CCP 11-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2006, Planning Commission mceting. The October 4, 2006, report to the Planning Commission is attached to this memo without the full attachments (the attachmcnts are availablc on the City's website and in thc October 10, 2006, City Council packet), The full report with attachments . from the November I, 2006, Planning Commission mecting is attached. Please note that if the sitc plan review is approved, the City is not giving up its right to pursuc legal action should the property owner dcf~lU1t on the requirements of the approved site plan review and landscaping plan. Since this violation occurred, the City's procedure f()r responding to tree removal questions has been rcviewed and modified, Currently, the City docs not require a pernlit for removing trees. Thcre1()re, it is quite possible that the property owner was told that trees could be removed without a permit. What may not have been made clear to the property owner, however, is that all orthc trees cannot be rcmoved on a property adjacent to a lake. Residents and busincss with tree removal questions arc now provided with additional infolTIlation, Discussion At the Planning Commission, Staff proposcd and the Planning Commission adopted the 1()lIowing condition ninc): 9. No additional trees shall he rcmoved from thc public rights-of-way without pennission from thc City Forester and City Planner. While the Planning Commission is in support of thc condition, they werc conccrned that the City . docs not havc a specific penalty proccss in place should the applicant not comply with the condition. Although the City can always pursuc Icgal options, that would not necessarily address thc ioss of any additional trees. Thc Planning Commission is recommcnding that the City Council adopt a more specific penalty should the property owncr not comply with the above condition, It should be noted that the property owner has indicated that no additional trees will be removed from the right-of-way or on their private property, Should the City Council choose to adopt a more specific penalty for a violation of the above condition, StalTproposes the f()llowing penalty language far this particular case: I f any trees are removed from the right-of-way without prior authorization from the City, the property owner shall provide 125 percent ofthc caliper inches of trees that werc removed from the right-of-way to the City, The City shall dctermine the location(s) for the replacement trecs, which may includc locating the trees in public right-of-way or, if thcre is not room to properly place the trees within thc right-of-way fi-om which the trces wcre removed, on other publicly owncd or managed land, Replacemcnt deciduous trees shall be at least 2,5 caliper inches and coni ferous trces shall be at least eight feet tall. The City reserves the right to pursue legal options in place of the tree replacement fonnula described abm.e. : ',\lerro-illt'I,II,\ '1II'd"lIilill,\ Plt/llllillgPlr/llllillg CIISl's:~Ii(l"':1i6-(C8 ,Vg,1I Silc f'lall Rl'l'iClI' (f't,'NOING):/11306 - C(' R"I'"r/ - A:\!II silt' 1'IIIIl,dll(' . Page 2 01'5