Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: August 26, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Tucker, Clay, Kolstad Ceremonial: Chairwoman Harris presented a plaque honoring L. Dans Callans; plaque was presented to his daughter, Ms. Lee Callans. The Chair welcomed Mr. John Kolstad as a Member of the Planning Commission. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of August 12, 1987 TUCKER/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1987. Passed 3-0-3 Commissioners Guch, Siegfried and Kolstad abstaining. Deletions to the Agenda: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; None REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF .AGENDA~ Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on August 7, 1987. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. DR-87-068 McGrade/Featherstone, 18661 Allendale Ave., request for design review approval of a second story addition to an existing single family home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. After the addition, the home will be 2,948 sq. ft. Continued to September 9, 1987. -- 2. DR-87-078 Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Ct., request for design review approval of a new 7,329 sq. ft. two-story. single family home which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. floor area standard for the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. continued to September 9, 1987. .................................................. ? ...................................................... 3. UP-87-014 Klien, 21400 Tollgate Rd., request for use permit approval to allow a winery in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from August 12, 1987. 4. DR-87-060 Sinsley Construction, 12342 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of a new 5,683 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 12, 1987. 5. SD-87-013 Jordan, 14234 Paul Ave., request for building site and design review DR-87-090 approval for a new 2,966 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 12, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 6. DR-87-077 Nishimura, 20865 Michaels Dr., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,418 sq. ft. single story home in the R- 1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR-87-017.1 Canova, 20436 Kilbride Dr., request to amend a previous design review · approval to allow an increase in floor area to 4,436 sq. ft. where 4,000 sq. ft. is allowed for a new two-story home in the R-1-12,500 zoning diswict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-87-061 Ho, 20133 Glen Brae Drive, request for design review approval of a second story addition to an existing one-story single family home in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The home will be 4,302 sq. ft. which exceeds the 4,000 sq. ft. floor area standard for the district. 9. V-87-011 Bonn, 20620 Komina Ave, request for variance approval to allow a new garage to be built with an 18 ft. front setback where 25 ft. is required in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A member of the Public requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3. Chairwoman Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. Chairwoman Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. Mr. and Mrs. Szybalski requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. Planner Caldwell asked that in Item 6, DR-87-077, Exhibit "A", strike Condition 12. GUCH/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 6 AS AMENDED,7 AND 9. Passed 6-0. 3. UP-87-014 Klien, 21400 Tollgate Rd., request for use permit approval to allow a winery in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from August 12, 1987. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, dated August 26, 1987. He noted letters received from the following individuals: - Ellen T. and George M. Henke Concerned Neighbors John L. and Patricia Krzich Sue Ellen Sprague/Concerned Neighbors - I. Meyer Heller, M.D. Dr. and Mrs. Edward G. Momrow - Armro Klein (Applicant) Planner Caldwell cited City Code regulations and reviewed the proposed operation and Conditions of Approval,~:.recommended by Staff. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:18 P.M. Mr. Arturo Klein, Applicant, was agreeable io the proposed Conditions; in response to Commissioner Tucker's question, he stated that maximum production would be approximately 10,000 bottles of wine. He stated that he planned to keep the portion of wine to be supplied to local restaurants; 50% of the product would be exported to Europe. Mr. John Krzich, 14664 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, stated that the streets in question were 26 ft. wide and noted potential hazards of trucks attempting to pass safely; he felt that the roads were not designed for commercial vehicles. In addition, he questioned enforcement of any conditions approved. Mr. Robert Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, expressed concern that precedence would be set by allowing this operation; he felt. that wholesale sales would be a commercial operation, noted potential problems with expansion of the operation and registered a protest against approving this Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. George Henke, 14701 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, was opposed to this Application; he cited increased traffic impacts, on-going operations to maintain the vineyards, pick up/delivery services required and decreasing property values. Precedence would be set. The City Attorney stated that home occupations did not usually involve the magnitude of product being considered in this Application; thus, the shipping and delivery of wine was a consideration in the Use Permit being requested. He reviewed permitted uses and noted that the request for a winery was a conditional use involving removal of a agricultural product from the site, processing and bottling off-site, delivery to the site and held for resale. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the essence of the Application was the storage of wine which would be transported to retail establishments. Questions before the Commission were type of vehicles used to remove the grapes and deliver the wine, number of bottles stored on-site. The City Attorney concurred that removal of the grapes for processing off-site and the delivery and storage of the bottled wine for sale distinguished this Application from uses already permitted. Mr. Henke responded that such was a very narrow view; in addition, Conditions of Approval did not address the hours of operation for shipping/delivery services. Mr. Klien reviewed the projected operations for the years 1985-86 and stated that initially he planned to transport and deliver the wine himself. He estimated that he could store 6,000 bottles of wine on-site. He would be agreeable to restfictions placed by the Commission. The City Attorney suggested a Condition, stating, "Wine storage area shall not be increased;" in addition, limitations could be placed on vehicles allowed and hours of delivery. Any such agreement would be specified in writing and recol-ded. Ms. Sue Park, 22194 Bank Mill Rd., Saratoga, noted safety hazards of Tollgate Rd. She felt that the operation was a commercial use and noted that limitations placed on the operation could not be policed; limiting wine storage by square footage would not address the concerns raised. Mrs. Sue Ellen Henke, 14701 Bougainvillea Ct., Saratoga, noted the following concerns: - Setting of precedent; letter of the Applicant, dated May 14, 1987, cited. - Questioned the term "construction" in Conditions of Approval, Exhibit "A", 2. - Noise from dogs on the property; additional activities would increase this disturbance - Requested information from real estate personnel regarding impact on property values - Requested sufficient time on noticing of hearings Ms. Lynn Sprague noted the following: - Precedent of selling alcoholic beverages from a residential area, even on a wholesale basis - Questioned why wine would be stored at his home when the Applicant already had additional off-site storage The Public Hearing remained open. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, Mr. Klien stated that it was more convenient and cost effective to store wines on-site, especially during the initial operations. Concerns summarized with the request that Staff address the following: - Traffic/safety impacts - Impacts on the privately maintained Tollgate Rd. - Type of use of what seemed to be a commercial venture - Impacts of additional agricultural equipment and storage of this equipment - Information on the Kennedy Winery - On-site storage of wines rather that use of other storage facilities - Revised Conditions of Approval addressing on-site storage, type of delivery vehicles used Consensus reached by the Commission to Continue UP-87-014 to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Continued 4. DR-87-060 Sinsley Construction, 12342 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of a new 5,683 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 12, 1987. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. In response to a question, Planner Caldwell stated that only 7% of the roof line was 27 1/2 feet in height; Chairwoman Harris noted similar Applications approved that appeared massive after construction. She noted her concem regarding the appearance of the rear elevation. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. SinsIcy discussed measurement of the roof line in excess of the 27 1/2 feet; he confirmed that Spanish Sand would be the major color used on the house. CLAY/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 P.M. Passed 6-0. Planner Caldwell called attention to the cross section drawing of plans submitted; Chairwoman Harris stated that her concerns were answered. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-060. Passed 6-0. 5. SD-87-013 Jordan, 14234 Paul Ave., request for building site and design review DR-87-090 approval for a new 2,966 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 12, 1987. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. Chairwoman Harris requested further information on the turn around cited in Exhibit "A" 1 .C; she noted concern that undeveloped properties attracted loiterers and litter. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:33 P.M. Mr. Dave Cunningham, Property Co-owner, provided information regarding this site. Mr. Jerry Bevens, adjacent Property Owner, also provided information; he was not favorable to requiring a dedication of a turn around area and felt that safety would not be enhanced. