Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE 6:45. SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING FOR TUESDAY JUNE 9, 2020.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS INPUT. THIS IS A CHANCE FOR CITIZENS OF ROWLETT TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT WHETHER IT'S ON THE AGENDA OR NOT FOR THREE MINUTES AND MISS HALLMARK, YOU SAID THERE WAS NO CITIZEN

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 26TH, 2020. COMMISSIONERS, EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES?

ANY ISSUES WITH THE MINUTES? >> NO. WELL, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE.

OR WAIT. LET'S HAVE A MOTION FIRST. THAT ALWAYS HELPS.

MR. COTE, I SAW YOUR HAND. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. COTE. SECOND FROM MR. WINTON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. COTE'S MOTION RAISE YOUR HAND.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. THAT'S SEVEN.

WAIT A MINUTE, YOU'RE NOT VOTING MARK? >> I HAVE TO ABSTAIN EVEN THOUGH I WATCH THE VIDEO, I WAS NOT AT LST MEETING. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, QUINN, I GUESS EVERYBODY IS HERE TONIGHT SO 6-1.

IS THAT RIGHT? >> 6-0-1. >> MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

[5A. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by, Skorburg Company, for a Tree Mitigation Plan and related Tree Removal Permit application on property zoned Planned Development (PD) with for Single Family SF-5 Uses.The 7.54 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Miller Road and Rowlett Road in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEMS NEAR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERING. 5 A.

CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY SCOREBOARD COMPANY FOR A TREE MITIGATION PLAN AND REMOVE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ZONE WITH FOUR SINGLE FAMILY SFI USES. THIS 7.54 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF

MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> I AM PRESENTING COMMISSIONER

MOSELEY. >> THIS IS TO TAKE ACTION ON THE RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

THE SITE IS 7.54 ACRE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLER ROAD. THIS HAS BEEN REZONED FROM SF 40 TO PLANNED SF USE. THE SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY .220 ACRES OF FLOOD PLAIN THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND NORTH TO SOUTH AND I PROPOSE TO RECLAIM 0.18 ACRES OF FLOOD PLAIN FOR DEVELOPMENT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO WITH THIS TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, WE LIKE TO LOOK AT LONG-ESTABLISHED TREES AND ENCOURAGE TREE PRESERVATION. UNFORTUNATELY FOR THIS SITE, IT SEEMS TO BE UN, IT IS UNACHIEVABLE DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE. FOR SECTION 7.504 STATES THE REMOVAL OF THREE OR MORE PROTECTED TREES SHOULD BE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WITH THE PROTECTED TREES, WE DECIDE OUR TREES HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8-INCH CALIPER AND THE HACK BERRY IS A PROTECTED TREE OVER 11 INCHES AND TREES LISTED ON OUR PROHIBITED PLANT LIST ARE NOT PART OF THAT PROTECTED CLASSIFICATION.

TREES LISTED IN THE TSPP, THE TREE SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOW COTTON WOOD AND HACK BERRIES LESS THAN 11 INCHOS THEIR SITE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO, THE APPLICANT PREPARED A TREE SURVEY AND SURVEYED 311 TREES.

THAT WERE ABOUT 4135.5 CALIPER INCHES. FROM THOSE TREES, YOU HAD A TOTAL OF 206 TREES THAT WOULDN'T BE CLASSIFIED AS PROTECTED TREES AND 22 OF THE 2006 ARE

[00:05:01]

CLASSIFIED AS UNHEALTHY, DAMAGED. SO YOU SUBTRACT THAT FROM THE 206 TO GET 184 TREES PROTECTED AND HEALTHY AND VIABLE. TO BE KEPT.

