2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B 49 Mr. Rehder responded that any species could be multi-stemmed and required a method to calculate their 50 DBH, using Boxelder Trees cut down multiple times as an example that would require a protection zone. 51 Mr. Rehder stated that this language attempted to address anomalies with multi-stem trees, clarifying 52 that if a single trunk was large enough, it would still fall into the heritage tree category and have potential 53 as a preservation tree providing justification for doing so. 54 Page 1, line 22-25, Member Bull referenced examples of trees with 4" caliper inch being not measured, 55 questioning therefore if anything under 6" would be considered or rated as one 12" tree. 56 Along those same lines, Member Cunningham further questioned if the main tree trunk is at breast 57 height and then splits after that, would it still be considered one tree. 58 Mr. Rehder responded affirmatively, that the height would typically be used (above breast height). Mr. 59 Rehder further noted that generally multi-tem trees already had a strike against them depending on 60 whether or not trunks were pushing together, as they were considered not ideal trees, and would be 61 difficult to consider as a heritage tree if they already had a pre-existing condition making them non- 62 preferred heritage trees. 63 Member Daire cited an example of a tree immediately outside his property that had split into two 64 branches (e.g. monkey-stemmed tree) and had done that split at a height of approximately 52" — 54" and 65 questioned where the measurement would start in that case or what variables applied. 66 Mr. Rehder responded that, while it may depend on who measured it as there were different 67 approaches, as an example with an Oak tree at 26" that may be found in the development process, it 68 would be worthy of preservation, even though it may stick out as not in the heritage category, but an 69 effort should be made to preserve it. 70 Member Daire opined that language should be added that before removal, it would be necessary to have 71 a recommendation from a certified forester or arborist as to whether a tree should be preserved or 72 definition of which breast height diameter is appropriate. 73 Mr. Rehder noted it is often a judgment call made in the field and often dependent on the overall 74 inventory of a site. 75 Page 1, line 28, Chair Boguszewski suggested adding language Bogus to the first sentence to read, 76 "...4.5' (54") above the ground(� �or as determined by a certified arborist.]" 77 As referenced by Chair Boguszewski as to a trigger, Page 3, lines 83 — 93, Mr. Gozola noted that staff 78 had recommended language triggered by application for a building, demolition or grading permit, or for 79 platting or any lot division not qualifying as a minor lot subdivision, allowing staff the ability to address 80 any private property owners attempting to skirt the issue and not abide by the parameters of the tree 81 ordinance in removing more trees than would be allowed. 82 Further reference was made to line 94 specific to any other attempt to remove a significant number of 83 trees before applying for a permit, and recourse available for the City and/or homeowners. Discussion 84 ensued related to potential issues, criminal activity reported to the Police Department as applicable if 85 trees were removed from a neighboring property, and reasonable explanations versus blatant attempts 86 to circumvent regulations. 87 Even with Member Bull noting that an appeal process in place, Member Murphy expressed concern that 88 language in line 94 needed to be strengthened. 89 Mr. Gozola noted lines 97-98 attempted to address that, and suggested aerial photography was one 90 source from around the metropolitan area that could be used to compare previous and existing tree 91 coverage on a site if needed for evidentiary information. 92 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, City Planner Paschke confirmed that the Variance Board process 93 could come into play in some cases, but if staff administratively determined a variance was not 94 supported based on hardship criteria, a property owner still had the appeal process for the City Council 95 against that administrative decision. 96 Page 3, line 92, Member Bull asked if that was intended to be "cubic" rather than "square" feet; with Mr. 97 Gozola advising that after consultation with staff, that had been taken from existing ordinance language. 98 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta suggested that language could be modified if so desired.