11/08/2000 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Tree Preservation November 8, 2000 page 2 developer at the developer's cost, will provide staff with better information and more certainty for both parties regarding expectations. Tree preservation should not be used as a veiled method of reducing development. Our approach to conservation development, which we have been calling "preservation development," is not based on reducing the number of houses. Rather, we recognize that a developer needs a certain profit to make a project viable. As long as the project if financially viable, there is incentive to cooperate with the City in reducing the impacts on the natural environment. Simply reducing the number of lots reduces the incentive to cooperate, and this creates a "lose- lose" situation. The following points summarize the developers' concerns expressed at the meeting: • The ordinance tries to do too much. • The ordinance is too complicated. • Land owners will cut trees prior to development plans to avoid the extra cost. • Tree surveys are very costly. • The high water table requires much fill in Lino for house pads: this leads to tree loss. • If Lino wants higher value homes, this requires basements, which requires fill, which leads to tree loss. • The tree replacement will cost more, thus reducing the ability to have more affordable homes if desired. When asked for suggestions for better methods, the developers offered the following: • The City should have a more comprehensive approach to conservation: a tree ordinance puts on restrictions but doesn't offer alternatives. Need balance. • Give credit for other conservation elements in a project, e.g., saving more trees than expected. That is, some incentives for special conservation design. • Maybe the ordinance should apply only when the existing tree density exceeds a specific threshold. • Use a minimum number of trees per finished lot — simple is better. • One tree lost, one tree planted, up to a maximum of seven per lot, for example. This is better than the caliper inch method. • Allow a planned unit development approach, which allows the same density of development with smaller lots to save trees. It shouldn't penalize the developer. • Need more flexibility. • A tree survey is unnecessary: use a walk - through method, selecting the trees to be saved. • It is true that the ordinance as drafted will increase development costs over current costs in Lino Lakes. This in turn will increase the cost of home ownership in the City. This is