WITH THAT, THAT CALIPER INCH WOULD BE 1291 INCHES. YOU HAVE 105 UNPROTECTED TREES LOCATED ON THE SITE. SO WITH THESE CONFIGURATIONS IN THE NUMBER ON SITE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SAVE 102 TREES PROTECTED AND REMOVE 82 TREES FOR A CALIPER 1189 CALIPER PROTECTED. THE FORMULA THROUGH REVIEW IN SECTION 504, WE HAVE MITIGATION EQUALS REMOVE CALIPERS SAVED BECAUSE CALIPERS REMOVED IS LESS THAN SAVED CALIPERS AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE TO MITIGATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE STABLE CALIPER INCHES THAN THEY REMOVE AND RECEIVE ONE TO ONE CREDIT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED THERE, YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE DIFFERENT TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF LANDS AND MOST THE TREES IN THE CLUSTERS ARE LOCATED IN STREET LAYOUT AND ALSO IN THE BUILDING LAYOUTS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

LAURA. SO IN THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SAVE MORE PROTECTED CALIPER INCHES THAN REMOVE AND SECTION 7-504 SHOWS THE APPLICANT IS SAVING MORE REMOVING THEREFORE MITIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED IN THAT ASPECT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

SO JUST A LITTLE BIT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO SHOW THE LAND IS HAS SOME VARIABLES TO IT. THEY WERE PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT WERE DISCUSSED. THE APPLICANT DID INDICATE DUE TO SIGNIFICANT SITE GRADING THIS JUSTIFIED REMOVING THE 82 TREES AND ALSO CONTRIBUTE THAT SITE SLOPE FROM EAST TO WEST TO LONG BRANCH, THE RELIEF IS 12 FEET TO 14 FEET AND SITE CONTAINS SWALLOWS WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE PROTECTED TREES ARE LOCATED AND ALSO AS SHOWN BEFORE IN THE SITE PLAN, THE BUILDING AND LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSED SITE ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO A REMOVAL OF TREES.

ALSO DOWN BELOW ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A GRADING PLAN THAT SHOWS JUST THE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS OF THE STREET LOTS IN THE LOTS IN THE STREETS AND HOW IT SLOPES AND HOW THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL MITIGATION AND THAT'S BECAUSE MOST OF THE TREES ARE MARKED FOR REMOVAL CANNOT BE PRESERVED DUE TO CONFLICT WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF LAND.

MAINLY BEHIND THE REASON BEHIND THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND AND THE SITE LAYOUT OF WHERE THE PROPOSED TREES ARE LOCATED IN CLUSTERS.

THIS COMPLETES STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU

HAVE AS WELL. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION?

>> THEY DO. >> THEY DO OR THEY'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS?

>> THEY DO. THEY DO. OKAY.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE WANT TO WAIT AND ASK QUESTIONS. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

LET'S ASK QUESTIONS NOW FOR STAFF AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT DO ONE.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF JUST QUESTIONS. REMEMBER A FEW MONTHS AGO WE TALKED ABOUT THE NEW TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR ROWLETT. DID THAT EVER GO INTO AFFECT OR

NO? >> UNFORTUNATELY, IT FELL INTO THE PANDEMIC TIMELINE AND SO AT THAT POINT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS SUSPENDED, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING COMING IN YOUR DIRECTION. PRETTY MUCH A COUPLE WEEKS BEFORE WE WERE COMING FORWARD TO YOU. SO, THAT WAS PAUSED. I THINK WE ARE NOW READY TO PICK

THAT BACK UP AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. >> I NOTICED THE BOIS D 'ARC

[00:10:01]

PLANS WERE DUE TO THE CUT. IF THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN WAS PASSED IT WOULD BE PROTECTED.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVEN'T MADE IT TO THE FINISH LINE WITH THE

PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND HOPEFUL WE WILL GET THERE SOON. >> COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU ON THIS BEFORE WE HAVE-I DON'T SEE HANDS RAISED. I'M TAKING IT THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. WELL THEN, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. IS TO DO APPLICANT ONLINE HERE?

>> YES, I'M HERE. THIS IS JOHN ARNOLD WITH THE SCOREBERG COMPANY.

>> INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND GO AHEAD WITH THE PRESENTATION. SOMEHOW I DON'T SEE YOU ON MY SCREEN.

>> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HAVE THE VIDEO ON. I SEE YOU NOW.

>> FAMILIAR FACE. YOU HAVE SEEN THIS FACE BEFORE. I FINALLY GOT A HAIRCUT

Y'ALL >> WELL THANK YOU. >> YEAH.

