Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> and Gordon Mann, Pubiic Works Superintendent. Page 3 <br /> viii. On May 23�2006, staffi responded to Ms. Bender's submittals explaining that she still <br /> had �ot provided the requested docurrientation to support her statements, <br /> ix. 4n June 20, 2006, Ms. Bender submitted additionai information and expiained she <br /> needed approval before June 30�'as a rebate program she wanted to participate in <br /> expired on June 30, 20�6. <br /> x. On June 28, 200fi, after reviewing atl the in#ormation submitted in support of her <br /> application, Staff made a formal denial determination. The letter was mailed and <br /> hand delivered that day. <br /> Aiternatives <br /> 1) Apprave the application to remove the trees. If this decision is reached, Staff <br /> recommends that the conditions for the removal be: <br /> {a} The removals occur after the installation of the solar paneis. <br /> (b) Smaller scale trees of equal value be required as replacements. <br /> This sequence would not forf�it any current solar rights from the City or impose a <br /> requirement on the City to maintain the #rees at a tevel of solar access less than <br /> existing wi#h the large #rees for the life af the salar system instal(ation. <br /> 2) Approve permit to allow pruning of the trees approving more extensive pruning(still <br /> foilowing industry standards)than typically performed during routine main#enance to <br /> improve the solar access desired. If the pruning does no# achieve the necessary <br /> soiar access once in use, removaf cou(d be considered or approved as a next step. <br /> The condition shauld also be that this approved pruning occurs after the solar <br /> instailation to protect the City's need to provide continuous solar access. <br /> 3) Approve the permit for the applicant to remove the trees prior to the installation of <br /> the sotar energy sys#em. This woutd create a solar access requirement supported <br /> by state law and wouid require the Ci#y to maintain the solar access present at the <br /> time the solar system is installed. <br /> Fiscal Impact <br /> There is no fiscat impact to the decision to uphoid the denial. The trees would be <br /> rr�aintained under the existing free maintenance standards. If the appeal is ap�raved,there <br /> could be future costs far the City ta rnaintain the trees at a height that does not impair <br /> future solar access. This level of pruning wouid most likely be greater and more frequent <br /> (potentially annualiy) than the current maintenance sfandard. <br /> lf the appeal is approved,the property owner would be responsible to remove and replace <br /> the trees based on any peRnit approval conditions. There would be mini I inspection <br /> costs to the City to verify the work was completed per#he permit conditi s <br /> � � �� . �� <br /> 0 on Mann � Lar rwacx E verett <br /> Public Works Superintendeni Public Wor4cs Services Director City Manager <br /> A#tachments <br /> 1. Appeaf Letter <br /> 2. Ordir�ance Sections 29.63 through 29.76 <br /> 3. Permit application, subsequent submittals and staff correspondence <br /> Page3of3 <br /> Gmlword/council reports/11 t Nevada appeal <br />