Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal Trinity Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ECC recommends approval of Trinity Park tree-removal permit; developer cites topography and PD constraints
Summary
The commission recommended approval of a permit to remove three specimen trees and 227 protected trees for a proposed office/warehouse on a 3.92-acre site in the Lakeside Business Park (PD 83). Staff said mitigation for the protected-tree debits was roughly $141,000.
At its March 4 meeting the Environmental Conservation Commission recommended approval of a tree removal permit (TRP 250002) for a proposed development called Trinity Park, a 3.92-acre site in the Lakeside Business Park within PD 83.
Staff described the request as removal of three specimen trees (a 39.5-inch multi-stem post oak, a 25-inch multi-stem cedar elm and a 22.5-inch post oak) plus 227 protected trees overall that are proposed to be cleared for an office/warehouse building and associated parking and fire access. Staff reported a mitigation estimate of about $141,000 for tree debits shown on the submitted tree survey.
Cameron Ann, representing the property owner and Claymore Engineering, said the site has steep existing topographya0a0the grade drops roughly 16 feet from road to back of lotand that the planned building, required truck docks and on-site circulation limited the applicant—s ability to save the specimen trees. "It is a small site. It is a tight site," Ann said, and she explained the project is designed to conform to the original PD concept and to preserve a delineated preservation zone along the site—s edge.
Commission members pressed on alternatives, including whether reconfiguring the building footprint or using two stories for some functions could preserve trees. The applicant said the warehouse portion requires a single-story clear height for storage and loading operations and that office space would be two stories only in the front portion. Staff and the developer noted an on-site preservation area would remain untouched.
After discussion a commissioner moved to recommend approval of the requested permit; another commissioner seconded. The motion passed on a recorded vote in which Commission Member Takash voted no and at least two other commissioners recorded aye votes. Staff noted the matter will proceed to town council for further action as part of the normal review process.
Ending
Commissioners asked staff to confirm totals and mitigation calculations; staff said it would provide any missing exhibits. The ECC—s recommendation advances the application toward the town council and any conditions or additional mitigation required by council will be decided in subsequent hearings.
