2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 15 be an appeal to the City to allow trucks to come onto his lot with building materials to 702 accomplish his porch remodel. 703 Mr. Bilotta clarified that, as far as the rights of the City, the interpretation depended on the 704 type of development activity: whether a building addition or a developer building houses. 705 Mr. Bilotta noted that all of those trees on a private developer’s lot were also private trees 706 on that private property, but the City has indicated through its zoning ordinance and tree 707 preservation regulations, that they have an interest in maintaining private trees. That 708 said, Mr. Bilotta noted that there was obviously some flexibility built in to address issues 709 on a case by case basis and based on the most advantageous means to ensure trees 710 are protected and/or preserved. 711 Mr. Paschke noted that a property owner was allowed to remove 35% of the tree 712 coverage on their private property without penalty, per current code, and using Member 713 Daire’s remodel as an example, a simplified plan could address what trees may 714 potentially be impacted by construction of that particular project. In some cased, Mr. 715 Paschke noted that a more involved survey of trees may be required by the inspection 716 department, but as part of the City’s tree preservation ordinance and process, a plan was 717 approved. 718 Member Daire opined that his problem was in assuming that the trees were not his even 719 though on his private property. 720 Mr. Paschke advised that code stated that the City’s intent was to protect as many trees 721 within the community as possible, or when unable to do so, to make allowances for their 722 replacement of varying degrees. 723 Mr. Bilotta noted that the issue was not whether or not the City owned the trees, and as a 724 private citizen you had the right to do what you wanted, but when triggering an expansion 725 mode, you moved from homeowner to developer status. 726 Chair Gisselquist noted that this became the whole premise of the zoning code, and in 727 the example of a garage, while the City didn’t own the garage, the homeowner put on the 728 developer that in their role of impacting the community; and questioned at what point the 729 rules and regulations became applicable. 730 Given another scenario, Member Daire questioned if he wanted to clear 45% of the trees 731 on his property, but didn’t apply for a building permit, he couldn’t do so. 732 Mr. Paschke advised that if the property owner was not doing any development, at this 733 time there was no ordinance on the books in any zone to prevent a property owner from 734 doing so, but similar to any other code requirement, once you seek the City’s approval, 735 through an administrative or other process, it triggered certain requirements. 736 Mr. Bilotta noted that, unfortunately, this was a sticky loophole that most codes fell into. 737 Back to the alternative proposal for planting trees elsewhere, Member Murphy stated that 738 he found that intriguing. As an example, Member Murphy noted some Buckthorn removal 739 projects in some parts of the City that had left vacant areas, and questioned if a creative 740 approach along that line for off-site planting to meet ratios or criteria, may benefit those 741 other areas and enable trees to be planted which would further address Member 742 Boguszewski’s biomass theory. Member Murphy opined that, increasing habit and 743 replanting in public areas would be a neat option to explore. 744 Specific to Member Daire’s comments, Member Boguszewski added his voice to those 745 concerns; and spoke in support of being cautious against over-reaching with this type of 746 ordinance. While recognizing public utilities versus private ownership and their underlying 747 values, Member Boguszewski opined that, as this ordinance was further refined, there 748 needed to be guards against increasing encroachment of government upon personal 749 liberties; and safeguards or options were needed to address those concerns expressed 750 by Member Daire. 751