Loading...
PC Min 08/13/2002CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY AUGUST 13, 2002 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 2002, was called to order at 7:32 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Francois, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Tom Francois Bob Alderete George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Joseph D. Hernandez Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 2002, were approved. (4-0-1- 1; Commissioner Hernandez was absent and Commissioner Jones abstained.) COMMUNICATIONS. There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2002 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. PLN2002-76 Taborek, R & A Public Heating to consider the Appeal of Richard and Arline Taborek of an Administrative Decision by the Community Development Director for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2002-76) to remove a Redwood tree on property owned by Richard and Arline Taborek located at 1441 Walnut Drive in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. The project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this is an appeal of an Administrative Decision by the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit. · Informed that a residential addition was approved in June that includes a three-car garage. The tree in question is located two feet from the foundation of this garage. · Added that the project arborist recommended the removal of two trees, a Douglas Fir and a Redwood tree. The Community Development Director approved the removal of the Douglas Fir due to its health but denied the removal of the Redwood tree. · Stated that staff recommends a modification to the building plan be made to allow the retention of the tree. · Said that the applicant/appellant is concerned about the impact of this residential addition to this Redwood tree due to its shallow root system. · Advised that the property owner is available and that neighbors within 300 feet were notified of this heating. Commissioner Gibbons questioned the comment contained within the arborist's June letter that states that his letter should serve as "due legal notice of a hazardous situation." City Attorney William Seligmann said that this letter simply reflects the arborist's opinion. Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Rich Taborek, Applicant/Appellant, 1441 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Said that he has received additional information from his arborist since his first report that identifies the tree as diseased. · Pointed out that there has already been damage to a concrete patio and driveway as a result of the shallow root system. This is with the tree 20 feet away while this tree would be even closer to the new garage. · Declared this tree as a very severe hazardous situation. Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2002 Page 3 Advised that his architect has said that the garage cannot be moved to the left, as it would impact windows for two bedrooms. Additionally, they cannot move the garage over to the fight, as it would encroach on setbacks. · Said that he has more than half an acre and that his home is a reasonable size house for this lot. · Added that he has 69 trees on his property and planted 40 of them. Added that some of these trees are as high as 70 feet tall. · Stated that this tree is in the way and needs to go. · Assured that he is willing to put in the required replacement tree but asks that the condition for a 30-day replacement be changed to allow replacement within 30 days of building final. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Taborek why the issue of this tree was not considered at the time of the Site and Architectural Review Permit. Mr. Rich Taborek replied that the removal of this tree was shown on the plans. Ms. Jennifer Davis, Project Designer, 431 Harrison Avenue, Campbell: · Said that she included the drip lines for the tree on the revised site plan. · Said that this proposed home is of a reasonable size for this lot and that the proposed three- car garage cannot easily be moved from the proposed location. Mr. Curtis A. Blank, Project Arborist, A-1 Expert Tree Services, P.O. Box 507, Sanger, CA: · Said that his June evaluation indicated that this shallow root tree is a safety concern so close to the house. · Added that on his subsequent August visit, he climbed the tree after noticing some "die- back" at the top of the tree, excessive needle drop and possible bore infestation. · Stated that upon climbing the tree he found bore infestation and took a sample. He later dropped the sample off with a colleague, a PhD, who later confirmed bark beetle. Dr. Smith also advised that this tree would die within one to two years and that it is difficult to stop the damage. · Said that this diagnosis proves that the tree is a risk to his client's home. · Clarified that his recommendation for removal is based on the shallow root system and bore infestation. Commissioner Doorley pointed out that there was no mention of disease in Mr. Blank's initial report. Mr. Curtis A. Blank: · Said that his June 20th letter identifies damage to the patio and garage floor and states that the tree is a safety concern. At that time, he did not climb the tree as he thought his letter would be sufficient to substantiate the removal of this tree. Commissioner Doorley asked Mr. Blank how common bore infestation of a tree of this size occurs and whether any similarly sized tree would be in the same condition. Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Curtis A. Blank: · Replied that he did not know for certain and that he could only address this tree that he had personally evaluated. · Added that once he climbed the tree in August he detected a crack, which could only be found by climbing the tree. · Added that infestation is found more often in Pines than Redwoods. · Reiterated that this tree already has damaged roots and bore infestation and is therefore a compromised tree. · Reminded that he took a sample from the tree to a Ph.D. for analysis and confirmation of infestation. Commissioner Alderete: · Asked Mr. Curtis A. Blank about his legal notice in his letter and asked what analysis he made to reach that statement. · Inquired whether Mr. Curtis A. Blank is sure of what he now says and whether the other Redwood on site is also at risk. · Stated that it might be reasonable to warn his client if the other tree also represents a threat. Mr. Curtis A. Blank: Declared that the Redwood is a shallow rooted tree and that this particular Redwood already has damaged roots and is infested with the Western Shadow Bore. Bore infestation occurs in a relative small number of Redwood trees. Commissioner Alderete stated that Mr. Blank's new findings should be documented; as should the verification of bore infestation that he received from the Ph.D. Mr. Curtis A. Blank stated his