[00:00:07]
I'M GOING TO CALL THE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2023.
WOULD STAFF PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL? MS. SIEGEL? HERE.
MR. ZUKI? PRESENT? MR. LOPEZ? HERE.
MS. MILAM? MR. PROPHET, VICE CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
LET'S HAVE THE, UH, SPANISH ENGLISH INTERPRETER INFORMATION, PLEASE.
COUNCILMAN? NO, WE DIDN'T GET, WE DIDN'T CHECK IN.
OUR FIRST AGENDA IS THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.
CASES THAT ARE PLACED ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA ARE CASES WHERE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND KNOWN AND AUDIENCE IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
ALL CASES WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD FOR ONE UNIFIED MOTION.
IF SOMEONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, THAT ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL, UH, CONSIDERATION AGENDA.
SECOND AGENDA IS THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA CASES THAT ARE PLACED ON THE INDIVIDUAL HEARING AGENDA WILL BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING A MOTION ON THE ITEM.
WE'LL NOW BEGIN THE COMBINE HEARING AGENDA.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO SPEAK ON? WELL, IT SAYS FIRST, UH, ITEMS ONE.
I GET MY LIST ONE THROUGH 10 ARE ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA.
UH, AND ITEM 14, AND THEN ITEMS 11, 12, AND 13 ARE ON INDIVIDUAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, IS THERE ANYONE, UH, THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA? IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER THAT WISHES TO PULL AN ITEM THAT'S STILL ON THE COMBINED HEARING AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT AND DO A, UH, MOTION.
WE APPROVE THE, UH, PUB, THE FIRST 10 ITEMS, AND ITEM 14, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER, ALTHOUGH, UH, DO ROLL CALL VOTE COUNCILMAN COURAGE.
[ Variances ]
CARRIES.OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MARK BY CITY ARBORS.
HERE TO PRESENT OUR VARIANCES.
UM, FIRST VARIANCE, T P V 22 1 63.
UM, UM, REGARDING A, A PROJECT, UH, RODRIGO PINERO, BRAZILIAN JIUJITSU LOCATED IN, UH, DISTRICT EIGHT, PROPERTY ADDRESS 45 23 NORTH LOOP 1604 WEST CODE REFERENCED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5 23 H 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS STATES THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 80% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
HERITAGE TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 100% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
THE OWNER, RODRIGO PANERO, APPLICANT SCOTT WEAVER WITH WEAVER DESIGN THE HARDSHIP DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S FLAG SHAPED CONFIGURATION.
THE DEVELOPMENT WAS CHALLENGED WITH TRYING TO MAXIMIZE TREE PRESERVATION WHILE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING COUNT FOR THE 7,600 SQUARE
[00:05:01]
FOOT STUDIO DUE TO THE NARROW PARKING CONFIGURATION ABUTTING THE A HUNDRED, UH, ABUTTING THE EXISTING 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND PARALLEL TO THE 60 FOOT E S A, THE MINIMUM 80% TREE PRESERVATION FOR FLOOD PLAIN AND E S A WAS NOT ACHIEVABLE.A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT IS 80%.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO PRESERVE 59.6% OF THE SIGNIFICANT CANOPY IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
TOTAL FLOOD PLAIN, UH, CANOPY AREA IS 3008 387 SQUARE FEET.
TOTAL PRESERVED IS 2021 SQUARE FEET TOTAL CANOPY REMOVED.
IN THE, IN, UH, THE, THE FLOODPLAIN IS 1,666 SQUARE FEET, AGAIN, RESULTING IN 59.6% PRESERVATION, WHICH IS BELOW THE 80%.
UM, WE HAVE IN, IN THE E S A AREA 80%, UH, REQUIRED PRESERVATION, E S A BEING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE, UH, 60 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATION PROVIDED IN THE E S A IS 57.7 TOTAL CANOPY IN, UH, THE E S A IS 33,122 SQUARE FEET PRESERVED WAS 19,142 SQUARE FEET REMOVED, 13,980.
