Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

is not enough information to detennine whether there is unnecessary removal of attractive vegetation: 'Because the full extent of vegetation removal remains unclear, and the applicant has not justified the necessity of the proposed alignments, the necessity for vegetation removal in those areas is not clearly demonstrated. Without more precise information regarding the location of existing vegetation, and the area of necessary construction impact to accommodate the proposed facilities (serving the proposed CIR housing), an evaluation of the extent of necessary vegetation removal is not possible at this time. "Staff acknowledges that something less than a full tree inventory (as required for Woodleaf Village) would be adequate, subject to consideration and approval by the Hearings Official. For example, the applicant could still provide a more detailed plan showing the full extent of grading and site improvements, a more detailed look at the trees adjacent to the limits of proposed impact, along with an arborist report recommending proposed protection measures. "Additionally, conditions of approval could be imposed to ensure that a tree preservation plan is put in place to ensure protection of the trees indicated to remain over the long-term, and pending any additional evidence provided by the applicant, staff would request the opportunity to evaluate and recommend any appropriate conditions of approval in response to what is provided." Staff Report 11. The applicant provided clarification for which portions of the property would have vegetation removed. While the exact specifications of the proposed development are not finalized, the applicant has provided a site plan that shows which areas would have vegetation removed. The applicant again explains how the Planning Commission interpreted this provision in the Woodleaf Village case. The Planning Commission found: "Given the intent and direction of the council to facilitate the construction of controlled income rent housing, and the fact that this term is found in the criteria for approval of an increase in density, leads to a conclusion that an element of necessary destruction of vegetation is that which must be lost to accommodate the increased density. The maximum allowable density under the ordinance must be presumed and vegetation lost to accommodate that maximum density is necessarily lost. * * * "It is a fact of development, however, that the site must accommodate the housing units, common areas and dedicated streets. If a site has vegetation throughout, as this one does, it will be necessary to remove a substantial portion of that vegetation' in order to accommodate a controlled income and rent housing project." Hearings Official Decision (CU 024)