willingness to provide such documentation for the record. Commissioner Alderete stated that he has a difficult time accepting non-documented statements. Mr. Curtis A. Blank assured that he is willing to document all the comments he made before the Commission this evening. Ms. Joanne Carroll, 1395 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Said that she lives two doors down from this property. · Stated that if the tree is unhealthy she would not be against its removal. · Expressed her concern over the fact that the tree has not been protected during construction and that no protective fencing was installed prior to commencement of construction. · Added that following a complaint to the City, a "chicken wire" fence was installed but that mounds of earth have been piled on either side of the tree so the tree is still not adequately protected. · Said that there do not appear to be a lot of visible roots to be seen in the open trenches. · Stated that if the City intends to protect trees, it should not issue building permits until the appropriate tree protection is in place. Commissioner Gibbons asked staff if a Tree Protection Plan was required and/or implemented. Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2002 Page 5 Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied no. Commissioner Gibbons asked which Department is responsible to ensure that this occurs. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied both Building and Planning jointly are responsible to assure tree protection. Mr. Rich Taborek, Applicant/Appellant: · Informed the Commission that once he received notice of the requirement to protect this tree, he took measures to do so and installed a six-foot high chain link fence (not chicken wire) and that they ceased construction within 15 feet of the tree. However, a 14-foot ditch was already in place for the planned basement. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Distributed a statement from their neighbor, Analise Wrightson seeking the maintenance of the tree. · Distributed a photograph of another tree (identified as an oak) on the block that was supposed to be retained and is now clearly dead and stated that this tree demonstrates the City's lack of tree protection and the fact the existing rules are not being enforced. · Pointed out that in another case in the neighborhood, the property owners carefully protected their mature tree prior to commencing construction on the site and that tree survives. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell, stated that this shows that the process didn't work and it is important for the City to make sure that the process doesn't fail again. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber stressed that importance in maintaining old growth trees. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out to the Kiehtreibers that the construction has not yet begun on the property where the tree has died and therefore cannot be determine as the cause of that tree's demise. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber pointed out that the tree died after the patio decking was installed around it. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber stated that this is a wider process issue. Ms. Arline Taborek, Applicant/Appellant, 1441 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Distributed a binder of photographs that inventory the trees on their property. · Declared that she and her husband love trees and have themselves planted more than 40 on their property. · Stated that they have properly maintained the trees on their property. Commissioner Alderete asked Ms. Taborek about her June 12th letter that stated the intention to keep the Redwood tree in front of the garage. Planning Commission MinuLcs of August 13, 2002 Page 6 Ms. Arline Taborek replied that she was speaking of the second Redwood tree on the site. Mr. Curtis A. Blank, Project Arborist, stated that the crack in the tree is not due to neglect such as lack of watering. Commissioner Gibbons asked staff to verify whether the original drawings indicate the removal of this tree. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied yes. He added that staff advised the property owners that they would have to process a Tree Removal Permit to remove this tree. Upon receiving the June 12th letter, staff understood their intent was to keep the Redwood tree although it was closer to the structure that originally thought. Since there was no plan to remove any additional trees impacted by this project, there was no Tree Protection Plan required. Commissioner Alderete asked if the City Arborist participates in these decisions. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that the City does not have an Arborist. Commissioner Alderete asked if there are resources to pay for an Arborist. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied no. Mr. Rich Taborek, Applicant/Appellant, reiterated that the tree drip line is within the garage area. Chair Francois closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that had a detailed analysis been provided by the Arborist at the beginning, this item would not be before the Commission. · Stated that he wished the Commission had been provided with the new information before tonight' s meeting. · Described a situation in his townhome complex where a neighbor planted a Redwood within a 10 by 15 foot yard area. High winds blew that tree over when it was young. The owner propped it back up and today that tree is over 70 feet high and healthy. · Asked if it is possible that the other trees on site and/or in the area are diseased as well. Commissioner Gibbons: Said that there have been a lot of "oops" in this matter. · Stated that she understood staff's interpretation of the owner's intention to retain the tree based on their letter from June. · Said that there has been a loss of opportunity to work with the applicant during the original review of the house design in such a way that this tree could be retained. · Added that the Commission is left in a tough situation. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that based on the Arborist's review, this tree represents a safety hazard. Planning Commission Minmcs of August 13, 2002 Page 7 Said that he feels the Tree Ordinance is only intended to apply to developers rather than to impede homeowners from the right to remove a tree from their residential property. Commissioner Doorley: · Seconded the comments made by Commissioner Gibbons. · Said that he is troubled by the manner in which this tree removal request is coming about and that he would not like to see this type of situation in the future. · Stated that he sees trees as a community asset. · Added that at this time, he believes that this tree needs to go. Chair Francois: · Stated that he found Commissioner Doorley's comments to be astute. · Added that it is clear that these property owners love trees and have 69 of them on their property and that they are willing to replace this removed tree with a 36-inch box tree. · Agreed that the Arborist is the expert and has declared the tree as being damaged and a danger with the potential to cause damage. · Said that he also agrees with Commissioner Jones about owner's rights. · Expressed support for removal of this tree. Commissioner Alderete: · Read the definition in the Tree Ordinance that states the intent "to establish policies, regulations and standards to protect and manage trees..." · Said that he agrees with individual property rights but not unchecked and unbalanced and not to the extent that the adopted Ordinances cannot be enforced. Commissioner Gibbons: · Agreed with Commissioner Alderete regarding the need to enforce adopted Ordinances. · Added that if this tree removal is to be approved she would like to include a condition that written documentation to support this removal be provided by the Project Arborist prior to the removal of this tree. Director Sharon Fierro: · Agreed that it is important to document the file to support the findings and also supported the applicant's request to modify the condition to allow the replacement tree to be planted after the home is constructed rather than within 30 days of the tree being removed. · Pointed out that the walnut tree on the photo provided by the Kieltreibers is not protected when located on a single-family lot that cannot be subdivided. Commissioner Jones said he is satisfied with the Arborist's comments and requires no additional information. Commissioner Doorley said that it is not an onerous requirement for the Arborist to provide a written report. Commissioner Alderete agreed with Commissioner Doorley. Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Jones said that this is just one tree and it is important not to do paperwork just for paperwork's sake. Chair Francois pointed out that the Arborist has already indicated a willingness to provide the documentation. Commissioner Jones suggested that another Commissioner form the motion but went ahead and proposed the Upholding of the Appeal and Overturning of the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit with the amended Condition No. 2 to allow the replacement tree to be installed 30 days after final. City Attorney William Seligmann added some findings. There was no second to this motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3448 Upholding an Appeal and Overturning the Community Development Director's Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2002-76) to allow the removal of a Redwood tree on property owned by Richard and Arline Taborek located at 1441 Walnut Drive and found this project to be Categorically Exempt, with the additions to the draft Conditions and Findings: 1. Add a Condition to require that the Arborist set forth his additional findings in writing prior to the removal of the tree. 2. Modify Condition No. 2 to allow the tree replacement to occur within 30 days of building final. 3. Modify the Findings to include the fact that the tree is cracked and infected with bark beetles. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois and Gibbons NOES: Jones ABSENT: Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Chair Francois advised that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minu,:s of August 13, 2002 Page 9 2. PLN2002-38 Stansbury, N. Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Noble Stansbury, on behalf of Wienerschnitzel, for a Sign Exception (PLN2002-38) to allow the installation of a new illuminated awning sign attached to the front of the Wienerschnitzel building on property owned by Eva & Attilio Bandoni located at 1940 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Darcy Smith, Planner II. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking a Sign Exception to allow an illuminated awning sign that exceeds the allowable. · Stated that the building was constructed in 1968 and is located on the east side of S. Bascom Avenue, north of its intersection with Fewtrell. A monument sign was installed in 1976. · Said that the proposed awning would be completely illuminated, which would equal 43.4 square feet of sign area. · Recommended that the applicants illuminate only the logo and slogan since staff cannot make the necessary findings to support the exception. · Stated that the proposed awning is architectural compatible. · Advised that SARC reviewed the proposal on July 23rd. Commissioner Alderete asked if there is a record of the existing awning. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that staff could not find record but that it is immaterial to the details in effect for this application. Commissioner Doorley provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this proposal on July 23, 2002. · Stated that SARC agree with staff that the necessary findings are hard to make to support this sign exception. · Recommended that the sign area be reduced to 20 square feet. Chair Francois opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Noble Stansbury, Applicant's Representative: · Said that he has read the staff report and is willing to compromise and simply illuminate the logo and slogan. · Stated that this compromise will still allow them to take part in the Wienerschnitzel's national sign program. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley said that the compromise is a great idea. Commissioner Alderete sought clarification as to how the compromise brings the proposal into conformance. Planning Commission Minmcs of August 13, 2002 Page 10 Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that only the fact that the entire proposed awning would be illuminated turned the entire awning into a sign rather than simply a canopy. By lighting only the logo and slogan, they can be treated as sign graphics on an awning. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 34,99 denying a Sign Exception (PLN2002-38) to allow the installation of a new illuminated awning sign attached to the front of the Wienerschnitzel building on property owned by Eva & Attilio Bandoni located at 1940 S. Bascom Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons and Jones NOES: None ABSENT: Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Chair Francois advised that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that Council approved the placement of costs for weed abatement onto the tax assessment rolls, denied the McGoon's appeal and approved the Planned Development at 117 Gilman Avenue at its meeting of August 6, 2002. · Said that the next Commission agenda will include five items. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. to the next Regular Public Hearing on August 27, 2002, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording, gecretary APPROVED BY: ~ ~.,E'2'_. ~' Tom Francois, Chair ,--- ATTEST: Sharon Fierro, Secretary