04/26/2000 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 • Addition of the definition of "critical damage" • Addition of the definition of "plantation" and replacement of "Schedule and Management of Plantation" as suggested by the DNR. • Addition of language to clarify the process and requirements for single-family versus larger developments. Regarding "Amount of security for single-family" on page 7, Farnum suggested if the Board desired some security they could initiate a performance security account as an incentive to single-family builders to comply. She noted she did not know if this suggestion was brought to the City Attorney's attention. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if Jeff Smyser had commented on this account. Asleson responded he had not, however, there are penalties if a tree is takendown or damaged as part of the building process. Donlin asked how this is policed. Asleson responded the property is checked and if anything is seen it is enforced. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if Asleson would recommend the collection of a performance security. Farnum noted this would require Staff to collect the money, perform the inspection, and return the money, and this could require a process that is not in place yet. Asleson responded Staff presently holds- moneys for landscaping and sodding, and for building inspections for new construction sites: T He noted there is a process in place for this. Farnum reviewed page.9, section B,— .Location of Replacement Trees. She noted in Eagan applicants are-informedof how much mitigation they are responsible for, however, nothing is in writing Donlin asked what the option would be to a developer that bought two acres for a Commercial,Development and would want to clear the trees for tree replacement. Farnum responded;,the developer would be required to do landscaping. She advised that if this ordinance was to be taken literally, and the developer could not satisfy the mitigation, the. City could waive the mitigation requirements. Donlin stated she would not want to waive mitigation requirements. She expressed concern that someone might pay the fine rather than replace trees. She stated she would like to have strong requirements for mitigation. Acting Chair Lanyon noted the flexibility has been removed from this ordinance and the way this is written now, mitigation must be done on site. Farnum responded that is what she understands from the City Attorney. She noted there are times when mitigation on a large development is quite substantial, and there is not enough space left to mitigate on site. 2