8/15/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In the following discussion, it was felt that there has not been any change in the DOT position. Apparently they recognize the turn is needed, but dropped it off their construction schedule because of lack of funds. Commissioner Bird continued to stress the DOT's responsibil- ity and his reluctance to let them off the hook. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that time is the problem, and in the meantime we are holding up the already constructed warehouse, but Commissioner Bird noted that warehouse is in bankruptcy and has many other problems. Planner Boling brought up Condition #1 in regard to redesigning the project to preserve the 36" oak. He stressed that it is a Live Oak, which is a protected tree, and it is healthy. Commissioner Scurlock inquired if this tree is in the footprint of the building. Planner Boling confirmed that it is, and went on to present slides showing the location of the tree on the site. He also displayed slides of the new Taco Bell building where a similar tree located only about 8' from that building was saved. Mr. Boling presented a drawing of the subject site, showing the location of the tree and the proposed building. He pointed out that it is a large site, and staff feels the building could be moved back 10' to 12' to preserve the tree. He did note that the problem here, which did not occur at the Taco Bell site, is the fill that would be required. Staff feels the tree is worth saving, but it would require a tree well. Commissioner Bird believed that everyone wants to protect such a beautiful tree, but asked if it is the County Attorney's opinion that we have the legal right to require this. Attorney Vitunac explained that this is not like. a PRD where you have almost unrestricted rights to make good conditions to a project, and Asst. County Attorney Collins further explained that there is no Special Exception criteria directed towards trees, AUG 15-198 21 ROCK �� i,vr: D -L r