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 6-0. Planner Caldwell asked that in Exhibit "A", III, final sentence to read, "Hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to Final Map Approval." Mr. Cunningham asked that construction be allowed to proceed without waiting for installation of the hydrant. Payment had been made and a letter stating such could be obtained from San Jose Water Works Dept. The City Attorney reviewed usual procedures and suggested a Condition to Approval to read, "Evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be furnished that all arrangements have been made with the San Jose Water District for installation of a Fire Hydrant prior to Final Map Approval." GUCH/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-87-013, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0. GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-090 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 8. DR-87-061 Ho, 20133 Glen Brae Drive, request for design review approval of a second story addition to an existing one-story single family home in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The home will be 4,302 sq. ft. which exceeds the 4,000 sq. ft. floor area standard for the district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:43 P.M. : Mr. Ho, Applicant, did not wish to address the Planning Commission at the time. Mrs. Joanne Szybalski, 13409 Beaumont Ave., Saratoga, stated that her concern was that the proposed second story would obstruct their view of the hills; she had no other objection. Mr. Carl Szybalski, 13409 Beaumont Ave., Saratoga, provided information on the site. Mr. Ho stated that he could appreciated the concerns expressed by the Sxybalski's and did not know how he could assure them that their view would not be impacted. Mrs. Ho, Applicant, noted that the proposed addition would be to one side of their house and questioned whether their view would be blocked. GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:57 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission could not assure that there would be no impact from the addition; however, he did not feel that the impact would be dramatic. He noted the minimal 23 foot height and that the addition would not extend the entire length of the house. Commissioner Clay noted that square footage requested exceeded by 300 ft. that allowed and questioned whether this excess would impact neighbors. Chairwoman Harris and Commissioner Tucker stated that they had not made a site visit; Commissioner Kolstad did not feel that the size of the addition would have a significant impact compared to other two-story homes he saw; a reduction of square footage would not significantly reduce the impact. SIEGFRIED/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-061 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 3-1-2, Commissioner Clay opposed, Chairwoman Harris, Commissioner Tucker abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. UP-87-011 Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, request for use permit and design review DR-87-052 approval of plans to consU'uct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the .C-V zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 22, 1987. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. Planner Caldwell noted the following corrections: - Staff Analysis, fifth paragraph, to read, "...the height of the retaining walls will range between 3 ft. 4 in. and 11 ft. 7 in." : - Exhibit "A", 13., add, "The applicant shall obtain demolition permit prior to demolishing.." - Exhibit "A", 19., delete final phrase, "for inclusion into the Heritage Resource Inventory." The City Attorney advised the Commission regarding the rationale for deleting the above and noted that the structure had not been designated as a heritage resource and thus, there was no existing constraint on the property requiring a listing in the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Applicant, summarized concerns expressed by the Commission at the previous hearing, as follows: Height of townhouses, particularly as viewed from Big Basin Way Architectural style and compatibility with the Village Commercial/residential access to the site Revisions presented at the Study Session of August 4, 1987, included: Reduction in height of townhouses; townhouses at 33 ft. 6 in. would have no visual impact from Big Basin Way. She noted a correction due to an error in measuring the cross section at the highest point of the ridge, which would measure 33 ft. 6 in. Revised designs showed significant architectural detail and blended with the Village style Ingress/egress plans reviewed; posted signs would direct traffic with a review in two years She asked that Exhibit "A", 16.d., be deleted due to revised ingress/egress traffic patterns; an exhibit was presented addressing concerns expressed by Mrs. Ann Fitzsimmons in her letter of August 12, 1987. Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Task Force, reviewed testimony and stated that the proposed 1200 sq. ft. commercial use was insignificant. He added that vehicle ingress/egress over pedestrian walkways was undesirable and contested the statement that a tentative map could not be changed; an example was cited. He asked that the limited area available in the Village be used for commercial development. Mr. Terry Kirk, Chairman Plaza Association, stated that tenants of the Plaza del Robles were opposed to the proposed development; they favored retail use with public parking to the rear of this site. He cited parking needs peculiar to a condominium/townhouse development. Ms. Laura Mitchell, resident and business owner in Saratoga, cited inconsistencies of the proposal under consideration with the Saratoga Village Plan, namely: - Height of townhouses in excess of the allowed 25 ft. - Ingress/egress violations on Big Basin Way: - Visibility of parking from Big Basin Way Mr. Rankin added that the area in question had been predominately zoned visitor/commercial. Ms. Jackie Welch, 20925 Jacks Rd., Saratoga, asked for further consideration of a project that she felt was not compatible with the spirit of the Saratoga Village Plan and cited her letter. Her first preference for this site would be the preservation of the Marsh-Metzger house, perhaps as a bed and breakfast; a retail use on this site was acceptable. Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, objected to the height of the proposed development and questioned the compatibility of such with the existing area. She favored preservation of the historical, less intense development on this site and consideration of underground parking. Ms. Fanelli responded that the proposed project was consistent with the Saratoga Village Plan: - Project was on a transitional parcel of property, located between commercial and residential - Village Plan called for residential use to be located above or behind commercial structures; in this, the project was consistent with the Plan - On-site parking available for both the residential and commercial use - Commercial parking was behind the building and designed to protect the street view Ms. Fanelli added that issues discussed with the Village Merchants Association and at public hearings were larger than the project under consideration, such as Parking District 3 and public rest rooms. Negotiations were in process to attempt to relocate the Marsh-Metzger house. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:48 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Siegfried understood the concerns raised by Village merchants; however, he felt that the proposal was a reasonable compromise with the various elements under consideration. The Applicant had complied with the Commission's request to redesign a commercial structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried felt that due to placement of the townhouses to the rear of the site, height would not have a significant visual impact on Big Basin Way. He was favorable to the project as proposed and felt that delaying this application for further considerations in the implementation of the Village Plan was not possible. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to a combined commercial/residential development of this site; however, she noted concern regarding adequacy of the proposed parking for residential use, the disruption of pedestrian walkways by ingress/egress of vehicles and noted consider- ation of comments made by Village Merchants. Commissioner Clay summarized comments of the public as follows: questions regarding the amount of commercial use, the best use of the site and ingress/egress unto Big Basin Way. He felt that compromises had been reached in the mix of commercial/residential use, height had been satisfactorily addressed due to the drop off of the rear property reducing the visual impact and use of rear ingress/egress by residents; he was favorable to the project as proposed. Commissioner Guch understood concerns regarding the ingress/egress of this site; however, emergency access had to be addressed also. She felt that parking for the commercial structure would not visually impact Big Basin Way nor w,ould the height of the townhouses impact the street due to the stepping down of the property. She complimented the Applicants on the architectural redesign of the project as it more closely compliments the Village atmosphere. Staff noted the following changes in addition to those previously stated: - Exhibit "A" 5., to read, "Height of the four'townhouse units at the ends of the buildings shall not exceed 31 ft. 9 in.in height. The remainder of the units shall not exceed 33 ft. 6 in. in height." - Resolution UP-87-011, first paragraph, height as amended above. - Exhibit "A", 16. d, add, "If an Emergency access gate is deemed necessary .... " SIEGFRIED/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-87-011, AS AMENDED. Passed 4-1-1, Commissioner Tucker opposed, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. SIEGFRIED/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-052, EXHIBIT "A" AS AMENDED. Passed 4-1-1, Commissioner Tucker opposed, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. Chairwoman Harris added that she felt that this was the best compromise possible. Break 10:04 - 10:15 P.M. 11. DR-87-069 Pan Cal Development, 20960 Bowhill Ct., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,417 sq. ft. