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

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 8 normal costs due to tree replacement. He suggested writing language into the ordinance to create exceptions to the rule, one being if the developer demonstrates there is not enough land in the development to replace the roads, the City could allow less than what would be required, or a cap per lot or per acre could be created. With regard to an acceptable cost, Mr. Smyser stated there are a number of options related to cost such as stating boulevard trees could be counted toward replacement trees. However, that may raise an issue with a developer required to place boulevard trees without involving the replacement requirement. Another possibility would be to place a cap on the replacement cost by the acre or lot, or to allow the developer to demonstrate there is no room on the property without the loss of the number of lots. Or, the replacement percentages could be adjusted downward. Mr. Smyser noted the added statement to Section IV, A, to indicate: "The City's intent for the tree preservation plans for individual single family lot •rovide guidance to the prospective resident on the best ways to protect the tree = gee lot ner wants to protect. The City will not mandate which trees to cut o on this and how to preserve the selected trees. The permit simply because of the selection of which tre remove." 1 make suggestions ithhold a building uilder wants to save or Mr. Smyser asked if the Board would lik a + co ` er these modifications. Mr. Corson stated his general conc specimen trees, however, cotto he would support removal o include the size, species, property but is to not i of Siberian Elm, certai ed previously, is the goal to preserve and box elder trees are included. He stated Mr. Smyser stated the plan requirements are to on of all significant trees to be removed from the es indicated in a specific section. Thus, replacement e, cottonwood, boxelder is not required. Mr. Johnson note •?� removed for the building pads or streets could not be replaced in those log, ons and asked when those trees would be replaced. Mr. Smyser stated the timing for `=placement is not indicated specifically in the ordinance but could be addressed in the development agreement with the requirement to complete planting before the escrow funds are released. Mr. Johnson noted the wishes and desires of the lot buyer with regard to tree placement should be considered in this process. He stated he believes this type of ordinance will result in a variety of situations and variables so it may not be possible to write a single ordinance to address all possible scenarios. Mr. Smyser stated staff gave thought to indicating where the trees should be located or when the trees should be planted. However, if left open, it provides more flexibility and allows the developer to make that determination, to negotiate with individual lot buyers, or negotiate with staff. Mr. Johnson stated he believes developers in Lino Lakes want to place trees on the individual lots but if a problem were to occur, the ordinance language could be tightened.