PC 091102 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Mr. Iserson could not make the PUD findings at this time, specifically, consistency with the General Plan, which promoted the preservation of trees. In addition, there would be a major impact of the surrounding area's appearance. Staff had received letters from two surrounding property owners who did not agree with the request to remove the trees. Staff recommended denial of this application, but added several conditions of approval should the Commission decide to recommend approval ofthe modification to the City Council. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Iserson replied that the Heritage Tree Review Board would not be involved in this request because the site was part of a PUD Development Plan. The Review Board would hear an isolated case of tree removal. The applicants wished to modify the landscaping shown on the PUD Development Plan, which included the subject trees. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson replied that the applicant's landscape architect developed the replacement plan. --- In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson replied that the difference of opinion between staff and the City Landscape Architect was due to a judgment call. The applicant had made this request over the years, and Mr. Fulford believed the replacement plan was a good one. Plarming staff believed more strongly that the trees had some useful life yet, and wished to send a preservationist message to the community. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas, Mike Fulford, City Landscape Architect, replied that a gradual replacement could be implemented to reduce the visual impact. He noted that the staff report reflected his view on the matter. He noted that before the applicants cemented their replacement plan, Plarming staff suggested during their conference that the replacement be implemented in two phases. He believed that a gradual replacement plan would be beneficial in terms of its visual impact. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Fulford replied that the height of a 36-inch box red oak was approximately twelve to fourteen feet above ground, and a spread of five to six feet when first planted. If the trees thrive in the new environment, it could grow two feet per year. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Fulford noted that the red oak would become a shade tree, which was larger, more majestic, and would have more longevity than the cottonwood. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Fulford replied that cankers and galls were interchangeable, and that they were more of a response to an injury to the tree than a disease. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September II, 2002 Page 4