therefore not be visible that they are different. One side serves as a picture window while coming up the stairs while the other is an operating window on the other side. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out page A13 of the plans which demonstrates Mr. Ikes’ comments. Mr. Ron Ikes said they are not sure what to do with Tree #5. The report says to cut it back. Added that if they should decide to remove this tree, they will seek necessary permits to do so. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous said that it would be replaced in valuation. Mr. Ron Ikes said that there is a gap between two properties that needs to be filled in but that two to three trees would be very appropriate while five would not. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the total number is not the issue but rather the comparable value between what is removed and what replaces it. Mr. Ron Ikes said okay. Commissioner Uhl asked if the neighbors sat down and discussed the plans prior to signing off on them. Mr. Raghav Sharma replied absolutely. He added that everyone was happy. Said that they support having lots of trees and, if necessary, would spend the money necessary to plant trees on neighboring properties. Commissioner Barry brought up the neighbor to the left who was concerned that trees were to be cut down. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 18 Mr. Raghav Sharma said that no one raised such a concern. Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous advised that the neighbor had expressed concern over the potential removal of trees in the future since these trees offer such good screening. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal said that this project will improve the property, will look nice and she will support it. Commissioner Schallop agreed. Commissioner Zutshi announced that she had received a call from the applicant who wanted to know if she would be allowed to come to this meeting. Advised that she encourage her to do so. Expressed support for this project. Commissioner Barry said that they windows in question are okay with her. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that they would not be seen at the same time. Commissioner Uhl said that he would support this request and appreciates the efforts made. Chair Hunter said she would support and that it looks fine. Assured that applicants are welcome to call and speak with the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her surprise that Mrs. Sharma did not speak out. Mrs. Seema Sharma thanked the Commissioners for visiting her home and assured that they spent much time with each neighbor. Thanked the Commission for its support. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a two-story residence and attached three-car garage on property located at 15211 Sobey Road, removing the Condition to require the change in two front windows, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani ABSTAIN: None Associate Planner Christine Oosterhous encouraged Mr. Sharma to advise the rear neighbor if trees are to be removed in the future as a courtesy. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 19 APPLICATION #02-129 (503-28-011) – ABACHIZADEH, 20981 Canyon View Drive: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to add 1,422 square feet to the existing house. The addition includes 400 square feet for the conversion of a carport to a garage. The gross lot size is 9,200 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review approval to allow a 1,422 square foot addition to an existing home, including enclosing a 400 square foot existing carport. • Described the lot as 9,200 square feet with a slope of over 30 percent, which reduces the lot size to 3,680 square feet. • Informed the Commission that the FAR is determined by the Planning Commission for any lot with less than 5,000 square feet. • Said that the total square footage of this home would be 3,200 square feet, including the carport. This is less than the adjacent neighbors’ size homes and lots. • Explained that the project is 90 percent done under a Building Permit, including replacing decks. • Added that the applicant would like to continue with his remodel and enclose some existing areas, which are under existing roof areas. • Informed that this project meets the Residential Design Guidelines as it would have very little impact on the design of the structure and no trees will be removed. • Said that no negative correspondence has been received. • Said that the proposal is consistent with General Plan policies. • Recommended approval and made a correction to the staff report. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Glush Dada, Project Designer, said that there is one area that they would like to extend that might require a Variance. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Said that he has worked with the applicant for a long time and confirmed the setback. The proposed addition encroaches on the setback by 1.5 feet and the fix didn’t get made on the plans. • Added that a Condition will required that this area be pushed back. • Advised that to keep this as positioned would require a Variance. To process this Variance would require additional noticing and the reaching required findings. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Dada if they are interested in a vote tonight or a Variance later. Ms. Glush Dada replied that they want to go forward. Commissioner Barry asked if a Variance is possible. Director Tom Sullivan said yes but it would be a new application. Commissioner Zutshi said that this is a very interesting house. Commissioner Uhl questioned whether any neighbors are present. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 20 Mr. Jay Sharma, 20995 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this is a massive remodel that was done over the counter with no Planning Commission review. • Said that there are three lots in a row, each the same size. • Expressed concern over privacy at the shared property line, since this home has a new patio that is five to six feet higher than his property at this shared property line. • Requested a stucco wall for this patio to allow him continued privacy in his yard as well as additional screening trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is an existing condition or changed as a result of the remodel. Mr. Jay Sharma replied that this is a change due to the remodel. Added that the retaining wall ends at the property line and that he is concerned that rain will run soil onto his property. Mr. Bijan Abachizadeh, 20981 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he would love to put in trees and is willing to discuss what kinds of landscaping is preferred with his neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Abachizadeh if he supports the installation of a stucco wall. Mr. Bijan Abachizadeh replied if one is allowed. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan added that a permit would be required for such a wall. Commissioner Uhl asked if this could be made a Condition of Approval. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry asked what color the roofing would be. Mr. Bijan Abachizadeh said that they are hoping not to change the roofing as it is only three years old. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that the applicant is asking to match the existing charcoal gray roof. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission can make it a condition that the roof color will match existing. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Schallop said that this is a very interesting house with a great view. Commissioner Uhl said that he agrees with the neighbor’s concerns over loss of privacy and bulk but with the addition of native species trees and a stucco wall, he can support this application. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 21 Commissioner Barry agreed and said that the roof color, stucco wall and trees for privacy should be added. Suggested that the concern over soil sliding at the base of the retaining wall should be investigated. Stated that this is a very interesting house. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is in favor of this application with conditions and agreed that it is an interesting house. Commissioner Nagpal concurred. Chair Hunter said that she hopes appropriate trees are selected. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that staff is recommending a row of oleanders instead of trees. Mr. Jay Sharma expressed support for that idea as he already has some oleanders on his property. Reminded that the height of the patio is five feet above his property so the wall would have to be on the patio to offer sufficient privacy screening for his yard. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the retaining wall to stabilize soil is a different issue than the privacy wall issue. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow a 1,422 square foot addition to an existing house on property located at 20981 Canyon View Drive, with the added conditions: • That the roof color match the existing roof; • That staff work with the applicant and neighbor regarding privacy for the patio, to include a screening stucco wall and landscaping (oleander); • That the slide area be reviewed prior to final; and • That the siding stone match the color sample provided, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that the regular meeting of August 13, 2003, has been cancelled. Said that the Special Meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission will be held on August 5th and agendas will be mailed soon. Chair Hunter announced that the Mayor will also be in attendance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 2003 Page 22 Commissioner Schallop expressed his regrets that he will miss this session since he will be out on business travel. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council minutes from Regular Meetings on May 21, 2003, and June 4, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk