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

Home Search

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