IN THE, IN THE E S A, THERE ARE HERITAGE TREES, UH, A HUNDRED PERCENT PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE TREES IS REQUIRED.
60% WAS PROVI, 67% WAS PROVIDED.
THERE ARE A TOTAL OF, UH, THREE HERITAGE TREES TOTALING 85 INCHES.
TWO HERITAGE TREES TOTALING 57 INCHES IS GOING TO PRE PRESERVED, AND ONE HERITAGE TREE AT 28 INCHES WILL BE REMOVED.
THE COMBINED MITIGATION FOR THE FLOODPLAIN IN THE E S A IS A TOTAL OF 3 235 0.8 INCHES.
THE HERITAGE TREE WAS MITIGATED AT THREE TO ONE, SO 28 INCH, UH, HERITAGE TREES MITIGATED AT 84 INCHES.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING MITIGATION THROUGH PLANTING AND PAYMENT.
PROPOSED PLANTING IS EIGHT TREES.
A TOTAL OF 24 INCHES TOWARDS MITIGATION WILL BE PLANTED WITH THOSE EIGHT TREES.
THE, THE BALANCE OF 218.4 INCHES IS GOING TO BE PAID INTO THE MITIGATION FUND FOR A TOTAL OF $43,680.
STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MITIGATE FOR REMOVAL OF HERITAGE TREES IN EXCESS OF THE 100% PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT OF HERITAGE TREES WITHIN THE E S A AND TO REMOVE TREE CANOPY IN EXCESS OF THE 80% SIGNIFICANT TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WITHIN BOTH THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE E S A AREA.
BASED ON CONDITIONS OF THE SITE DESIGN CONSTRAINTS AND THE PLATY LIGHT CONFIGURATION WERE THE CHALLENGES, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 35% OVERALL TREE CANOPY FOR THE SITE, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL 23,603 SQUARE FEET OVER THE MINIMUM 25%, UH, FINAL CANOPY REQUIREMENT THROUGH A COMBINATION OF PLANTING AND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO MEET PARKING LOT SHADING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS PROPOSED ENVIRONMENT VARIANCE MEETS THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
UH, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL START ON THE LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER LOPEZ.
SO, UH, JUST ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, MARK.
SO WITH THE, UH, PROPOSED MITIGATION, THAT IS THAT YOU'VE GOT OUTLINED HERE, THAT THAT IS IN LINE WITH, WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE TREE ORDINANCE AND IT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THAT RIGHT NOW.
THE ORDINANCE, THE, THE, THE PROJECT PLAN, UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN, MITIGATION PLAN, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENT, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
THIS ORDINANCE IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ZUKI.
[00:10:01]
SCHINDLER? YES.WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS A, A VARIANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, ITEM NUMBER T P V 22 DASH OH THREE FIVE.
UM, THIS IS, UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE GUTIERREZ REST, UH, RESIDENCE, UH, WITH THE PROJECT NUMBER R E S R B P A P P 21 3 5 5 0 6 7 7 9.
IT'S LOCATED IN DISTRICT EIGHT, UH, 18.
BISHOP GREEN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 3 25 H 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN STATES THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 80% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAINS IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
HERITAGE TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH, UM, PRESERVATION WITHIN THE FLOODPLAINS IN THE E S A.
UH, THE OWNER, UH, APPLICANT IS ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ AND G CORP CONSTRUCTION.
THE HARDSHIP, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REMOVAL IN EXCESS OF 80% OF SIGNIFICANT TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WITH THE, THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF THE OWNER REMOVING TREES PRIOR TO PROPER PERMITTING.
E S A ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT IS 80%.
PROPOSED PRESERVATION IS 21.7%.
UH, TOTAL, UH, PROTECTED SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE E S A IS 17 TREES TOTALING 122 INCHES.
TOTAL TREES PRESERVED WERE TWO TOTALING 26.5 INCHES.
TOTAL REMOVED WERE 15 TREES FOR 95.5 INCHES REMOVED.
TOTAL MITIGATION FOR REMOVAL OF TREES IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS OF 71.1 INCHES.
THE OWNER PROPOSES TO BEAT MITIGATION BY PLANTING.
PROPOSED PLANTING IS 27, UH, TREES TOTALING 84 INCHES OF MITIGATION PLANTED, WHICH IS 12.9 INCHES ABOVE THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT.
UH, AND NINETY NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE MINIMUM 38%.
TREE CANOPY PRESERVATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REMOVE TREASON IN EXCESS OF THE 80% SIGNIFICANT TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT.
WITH, WITH WITHIN THE E S A TO MEET MITIGATION, THE APPLICANT WILL PLANT 27 TREES.
WILL WILL EXCEED THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT OF 71.1 INCHES BY 12.9 INCHES.
THE APPLICANT EXCEEDS THE 38% TREE CANOPY COVER REQUIREMENT WITH 99,946 SQUARE FEET WITH COMBINATION OF PLANTING NATIVE SPECIES TREES, AND PRESERVE TREES.
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE MEETS, UH, REQUEST MEETS THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL START ON THE RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER SIPES.
UM, THE AMOUNT OF THE TREES THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY REMOVED IS A LOT, AND IT IS VERY QUESTIONING THAT TREES HAVE BEEN ALREADY REMOVED WITHOUT PERMITTING, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE OFFICE IN THE CITY TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF REMOVING THEM.
SO THAT'S A VERY CONCERNING ISSUE TO ME, AND I WILL VOTE NO ON THIS CASE.
UH, WHAT IS THE OUTCOME IF THIS BODY DOES NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST? IF THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT CAN APPEAL AT WHICH POINT IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE, THE OTHER OPTION IS, IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO HAVE TO STILL COMPLY WITH THE $2,000 PENALTY.
UM, THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BREAK THEIR PROJECT IF THEY, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY
[00:15:01]
WITH OUR REGULATIONS, SO THEY'LL HAVE TO REDESIGN.UM, THOSE ARE OTHER, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO, UM, BRING THIS BACK.
UM, BUT THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL, IF, IF THERE IS A DENIAL THAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
THE, THE APPLICANT COULD PROPOSE MORE MITIGATION, SOME OTHER MITIGATION OPTION AS AS, AS A RESPONSE, UH, WITH THAT APPEAL.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THREE OUTCOMES.
ONE IS GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND ASK FOR MERCY, UH, COME BACK WITH MORE MITIGATION OR SCRAP THE PROJECT AND WALK AWAY WHEN WHICH CASE, THEN THERE'S THE TREES THAT ARE REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THERE'S NO REPLACING THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEY'RE JUST GONE.
AND THEN IF SOMEBODY ELSE PICKS UP THE PROPERTY WITH THOSE TREES ALREADY MISSING, THAT'S NOT ON THEM.
SO THE, ANY MITIGATION FOR THAT TREE REMOVAL, THERE WOULDN'T BE, THEY WOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE, THE, THE MITIGATION WOULD STAY WITH THE PROPERTY UNTIL IT'S, IT'S MADE WHOLE.
SO THAT MITIGATION, THE, THE FACT THAT TREES WERE REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT WOULD FOLLOW THE PROPERTY.
SO ANY FUTURE PERSON THAT PICKED IT UP WOULD HAVE TO MITIGATE THOSE ALREADY TAKEN DOWN TREES? YES.
EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE TAKEN DOWN BY SOMEBODY ELSE? YES.
UH, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED UPON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY? I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S VERY DISTRESSING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE BUILDER AND DEVELOPER ACTED NOT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT ON THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST.
AND, UH, I THINK THAT YOU HAD STATED THAT HAD THIS PROJECT BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BEFORE ANY TREES WERE REMOVED, YOUR OFFICE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO SAY, NO, THIS WOULDN'T BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR TREE MITIGATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? HAD WE REVIEWED THE PROJECT BEFORE TREES WERE REMOVED, EVEN IF THEY WERE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, WE WOULD'VE INFORMED THEM THAT GOING BELOW 80% WOULD'VE TRIGGERED THIS PROCESS RIGHT HERE.
