Design Review Board - Regular Meeting

Sure. There's a few discrepancies here. Because if you look at the Landscape Architects Plans and you look at the Arborist Report from the applicant, if you look at the Arborist Report from Curtis and Rogers, if you look at also the survey, they say that that tree on the right-of-way It's only 13 inches in diameter, but yet it says on the actual report that it's 17 inches from Curtis and Rogers, if I'm not mistaken. Let me go there just to make sure. And so, yep. So here's the issue. If you have a tree that is across the street that is overlapping into their property, if you want to look at it

Okay. So when you look at the grading plan, I will go more with what the civil engineer has proposed. I looked at the calculations. I looked at his plan. And let me tell you, this is the second time I've seen this guy's work, and I'm beginning to fall in love with this guy. He's accurate to the point. And so when I look at those things, I say, great. And the reason I'm saying about the landscape architect to remove their grading plan is because the biggest issue that they're going to find is going to be about collecting water within their property. And when you analyze the guys, especially you

Yes, sir. Absolutely. By the way, you look very handsome, Mr. Trellis, for a long time.

I can't see you, so I don't know who's talking to me.

No, I get it. And then, you know what I, and you make perfect sense. So the question now is.

Well, here's the ideal. From my perspective, because of the way the tree looks, I have no problem that it can be removed and new trees be brought in that is proper for the space. can balance out your house the design of your home because that's the other thing i look at is how let me explain i don't like trees are all lined up if we can group them together would have been great but it is what it is so um i have no problem that that tree can be removed and they pay to the tree trust fund and they come in and place healthy trees in front of the right-of-way. But again, we will have the same issu

I make a motion for approval with staff comments and our board member comments.

Hold on, Danny. I do have, I got to make a comment about something. Okay. My understanding is that we have a new ordinance that I can't believe that we have not been made aware of it so that we can review it. It has to do with points now that has to be prepared by the architect and landscape architect to meet certain criteria. My question is, how did this come about when we have, I think it's making it more complicated after I'm going through it. And my question will be is, shouldn't we first fix our existing code that has problems and issues before we start adding more issues to our code? I'v

uh that code on the solar panel was really uh implemented incorrectly as you stated and you're absolutely correct um so you're saying that the new ordinance came through which we haven't seen and the only reason i'm saying also this is how as board members can we even provide input if we don't even know what has been passed by commissioners so that we can be aware and look at those issues in the future. If you follow where I'm coming from, because I wasn't even aware that that point system was on there. So you're saying that's volunteer.

That's it. So that was the reason for the rating on the point system. It has nothing to do with design in terms of the point of view of the house, the way it looks or what's on the site. Nothing to do with that.

So if you don't want to do the point system, you just continue doing the same way we've been doing it and let the staff review it and basically you meet code or you don't meet code and they'll get the comments.

Get rid of the solar panel deal. I mean, it really was a nightmare 10 years ago. Trust me. 14 years. And I know what it was like. And you're absolutely correct. It did create a lot of problems.

I trust you so much, Surami, that I also wish that you would take a look again or somewhat at the ordinance of the landscape and so forth, how we can improve it. take out the unnecessary things that is not required. You've got a great firm of Curtis and Rogers, so maybe you can hire them to take a look at that. Not the people from Western. Have them take a look at it because they're very good at it too. uh from that perspective and simplify it the simpler the code the easier it is for all of us and it gives you the ability to be creative and then we can as a board and as a staff we can look at

I understand perfectly well where you're coming from. But you're absolutely correct. You are entitled to develop a property as long as you meet all the land development code. The way it is, you are entitled to develop it. If you can't, then redesign. Redesign the home if you cannot meet all the requirements. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I really do.