CCP 11-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff Report . Thc September 19, 2006 mcmorandum to the Planning Commission states that "thc tcchnical violation of City Ordinances is c1car-cutting in the Shoreland Ovcrlay zone". Staff has apparently elcctcd to ignore the removal of City-owned trces on thc Fairview Avenue right-or-way, thc removal of which I prcsumc must also bc a violation of City ordinancc. It is statcd that Applicant's proposcd plantings have an estimatcd cost of $19,107, Thc Planning Commission has not been provided any information as to whcthcr this schedule ofpIantings represents a change from what thc Applicant would havc proceeded to install ifhis activities had not bccn challenged. Consequcntly, there is no evidence of any net pcnalty having accrucd to Applicant as a rcsult of thc illegal trce removals. Propcr stratcgy would havc becn for StatTto rcqucst the Applicant's original landscape plan prior to initiation of this review process. Absent this important step, it is impossible to dctermine whether the present proposal represents any change Irom Applicant's original scheme. Incidentally, 1 find it interesting to note that this $19, 107 figure is likely to be less than what was spcnt on the tree removals, given that onc of the bidders for the tree removal infonned me that his bid \vas $23,000. The "Findings of Fact" section states "Staff finds that the proposal sufficiently mitigates . the c1car-culIing violation with the proposed conditions". llowcver, therc is no supporting discussion on how thc proposed landscape plan . cOBlpcnsatcs the neighbors and neighborhood for \vhat hat; been taken; . rcstores public property that was destroyed; . provides disincentives for future potential lawbreakers. The "Resident Comments" section states that "Staff has not rcceived any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case", This is not surplising, given that no effort was madc to inf<)Dn thc neighbors of the nlct that there is a proceeding under way bdorc the Commission. S II mmary /Conclusions The concems which 1 expressed in my original sct of commcnts remain largely unaddressed, and thcrefore are still applicable. The new issues I have presented in this second set of comments are the result of the discussions at the Commission's October 4 meeting, and rcvicw of the materials made available at that meeting. Based on the available inf'()mlation, I must conclude that no plan has been presented to eflcctivdy address the principal issues involved: cnl'()fl;ement of ordinances, restoration of public property, proper consideration of water runoff, and compensation to the . neighhors whose property values have been reduced.