Laserfiche WebLink
10. <br /> <br />11. <br /> <br />12. <br /> <br />Tree Preservation Plan: Your December IOth, 2001 memorandum calls attention to limiting <br />lo: grading in the wooded areas ~'irem ?2 under Tree Preservation]. Staff suppoms this strategy <br />for the other wooded areas in the plat as well. Most of the oaks and significant trees are <br />!imited to the center one-for'& of ~ae plat on a norr. k/south ali=.onment [east of wetland #I 14p <br />and west of the 143r~ Court cul de sac]. The only other, mature trees are at the south parr of <br />the pla along 'Park i.' You should submit an ex.N.'bit that shows the e,,dsting tree cover, with <br />the trees to be removed shaded as an addendum to the ~ading plan. [The legend provides <br />symbols for both e,-x.isting and proposed to be saved., but does not show the existing tree <br />cover]. <br /> <br />At the June 20m Park Commission meeting you ag-reed to only clearing 50' feet of P-,.O.W. <br />within the 60' foot R.O.W., for tree evaluation on the lots, versus clearing 80' feet to start <br />w/th. After field inspection of trees that are in the transitional grading zones, the citY will <br />require you to install tree save fences and the other measures called for in the standard <br />Development Agreement. ' <br /> <br />You have previously agreed to utilize a tree spade to relocate pines for screening within the <br />plat. This meets with the City's tree conservation measures. The developer should also have <br />the tree spade available to relocate deciduous trees after the K. OiW. is cleared. <br /> <br />Also at the Commission meeting, a suggestion Was made that the understorv trees would be <br />removed under and around those trees that are to be saved. The Commission and staff found <br />this practice tO be harmful to the 'save' trees and unneCeSsary. ' <br /> <br />Landscaping: You have shown one tree for each single family lot, wi'rich meets City <br />standards. However, there needs to be more diversitY in tree species than the two deciduous <br />types proposed as front yard trees, for disease resistance and appearance. The landscaping <br />proposed for the town homes and apartment building Will be reviewed as part of the site plan <br />review process. . <br /> <br />House on Lot 2, Block 1:. At the Planning Commission meeting in jUne 2001, area residents <br />were concerned abo'ut the size ora house on Lot 2, Block I. In June, you have submitted' a <br />site plan and floor plan to locate a house on this lot that meets City Ordinances. <br /> <br />Park Dedication: The Park and Recreation Commission made recommendations on a <br />preliminary plat very similar to th/s one in the spring of 2001. The following observations are <br />those contained in that review, or are staff's comments on the revised plat. <br /> <br />A land only Park dedication would consist of 8.76 acres..The applicant should calculate <br />separately those areas proposed as park that are not all ready encumbered by wetlands, street <br />or drainage and utility easements. In addition, the e:dsting trail easement on the east side of <br />wetland #114p was purchased in the early 1990's for an amount in excess of $10,000.2'"Ns <br />e,'dsting trail of about l-acre in size is not Park Dedication eli~ble. <br /> <br />The parkland configuration will probably be acceptabte provided that land credit is not ~ven <br />for the 'infiltration ponds' and the following to conditions are addressed; <br /> <br />73 -51- <br /> <br /> <br />