PCP 11-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. overwhelm or distract from the plants. Therefore, Staff has included a condition that requires the mulch to be a neutra] color. . Financial Suref\' As part of this re-landscaping process to resolve the clear-cutting issue, the applicant agreed to submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the landscaping plan. At the last Planning Commission meeting, there was a brief discussion about how the financial surety should be released and over what timeframe. As a staliing point for the financial surety discussion, Staff proposes the following release schedule: . 50(~,'o of the financial surety would be released upon full implementation of the landscaping plan that is approved by the City and after a successful inspection by City Staff. . 30% would be released after the first full year after implementation and a successful inspection by City Staff. . 2(Y~';) would bc released afkr the second full year and a successful inspection by City Sta1T The initial installation includes the cost of the grading, retaining walls, and the vegetation; therefore, the installation cost in the first year will be much higher than any needed replacement or maintenance costs in the follov..:ing two years. Since it is highly unlikely that all of the plants wi II die or other major expenses would occur within the first year after . implementation, it may be prudent to release a larger pOliion of the financial surety after the full plan is implemented and inspected. The second portion of the 11 nancia] surety would be rei eased one year after full implementation and inspection. The final pOliion of the financial surety would be released after the second full year of implementation and inspection. The financial surety is essentially a fOl1n of insurance lor the City to ensure that the landscaping plan is fully implemented as proposed and that the vegetation is able to establish itself. Should the applicant not replace dead or dying vegetation after being requcsted by the City to do so, the City wou]d be able to use the financial surety to have the vegetation replaced. 2. General Evaluation Criteria Since a residential property is generally not subject to the site plan review process for landscaping, there is not a prescribed procedure for evaluating the proposed landscaping plan. Evaluation criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following: . Compatibility with neighboring propcliies; . SufJicient replacement ofpreviolls vegetation; Ci(I' ojArden IIi/Is Planning COlI/missiu1/ Aleefingj()r NOl'elllber J. ]006 . : ;;\Ie/ro. illl'l.lIsiardt'llhi/!sJ>laI//7illgiPIlIllllillg Cas, '.\...:!III)(, ,O(,-O:!s ;\1:0 .\i/e !'Iall Rl'I'iew II'LNU!N(;'jilO:!306 - 1'(' I'<:/)(/r/ - /I/go Sire !'Iall RC1';t.'\I,.'.d(J(' Pllge 5 of 8