Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 12, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of March 22, 1989 Commissioner Harris asked that on Page 8 sixth paragraph, her comment be amended to read, "...she noted that the improvement on the Gypsy Hill Rd. project had already been made." On the same page, add to her comment, "...approval would allow a similar sign on the adjoining site." Chairperson Guch asked that on Page 9, a comment be added to her remarks to read, "...and she hoped that the level of lighting within the sign would not be intrusive." HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Col. E.T. Barco presented photographs of signs in violation of the City's Sign Ordinance. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was prope~y posted on April 7, 1989 Commission Reorganization: BURGER/HARRIS NOMINATED COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED FOR CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 7-0. KOLSTAD/TAPPAN NOMINATED COMMISSIONER TUCKER FOR VICE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. DR-89-009 Shahabi, 14307 Old Wood Rd., request for design review approval ta construct a new 5,220 sq. ft.two-story single family residence in the R-!) 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to April 26, 1989, for applicant to revise plans. 2. DR-88-095 Hur, 20052 Sunset Ave., request for design review and building site ap- SD-88-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6,182 sq.ft. single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to May 10, 1989, to resolve neighbor and staff concerns. 3. SUP-89-003 Pronger-Eagleston, 20600 Lomita Ave., request for second unit use permit approval to legalize and existing 297 sq. ft. second unit in the R-l- 20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the city Code. Continued to May 10, 1989, per request of the applicant. 4. Mt. Eden Rd. A public hearing to consider certification of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed four (4) lot residential subdivision directly north of Tract 7761 of the Mt Eden Estates Subdivision. The project consists of 52.5 acres located in the NHR zone district and is proposed for the development of four single family homes in a remainder parcel comprising 31 acres to remain in a Williamson Act contract. The purpose of the hearing is to con- sider the adequacy of an environmental document prepared to identify potential impacts which may result from the proposed subdivision. Continued to April 26, 1989, at the request of the EIR consultant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. SUP-88-001.2 Rose 14725 Sobey Rd., request to modify a condition of approval for a second unit use permit. Applicant requests to be excused from a requirement to install street improvements along 260 ft. of frontage on a 1.88 acre site in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from March 22, 1989. 6. DR-89-012 Lohr, 14642 Sobey Oaks Ct., request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,689 sq. ft. two-story single family residence in the R-l- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. SM-89-001 Gantayat, 18642 Montewood Dr., request for modification of conditions of approval of application SDR-1591. The applicant is requesting that conditions for widening of Quito road, installing an asphalt berm and undergrounding existing overhead utilities be deleted from the Planning Commission's approved resolution. The site is located in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. 8. SDR-1602.2 Flynn, Comer Drive, request for approval of a one-year extension to the expiration date of a tentative building site approval for one parcel of 5.25 acres in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. 9. DR-88-105 Frankel, 19123 Via Tesoro, request for design review approval for a new 6,016 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR-89-003 Woolworth Construction, 14918 Three Oaks Ct., request for design review approval for a new 5,960 sq. ft. one-story single family dwelling in the R- 1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. UP-574.1 Brookside Swim Club, 19127 Cox Ave., a resolution of the Planning Commission implementing a decision to grant a conditional use permit amendment for extension of swim meet hours. 12. DR-87-161.1 Hulberg, 12820 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., a resolution of the Planning Commission implementing a decision modifying an existing freestanding sign and approving exterior lighting for a retail/commercial center in the C- N zone district. Chairperson Guch noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items 1-4 were being Continued. The City Attorney requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. A member of the Public requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 9. Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 11. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 12. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5, 6, 7 AND 10. Passed 7-0. 8. SDR-1602.2 Flynn, Comer Drive, request for approval of a one-year extension to the expiration date of a tentative building site approval for one parcel of 5.25 acres in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The City Attorney cited the Model Resolution for SDR-1601.1, General Conditions, 17. and 18; Application was removed for discussion since there was a water line and a new hydrant installed by an adjacent property owner in the area. The City has entered into a reimbursement agreement with this property owner; Staff asked that a Condition 30 be added to read, "Developers shall par- ticipate in a reimbursement agreement for water facilities installed by Ting if such facilities are used or relied upon by the developer to satisfy Conditions 17 or 18." The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Ms. Luanne Nieman requested information of the Planning Director on noticing of this Application. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:46 P.M. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued SIEGFRIEDEUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE SDR-1602.2 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING A CONDITION 30 TO READ, "DEVELOPERS SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A REIM- BURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATER FACILITIES INSTALLED BY TING, IF SUCH FACILITIES ARE USED OR RELIED UPON BY THE DEVELOPER TO SATISFY CONDITIONS 17 OR 18". Passed 7-0. 9. DR-88-105 Frankel, 19123 Via Tesoro, request for design review approval for a new 6,016 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:46 P.M. Mr. Peter Shutz, Architect, commented as follows: - Asked that in Condition 6, exterior colors would be subject to Staff approval - Condition 10: he questioned the accuracy of the 10 ft. distance from the Oak tree in question and added that this Ordinance-sized tree was diseased and would eventually have to be removed. - Condition 18. a., amended to read in part, "...from a public street to proposed garage." - Condition 19. to read, "Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius per Exhibit A." BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 7-0 Planning Director Eroslie was favorable to the suggestions of the Architect; with respect to Condition 10, he suggested that removal of the tree be subject to approval of the City Horticulturist. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 7-0 SIEGFRIEDfYUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-105 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: IN CONDITION 6, THE EXTERIOR COLORS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL; CONDITION 10, REMOVAL OF THE ORDINANCE-SIZED OAK TREE TO BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY HORTICULTURIST. CONDITION 18. a., AMENDED TO READ IN PART, "...FROM A PUBLIC STREET TO PROPOSED GARAGE." CONDITION 19. TO READ, "CURVES: DRIVEWAY SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM INSIDE RADIUS PER EXHIBIT A." 11. UP-574.1 Brookside Swim Club, 19127 Cox Ave., a resolution of the Planning Commission implementing a decision to grant a conditional use permit amendment for extension of swim meet hours. Commissioner Burger stated she removed this Item in order to cast a dissenting vote. The Public Heating was opened at 7:50 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 7-0. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE UP-574.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting. 12. DR-87-161.1 Hulberg, 12820 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., a resolution of the Planning Commission implementing a decision modifying an existing freestanding sign and approving exterior lighting for a retail/commercial center in the C- N zone district. Commissioner Harris stated she removed this Item in order to cast a dissenting vote. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:54 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 7-0. SIEGFRIEDfFAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-87-161.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-2, Commissioners Harris and Kolstad dissenting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 13. DR-88-076 Yoshioka, 20570 Prospect Rd., request for design review, tentative map and use permit approval to construct six, one and two-story condominium units; create a two-lot subdivision of 53,575 sq. ft. and 23,090 sq. ft.; and use permit approval to allow a residential use in the neighborhood commercial zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from March 22, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented an update of this Application; Staff recommended approval. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. The Applicant was not present. Mr. Harlan Snyder, 20602 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, stated he approved the revised Application. He noted an on-site retaining wall which required maintenance and questioned how he would access it. The Planning Director responded that a Condition could be added to address this situation. Mr. Thomas Ackroyd, 20608 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, stated he already discussed the issue with Mr. Tal and a verbal agreement that all parties would share in the maintenance of the wall had been reached. Mr. Tai agreed not to remove some large trees adjacent to the property line; however, if the trees were damaged during construction, he asked that replacement trees be required. The City Attorney confirmed that a Condition could be added, specifically requiring that the above situation be included in the CC&Rs, which required approval by the City. Condition to read, "The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the City, and require that the CC&Rs establish a common obligation for maintaining the retaining wail along the property line." Mr. Tom Morgan, 20612 Ritanna Ct. Saratoga, seconded the comments of Mr. Ackroyd and added that he had some remaining concerns about drainage on the subject property. Commissioner Harris noted the absence of a requirement to install the required landscaping. The Planning Director responded that Model Resolution contained such a Condition which was intended to be included in this Application. In the absence of the Applicant, Application was carried forward for a brief length of time. 14. DR-89-006 Achkar, 21425 Tollgate Rd., request for design review approval for a new 5,220 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: Introduced the Project Architect and Engineer Reviewed the Application and stated that the Staff Report had covered the design issues Presented colored renderings showing the proposed landscaping, the elevation of the proposed house and the natural grade of the site; the Landscaping Plan was reviewed Pointed out the open space easement, site dimensions and the location of the proposed structures Confirmed that the Applicant did not intend to plant trees next to their property line, which would obstruct the view of the adjacent property owner, Mr. Frizell Mr. Clarence Frizell, Contiguous Property Owner, stated he was pleased with the proposed plan which would minimize the view impacts and privacy intrusion for both property owners; however, he was distressed over any consideration to relocate the pool from the placement proposed. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Passed 7-0 Commissioner Siegfried felt the proposed location for the pool was correct and would have the least impact to the adjacent property owner; other members of the Commission concurred. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Commission returned to Public Hearings Item 13. Mr. Paul Tai apologized for his lateness which was due to the illness of his daughter. He con- firmed that an agreement had been reached with adjacent property owners regarding maintenance of the retaining wail; the CC&Rs could state that access would be granted. He was agreeable to a Condition requiting that the trees would be protected during construction; if damaged, replacement trees would be planted. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Passed 7-0 SIEGFRIED/tUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-076 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: - THE EXISTING TREES SHALL BE RETAINED. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A PLAN FOR PRESERVATION OF THE TREES AND THE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY TREES DAMAGED DUR- ING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED; - THE CC&RS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY, AND REQUIRE THAT A COMMON OBLIGATION FOR MAINTAINING THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED, IN ADDITION THE CC&RS SHALL PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE WALL; - LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY. THE APPLICANT SHALL POST BOND WITH THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CONDITION UPON THE REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTION FOR WATER CONSERVA- TION WHEN THE DROUGHT CONDITIONS NO LONGER EXIST. Passed 7-0. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-016 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-88-013 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 15. DR-89-008 Hayes, 21130 Ambric Knolls Rd., request for design review approval to construct a 2,714 sq. ft. one and two-story addition to an existing home for a total floor area of 4,078 sq. ft. in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Harris reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie noted that a Representative of the Geologist's Office was present. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Larry Hayes, Applicant, commented as follows: - Noted that Ambric Knolls had a PD designation due to the landslide on-site; the landslide was designated "ancient remote" and was possibly 18,000 years old - Extensive soils testing had been completed on this site and the data could be relied upon - Applicants were charged with designing a house that would be safe if an 8.25 earthquake struck, with the epicenter within two miles of the site - Geotechnical Consultants assured them that in such an event, the property would move 3 inches Reviewed the history of the Application, including the previous approval of the City Noted their dismay when the City Geologist decided that the revised plans should be denied on the basis of increased occupancy Noted the benefit derived from approval of the Application, namely, a new entrance constructed off Bank Mill Rd. which would provide an additional access for emergency vehicles Asked the Commission to review the intent of the Ordinance and recognize that earthquakes would continue to occur in the State of California In response to Chairperson Guch's remarks, Mr. Hayes stated that Ordinance requirements did not address the existing home; nonetheless, Applicants planned to restructure the existing home to make it more stable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Park Miller, Architect, commented as follows: - The dormant landslide deposit that existed on-site had been stable for many years - Results of a state of the an analysis and stability study were reviewed; the addition had been specially designed to have a minimum safety factor of 10, secondly, the structure could be re- leveled if such an event occurred and finally, the addition was isolated from the original house through use of a slip-joint between the two structures - The PD zone established the requirements for adding on or constructing a new structure; these requirements had been met with completion of the in-depth soils work - The Code did not require the existing home to be upgraded, but only that it be stabilized; how- ever, such would be counter-productive for the Applicant - Noted that presently there was no drainage control on-site; Applicants proposed to provide a drainage system along with a retaining wall and .a secondary access - Basis of the Geologist's recommendation was that occupancy would be increased by an addition to the home; rather, requirements placed on the Application would mitigate the existing situation Mr. Frans Spielhoff, 21024 Bank Mill Rd., Saratoga, was concerned regarding a row of Pine trees which screened his property; he asked that these trees be preserved. Secondly, he was concerned that the access of Bank Mill Rd. would be used for more than just emergency access; such would create additional traffic. Commissioner Siegfried responded that installation of a gate would prevent the use of the road for other then emergency access; he asked the City Geologist to address the question of safety. Mr. Ted Sayre, City Geologist, presented