Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 13, 2000 <br />Page 9 <br />Mr. Smyser stated he will review the ordinance to assure there is no language that would <br />interfere with the developer's ability to negotiate that issue with individual lot buyers. <br />Mr. Johnson stated the developer could also grant a "tree credit" to the individual lot <br />buyer so the buyer can determine what they want and where the trees should be located. <br />Ms. Lane asked if the developer would be obligated to place the trees on another lot if a <br />home buyer does not want trees, or if those trees could be waived. Mr. Smyser stated the <br />City is not mandating where the trees must be located, except they must be somewhere <br />else in the development. <br />Ms. Lane stated her concern with a bureaucratic approach to government regulation of <br />tree replacement and location. She agreed that developers want to save nice trees since it <br />will result in more money for their lots. She stated she remains concerned with this <br />ordinance and does not support its adoption as it will become too cumbersome and <br />require additional staff time for enforcement. <br />Mr. Smyser stated there already is an ordinance but t ' anguage is ambiguous so staff is <br />faced with trying to make a determination on each wig ,. as to what will happen. To <br />provide more clear and understandable guideli � ill gi 4 he developer more "up front" <br />information so the tree preservation plan can ned according to the stated <br />guidelines. He explained the current ordi ce t y a lot of staff time to determine and <br />negotiate and he believes the proposed or ti provide more clear direction and, <br />thus, reduce the amount of staff time , ' i r er stated staff has received complaints <br />from developers that they are not b front what will be required. <br />Chair Schaps stated the inten <br />supports the comments by <br />have trees if they don't want th <br />support to use the ordinance as a <br />ore efficient is well intended however he <br />at it is too personal to tell lot buyers they must <br />ell as the placement and species. He stated his <br />alculator" so developers can be told what they will be <br />assessed for tree replacement, but he believes the City needs to be absolutely submissive <br />to the needs and desires of the individual lot owner. Should there be a surplus of trees <br />and the owners do not want trees, the City should have the option to request cash for <br />placement in the park fund, or find another location in Lino Lakes that needs trees. <br />Mr. Smyser stated he agrees 100% with Chair Schaps and Ms. Lane, noting there is <br />nothing in the ordinance to require the lot owner to accept a tree. If there is a surplus of <br />trees, language could be included to address that situation. With regard to the suggestion <br />of cash in lieu of trees, the City Attorney has indicated that cannot be done because it <br />requires the developer to pay for an improvement off site which is seen as being an <br />impact fee. <br />John Johnson thanked staff for their diligence in trying to find a way to make this work. <br />He stated that while progress is being made, he believes there is still a ways to go. He <br />stated Gary Uhde, his client, remains concerned and believes the ordinance needs to be <br />worded so it works. John Johnson presented a picture of the property his client would <br />like to develop which depicted the trees to be removed to accommodate the roadway and <br />