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit for Items 11 and 12 Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. Planner Caldwell noted a correction on Staff Analysis, Lot 10, Pad Elevation to read, 351 ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:23 P.M. Mr. Marty Oakley, Representing Pan Cal DevelOpment, addressed the following comments in reference to the Staff Report: - Proposed houses were compatible with existing homes; - On Lot 9, a two-story house was placed on the lower of the two building pads, which, in effect, reduced the height of the structure by four feet - The two-story element was placed to the center of the house, sides were one-story, thus the house was not in his view, bulky or boxy elevation. - Questioned the calculation of the square footage; approvals of adjacent houses cited - Noted the small percentage of roof which exceeded the 26 ft. height limitation; he discussed how he arrived at the 5% figure Letter from A. Becker, dated August 24, 1987, noted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 AUGUST 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairwoman Harris disputed the Applicant's method of calculating the percentage of roof in excess of the height limitation; she noted that the 5% in excess of the height limitation included almost a third of the length of the house. Calculation of the roof profile rather than the total roof area was not the intent of the Commission in formulating design review standards. She noted the bulkiness of the proposed house at a 28 ft. height. Commissioner Clay asked that height and square footage of this house be reduced; Commissioner Tucker concurred but commended the Applicant on the 60 ft. front setback. She favored similar setbacks for other large houses. Commissioner Kolstad noted the bulk of other homes in the area; in addition to height, the felt that the length of the house was excessive, especially given the tapering of the lot toward the front. Mr. Oakley responded that he was willing to lower the height of the roof; however he felt that it would be a hardship on the Applicant to require reduced square footage, given the large size of the lot. He was agreeable to bringing revised designs to a study session. Commissioner Guch noted her concern regarding the height of the house. The Public Hearing remained open. Consensus reached to Continue DR-87-069 to the Public Hearing on September 23, 1987, with a Study Session to be held on September 1', 1987. 12. DR-87-070 Pan Cal Development, 20963 Bowhill Ct., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,095 sq. ft. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Mr. Oakley, Representing the Applicant, reviewed the proposed design; he objected to double counting the area above the entry which could not be used as living area and removal of this area would not reduce the bulk of the house. Chairwoman Harris was favorable to a variation in the roof line which design review standards had attempted to address; Commissioner Siegfried concurred. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern regarding the bulk of this house. Commissioner Clay noted the accumulated effect of the higher building pad and a two-story house and asked that square footage be reduced. Ms. Ruth Bracline made the general observation that precedence was being set in that larger homes for hillside development were being approved; she asked that the Commission regulate the development of the hillsides. Consensus reached to Continue DR-87-070 to the Public Hearing on September 23, 1987, with a study session to be held on September 1, 1987 MISCELLANEOUS; 13. Tree Removal Permit, 87~122, Smith, consider neighbor's appeal of staff decision to allow removal of two pine trees at 18514 Aspesi Dr. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Article 15-50 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. Mr. David Smith, Appellant, reviewed his letter (Exhibit 1) and added that the size of the trees had not been noted on the Tree Removal Permit Application; he questioned removal of a tree without knowing the size. With regard to Staff Report, he asked for information regarding the diseases of the trees and asked whether branches had, in fact, fallen from the trees. He questioned whether equitable treatment was given by the City to citizens. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 AUGUST 26, 1987 MISCELLANEOUS Continued Mr. Gary Horn, Applicant, stated that he had apologized to the City of Saratoga and was not aware that he was required to have a tree removal permit until one of the trees had already been cut down. He stated that he had taken necessary measures to remedy this situation and reviewed problems caused by the trees. In response to Commissioner Clay's question, the Planning Director stated that City Staff had verified that the tree was diseased. The City Attorney reviewed usual procedures followed and summarized that the main objective in these cases was replacement the tree removed. He stated that with all due respect to the Appellant, this proceeding was a waste of time; only in situations where individuals had knowingly and deliberately cut down a significant tree would punitive measures be taken. He did not see that such was the case in this instance. Mr. Smith responded that he was very upset at the loss of this tree. The City Attorney advised the Commission that they could specify both the size and a fast growing species of the replacement tree in order to respond to Mr. Smith's concerns. SIEGFRIED/CLAY MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 87-122, CONDITIONS GRANTING APPROVAL MODIFIED TO STATE THAT THE TREE BE REPLACED, TYPE AND SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY HORICULTURALIST, AND BE A MINIMUM SIZE OF 15 GALLONS. Passed 6-0. Mr. Smith asked that adequate information be provided on Permit Applications. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of August 5, 1987, - Noted and filed. 2. Letter from Carol Probst-Caughey re: change to Minutes - Acknowledged, changed, filed. Oral by Commission: None ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:25 P.M. (~arol A. ProLb st-Cau ghe''