IT WAS PRETTY BAD AND ALL. IT WAS PRETTY BAD. I COULD HAVE PUT A PONY TAIL IN YESTERDAY. GUYS WE JUST HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO TARA ABOUT THIS FOR SO LONG WE KIND OF KNEW HER PRESENTATION WAS GOING TO HIT ALL THE MAIN POINTS. SO WE'RE HOPING JUST TO KIND OF ANSWER QUESTIONS BECAUSE SHE'S BASICALLY YOU KNOW KIND OF PUT THE MAIN POINTS IN HER PESENTATION. ESPECIALLY THE GRADING. BUT I GUESS I CAN RUN THROUGH JUST KIND OF QUICKLY OUR LITTLE THREE SLIDE THING. IF WE NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS, IT WOULD BE BEST TO GO BACK TO TARA'S PRESENTATION. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT

SLIDE, I CAN RUN THROUGH OURS REAL QUICK. >> BASICALLY I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CODE SAYS AND KIND OF THREE POINTS ON WHAT DENIAL OF COMMON TREE PERMIT WOULD BE. WE KNOW WHAT THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN IS.

I'M NOT THE TREE MITIGATION GUY. DIDN'T DO THE CALCULATIONS MYSELF.

I PLAN ON MY ENGINEERS FOR DOING THAT FOR ME. TARA HAS COME THROUGH WITH A FINE TOOTHED COMB MULTIPLE TIMES. BASICALLY IS THIS SITE WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED FOR THE SITE? ARE WE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ANTICIPATED FOR THIS SITE? HAVE WE MADE REASONABLE COMBINATION TO MAKE THESE TREES TO BE PRESERVED? TARA WENT OVER THAT WITH THE GRADING.

WE HAVE ACTUALLY OUR ORIGINAL GRADING PLAN FOR THIS SITE WAS ACTUALLY THROWN IN THE TRASH BECAUSE WE WERE REMOVING MORE TREES THAN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY ESPECIALLY AROUND THE PERIMETER ON THE EAST SIDE SPECIFICALLY IN SOUTH OF NORTH SIDE.

WE RAISED OUR SITE TO SAVE MORE TREES IN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND ALONG OUR BORDER.

SO I BELIEVE THROUGH OUR DESIGN DISCUSSIONS WITH TARA AND JEFF THAT WE HAVE MADE REASONABLE ACCOMODATION. AND IS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS DIVISION BEING MET.

I BELIEVE THE PURPOSE IS IN THE INTENT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE IS MET WITH OUR SUBDIVISION.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE I WILL HIT EACH POINT INDIVIDUALLY.

ARE WE REASONABLY, ARE THE TREE REMOVAL REASONABLY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES? THIS PROJECT WAS ZONED, PLATTED. IT WAS ZONED, APPROVED BY COUNSEL AND STAFF IN MARCH. HOPING TO BE IN FRONT OF Y'ALL A LOT EARLIER THAN THIS.

BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, HERE WE ARE THREE MONTHS LATER ALMOST. WE HAVE BEEN, SORRY, WE'RE IN THE OFFICE AND THE CLEANING SERVICE JUST SHOWED UP DOWN THE HALLWAY.

WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH WITH OUR CIVIL PLANS. DURING THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND CIVIL PLAN APPROVAL, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING OUR PLAN TO MAKE SURE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE WERE PROTECTED.

GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TARA HAD A VERY GOOD EXHIBIT TALKING ABOUT THE GRADING ON THE SITE. BUT AS YOU COULD HAVE SEEN ON HER PLAN.

THERE'S FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT DIFFERENCE IN SOME OF THESE PATHS.

THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY SLOPING DOWN IN THE CREEK. IF WE'RE FILLING AREAS, IF YOU'RE CUTTING AN AREA OUT, OBVIOUSLY HARD TO KEEP THE TREE BECAUSE YOU'RE CUTTING THE DIRT OUT. IF WE'RE FILLING AN AREA, WE CAN'T REALLY KEEP THE TREE IN THE BACKYARD BECAUSE WE BASICALLY COVER UP THE TREE AND SUFFOCATE IT.

