8/23/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and Design Commission. He referenced code section 950.03(e) (3) which is the urban forestry section of the code and specifies lot development which in turn references to 1126 the tree removal portion of a development plan, therefor it is to be heard by the board. Mr. Filarski explained the intent was to clear-cut the lot and leaving only a perimeter as a buffer. He went on to explain that by doing this there was a need to address storm water issues, such as erosion control during construction and post -construction storm water management. It has been expressed to the applicant that the storm water issues must be met prior to excavation of the trees and building structures. Mr. O'Malley explained there has been a history to this tree preservation code. He shared a situation in the city where a developer made an attempt to rezone an area, it was voted no. and subsequent to that the lot was cleared of all trees. He offered that the current code was designed to enhance the review process and the overall objective to save some trees if possible. Mr. Peeples informed the board that he went to the property and met kvith Mr. Schmidt and explained that the development was to be done in phases and not all at once. Mr. Schmidt advised that at this stage he was preparing the property to be shovel ready. He did not have a development plan as to the size and quantity of buildings he would put on this lot. He stated there were other things to consider before that phase came about such as if he needed to have the property subdivided. He also shared that he intended to leave the perimeter of the lot lined with trees. He did share that the perimeter trees wouldn't be removed unless otherwise the architect deemed necessary. Mr. Leon asked Mr. Upton about the City Forester, specifically. if that person conducted their evaluation. Mr. Upton replied that we did not have a City Forester, and that this portion of the code needed to be re -written, and made mention that the code referred to an Architectural Board of Review, which also did not exist. Mr. Olivos asked Mr. Schmidt if he was having an excavator or landscaper cut down the trees. grind the roots and re -grade the property. Mr. Schmidt replied that he had a couple local companies to complete those tasks properly to meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Mr. Olivos then asked if the topsoil was to be removed. and Mr. Schmidt replied that no, it was not the plan. He went on and stated that when the stumps are ground up some flattening will be necessary and that would all be submitted to the Citv Engineer for approval. The City Engineer would review- this to ensure he was following the water management program. Mr. Peeples asked if the topography has been completed. Mr. Schmidt confirmed that the topography has been done and no issues were indicated towards the back where the property naturally drained. He stated there was an 18 -inch pipe that ran beneath the neighboring property which lead to a ditch. He offered there was a drawing that suggested the possibility of placing an open detention system without affecting storm water to the industrial area. A brief discussion to clarify Mr. Olivos's concerns took place. It was expressed by city staff and property owner that no work will take place on the property without the proper permits authorized by the City Engineer. Mr. Nick Ifiola; owner of Schurmer Construction expressed his thoughts regarding the sale/purchase of a portion of the property. He stated he had no issues with the proposal. Mr. O'Malley advised the board and the neighbor that the purchase and sale of private property is not an issue to be dealt with at that time.