Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 <br />Page 16 <br />Along those same lines, Member Murphy referenced the last paragraph of Attachment A <br />752 <br />(Item J entitled “Entry on Private Property and Interference with Inspection”), and <br />753 <br />suggested the need for caution in limiting enforcement action only on the subject parcel, <br />754 <br />not adjacent properties. Member Murphy suggested further clarification on that point. <br />755 <br />Mr. Bilotta noted that the intent was that this was addressing developed properties; <br />756 <br />however, he recognized Member Murphy’s concerns. <br />757 <br />In conclusion, Mr. Bilotta noted that the intent of the City Council was not to radically <br />758 <br />change requirements or get into private sector home issues, but specifically to: <br />759 <br />1) Determine whether to define trees by a recognized standard versus a list developed <br />760 <br />by the City that periodically became outdated; and <br />761 <br />2) Recognize there was still some inherent value to trees considered to be a bad <br />762 <br />species; and <br />763 <br />3) How to beef up controls if you want to retain a tree or have one that can’t be <br />764 <br />relocated. <br />765 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested caution in addressing the whole notion of or potentially <br />766 <br />increasing replacement formulas. <br />767 <br />Mr. Bilotta suggested, if consideration was given for credit for bad tree species that <br />768 <br />needed to be addressed before considering the formula, as there may be more trees <br />769 <br />showing up. <br />770 <br />Member Boguszewski noted past incentives during Arbor Day activities for tree planting; <br />771 <br />with some now located on private property having increased their tree count of their own <br />772 <br />free will, but now subject to penalty for what they originally did as a good deed. Member <br />773 <br />Boguszewski questioned if there was a provisional credit or a certain time when a tree <br />774 <br />survey was submitted. <br />775 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that such a situation existed today, with a private property owner allowed <br />776 <br />to remove up to 35% of their trees without any issue. <br />777 <br />Mr. Bilotta noted, as an example, a shopping center in another state, which brought in <br />778 <br />20,000 small trees five years prior to development, and in that instance, a PUD was <br />779 <br />negotiated to vary that section of zoning to provide credit for the future development. <br />780 <br />7. Adjourn <br />781 <br />Chair Gisselquist adjourned at approximately 8:47 p.m. <br />782 <br />