CC_Minutes_2015_0824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 24, 2015 Page 42 Section G. Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested- Matrix, (Page 5), Subd. D.i.4 Councilmember Etten noted the actual size for deciduous trees and coniferous trees and their respective diameter breast heights (DBH), which varied with each of those types. While the draft ordinance provided a window on page 3 for conif- erous trees, Councilmember Etten questioned why the target had been established in that range and how to make the conversion for coniferous and deciduous trees. Mr. Gozola noted that the numbers are a best guess starting point at this time, and the different ranges shown on page 3 were subjective at best. Mr. Rehder agreed, noting that future tweaking of the matrix would address those numbers. Councilmember Etten stated his interest in considering a range of deciduous and lower DBH numbers due to tree growth as referenced in the summary table on page 6, essentially preserving more trees and counting more types of trees as part of those considerations that he'd find important; while addressing rights-of-way that may include more trees. Councilmember Etten opined that the example provided was interesting, but in his review of previous developments, it would seem that requiring no trees where the existing ordinance may have required more plantings seemed more appropriate, while this again seemed to move in the opposite direction. Councilmember Etten reiterated his overall concern that this draft may actually preserve fewer trees, and he didn't want to create something moving in the opposite direction. Mr. Rehder opined that wasn't the situation, with the proposed numbers support- ing more trees. Mr. Rehder opined that the point of looking at a property and working backward, addressing the value of existing trees and fitting them into a matrix to arrive at a suitable number was a more realistic approach, and in the case of the cash in lieu of option, not as much of a burden. Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder for the good infor- mation provided that showed how the new calculations would have affected past developments. Section J. Replacement Tree specifications, Item 2 (page 8) Councilmember Etten asked if a tree preservation plan was presented, after which a totally different development with grading plan, was developed that impacted trees differently, how this section would apply unless the same plan came back with the same type of qualifier. Mr. Gozola agreed that clarifying language was needed in that section.