[00:15:06]

WE MADE EFFORTS TO SAVE AS MANY OF THE TREES AS WE COULD. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS WAS ONE OF SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE JEFF AND TARA WORKED WITH US TO WE ACTUALLY ADJUSTED THIS HEAD WALL AND STRUCTURE TO TRY TO KEEP AS MANY TREES IN THIS AREA AS POSSIBLE AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE OUTFALLING OUT OF THIS SITE AND ONLY REMOVING ONE TREE.

THIS IS AN AREA OF GREAT FOCUS TO KEEP COME OF THE TREES IN THE AREA.

NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, IT'S A TABLE AGAIN. FROM THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN.

THE CONFUSION WAS THE 311, 206, DOESN'T ADD UP. 22 OF THE TREES WERE DAMAGED, UNHEALTHY OR WERE NOT OF THE PROTECTED TREES DAMAGED OR UNHEALTHY AND DIDN'T COUNT.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. FROM P&Z OR STAFF. >> COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER.

CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. COTE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THAT IS I NOTICE ON YOUR TREE MITIGATION PLAN, EXCUSE ME, YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN, THAT YOU HAVE SOME TREES BEING

PLANTED RIGHT ALONG MILLER I BELIEVE. >> I CAN PULL UP MY -- ANOTHER GOOD THING ABOUT BEING ON YOUR COMPUTER AND NOT IN THE AUDIENCE, I CAN PULL UP MY LANDSCAPE PLAN REAL QUICK. UNLESS STAFF HAS IT AVAILABLE. L-1.0.

>> YES, SIR, I HAVE IT. >> AND I NOTICE ON THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER, YOU HAVE A BLOWUP OF THE SIDEWALK AND SAY NO TREES WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EASEMENT I TAKE IT THERE'S A

SEWER EASEMENT THERE. >> YES, SIR, THERE'S A SEWER EASEMENT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF

THE PROPERTY. >> IS IT CURRENTLY THERE OR YOU'RE PUTTING A SEWER THERE?

>> NO IT'S CURRENTLY THERE. THAT'S IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING PLAN.

>> IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE TAPPING INTO FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> NO, SIR, WE ARE TAKING IT

DIRECTLY INTO THE LIFT STATION TO THE NORTH OF THE US. >> OKAY.

>> THE EXISTING LINE WILL STAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER? COMMISSIONERS RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IF NOBODY ELSE HAS A QUESTION. THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT WHERE ANOTHER PLAN WHERE YOU KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO, HE'S BUILDING IN A FLOOD PLAIN AND ALL THE TREES THAT ARE SAVED ARE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE EXCEPT FOR THE PERIMETER IS GETTING CLEAR CUT. I MEAN IF YOU CAN'T BUILD ON A FLOOD PLAIN, I MEAN THE WAY THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CHARTER AND THE CITY IS THAT WE'RE COUNTING THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

BUT THERE'S PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S UNBUILDABLE DOWN IN THE CREEK.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED WHERE THE DEVELOPER WILL YOU KNOW HAVE THE ALL THE PROTECTED TREES OR ALL THE TREES BASICALLY DOWN IN A PLACE WHERE YOU COULDN'T HAVE BUILT ANYWAY. ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT? I MEAN IS THAT -- I THINK I'M RIGHT IN THAT. IS THAT SOMETHING MUNAL OR MISS BRADLEY WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE? YOU KNOW SEEMS TO ME WE'RE KIND OF CIRCUMVENTING OUR WHOLE PLAN.

THEY KNOW THAT WHEN THEY BUY THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE ALL THE TREES WILL

BE. SOMEWHERE WHERE -- >> AND COMMISSIONER MOSELEY.

THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE YOU ARE CHALLENGING. SO THE IMPACT ON THE FLOOD PLAIN IS LESS INTRUSIVE. HOWEVER, THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AND THE LANGUAGE IN

[00:20:01]

THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS YOU TO USE THE CREDIT FROM THE ENTIRE SITE. NOW FAST FORWARD TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE FUTURE AND IF IT DOES GET PASSED, IT DOESN'T ENABLE THAT ACTION.

