The south property line is similar to the east in that the buildings are pushed to the maximum extent like <br />the other buildings on the three other property lines and encroach on the required 5 ft setback, requiring <br />easements to be attained on the neighboring properties to the south. <br />Tree Preservation <br />The applicant has claimed the 25 or so mature cedar trees on TL 200 for preservation. See excerpt from <br />application below. <br />' Findings: The property hosts a diverse but isolated series of small groups of very <br />young fruit and fir trees with some scattered mature trees. The 2.3-acre <br />property has approximately 135 existing trees of various groupings. The PUD <br />proposes to remove only four (4) city-classified trees, each measuring eight <br />inches or more in diameter at their respective DBH. The more mature trees, <br />including a row of large Cedars along the north property line, were selected for <br />preservation. No significant trees will be harmed or removed. A Tree Removal <br />Plan is provided with this application as provided by the Project Landscape <br />Architect. Please refer to the attached comprehensive proposed landscape <br />plans. Specific work shall be approved by a licensed arborist prior to <br />EC 9.8320 (4) (b) Tree Preservation, presents several articles of code that discuss what types of trees <br />should be preserved and the intent of the code is to have the applicant preserve trees on their project <br />property, not on neighboring properties. There are 2 of the mature cedars that have a significant lean to <br />the south. Those two trees will have to come down before Building 2 is constructed because the cost will <br />be much lower if the trees can be brought down in one fell cut. With a building below, the trees will need <br />to be taking down piece meal so as to not damage any buildings. This increases the cost significantly. <br />In addition, as presented in the Street Connectivity section, most of the trees will be removed in order for <br />TL 200 to be developed at its full potential. This will likely happen in the future if this PUD is approved. <br />It has been pointed out in many of the opposition letters that this PUD will be precedent-setting and will <br />encourage other undeveloped properties to be developed in the area. With that in mind, TL 200 will very <br />likely be developed in the future with the most density as possible, which would very likely include <br />removal of all or most of the trees. For this reason, the applicant should not be selecting trees on <br />neighboring properties to preserve because they may not be there in the future. Once again the applicant <br />is putting the burden of trying to meet city code on the neighboring properties. <br />The applicant states above that no significant trees will be harmed yet earlier in the paragraph they <br />propose to remove only 4 city-classified trees, each measuring eight inches or more in diameter at their <br />respective DBH (diameter at breast height). This is a contradictory statement. A significant tree per EC <br />below is the same as the city-classified trees that are to be removed. This just shows that the applicant <br />presents misleading arguments and this erodes the validity of the application. <br />EC Definitions <br />Significant Tree. A living, standing tree having a trunk with a minimum cumulative <br />Page 17 of 20 <br />