Agenda - Council - 04/25/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Peek was concerned with the City dictating to him what he can do with a lot. A buyer wants to be in the Woods, but the City might say they have to be out in the open to preserve the trees. Mr. Peck stated that before he can support this policy he needs to know the process and criteria with which he is going tO be judged. He needs to see very concrete standards. Gary Gotham, Developer, stated that developers know the importance of tree protection as they are seeing the difference in salability. Mr. Peck voiced that this is an era where government is getting too involved in business. He suggested that common bury for utilities and narrowing road right-of-ways and pavement surfaces would achieve the purpose of this policy. He feels 32-foot roads are excessive when parking is not allowed. Mr. Gorham stated that tree preservation is addressed through (1)the developer, and (2) the builder. From a-developer's standpoint, it was his estimation that every developer understands the significance of saving trees and will try to save as many as possible. However, if held to stringent guidelines, they are going to err on the negative side by taking too many trees out so that problems don't occur mid- process. He strongly suggested allowing flexibility at the developer level to account for possible changes in road grading plans, etc. He felt that if the policy is too strict at the developer level it will be difficult to manage and will drive up costs. From a builder's standpoint, Mr. Gorham perceives that many builders recognize the importance of saving the trees, but there are so many subcontractors involved that don't have a real good idea of what needs to be done to preserve the trees. He agreed that at the point when you're dealing with individual lots, more control is needed. He did note that a builder_might possibly have to take out trees when excavating in order to place the dirt somewhere. Mr. BO°s stated it was a big concern to protect the prospective buyers and the builders from these subcontractors. Mr. peck wondered whether this was an area in which the City should be involved. Mr. B6os didn't see any difference between tree conservation and the protection the City provides regarding individual septic systems or standards relating to other infrastructure. Mr. P~k felt the City was entangling itself in yet another area, and he hypothesized the possibility of a buyer ~xpecting the City to protect them when something goes wrong. Mr. BOOs agreed there was a potential for such to occur, and that is why the City needs to standardize this ~ Bruce~acon, Environmental Specialist, viewed the policy as a benefit to the development as a whole. He stated that the City is attempting to preserve the rural look of the community, but the point of the policy~is to preserve tree choices for the homeowner. Mr. P~ck commented that the City is making the argument that this is a community benefit, yet they still have no control over the homeowner. He stated that these standards are liveable if you know what you'r~getting into. He advised that he is lOOking for stability and flexibility, and he inquired as to the cost and time involved with compliance of this policy. CounCilmember Gerald Zimmerman recommended listening carefully to the fears of the developers, and h~ cautioned moving carefully on this, referencing the original intent of the Wetland Conservation Act and it's final outcome. Tree Conservation Policy Workshop/February 21, 1995 Page 2 of 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I