PZ 08/11/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency August 11, 2010 Page 5 Ms. Smith explained that this item is being processed as remedial action due to the fact that a permit was not obtained for the removal of trees. She stated that had the property owner come through the site plan review process first and those trees were anticipated for removal the cost would not be as punitive. She said the cost would be applied as 2'/2 inch dbh to make up for the inches that were removed. Ms. Smith explained remedial action for the removal of a 20 inch tree would require replacement with four 5 inch trees which is more expensive than a 2'/2 inch dbh tree. Ms. Smith stated there is a significant difference in the cost that would be applied to this property should it be calculated on a site development rather than remedial action. Ms. Smith stated that staff could provide the figures to the Commission had the property gone through the site plan review process. She said that would be a more lenient approach that could be taken to this particular site. A general discussion ensued regarding the criteria required to grant a waiver and the applicant's right to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to the City Commission. In response to the Commission's concern that the Code Enforcement Officer did not mention anything about a permit during their site visit, Ms. Drage stated that it is not the Code Enforcement Department's obligation to inform people regarding the need for a permit. She said the tree company should be aware of the permitting requirements and the applicant may have some type of legal action against the tree company that performed the work. A general discussion ensued regarding extending the deadline for the tree bank contribution, the addition of a hardship provision to the City Code and the site plan review and appeal process. Mr. Parkhurst asked for a motion to address SPR 10-07. Mr. Aramendia recommended denial of SPR 10- 07 based on the staff report from Mr. Raasch to the Planning and Zoning Commission as presented. Mr. Van Meter seconded the motion. The Board was polled. Anthony Aramendia Yes Nathan Van Meter Yes Harley Parkhurst No Edmund Bakalla Yes Andrew Meadows No Victor Lutz Yes The motion passed with a majority vote with Mr. Parkhurst and Mr. Meadows casting the dissenting votes.