At the June 12 meeting, the Planning Commission had an application by Joel Walker for removal of as many as 61 trees on three Fuller Street lots to make room for a single-family residence and a duplex, plus driveway and parking. Three citizens expressed opinions before the commission had its discussion.
Jack Jaeger said he lived across the Fuller Street from the proposed site, and it was hard for him to hear of so many trees being removed. He hoped the plan could be scaled back because he feared there might be an erosion problem.
James Helwig told commissioners he was a geologist who visited the site, and speculated the tree removal would cause an increase in storm water runoff, so there needed to be a mitigation strategy. Additional grading at the site would necessitate further retention measures, and Helwig suggested the grading should distribute the runoff rather than channel it toward drainage areas. Besides more retaining walls, he suggested Walker employ a vegetation plan and a permeable driveway as part of storm water management.
Chris Fischer, who lives on Ridgeway just above the site, requested Planning postpone any action because “the process by which the city is advancing the applicant’s request… is not consistent with Municipal Code.” He claimed the application “deserves a comprehensive review of all building and construction aspects relative to the land usage and dimensional review components” mentioned in Code.
Based on the Tree Preservation section in Code, Fischer claimed Walker’s documents “do not identify proper design considerations to reduce negative impacts to the site.” He also pointed out a Grading Permit Application and approval was lacking, so he formally requested that commissioners defer a decision until “the City has properly reviewed the process” to ensure it complied with all requirements of City Code.
When the commission got its turn, Susan Harman identified from a revised site plan the number of trees which might be removed had been reduced to around 43, and the bulk of them were for the driveway and middle of the development. Walker said he did not want to cut any more than necessary.
Harman noted the site plan differed from the application, so the two should be made to agree. She also wanted certain items such as a vegetation plan to be identified, and asked how they could officially change aspects of the application.
Commissioner Tom Buford noted there needed to be mitigation measures for controlling runoff, and he asked how Walker would be bound to their requests if the application were approved. He acknowledged this was a trade-off in that so many trees would be removed but Walker had committed to building a dry stack wall at the rear of the property, planting vegetation where needed, and installing a permeable driveway as mitigation measures.
Chair Ann Sallee told Walker he needed a grading permit, and he responded he had been told he needed Planning’s approval first. Sallee read from Code to back up her statement about grading, but commissioner Woodie Acord asked what did all this have to do with the application for a tree cut permit before them?
Sallee responded Planning had received nothing about the project except an application for a tree cut permit, but this had become a high profile case, and she intended to be careful. Buford reiterated Code mentions a grading plan is required, and Sallee asked commissioners to defer until she got an opinion from the city attorney.
Walker pointed out, however, that Building Inspector Bobby Ray said he could not assist with anything until Planning approved the permit. He added his project was only two structures, so it was not a big development.
Harman observed they have been getting information piece by piece from different sources and commissioners are not sure they see the whole picture. “That’s the issue,” she said.
After the same observations began to percolate again, Harman moved to approve the application with certain conditions: amend the number of trees on the tree cut application from 61 to 43; get an updated site plan which shows the vegetation plan, and the sites of retaining walls. Acord seconded the motion.
Discussion about plans and reviews centered around commissioners getting clearer instructions for these kinds of applications, plus all the information they need. Debate about deferral continued because some commissioners were not satisfied conditions would be met, so Harman amended her motion to include a third condition, the receipt in city hall of documents from the Building Inspector and Director of Public Works with their signatures on documents approving the grading plan, as well as notes and statements approving the project. Vote to approve that was 4-0.