07/12/2000 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 9 Julie Farnham, TKDA, noted the revisions since the last discussion and offered to answer questions. Chair Schaps requested comment on Richard Carlson's letter of June 7, 2000. Ms. Farnham stated they reviewed the letter and noted this plan only applies to private property. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the situation should a trail be required and result in the loss of a tree. Ms. Farnham stated if the trail is within the private development, any significant tree that would be lost should be counted. She explained the intent is that the applicant would work with staff to minimize tree loss and if a trail is required by the City, she expects the City would work to minimize tree loss as well. She stated any tree loss within a private development would be included as part of the sum total of loss. However, the City would have the ability to waive those mitigation requirements. Mr. Smyser explained the only activity of the develo is with infrastructure such as roads, trails, and wetland mitigation, noting the de does not build the actual houses. Thus, if those infrastructure activities of co ered there would be no need for a tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Powell stated for any contractor insta "' ements, a letter of credit is required and advised of the percentages requir Mr. Schilling asked about the issu that the City's attorney has in City to implement than a pe q ` ng a performance bond. Mr. Powell advised al times that a letter of credit is easier for the bond to assure the work is completed. Mr. Smyser noted this proposed o dinance is simply placing into writing the City's policies that are already in effect regarding financial securities. Mr. Corson raised a scenario of a project impacting different varieties of trees and noted that poplar trees cannot be replaced by poplar trees, or cottonwood trees with cottonwood trees. Ms. Farnham noted the ordinance language identifying trees to avoid as well as the alternative allowed for the City to wave that requirement and allow flexibility. In response to Mr. Corson, Ms. Farnham noted that off site mitigation has been discussed. However, the City Attorney was uncomfortable with requiring off -site mitigation so the language was revised to require that replacement trees must be placed on the same site. She stated that perhaps language should be considered to address such a unique situation where there is not a location for replacement trees. Mr. Corson asked if the City has considered allowing a 28 foot wide road in some situations. Mr. Powell stated Bluebill Ponds, as proposed, has a 28 foot back -to -back roadway and the City standard is 32 feet. He explained that was considered to reduce