AND, UH, WE FEEL LIKE WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO, UH, HELP WITH BETTER DESIGN OF THE PROPERTY AND AVOID EVEN HAVING TO COME WITH A, A VARIANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, IT'S NOT STATED HERE, BUT THERE'S A $2,000 PENALTY INVOLVED IN THIS, WHICH I THINK IS A DROP IN A BUCKET WHEN SOMEBODY'S BUILDING A BIG HOUSE UP IN THE DOMINION.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A STRONGER MESSAGE TO SEND TO FUTURE DEVELOPERS, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA AND THROUGHOUT SAN ANTONIO.
I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I HOPE TO TAKE UP.
UH, I'M GONNA BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE DEVELOPERS, NEED TO BE HELD MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS PROCESS.
UH, I ALREADY HAD MY COMMENTS, SO, UM, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM NOW? WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY.
AND A SECOND STAFF, PLEASE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, CAN WE JUST CLARIFY WHAT, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? YEAH.
SO A YES VOTE IS TO DENY A NO VOTE IS NOT TO DENY.
CAN WE START OVER? I RECOMMEND WE START OVER.
START THE VOTING PROCESS OVER.
ON THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST.
VOTING NO WOULD BE NOT TO DENY IT.
SO CAN WE START OVER THE VOTING PROCESS PLEASE? COMMISSIONER FAULKNER? YES.
[00:20:01]
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13.ITEM 13, ALSO A TREE VARIANCE.
UM, I'M GOING TO READ IT FOR THE RECORD.
R E Q C M R ZERO E V R DASH 23 DASH 4 4 4 0 0 1 8 7.
THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AFTER THAT.
LONG NUMBER NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE DON'T PRINT THAT MUCH PAPER ANYMORE.
SO,
IT'S LOCATION IS IN THE E T J, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GROSSEN BAER ROAD AND WEST GROSSEN BAER ROAD UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 35 5 23 H 100 YEAR.
FLOODPLAINS STATES THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 80% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
HERITAGE TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED AT 100% PRESERVATION WITHIN BOTH THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
THE OWNER IS DOMINIC LEG WITH SHOWCASE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED APPLICANT JOHN ROBINSON WITH HORIZON DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.
THE HARDSHIP DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE WORK CONTRACTOR FAILED TO NOTIFY THE DESIGN TEAM OF REMOVAL OF TREES FOR MODIFICATION TO ACCOMMODATE FINAL C P S ENERGIES DESIGN FOR A 10 FOOT EASEMENT.
E S A PRES PRESERVATION REQUIRED IS 80% PRESERVATION.
PROPOSED IS 67.96% TOTAL PROTECTED TREES IN THE E S A 22 TREES EQUALING 256 INCHES.
TOTAL TREES PRESERVED 15 EQUALING 174 INCHES.
TOTAL E S A TREES REMOVED 82 INCHES OR SEVEN TREES.
TOTAL MITIGATION REQUIRED IS 30.8 INCHES.
PROPOSED MITIGATION ON THIS SITE IS PLANTING.
THERE'LL BE 49 TREES PLANTED, PROVIDING 131 INCHES OF MITIGATION, WHICH IS EQUAL TO 25.8 INCHES OVER MITIGATION.
UH, THE, THE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT IS 36,130 SQUARE FEET OVER THE MINIMUM 25% CANOPY REQUIREMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL DUE TO THE DEVELOPER PROPOSING TO PLANT TWO INCH CALIPER MEDIUM TO LARGE SPECIES SHADE TREES VERSUS THE MINIMUM 1.5 INCH CALIPER.
LARGE SPECIES TREES PLANTING TREES WILL PROVIDE SPECIES DIVERSITY, EXCEED THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, AND EXCEED THE OVERALL TREE CANOPY COVER REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SITE.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL START ON THE LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER LOPEZ.
