Laserfiche WebLink
would be merit in reviewing on a case -by -case basis. She recognized that when properties are <br />mass graded, most of the trees are removed in order to grade the property and add the minimal <br />number of trees. She stated that she would prioritize keeping existing vegetation. She referenced <br />a case where an HOA dissolves after a set period of time and asked what would occur to the HOA <br />owned/maintained property. <br />Senior Planner Anderson commented that in the scenario in the case, there was not an abundance <br />of tree removal that occurred prior to development. He commented that while there was some tree <br />removal, most were not high -quality trees and there was not an abundance of vegetation on the <br />site. He explained that if an HOA were to go defunct and does not pay the property taxes on the <br />HOA owned properties it would go the route of tax forfeit and then could end up in anyone's <br />hands. He stated that situation has occurred in the past and the adjacent homeowner purchased the <br />HOA owned lot, which created an odd shaped lot. He commented that while the City and/or <br />County would have the option to acquire a tax forfeit lot, most HOA lots are unusable and therefore <br />it would not be an asset to the City. <br />Board Member Hiatt commented that it seems when natural transitions are proposed, such as trees <br />and berms, that occurs more over time. He stated that perhaps that transition should be required <br />to provide that screen within a set period of time. He noted that a fence or wall provides instant <br />transition, whereas vegetation takes years to accomplish that goal. He was unsure that they would <br />want to go on a case -by -case basis but agreed that there should be flexibility to work with what <br />exists on the site. He asked if there are other examples from cities in terms of regulation to use as <br />an example. <br />Senior Planner Anderson commented that he had not yet done that research but has been contacted <br />by staff working for another community that is in the process of doing that research and will be <br />sharing that information. He stated that while case by case review might sound like a good idea, <br />there still needs to be minimum standards within City Code. <br />Board Member Hiatt asked if it would make sense to have a target date for the screening to be <br />provided, recognizing that will not occur in six months to one year. <br />Senior Planner Anderson replied that could be part of the discussion. He stated that it would be <br />hard to expect immediate screening, but if it takes ten years it would seem that protection of the <br />existing neighborhood has not happened. <br />Board Member Hiatt commented that as the discussion continues, he believes that target date <br />should be kept in mind. He noted that most of the problems included in the presentation occurred <br />over time or were a result of the length of time needed for the vegetation to grow. <br />Senior Planner Anderson agreed that could be addressed in the purpose and intent. He stated that <br />the transition area is meant to exist in perpetuity and perhaps there should potentially be a sunset <br />clause in the situation a tree dies years later or is damaged by a tornado so that the eventual <br />homeowner is not liable for replacement. <br />Chairperson Moore referenced the scenario where the transition plan looked good on paper but 15 <br />years later, the pines are still not established. She used the example of a developer that did a great <br />Environmental Policy Board / October 17, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />