10-26-15 Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council

Browse Search

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMREQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM October 26, 2015October 26, 2015AppropriationAppropriation Agenda Date Requested:Agenda Date Requested: N/AN/A Eric EnseyEric EnseySource of Funds:Source of Funds: Requested By:Requested By: Account Number:Account Number: Planning & DevelopmentPlanning & Development Department:Department: Amount Budgeted:Amount Budgeted: Report:Resolution:Resolution:Ordinance:Ordinance: Amount Requested:Amount Requested: Other: Budgeted Item:Budgeted Item:YESYESNONO AttachmentsAttachments : : 1. Ordinance Ordinance -- Clean Version Clean Version 2. Ordinance Ordinance -- Marked Version Marked Version 3. P&Z Recommendation Letter P&Z Recommendation Letter SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONSSUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS On July 13, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission presented an ordinance addressing three items On July 13, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission presented an ordinance addressing three items that the City Council directed the Commission to further review and bring back with a recommendation. that the City Council directed the Commission to further review and bring back with a recommendation. th One of those items related to the cityOne of those items related to the citys regulations on tree preservation and mitigation. At the July 13s regulations on tree preservation and mitigation. At the July 13 meeting, the Council requested the issue of tree preservation be returned to the Commission for further meeting, the Council requested the issue of tree preservation be returned to the Commission for further discussion. Councildiscussion. Councils action was based on concern for the impact that these requirements would have s action was based on concern for the impact that these requirements would have on development. on development. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission further discussed the item and is presenting the As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission further discussed the item and is presenting the attached ordinance for consideration. The Commissionattached ordinance for consideration. The Commissions consideration included discussions ranging s consideration included discussions ranging from deleting the tree preservation and mitigation requirements in its entirety to modifications intended to from deleting the tree preservation and mitigation requirements in its entirety to modifications intended to ease the burden on developers. ease the burden on developers. ease the burden on developers. ease the burden on developers. The CommissionThe Commissions recommendation, as included in the attached ordinance, was intended to 1) exclude s recommendation, as included in the attached ordinance, was intended to 1) exclude mitigation requirements from individual single family detached residential, 2) ease the burden on the mitigation requirements from individual single family detached residential, 2) ease the burden on the development community, and 3) still recognize the importance of trees by maintaining some development community, and 3) still recognize the importance of trees by maintaining some requirements for mitigation of quality trees removed in the community. The following is a summary of requirements for mitigation of quality trees removed in the community. The following is a summary of the proposed modifications to Sections 106the proposed modifications to Sections 106--801 (Tree preservation), 106801 (Tree preservation), 106--802 (Tree replacement), and 802 (Tree replacement), and 106-803 (Tree fund): 803 (Tree fund): 1.An exclusion from these regulations for tree removal on individual single family lots.An exclusion from these regulations for tree removal on individual single family lots. 2.The quantity of replacement trees has been modified from replacing trees based on a perThe quantity of replacement trees has been modified from replacing trees based on a per--caliper caliper inch basis to a oneinch basis to a one--forfor--one replacement. This would mean that if one tree is removed from a one replacement. This would mean that if one tree is removed from a property, then that tree is replaced with another one on the site.property, then that tree is replaced with another one on the site. 3.The tree replacement fee is modified in a manner where should the applicant desire to make The tree replacement fee is modified in a manner where should the applicant desire to make payment into the tree fund as opposed to planting on site, the replacement cost per tree would be payment into the tree fund as opposed to planting on site, the replacement cost per tree would be $250 to cover the planting of a replacement tree elsewhere in the community, up to a maximum of $250 to cover the planting of a replacement tree elsewhere in the community, up to a maximum of $2,500 per acre or $100,000 for the overall project area.$2,500 per acre or $100,000 for the overall project area. 4.Should the applicant desire to mitigate the loss of trees by planting as part of the development, Should the applicant desire to mitigate the loss of trees by planting as part of the development, then the Commission is recommending that commercial properties plant 2then the Commission is recommending that commercial properties plant 2caliper replacement caliper replacement