AM AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS, THAT THE, THE TREES WERE ALREADY REMOVED ON THE PHONE? YES.
THE CONTRACTOR REMOVED THE TREES FOLLOWING, UH, UM, UM, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF A C P S EASEMENT.
THANK AND THE ENGINEER IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ENGINEER, EXCUSE ME, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
AM I TO UNDERSTAND THEN THAT C P SS MADE THIS REQUIREMENT AND THE CONTRACTOR FOLLOWED THROUGH BUT DIDN'T GET PRIOR APPROVAL? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
WAS THERE ANY PENALTY, UH, FOR DOING THAT WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT? IT'S REQUIRED THAT THEY SUBMIT A REVISED PLAN AND HAVE IT APPROVED BEFORE TREES WERE REMOVED.
THERE WASN'T ANY FINANCIAL PENALTY.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN A MINIMUM $2,000 PENALTY.
YOU SAY? IT WOULD'VE BEEN, BUT HAS IT BEEN APPLIED A WILLOWY? YES, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN ASSESSED.
NO QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS? NO QUESTION.
IT'S PROBABLY FOR THE APPLICANT IF HE'S HERE.
UM, SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON, I WILL LET YOU GET TO THE PODIUM.
[00:25:06]
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON HOW THAT HAPPENED.
IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, UH, I THINK RELATIVELY EXPLAINABLE.
UM, THIS IS A FIVE YEAR OLD PROJECT.
IT WAS A 2018 PROJECT THAT WE PERMITTED MEETING ALL THREE OF THE STIPULATED REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHICH ARE THE MINIMUM, UH, 20% PRESERVATION OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN, 80% PRESERVATION IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE E S A.
THE SITE IS ABOUT A, I THINK IT'S A 13 ACRE KIND OF A CORNFIELD SITE.
IT'S GOT A LOT OF FLOODPLAIN IN THE BACK.
UM, UH, OR IT'S ACTUALLY AN OLD HAY FIELD.
UM, THERE ARE SOME TREES ON IT, BUT NOT A LOT RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE SITE.
UM, THE DEVELOPER HAD TO, UH, IMPROVE THE BRIDGE OVER THE LOW WATER CROSSING OVER GROSSEN BAER ROADS.
AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH TO KEEP THE PRESERVATION RATIO ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
THE ORIGINAL, UH, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH PROBABLY HAS A 2019 JOB OR AP NUMBER WITH THE CITY.
WE SINCE CHANGED THE RECORD KEEPING, BUT, UM, FOR OUR PURPOSES, IT WAS THE 2018 PROJECT.
SO IT PROBABLY CAME IN FOR PERMIT IN 2019.
SO WE GOT A PERMIT, THEN THE CONTRACTOR STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, C P S ISSUED THE PLANS FOR THE OT ELECTRICAL LINE.
AND THAT ADDED AN EASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT ALSO OVERLAPPED THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH CREATES KIND OF A STRANGE POSITION OR A STRANGE SITUATION FROM A CODE COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE THAT MARK STAFF AND I HAVE DEALT WITH AND RESOLVED IN A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHERE YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE RIPARIAN BUFFER, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT ALSO A C P S EASEMENT IN WHICH TREES ARE ARE EXEMPT.
SO THE CONTRACTOR WAS FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE HE WAS WORKING UNDER AN APPROVED PERMIT AND HE HAD A C P S PER, UH, C PS UH, C P SS EASEMENT THAT WAS ADDED AFTER THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS APPROVED.
SO HE HAD FOUR THEN THERE, THERE WERE ONLY FOUR TREES.
HE, THE, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE WERE SEVEN TREES TOTAL REMOVED WITHIN THE E S A.
THREE OF THEM WERE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE APPROVED PERMIT.
THE ORIGINAL APPROVED APPLICATION, THE CONTRACTOR MISTAKENLY REMOVED FOUR ADDITIONAL TREES.
SO WHEN THEY CAUGHT THAT, I BELIEVE THE INSPECTOR WENT OUT ON SITE AND SAW THAT, AND THEY CALLED US AND SAID, WE NEED TO REVISE OUR PLANS.
SO, SO I GUESS THE C P SS DESIGN WAS DONE AFTER, OR IF SOMETHING CHANGED IN THE C P SS DESIGN FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN TO THE, WELL, THE EASEMENT, IT'S PROJECT IN THE E T J, IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMIT.
SO THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WENT TO THE COUNTY.
SO WE HAD A STANDALONE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION THAT GOES THROUGH THE CITY, WHICH CREATES AN INHERENTLY UNWIELDY, UH, CONDITION THERE.
SO, UH, I'M NOT AN M E P ENGINEER, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY OR PROFESSIONALLY HOW EASEMENTS ARE ADDED TO, TO PLANTS.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT C P S ACTUALLY DESIGNS THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE AFTER THE PERMIT, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
SO, UM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED FROM A TREE, UH, TREE PRESERVATION PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THE, IF THERE, EVEN IF THERE WERE AN EASEMENT THERE, THE, THE, THOSE FOUR TREES WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED E S A TREES.
'CAUSE THEY WERE WITHIN NOT ONLY THE FLOODPLAINS, UH, RIPARIAN BUFFER, BUT ALSO A C P S EASEMENT.
AND, UM, IT'S STAFF DETERMINED YEARS AGO OR, OR MADE THE, INTERPRET THE CODE INTERPRETATION YEARS AGO THAT WHEN A, A PROTECTED TREE IS IN BOTH A FLOODPLAIN OR RIPARIAN BUFFER AND AN EASEMENT, THE FLOODPLAIN OR THE RIPARIAN BUFFER TRUMPS THAT.
SO IT PUT THE CONTRACTOR IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAD TO INSTALL THE POWER LINES WITHIN A C P S EASEMENT.
HE JUST DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T CLICK TO HIM.
I GUESS THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THOSE TREES WERE IN FACT PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE WITHIN NOT ONLY THE C P S EASEMENT, BUT ALSO THE S A SO I GUESS THIS MIGHT BE FOR MARK.
SO TYPICALLY IN EASEMENTS, THE TREES ARE EXEMPT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T COUNT THEM TOWARDS YOUR CANOPY OR YOUR PRESERVATION.
SO, BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAP OF THE RIPARIAN AND THE C P SS EASEMENT, THE RIPARIAN, UH, RULES WOULD'VE MADE THOSE COUNT? CORRECT.
BECAUSE IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA FLOODPLAIN.
SO IT, IT HAS ITS OWN DIFFERENT SET OF RULES REGARDLESS OF WHAT EASEMENTS GOES THROUGH THERE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE CPS EASEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED OUTSIDE OF THAT ZONE THEN.
'CAUSE I MEAN, C P S, THEY NEED A CLEAR EASEMENT.
THEY CAN'T OPERATE WITH TREES IN THE WAY.
BUT ANYWAY, IT HAPPENS PERIODICALLY.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? UM, NO.
THINK WE WERE PRESENTING TODAY? SURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER PECK REAL QUICK? UH, MR. GARCIA IS ONLINE IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE HIM ON THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER GARCIA, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? SO, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, YOU'LL HAVE TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
[00:30:03]
MOTION TO APPROVE.WAS THAT, UH, COUNCILMAN K? ALL RIGHT.
AND, UH, SECOND, UH, UH, ROLL CALL.
[Approval of Minutes ]
YOU VERY MUCH.ALL RIGHT, NEXT THING, LAST THING IS MINUTES.
IS THERE ANY CHANGES, EDITS TO THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER, WERE THEY DONE ON CONSENT? THEY WERE, YEAH, WE DID IT ON CONSENT.
IS THERE ANY STAFF, UH, UPDATES? NO UPDATES.
WELL, SEEING AS THERE'S NOTHING FROM THERE.
IT IS TWO 40 AND WE ARE ADJOURN.