TALKS ABOUT PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES IF THERE ARE CHANGES MADE TO IT.

DOESN'T NECESSARILY COUNT TOWARD YOUR MITIGATION PARAMETERS. THE ORDINANCE WILL BE DIFFERENCE IN THE SENSE IT WOULD BE DESIGNED AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS DISCUSSION BUT WOULD WORK WITH SITE AND NOT COME UP WITH A DESIGN AND PLACE IT ON TOP OF THE SITE.

WORK IN CONCERT WITH WHAT THE NATURAL FEATURES OF THE SITE ARE.

>> I KNOW THAT THIS PROJECT GOES BY THE RULES THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S FINE. >> I JUST HAD TO CLARIFY THAT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE VIEWING

AUDIENCE. >> I MEAN, HAD THIS PROJECT BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE PRIOR TO THE

ZONING CHANGE OF SF 7 TO SF 5, IT WAS SEVEN BEFORE WASN'T IT? >> IT WAS 10 I THINK.

>> IT WAS 10 YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE SAVING A LOT MORE TREES.

WHICH IS YOU KNOW, I THINK IF YOU HAD SF 10 OR SF EVEN 7, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO WORK AROUND -- AND YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE VOTE TO APPROVE THESE PROJECTS WE CONSIDER THAT AS THE RULES ARE RIGHT NOW, THE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED ARE GOING TO BE FLOOD PLAIN TREES AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. SO --

>> AND CHAIRMAN MOSELEY. WE DID ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND THE APPLICANT AND US AND TRIED TO BRAIN STORM AND LOOK AT OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, JEFF AND THE ENGINEERS, ALL OF US SAT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT AND SAID WHAT CAN WE DO? THE GOAL WAS TO PRESERVE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE JUST THE LAY OF THE LAND AND IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ORDINANCE,

YOU KNOW, THEY DID DO WHAT THEY COULD. >> I KNOW EVERYBODY WORKED HARD ON THIS. I UNDERSTAND. MR. COTE.

>> YEAH. I STILL, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTION ON YOUR ORGANIZATION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THE DEVELOPER PAID A GOOD ENGINEER GOOD MONEY TO DO CORRECTLY. OKAY.

SO WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT I AM EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE AGAIN I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBERS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT NUMBERS AND ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS IS AGAIN LINE ITEM TWO SAYS A TOTAL NUMBER OF 102 TREES WILL BE SAVED AND 82 ARE GOING TO DISAPPEAR AND THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS 20 WHICH YOU SAY ARE THE UNHEALTHY TREES TAKEN OUT OF EQUATION. I'M GOING TO SAY GREAT, BUT THERE'S 21 UNHEALTHY TREES, 21 PROTECTED UNHEALTHY TREES THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION FROM THEIR CHART AND IN FACT THERE'S ONE THAT IS STILL ON THAT CHART THAT ISN'T TAKEN OUT YET.

WHICH IS UNHEALTHY. WHICH, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE COUNTING THAT TOWARD THE INTEREST OF GOOD TREE THEY SAVED OR INCHES SHOULD BE COUNTED AGAINST INCHES OF NOTHING

BECAUSE IT'S "UNHEALTHY". >> RIGHT, COMMISSIONER COTE, WHAT WE WILL DO IS SIT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT. WE HAD A VERY, A GOOD COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE NUMBERS WE SAW.

I CAN SEE THERE MIGHT BE A DISCREPANCY OR TWO WITH THE TABULATION.

WE ARE QUITE CERTAIN THERE ARE 22 UNHEALTHY PROTECTED TREES THAT DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE OVERALL EQUATION, WE WILL DOUBLE CHECK THOSE TABLES AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED US WAS ACCURATE. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A STRIKE THROUGH THAT WAS ACCIDENTALLY OR INADVERTENTLY ADMITTED. TARA WHY DON'T WE DO THAT. IN TERMS THE OVERALL NUMBERS IN MITIGATION PARAMETERS. WE CAN GO OVER THOSE QUICKLY BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL THEM.

