09/13/2000 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Tree Preservation Ordinance September 11, 2000 page 2 unusual situations. (Writing the exception into the ordinance would avoid the need for a variance.) For example, we could state that if the developer can demonstrate that there is not enough land on the site to accommodate all the replacement trees, the City may allow less replacement than is normally required by the ordinance. Another means would be to put a cap on the per lot or per acre replacement cost. If the exercise represents what we can expect to be a typical scenario, we must address the second question regarding if the cost is too much. To see if the study site is typical, staff compared the forested lands from the environmental inventory to the draft future land use map. The analysis was by necessity a manual, visual comparison of two maps. Nonetheless, it did show that there are numerous areas that could run into a high cost of tree replacement. This would not be the majority of sites, however. We expect that the preservation development approach offers the opportunity to reduce tree loss and other environmental impacts. Even so, there will be some sites on which tree loss and replacement could be significant. 2. Does the study result represent an acceptable cost to add on the cost of development? The exercise resulted in a cost of approximately $2400 per lot, or $5400 per acre. Is this too much? It is important to remember that developers will rarely simply absorb development costs: the costs are passed on to the property buyer through the cost of the land. Any increase in development cost increases the price of a lot and thus reduces affordability. At the same time, preserving or replacing trees is an important goal in the community. The hope is that the City can work with the developers to reduce tree loss through sensitive design. This will require adjusting lot sizes and other methods available through use of a planned development. This should not mean simply reducing the number of lots, which will only serve as a disincentive to cooperation. To reduce the cost of tree replacement, we have several options: a. Count required boulevard trees toward the replacement requirement. The draft ordinance does not allow this. City policy under a separate ordinance is one boulevard tree per lot. b. Put a cap on the replacement cost, as mentioned above. This could be a maximum cost per lot or per acre. c. As stated above, allow the developer the chance to demonstrate that the replacement is not possible within the area of the project.