2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 9 Vice Chair Boerigter referenced an email to staff seeking clarification on how 410 several of the proposed regulations would be applied, noting that most of the 411 questions had already been addressed in the staff presentation. 412 Member Wozniak noted the traffic visibility triangle addressed in two (2) different 413 sections, appearing to be inconsistent; with staff advising that they would 414 investigate those areas (lines 54 and 330). With staff concurrence, Member 415 Wozniak suggesting including an illustration or diagram of the intent. 416 Considerable discussion ensued related to the tree preservation and 417 replacement sections, including how the list of species for tree preservation had 418 originated and been refined; instructions to developers seeking building permits 419 and management of invasive species and/or insect issues; and provisions for 420 tree removal only on public property. 421 Member Wozniak suggested that the City become more proactive in getting 422 Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) information to developers and other parties, perhaps 423 even by adding language to its proposed tree preservation portion of the zoning 424 code. 425 Vice Chair Boerigter expressed confusion regarding the intent of Section G, line 426 390 and application to tree preservation and/or restoration in Low Density 427 Residential 1 and 2 Districts and their specific application. 428 Mr. Paschke apologized for this formatting glitch; and advised that it was not 429 reflective of the actual intent, and advised that it did not apply to single-family 430 residential property for home additions, only for new construction, based on 431 discussions of the Planning Commission at a previous meeting, with regulations 432 applicable to multi-family zoning. 433 Further discussion included the intent for universal application of tree 434 preservation and/or replacement plans on residential properties based on land 435 alterations or lack thereof; existing requirements and standards followed by staff 436 during the building permit process for accessory structure setbacks and pools, 437 with attempts by staff to codify those standards, by having building permit 438 officials review the language and their practical application; and no prohibitions 439 for private property owners removing trees on their private property. 440 Member Boerigter noted a typographical error on line 196. 441 Further discussion included warranty requirements (line 623) consistent with 442 those currently in place and landscape components of tree preservation, with not 443 all projects requiring a landscape plan; inspection of landscaping installed to 444 ensure its correct installation and growth performance; and formatting corrections 445 yet pending for line 662 related to landscape screening and buffering. 446 Member Boerigter noted the need for clarified language, line 722, for planting 447 one tree in the boulevard per lot as a new requirement; the need for clarification 448 on line 865 related to LDR 1 or 2, but not single-family and requirement for 449 landscape plans and $500 security deposits. 450 Further discussion included ornamental trees (line 827) and their consistency 451 with current language that had been revised as to quantity only; and best 452 management practices (BMP’s) in place to ensure erosion control in a timeframe 453 addressed by the building permit for seeding and/or sod with financial guarantees 454 collected upon issuance of the building permit to ensure compliance. 455 Considerable discussion was held regarding portable restrooms (line 1034) as 456 they were utilized for parks and recreation, or institutional uses. 457 Vice Chief Boerigter questioned if the Parks and Recreation or School District 458 staff had reviewed the proposed revisions and practical standards for application; 459 and whether staff had done a site review of those portable units used historically 460