04-30-07 Item 4J, Landscaping Agreement at 3433 Lake Johanna Blvd

Home Browse Search

however, the applicants' bank will not issue a line of credit to an individual residential property owner for this type of proj ect. While the applicants could submit a cash escrow to the City, the initial outlay for the landscaping plan would then be as high as $106,334 ($59,093 for the cash escrow to the City and $47,272 for the actual landscaping). Assuming the landscaping plan is fully implemented and viable, the cash escrow would be returned to the applicants over a two year period; however, the up front costs would substantial and unworkable for the applicants and most other property owners. In order to resolve this issue and to keep the re-Iandscaping plan on track, Staff, with support from the City Attorney, proposes to modifY the Landscaping Plan/Site Development Agreement. The modified agreement would require the applicants to submit a $3,000 cash escrow to the City, and agree to a condition that would allow the City to assess the property for any additional costs associated with enforcing, completing, or replacing any portion of the landscaping plan that is not implemented or does not survive. Provided the landscaping is implemented and maintained as approved, the $3000 cash surety would be refunded two years after the plan is fully implemented and successfully inspected by the City. The City's ability to assess the property for the costs associated with the landscaping plan would also expire two years after the plan is fully implemented. The overall timeframe is the same as the original agreement. All other conditions would remain unchanged. The intent of a financial surety is to encourage compliance with an approved plan and conditions. In this planning case, the City's goal is to have the property stabilized and re-landscaped at the cost of the applicants. While the tool to enforce the agreement would change, the intent of the original financial surety condition would still be met. The City will still have a financial instrument that could be used to complete or replace the landscaping should the property owner not fully comply with the approved landscaping plan. If the Council approves the modified Landscaping Plan/Site Development Agreement, the applicants have agreed to sign the modified agreement. It is important to note that the applicants volunteered to go through this somewhat improvised site plan review process that was used to develop the re-Iandscaping plan. As was noted last year, the Zoning Code does not prescribe a specific remedy for this type of violation, and there are no other similar violations on file on which to model a remedy. While the City could have issued a citation for the violation, the landscaping plan that was developed through the site plan review process is almost certainly more comprehensive than any fine or landscaping plan that may have been required in a successful lawsuit. While the significance ofthe violation should not be downplayed, the primary goal is to develop a solution that results in the best possible outcome for the surrounding neighborhood and City. Adopting an administrative citation process may help the City impose more stringent financial penalties for future code violations; however, additional research is needed before adopting such a process, As may be noticed in the original Site Development/Landscaping Agreement, term number five required the applicants to submit the financial surety before the City issued any building permits. \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases\2006\06-028 Ngo Site Plan Review (APPROVED)\043007 - CC Report - Modified Development Agreement.doc Page 2 of3