3/14/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/84: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 5, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD_ CONCURRENCE; PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO THE ' SUBJECEE : ORDINANCEPROTECTION Robert M. Keats gr g,�AZCP Planning & Development Director F'ROM:Nrt Challacombe REFERENCES: Amend. Tree Ord. Environmental Planner ARTCHA ,. ,1 0 It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on March 14, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On November 16., 1983, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the tree protection ordinance. At that meeting, there was much discussion as to how the ordinance would be implemented. The Commission, after voting unanimously to approve the ordinance, instructed -staff that in working with the ordinance, if imple- mentation of a portion of the ordinance proved unreasonably difficult to administer or created an unfair hardship on the-- public, staff should inform the Commission and make necessary changes. ',d On December 15, 1983, Planning staff accompanied Mr. Robert Gaskill on a site inspection at the proposed Vista Plantation site located on S.R. 60 and 66th Avenue. The purpose of this inspection was to review the tree survey prepared by the applicant and to observe the general condition of the site. On December 20, 1983, Mr. Gaskill submitted a site plan appli- cation to the Planning and Development Division for Vista Plantation and a request for a variance from the land clearing provision of the tree protection ordinance. Mr. Gaskill requested that Vista Properties, Inc. be allowed to clear a portion of the site prior to obtaining site plan approval. On January 12, 1984, the Planning and zoning Commission denied the variance after determining that the criteria for granting a variance did not apply in that case. The Planning and Zoning Commission instructed staff to examine the existing wording in the ordinance and propose an amendment that would alleviate the disparity with respect to obtaining a land clearing permit. On February 9, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the tree protection ordinance and unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adoptfhe proposed amendment. ALTERNATIVES & ANAL.YSIS The land clearing section of the tree protection ordinance presently creates an unreasonable hardship for a developer attempting to prepare a site for construction. Undesirable trees such as Australian pine or Brazilian pepper may be removed prior to a subdivision or site plan approval, while removal of understory. is prohibited without these approvals. As adopted, the tree protection ordinance makes no provision Babb 6 PACE 409