2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

252 253 254 255 256 257 258 Attachment B Mr. Gozola stated his rationale in not requiring the number removed was that it didn't fit into the framework of incentivizing preservation. Mr. Gozola admitted that comment could be expanded upon and a number utilized in some way, but it had not yet been explored. Member Bull stated that his concern was recent clear-cutting situations that had been realized in the community. Chair Boguszewski suggested the consultant ask the City Council, during their presentation to them, if they wished to add a column enumerating trees removed. 259 Mr. Paschke noted that Member Bull's concern centered on the threshold of trees able to be removed 260 from a given site; but clarified if you attempted to clear cut under this ordinance, you would need to put in 261 replacement trees and it would provide no instance where you could clear an entire site. Mr. Paschke 262 noted that the only site this occurred recently was the Pizza Luce site and their application for and 263 receipt of a variance due to the condition of existing mature trees. Mr. Paschke stated he wasn't sure if 264 there was more benefit in addressing inches or numbers, and agreed the City Council could flush that 265 out further at their discretion. 266 Mr. Bilotta suggested the Commission keep in mind when talking about the number of trees being 267 removed that is in conflict with heritage trees and attempting to preserve them. If the current example is 268 more than the Commission feels comfortable with or if it felt too many were being removed, Mr. Bilotta 269 suggested the appropriate response would be to look at the removal calculation and play with that more 270 than the other standards. 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 Member Bull opined that having the inventory of removal brought it upfront rather than having to guess. Chair Boguszewski noted you could highlight the effect of development versus reworking the basis of the calculators and simply add a column headed "Number of Trees Removed." Mr. Rehder advised that the attempt in proposed language was to make the process easier for developers to complete the spreadsheet accurately; with the intent to make it as easy as possible for developers to understand. Page 8, line 280, Member Bull noted that related to inventoried trees, since the public improvement exclusion had been changed, it was no longer included. Mr. Gozola noted that Section H, Item 1.i (line 251-256) is the existing exemption in the ordinance proposed to remain in place. Chair Boguszewski suggested removing that current Item 1.i. Mr. Bilotta clarified that there was a slight difference on this speaking to public easements and public utilities compared to private development language in attempting to exempt planting of trees in those easement or utility areas. Member Bull noted this addressed installation of public streets. 286 Page 10, line 329, Chair Boguszewski referenced the "well placed" language used throughout, opining it 287 seemed to indicate better visibility is a better site in addressing habitat, root systems, canopies, etc. 288 Chair Boguszewski noted this suggests putting a tree in the back yard was therefore not as good as 289 placing it in the front yard, opining that was not always the case, seeking discussion about the polity in 290 requiring trees be placed in areas that were deemed highly visible. 291 Mr. Gozola stated that intent was to if there was a subsidy program offered and funds were requested, in 292 order to quality for such a subsidy to benefit the most people the tree would need to be in the most 293 visible location. 294 Chair Boguszewski questioned if he could agree that was true, when there may be benefit from placing a 295 tree in the back yard for the benefit of the neighborhood. Chair Boguszewski noted that there was no 296 language carried forward from Mr. Gozola's draft comments, but wanted to call it out to ensure the intent 297 was realized, and asked Mr. Rehder to comment on whether or not a front yard location was always 298 deemed better. 299 While that may be generally true from an aesthetic benefit, Mr. Rehder admitted Chair Boguszewski's 300 comments and rationale made sense and agreed that other options could exist as long as the spot was 301 deemed viable.