2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C 79 a CADD system, the ordinance needed to provide an easy-to-use system that worlced for all 80 trees. 81 Mr. Gozola provided rationale for choosing the "root protection zone" language as it was 82 actually easier to measure in the CADD system without having to assess each and every tree 83 for the drip line based on a particular species. Mr. Gozola advised that this provided for an 84 average methodology and provided overall cost savings for applicants-whether residents or 85 developers, since they would both need to hire a survey done to locate trees. 86 Councilmember McGehee further addressed her appreciation of including pruning based on 87 timing if not allowing for wound dressing. 88 Councilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that this draft exempted a lot of areas for 89 ponding, rights-of-ways, and other areas that may need included; and asked if Mr. Gozola 90 was aware of any other communities that may have addressed that concern. Councilmember 91 McGehee noted problems in potential cutting of trees during the height of nesting that may 92 be in the way, but endangering individual wildlife habitats. 93 With few exceptions, Mr. Gozola opined that most cities would consider such a requirement 94 to be onerous for residents in general. 95 Sambatek Memarandum, Section I. Allowable Tree Removal, (page 4� 96 Councilmember Etten expressed concern in tree removal process versus results, suggesting it 97 may be just the opposite of what he intended. Councilmember Etten clarified that he was 98 addressing developments clear cutting parcels with little tree return, dramatically affecting 99 neighborhoods and ecosystems; and represented his reaction to several developments where 100 this had happened within the last few years, where significant growth trees were gone and 101 sticks planted. Councilmember Etten noted this was a very important purpose aspect for him 102 in the ordinance. 103 GeneralObservations 104 Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for a number of the pieces included in this 105 draft, including the numbering systems to determine a clear way forward. 106 Section G. Tree Preservation Plan Set Requested - Matrix, (Page 5), Subd. D.i.4 107 Councilmember Etten noted the actual size for deciduous trees and coniferous trees and their 108 respective diameter breast heights (DBH), which varied with each of those types. While the 109 draft ordinance provided a window on page 3 for coniferous trees, Councilmember Etten 110 questioned why the target had been established in that range and how to make the conversion 111 for coniferous and deciduous trees. 112 Mr. Gozola noted that the numbers are a best guess starting point at this time, and the 113 different ranges shown on page 3 were subjective at best. 114 Mr. Rehder agreed, noting that future tweaking of the matrix would address those numbers. 115 Councilmember Etten stated his interest in considering a range of deciduous and lower DBH 116 numbers due to tree growth as referenced in the summary table on page 6, essentially 117 preserving more trees and counting more types of trees as part of those considerations that 118 he'd find important; while addressing rights-of-way that may include more trees.