206 PROTECTED TARA? >> YES.

>> OF THE 206 PROTECTED TREES, 22 OF THOSE WERE UNHEALTHY WHICH LEAVES US WITH 1 HUNDRED AND HOW

[00:25:08]

MANY? >> YOU WOULD SAY 104. >> SO THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH

104 -- >> I'M SORRY, 206 MINUS 22 UNHEALTHY TREES IS 184.

>> CORRECT. SO WE ARE ACTUALLY THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THEN IS 184 TREES AND THAT EQUATES TO THE CALIPER INCH REFERENCED THERE.

SO THOSE ARE THE PROTECTED TREES THAT THEN HOLDS THE VALUE IN TERMS OF THE FORMULA AS FAR AS THE FORMULA IS CONCERNED. OUT OF 104 TREES, I BEG YOUR PARDON, 204 TREES.

>> 206 TREES, THEY ARE REMOVING 82 TREES? >> YES.

82 PROTECTED TREES. WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT CALIPER INCH IS.

IF IT'S LESS THAN WHAT IS BEING PRESERVED, THE MITIGATION PARAMETERS ARE NOT WARRANTED IS

WHAT THAT FORMULA SAYS. >> SO WE'LL STILL DOUBLE CHECK THESE TABLES TO MAKE SURE IF WE SEE THERE'S A STARK DIFFERENCE, WE WILL REVISIT IT, BUT AT THIS POINT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I

THINK THE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY RIGHT TARA? >> YES.

>> IN TERMS OF THE TABLES. THE STRIKE THROUGH, WE KNOW THERE ARE 22 PROTECTED UNHEALTHY

TREES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN

TAKEN CARE >> THAT IS YOUR QUESTION MR. COTE?

>> MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE ANSWERING THE QUESTION HERE AND NOT ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER SO WHEN WE REVIEW, IT'S OBVIOUS WHAT IS GOING ON AND WE CAN MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHAT WE NEED TO

DO. >> I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT AND MAYBE IN THE FUTURE OR EVEN TO CITY COUNCIL, THIS BE KIND OF CLARIFIED AND SIMPLIFIED SO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT'S WATCHING THIS ON TV HAS A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE HECK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING WRAPPED AROUND THE AXEL HERE ON NUMBERS HERE.

>> RIGHT, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT EASY TO DIGEST. I WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO ADMIT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S A ONE TO ONE RATIO IF THERE'S NO NEGATIVE VALUE. THAT'S HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

IN TERMS OF WAS THERE A DISCREPANCY ON THE INFORMATION THE APPLICANT PROVIDED? I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A TYPO. I'M QUITE SURE THE NUMBER OF TREES THEY PROPOSE TO REMOVE VERSUS PROTECTED AND UNHEALTHED PROTECTED ARE CORRECT.

IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, AND WHAT IS ON PAPER, WE WILL VISIT WITH THE APPLICANT AND REVISE THAT AND CLARIFY THAT.

IF THERE'S NO MAJOR IMPACT ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.

>> AND WE'RE JUST MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. >> CORRECT.

>> IF THERE IS A SLIGHT DISCREPANCY, THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO COUNCIL.

>> WE WILL REFINE THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE I GUESS OR DILUTE THE, DISTILL THE INFORMATION BETTER. IT GETS, THE CONFUSING. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT.

WE WILL TRY TO DISTILL THAT LANGUAGE CLEARLY FOR OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE AND COUNCIL AS WELL.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS ON THIS RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON THIS TREE MITIGATION AND TREE REMOVAL? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ON IT. I AM READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MR. ENGEN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND MITIGATION PLAN ALONG WITH WITH THE STAFF REVIEWING THE NUMBER OF TREE MITIGATIONS

THAT HAS TO BE CORRECTED. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON MR. ENGEN' MOTION.

MR. WINTON SECONDS. SO IT'S A RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH STAFF ADJUSTING THE NUMBERS SLIGHTLY IF NECESSARY BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. ENGEN'S MOTION.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.