Laserfiche WebLink
250 <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman reviewed the changes to the ordinance as <br />recommended by Council at the previous meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt the intent of the <br />Planning Commission was to require a fence on the entire <br />north side of the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Goul~aan explained that the requirement to require <br />tree replacement to equal the tree canopy lost in ten years <br />may not be workable because of the large size of the trees. <br />Mr. Gouldman stated that a new proposal (insert X) was to <br />break the replacement trees up into smaller groups so that <br />the caliper total replaced would equal 75% of that which was <br />lost. Mr. Gouldman stated that a tree protection plan was <br />required and the plan was required to be bonded. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman noted that the applicant was not <br />enthusiastic about the three requirements listed above and <br />had written to request that Council require only those <br />conditions which have been required in other developments. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Ms. Nancy <br />Long, architect for the project, stated that the projected <br />sale cost would be between $95,000 and ~105,000. Ms. Long <br />stated that the tree replacement requirements would add <br />significantly to the cost of the houses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt the tree requirements <br />would provide the developer with an incentive to save the <br />trees. MSo Waters added that there had been substantial <br />community interest in saving the trees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever made a motion to amend the ordinance by <br />including insert X. <br /> <br /> Ms. Long argued that she could better understand the <br />requirements for saving the trees if they were historic or <br />specimen trees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he would vote against the tree <br />replacement requirements as listed by Mr. Gouldman because <br />they go significantly beyond the standard required of other <br />developments throughout the City. Mr. Buck stated that he <br />felt the higher goal was to provide moderately prices houses. <br />Mr. Buck continued that he felt the conditions were <br />unreasonable from a policy standpoint and could not be <br />justified. <br /> <br />Rev. Edwards seconded Mr. Vandever's motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck made a motion to amend the ordinance by <br />including only those conditiOns contained in the letter <br />from the applicant. Mr. Towe seconded Mr. Buck's motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck's motion to amend was defeated by the following <br />vote. Ayes: Mr. Buck and Mr. Towe. Noes: Rev. Edwards, <br />Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever's motion to amend was approved by the <br />following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Mr. Towe, Mr. Vandever, <br />Ms. Waters. Noes: Mr. Buck. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Towe, Ms. Long stated <br />that the street through the development will be named <br />Chisholm Street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he would vote in favor of the <br />rezoning, but felt that the conditions were unreasonable. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND <br />REENACTING THE DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 31-4 OF <br />THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br /> <br /> <br />