Laserfiche WebLink
233 <br /> <br />proposes single family detached units for sale~ 2) It will <br />not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding <br />neighborhood if conditions are met~ and 3) The Planned United <br />Development proposal allows for better control by the City of <br />the type of development which would occur on this property. <br />The Planning Commission's approval was based on several <br />conditions listed by Mr. Huja. Mr. Huja explained that the <br />application has submitted a new site plan with two variances <br />from the Planning commission's recommendations regarding <br />fencing and tree replacement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Peggy Van Yahres recommended that Council require <br />that the tree marked Linden A be saved, thus reducing the <br />number of units to eighteen. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nancy Long, representing the applicant, stated that <br />the project is already marginal financially and 19 units are <br />needed to make the project viable. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters asked why the project was financially <br />marginal and Ms. Long replied that the developer has incurred <br />approximately $225,000 in expenses to date in the project <br />through lot improvement costs and previously submitted <br />unsuccessful proposals. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned the necessity to install an opaque <br />fencing between the proposed units and Meade Park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja stated that the units contain small back yards <br />and privacy fencing is required in all units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde'Gouldman, City Attorney, presented two <br />variations of the ordinance rezoning the property and <br />recommended that the ordinance marked Exhibit A be approved <br />because-staff did not feel the City had the authority to <br />require the developer to replace the trees to provide a <br />canopy equal to that which is lost when a tree is removed <br />during development, i Mr. Gouldman stated that a sentence <br />could be added to the ordinance which would provide for <br />replacement of any trees destroyed during construction. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards made a motion to approve ordinance entitled <br />Exhibit B. Mr. Vandever seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Towe concerning the <br />proposed name, Arden Close, Ms. Long stated that the <br />developed had chosen the name. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters made a motion to substitute the ordinance <br />marked Exhibit A as a substitute motion, with the.addition of <br />a sentence providing for the replacement of trees destroyed <br />during construction up to a 24 month period to be replaced <br />with trees which would produce a similar canopy in ten years <br />and requiring the developers to provide a plan to protect the <br />tree-s. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever recommended that the City adopt the tree <br />protection plan as suggested in a letter from Peggy <br />Van Yahres as follows: 1) For trees A - H, require a tree <br />protection plan to be reviewed by the City's arborist, or an <br />arborist chosen by the City~ 2) For trees A - Ht require that <br />the City's arborist, or another arborist chosen by the City, <br />enforce the tree ~protection plan~ and 3) a)~For trees A - D, <br />if damaged during construction or removed during the next <br />fifteen year period; replaced by enough indigenous_shade <br />trees so that in ten years the canopy of the new trees will <br />equal the canopy of the removed trees~ b) For trees E - H, <br />the same as a) above would apply, except the.replacement <br />formula would be reduced to replacement of one-half the <br />canopy) and c) For trees I - J, no replacements required. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she would also be comfortable <br />with allowing only split rail fencing on the western boundary <br /> <br /> <br />