01/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

For new residential developments that will be subject to the new regulations, how will subsequent lot owners know that a permit will be required to remove a specimen tree that must be preserved [Section 927.13(4)1? Currently, trees are designated for saving during the approval process for the overall development; however, once the overall development site is subdivided into lots that are less than one acre in size, lot owners are exempted from the need for a tree removal permit to remove the "saved tree(s)". The effect of the application of this exemption is that trees that were intended to be saved are removed. To address this issue, the proposed ordinance includes a requirement, found in Section 927.18(4), that a saved specimen tree may be removed only if the Tree Removal Peiiint criteria of Section 927.15 are satisfied and a per is issued. The discussion included creating a 'tree easement', defining a `buildable area' on the lot, or the recording of a `Notice' in the public records. Ultimately, it was agreed that the Ordinance should require the recording of a `Notice . It was felt that this method would be the most likely way that, via a title search, potential owners would be made aware of the existence of a specimen tree on the prope y. It is staffs opinion that the need to remove a saved specimen tree on a lot after development, will be a rare event. All issues related to the removal of trees after development should be resolved during the site plan and/or plat review process, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for further tree removal. The Notice requirement will help alert future lot owners of the requirement to either save the tree or obtain a pet mit for its removal. What constitutes a `waterfront project' when determining the maximum tree bond amount to ensure proper tree protection during construction [Section 927.13(3)(b)1? The concern expressed by PSAC members was that most residential, and some commercial, developments have stormwater ponds or lakes and could therefore be considered `waterfront' unless a definition was included As a result, the following definition of `waterfront property' was added: For the purpose of this subsection, the teiin "waterfront projects" shall mean any development site that has a natural waterbody wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, the development and at least 25% of the individual lots or parcels are designed such that the lots or parcels have any type of physical access to the waterbody. This definition clarifies that waterfront development projects are those that have substantial frontage on natural waterbodies. Under the proposed Ordinance, developers of such projects would be required to post a higher bond amount to ensure compliance during project construction. Summary of issues raised at the January 10, 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission meetinu The following are issues raised at the January 10, 2002, PCZ meeting (bold items are issues raised at PSAC meeting; the information following the issue is staff's response): • Does the exemption for utility easements and rights-of-way include specimen trees as well as protected trees? The draft Ordinance, as presented to the PZC, contained an exemption from the need for a tree removal permit within utility easements and rights-of-way, under most circumstances; however, the exemption contained only a reference to protected trees not specimen trees. Upon further consideration, staff decided that an exemption for specimen trees should be included. JANUARY 22, 2002 -32- 5 0