2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B 151 Member Bull opined that it was typical of the city's general policy that went along with the ordinance; with 152 Mr. Gozola stated that it was similar to a drainage or other plan who will review the plan but thaYs not 153 clearly stated. However, Member Bull noted that it does say it will be approved by the city engineer; with 154 Mr. Paschke noting that some areas may specify it but not to the magnitude currently being discussed. 155 Page 3, Section B(applicability), paragraph 3, Chair Boguszewski suggested adding a new number 156 (after line 104) such as: "In all instances where submissions by a registered forester or certified arborist 157 are required, submissions will be reviewed or approved by city staff and/or contractors with equivalent 158 credentials." 159 Page 5, Section F(incentive multipliers), starting at line 149, Member Bull questioned the incentive 160 multipliers based on his review of the example summary table (page 8, line 240), stating his preference 161 to see not only a multiplier to encourage preservation of large trees but also a disincentive to exceed a 162 certain amount or to receive additional credit for exceeding preservation of larger and/or heritage trees, 163 suggesting the multiplier doubling if they go over the percentage depending on the type of tree. 164 Discussion ensued about disincentives built in through the multiplier in addressing those calculations; 165 current language on heritage trees; and recognizing some cases where a developer or property owner 166 can't work around removing trees in attempting to meet city code for setbacks, access, etc. 167 Mr. Gozola stated that the intent of the ordinance is to tag noncompliance but not to bludgeon 168 developers. 169 Member Murphy agreed, using the Cherrywood Point development as an example and inability to 170 construct it without removing trees. While understanding the need for disincentives if other options are 171 available, Member Murphy opined there was also a need to create large disincentives that make if 172 impossible for a developer to do a project, or to make them pay through the nose to do so. 173 Member Bull clarified that he was not saying they couldn't do the development, but some other provision 174 was needed (e.g. payment in lieu or relocating trees on other city properties) allowing them to make 175 amends off-site if not on-site. 176 Chair Boguszewski stated that he shared the concerns of Member Murphy related to incentives and 177 calculations. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Gozola confirmed that the proposed language as 178 currently written was their recommendation and not weak based on their research with other ordinances 179 that were requiring a great deal of replacement and/or cash in lieu of if going that route, but by upping 180 the disincentive calculations, he opined that it would make developers or property owners pay the 181 maximum if involving a heavily-wooded site. 182 Member Bull emphasized the examples used in the charge if exceeding specimen trees, their removal 183 and/or replacement in caliper inches; with Mr. Gozola clarifying that example based on saving more 184 heritage trees than required and therefore not requiring additional replacement. Member Bull further 185 debated the current calculations using various examples. 186 Mr. Rehder opined that Mr. Gozola had taken a novel approach with the current incentive calculator that 187 should provide more than sufficient incentive, but allow a slap if you go beyond it. Mr. Rehder further 188 opined that the two multipliers definitely served to address the concerns expressed by Member Bull; and 189 that the threshold had been met on the development side and by comparison. Mr. Rehder stated there 190 was never going to be a situation not needing replanting or planting elsewhere, but this allowed it to be 191 addressed; and while the scenario used by Member Bull may appear to come out that way, he thought 192 replacements would always be needed. 193 Member Bull noted however, that there was no ordinance language requiring it. 194 In defense of Member Bull's concerns, Member Cunningham noted the considerable public comments 195 and concerns with proposed development and their surprise that if you remove a tree you don't need to 196 replace it. Member Cunningham noted the pressure from the public and for the Planning Commission to 197 ensure replacement for anything removed. Member Cunningham stated that she would be comfortable 198 increasing the calculation, but wasn't sure if she could support a calculation up to 4.0. 199 Chair Boguszewski noted the need to balance the city's standing and authority to reach into private 200 development at one extreme and not being able to enter into it at all and not telling private property 201 owners what to do. Chair Boguszewski opined that if the current language could be used without it 202 seeming too punitive, it provided a good balance. Chair Boguszewski further noted that no matter the