Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

amendment are required and that the oak forest was identified as moderate value, the Board could recommend denial of the request Motion by Chairperson Stodola and seconded by Board Member Hiatt to recommend denial of the Tree Plan and Landscape Plan because of the impacts to the oak forest and the need for the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Further discussion: Board Member Hiatt stated that he would love to see a comparison development plan that would meet the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding to determine the extent of the oak forest that could be preserved. Board Member Covart stated that she likes the idea of larger lots and asked if the proposed plan would have individual septic systems. City Planner Anderson stated that this proposed plan would have City sewer and water while lots developed under the current zoning would require individual septic. Councilmember LeTourneau stated that he has heard the support from the Board to preserve the oak forest. He stated that there is a tree preservation policy in place that helps to guide development in the City but noted that an exception could be made to that policy in this instance. He provided an example of how he had to clear a lot of trees from his lot to build but now 30 years later his lot looks great. He noted that there is a large section of the community in this quadrant that is under pressure from a lot of things. He stated that there are a lot of people in that quadrant that would like to have the commercial node viable and more rooftops will be needed in order to make that happen. He stated that this is another step along that path and noted that while it is unfortunate that there is a tree stand in that area, this is a step in the right direction for that quadrant of the community. He provided an example of another route a developer could take in the future to provide a connection to the lot to the north. Board Member Hiatt stated that the tree preservation policy assumes that all trees are equal and maybe a future improvement to the policy should put prioritization on certain species. City Planner Anderson stated that the tree preservation standards do identify a definition for significant trees. Board Member Valentine asked whether the tree preservation is a policy or ordinance. City Planner Anderson replied that it is an ordinance. He noted that the Natural Resources Inventory includes four levels, noting that moderate falls just above low and there are two higher quality categories. Board Member Valentine stated that this seems to be a very common contention between development and preservation and the solution often falls in finding a balance point for each of the parcels as they come forward. He asked the type of progress that should be anticipated because this does not have the ordinance behind for support. City Planner Anderson replied that he does not think the developer would be supportive. He stated that perhaps the better choice would be to open the dialogue to determine how the preservation could be maximized while still meeting the requirements of the City Code. He noted that the requirements of the Code are being met and therefore the better approach would be to attempt to work with the developer to attempt to maximize what could be protected. He stated that the Planning Commission has already reviewed the Sketch Plan and did not raise any issues from that perspective, so the developer used that initial feedback to further guide their design plans. Board Member Valentine stated that he likes the idea of going back to the developer to determine if additional trees could be preserved. Board Member Covart asked if the Staff Review Letter would be changed to reflect that statement. City Planner Anderson confirmed that he would update the Staff Review Letter that will go before the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that the lengthy discussion regarding this oak forest would be included in the packet information. Environmental Policy Board / June 19, 2017 Page 7 of 11