Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 12, 2000 <br />Page 8 <br />result in an additional $10,000 to replace the trees. He noted that in this scenario, owning <br />a lot with trees will be viewed as a penalty. He suggested a better ordinance can be <br />drafted to enhance tree preservation and restoration, such as requiring a landscaping plan <br />for each lot. <br />Mr. Smyser clarified the draft ordinance puts into writing current practices for single <br />family lots and certainly adds more requirements for larger development areas. <br />John Johnson, engineer representing Gary Uhde, presented a seven acre parcel between <br />Sunset and the Bays Fifth Addition. He noted the property has been surveyed and 4,500 <br />trees have been identified. He noted that 50 trees (over 800 caliper inches) were <br />identified within the public right -of -way that would have to be removed. John Johnson <br />noted that would total 1,500 to 1,600 caliper inches of trees which would require <br />replacement at 90 %. He stated this would equal about 300 trees and asked if this will <br />impact the project to the point it is no longer feasible, noting the acreage does not contain <br />adequate space to replace the trees within the seven acre parcel. John Johnson stated that <br />this is a unique site and they want to assure it is develope.==<; ght related to road layout and <br />house placement. He stated he wanted to share this in ; ation with the Board to show <br />an extreme case and suggested there should be a m �� .d_u4� dress the public spaces <br />(roads and easements) and the private spaces (b ow tree replacement is <br />considered. <br />Mr. Aslesen noted that John Johnson pres <br />conservation development approach is cons <br />more flexible. <br />d type of design but if a <br />tead, the development standards are <br />John Johnson suggested there . „- e• �;_* = xibility to these development standards. <br />Mr. Rafferty noted this �'_cular a s wooded and for sale but the ordinance is <br />addressing a spirit of tree p on and protection. He asked if the area is suppose to <br />be developed if three to four f higher elevations are needed to site a home. <br />Mr. Uhde stated a survey to identify tree location was needed to consider tree <br />preservation and cost analysis to determine if it is feasible for development. <br />Mr. Johnson asked if the requirements will be this stringent if a project remains fairly <br />wooded after the roads, utilities, and homes are sited. Mr. Aslesen stated there is <br />definitely more flexibility with a planned unit development. <br />Mr. Smyser thanked John Johnson for his work on raising these issues and stated he <br />would like to talk to him further about the issues he raised. He stated the goal of the <br />preservation approach is that the developer would not have to sacrifice lots or housing <br />units in order to retain natural features. <br />Mr. Johnson asked if John Johnson's concern is realistic. Mr. Smyser stated it is a <br />realistic concern and he would like to look further at the example that was presented. He <br />explained the primary concern with regulations on development is the impact to develop a <br />viable project. <br />• <br />• <br />