PC 06/08/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-. Administrator's denial to construct a seven foot overheight fence, was withdrawn by the applicant. 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS !h PUD-82-13-3M. Tonv Chan Application for a major modification to a PUD development plan approval to allow for the removal of four existing heritage eucalyptus trees on property located at 1 Deer Oaks Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - Low Density Residential/Open Space District. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report on the application by Tony Chan to modify the PUD of Deer Oaks to allow removal of four heritage eucalyptus trees at 1 Deer Oaks Drive. The approved PUD required that as many of the existing trees be retained. The Chans have experienced tree limbs falling on and near their residence and have concern for their personal safety for themselves and for their residence. Staff stated the Tree Preservation Ordinance outlines the procedure to remove heritage trees. The process set forth allows the Director of Public Works to allow the removal of heritage trees if he determines they are either hazardous, diseased, dying andlor dead, or their removal would still comply with the intent of the ordinance to maintain as many significant trees as possible. In the past, the Director of Public Works has not allowed these trees to be removed, and therefore, the request for modification is now presented. A consulting arborist for the City has been retained. His recommendation is that because this particular type of eucalyptus tree is very brittle and sheds limbs as it matures, representing a safety hazard to the property owners, he feels the trees should be topped at the height of the house. Staff believes this extensive pruning would result in a very unsightly tree shape and appearance. Furthermore, regrowth after pruning is substantially weaker than the original tree growth, thus imposing an even greater risk from falling limbs. Mr. Chan has sought permission from the Deer Oaks Homeowners Association to remove the four trees. They have responded with permission to remove three of the four trees. The one tree suggested to remain has been pruned severely (Tree #4), and staff recommends that tree should be removed as well because it cannot be restored to its original shape and appearance. Staff feels Tree #2 should be removed because it significantly hangs over the house and no amount of pruning would make it safe. Trees #1 and #3 cover less of the house, but the problem remains that if selected pruning is done, the regrowth will be weaker and therefore more hazardous. The consulting arborist feels this species of tree is incompatible in Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 8, 1994 .. -