Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/2021

Home

approximately 14 trees short on the shared property line, which would equate to being about one tree short per lot in the backyards along that line. She stated that staff has not had an extensive amount of time to review the information as it was submitted earlier today. Commissioner VanScoy asked the number of trees listed. Councilmember Musgrove asked for information on the tree growth and coverage as the trees grow and whether that is a factor in the proposal before the Commission. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied that 133 trees would be required on the shared property line and the applicant is proposing 119 trees on the shared property line. She stated that part of the request is to allow slightly less trees in order to prevent trees from dying off as they grow. She stated that typically the City requires more smaller trees in order to provide screening with the understanding that some will die off in the process because of how closely packed together they are. Commissioner VanScoy asked if there has been input from City Planner Anderson as to the trees. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that she did have a chance to speak with City Planner Anderson who recommended that input be obtained from the Planning Commission and that he be allowed additional time to review the request. She stated that he was open to a compromise, noting nd that had been done in Harvest Estates 2 Addition, if adequate screening was provided and the neighbors were amenable. Citizen Input Josh Metzer, Lennar, stated that if approved they would like to begin grading activities in the early spring of this year with street and utility construction during the summer and hoped that a model could be ready for the fall parade of 2021. He stated that they would look for a mixture of three and four car garages with prices would begin in the mid- estimated that overall construction would run about three years for all of the homes. He stated that they like to provide landscape buffers for the benefit of both their own residents and adjacent property owners. He stated that they would be exceeding the two trees per yard requirement by two trees. He stated that their initial landscaping plan showed less trees than the 119 proposed, simply from the recommendation on spacing trees from their landscape architect. He stated that in discussions with staff they made the decision to add quite a few more trees to the eastern boundary to get closer to the required number. He recognized that a buffer is needed but commented that they would like to create a buffer that will live and succeed to maturity. He stated that while more dense planting would provide a nice buffer when planted, once those trees get to maturity, trees will die off and need to be removed and the trees that remain will not be of the best quality because they were crowded as they grew and therefore not able to live to their full potential. He commented that by their calculation they are only 14 trees short of the requirement and hoped the Commission could support that. He stated that if the Commission feels strongly, they will find Planning Commission/ January 7, 2021 Page 3 of 20