a Site Plan showing the existing home, new addition, and the boundaries of the landslide. He confirmed that state of the art studies had been done; how- ever, advanced technology was not well proven. There was substantial uncertainty regarding how any landslide would behave in the future; there was a significant degree of movement that new structures would have to be designed to resist. In response to questions raised by the Commission, he confamed that this was not a stabilized slide. Chairperson Guch stated she did not understand why it was less desirable to have an expansion to an existing structure, than an entirely new structure. Mr. Sayre noted that an addition would dra- matically increase the living space and the potential number of residents. The Chair responded that the Application approved in March 1988, was for a house of approximately of 6,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger stated she had difficulty connecting the number of occupants with degree of safety; Chairperson Guch concurred. Commissioner Siegfried noted that one of the major concerns in hillside development was erosion and/or slippage from drainage; he questioned whether such would be problem on the subject site. Mr. Sayre responded that their analysis showed that drainage would not be a problem on this site; the concern was an occurrence of seismic activity. In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, Mr. Sayre reviewed the process necessary to stabilize the landslide on-site and noted that massive grading would probably be required. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. Passed 7-0. The City Attorney reviewed the history of this Application; ff the new Application were approved, the City would be obtaining an agreement indicating that the Applicant was aware of the risks. The City would not acquire liability by approving an application. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there would not be an increased hazard to adjacent property owners from approving the request under consideration; in addition, obtaining the new emergency access was a significant benefit for the general public. He reluctantly, would approve the request. Commissioner Kolstad would have preferred to see the existing home removed with construction of a new structure as originally approved in 1988; he was not satisfied with the geological interpre- tation provided and requested additional information. The main issue was the amount of the increase in the square footage; he felt he would not be able to approve the Application. Commissioner Tappan concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments and reiterated that the emergency access would be a significant contribution to the area. He felt the existing situation would not be worsened by this Application; with consideration that the City would not be exposed to liability, he stated he would favor granting the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Siegfried and noted that a hold harmless agree- ment provided greater comfort in approving this Application; philosophically, she opposed gov- ernment intervention to protect citizens to the extent that they could not build on their own property. Individuals had to assume some of the risks. Commissioner Harris stated she may approve the request if strict Conditions were placed on the Application requiring that the existing home be upgraded; she asked Staff to present such Condi- tions for consideration of the Commission. With the addition of these requirements, the safety of the present structure as well as the benefit of the new emergency access road would be gained. Chairperson Guch agreed with the comments of Commissioners Siegfried and Tappan; she did not feel that the proposed addition would increase the risk. She suggested a Continuance of the Item. Commissioner Siegfi'ied asked that the Resolution presented for consideration address the safety factors, the improvement of the existing structure, and one which clearly spelled out that the hazard was a severe earthquake activity; in addition, the increased safety from the new emergency access road should also be noted. Chairperson Guch noted that a Finding of Public Safety would have to be made to approve the Item. Staff was directed to prepare a Draft Resolution for DR-89-008. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-008 TO APRIL 26, 1989. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Kolstad did not hear the following Item due to a potential conflict of interest. 16. UP-89-004 S.K.Y. Limited, 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for use permit approval to install a six ft. high by 5 ft. wide, freestanding, non-illuminated tenant identification sign at a professional building in the P.A. zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Joe Long, Manager of an adjacent building, noted that the building in question did not con- form with the required setbacks; such had an impact on the building he managed. He.was concerned that the signage proposed would further obstruct the view of their signs. Applicable City Ordinances on signage were cited. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Passed 7-0 Commissioner Siegfried asked that Staff respond to Mr. Long's comments. Planning Director Emslie responded that the Planning Commission had the authority to review flee standing signs as a pan of the Comprehensive Sign Program; such was the basis for bringing this Item before the Commission. Commissioner Tucker questioned the term "mounted window sign". Consensus reached by the Commission that the wording "mounted window sign" be changed to read, "window sign" to more clearly reflect the intention of Staff to prohibit all window signs. In response to Commissioner Tucker's second question, the City Attorney noted that the proposal being submitted was pan of a comprehensive sign program; he suggested an added Condition to read, "Previous sign approvals granted by the City are superseded by this approval and are no longer have any force or effect". Chairperson Guch cited the Model Resolution, Condition 3; Planning Director Emslie responded that the intention of this Condition was to require removal of signs in the upper balcony areas, all window signs, and the front ann sign; it was not intended to preclude individual identification. Such should be made clear in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Tappan felt that signage in the City had gotten out of hand. He was uncomfortable with the fact that the Applicant was not present at the hearing and asked that the Commission's concerns be conveyed. He felt the Applicant had abused the situation in that signs were unsightly and created an undesirable precedent. Commissioner Burger concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Guch questioned how extensive a home had to be notched to accommodate a tree. Commissioner Burger agreed that the tree would have to be removed sometime; she wished to preserve it until the replacement l~ees had a chance to grow. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE ADMINIS- TRATIVE DECISION, GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. Passed 4-3, Chairperson Guch, Commissioners Tucker, Tappan dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried advised the Applicant that if he could produce evidence that the integrity of the house were being damaged, he would change his vote. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. 2. Preliminary report re: modification to subdivision standards to eliminate flag lots. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report COMMUNICATIONS; Written: 1. Heritage Preservation Commission of March 15,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: AD.IOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Res ,...ectfully mitted, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 APRIL 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tucker asked that the background and printing be the same for signage at this site; she did not object to the use of business logos on signage. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE UP-89-004 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING A CONDITION THAT ALL DOOR SIGNS ARE TO BE SIMILAR IN STYLE, NOT TO EXCEED TWO (2) SQUARE FEET; INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ON THE MONUMENT SIGN ARE TO HAVE THE SAME UNOBTRUSIVE BACKGROUND COLOR. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. 17. DR-89-031 Kwong, 20221 Herriman Ave., appeal of administrative approval to remove one ordinance size pine tree per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Harris reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:58 P.M. Mr. Joseph Kwong, Applicant, presented pictures; he noted that the tree would grow forever and was already harming the roof of the overhang and pulling up the deck flooring on the porch. He stated that he intended to plant a replacement tree. Mr. George Thome, Appellant, presented pictures and noted the age and beauty of the neighbor's tree which shaded several homes and properties from the intense afternoon heat. The tree could be saved without damaging the structure or aesthetics of the Applicant's property; he suggested the Applicant's porch roof be notched and the roots underlying the porch trimmed. A permit allowing the removal of this tree had no stipulation regarding a replacement tree or size of such, if required. Mr. Leonard Zuker, Former property owner, stated that he understood the Applicant's concerns; however, the notch in the porch roof could be expanded as had happened in the past and the roots could be trimmed again to prevent them from pulling up the flooring. He noted that the foundation of the house had not cracked and cited the benefits and beauty of this tree. Mr. Kwong reiterated his concerns about the presence of this tree. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:09 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Siegfried noted that while the tree may have to be removed, he wished to preserve i~-.. until more significant impacts to the house were visible. Commissioner Tappan did not agree; while he was very favorable to the preservation of trees, this Applicant was exposed to potential damage of his home. In this case, he sided with the home owner; however, stipulations for a replacement tree should be added to the Permit. Granting the appeal suggested that the Commission required this property owner to be exposed to potential damage. Commissioner Kolstad concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. Commissioner Siegfried added that he could be persuaded to deny the Appeal and allow the Appli- cant to remove the tree, if the Applicant could present a horticulturist's or engineer's considered opinion that there was reason for concern. Commissioner Tucker concurred. Commissioner Tappan added that the tree in question had a shallow root structure; he was reluctanl to advise anyone to prune the roots since the integrity of the tree could be damaged by such actions. Commissioner Harris suggested replacement trees be planted with the intent that the tree in ques- tion would not be removed for the next few years; she noted the impact of removing this large tree. Chairperson Guch commented that granting the Appeal required Mr. Kwong to make structural changes to his home to accommodate a tree. She was not favorable to placing the Applicant in a position where he would have to be ever vigilant to potential damage; such was unreasonable. Commissioner Tucker stated that she would have to side with the home owner. Commissioner Kolstad noted that he had experienced a tree falling on his home' surprisingly there was very litfie structural damage to the home. He wished to preserve the tree in'order to buy some time for replacement trees to grow.