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

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 10 impervious surface, runoff, impact, and to satisfy the Watershed District issues. Mr. Powell noted that custom grading is also considered to lessen impact. Ms. Lane asked how this tree preservation plan originated. Mr. Smyser explained there is nothing on the books to address tree loss or replacement so it is being handled somewhat arbitrarily. Since there was no set standard, developers raised some concerns and staff felt there was a need to have a clearly written policy. Mr. Rafferty stated his support for this initiative and belief that a house should be sited considering placement of the trees to minimize impact. Ms. Lane asked if just developers or all individuals are required to comply with these requirements. Ms. Farnham reviewed the process that would be followed. Ms. Lane noted that sometimes buildings are placed in a less desirable location to save trees and then a storm occurs which removes those trees, leaving the building in the less desirable location. She stated she is concerned this will encroach on a property owner's rights and finds it to be cumbersome in being placed an additional requirement. She stated she does not support clear cutting but behev his .. to preserve trees whenever possible. Ms. Lane expressed concern with ove y the City. Mr. Smyser noted the language on Page 5, 4A any indicating this ordinances addressed single family lots and general developme 1�. g there are two completely different approaches. Chair Schaps noted that staff alrea authority to not issue a building permit if they do not support the locate 'Wing or impact to trees. Mr. Smyser stated there is no language in this t or. ance providing staff with that authority. He noted the language also does not req e replacement for single family homes. Chair Schaps suggested the ordinance be amended to state what staff has indicated, that they cannot and will not prevent a single family home permit from being issued on that basis. Ms. Farnham reviewed the process available for the property owner to appeal staff's decision. Mr. Rafferty commented on the importance of assuring the ordinance addresses the spirit of tree preservation without creating loopholes. Mr. Johnson stated it sounds like there is some potential for misunderstanding of the ordinance requirements. He stated he supports the purpose but thinks it may be justifiable to expand Section 3A to clarify for the individual homeowners just what it involves and does not compel them to do. Mr. Corson stated his support for an appeal process and suggested that process be expedited. • •