PC 112812 - Laserfiche WebLink

of preservation. He added that within what might be considered the residential context, the house does not meet any of the State requirements and does not have integrity either. He noted that the property has been modified: a second -floor apartment with dormers has been added, and the interior is completely modernized to a 1970's standard. He further noted that the house is in very poor condition and would require extensive remodeling and a considerable amount of dollars to bring up to habitable standards, and would probably exceed the value of the property if it were to be sold as a home. He pointed out that just because a property is old does not mean it is worthy of preservation. He reiterated that the property does not have any significance from any of the perspectives in the historical contexts or from the State standards. Mr. Schroeder noted that the trees were brought up as an issue. He stated that the property has a considerable number of trees and that all of the heritage trees on the property within the development area are decorative trees that were planted at some point by a developer or property owner. He added that the only heritage trees that are native trees are within the creek setback area and would not be touched by the proposal. He noted that because these are small lots, it would be difficult and pretty much impossible to save the trees on the site plan. He indicated that they obviously went through the standard process for evaluating these trees in the tree report and created a value for the trees to be removed. He added that they would replace those trees that would be removed by their development proposal, which, they believe, would resolve that issue. Commissioner Olson noted that there is a large heritage tree all the way back with a mobile home sitting right against it and inquired if that tree is in the wildland overlay. Mr. Schroeder replied that that tree would not be removed. He explained that the site plan indicates a 25 -foot setback from the top of the bank, right where the chain link fence is. He noted that he was not certain if that matches with the wildland overlay. He stated that the geologist did a preliminary slope stability analysis based on that setback and indicated that it was fine; however, it also incorporated some concerns over the wildland area, so the biologist is now working with staff to go back and look at where the actual top of the bank is from a Fish and Game standpoint. He indicated that it may actually be somewhat lower because this is the accretive side of the creek; the creek is migrating away from this property and accreting soil over time to this side of the property. He stated that if staff and the policy- makers were not concerned with that and would allow them some flexibility, they could adjust the setback closer to the creek, which would mean more development of the site, although it could change the configuration of the site. He noted that this would allow homes to be closer to the creek, and that goes back to the whole discussion about whether that area should be open space with public access or if it should be a private space. He explained that having the site plan configured as it is now would make that area a common space to be owned by a homeowners association, as opposed to if the houses are lined up to the back like the rest of the property along Stanley, it would then be private space and would have to be maintained by the property owners. He indicated that he is indifferent to either configuration and requested feedback from the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 28, 2012 Page 6 of 38