2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 3 Member Daire cited an example of a tree immediately outside his property that had split 95 into two branches (e.g. monkey-stemmed tree) and had done that split at a height of 96 approximately 52” – 54” and questioned where the measurement would start in that case 97 or what variables applied. 98 Mr. Rehder responded that, while it may depend on who measured it as there were 99 different approaches, as an example with an Oak tree at 26” that may be found in the 100 development process, it would be worthy of preservation, even though it may stick out as 101 not in the heritage category, but an effort should be made to preserve it. 102 Member Daire opined that language should be added that before removal, it would be 103 necessary to have a recommendation from a certified forester or arborist as to whether a 104 tree should be preserved or definition of which breast height diameter is appropriate. 105 Mr. Rehder noted it is often a judgment call made in the field and often dependent on the 106 overall inventory of a site. 107 Page 1, line 28, Chair Boguszewski suggested adding language Bogus to the first 108 sentence to read, “…4.5’ (54”) above the ground\[.\] \[or as determined by a certified 109 arborist.\]” 110 As referenced by Chair Boguszewski as to a trigger, Page 3, lines 83 – 93, Mr. Gozola 111 noted that staff had recommended language triggered by application for a building, 112 demolition or grading permit, or for platting or any lot division not qualifying as a minor lot 113 subdivision, allowing staff the ability to address any private property owners attempting to 114 skirt the issue and not abide by the parameters of the tree ordinance in removing more 115 trees than would be allowed. 116 Further reference was made to line 94 specific to any other attempt to remove a 117 significant number of trees before applying for a permit, and recourse available for the 118 City and/or homeowners. Discussion ensued related to potential issues, criminal activity 119 reported to the Police Department as applicable if trees were removed from a 120 neighboring property, and reasonable explanations versus blatant attempts to circumvent 121 regulations. 122 Even with Member Bull noting that an appeal process in place, Member Murphy 123 expressed concern that language in line 94 needed to be strengthened. 124 Mr. Gozola noted lines 97-98 attempted to address that, and suggested aerial 125 photography was one source from around the metropolitan area that could be used to 126 compare previous and existing tree coverage on a site if needed for evidentiary 127 information. 128 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, City Planner Paschke confirmed that the Variance 129 Board process could come into play in some cases, but if staff administratively 130 determined a variance was not supported based on hardship criteria, a property owner 131 still had the appeal process for the City Council against that administrative decision. 132 Page 3, line 92, Member Bull asked if that was intended to be “cubic” rather than “square” 133 feet; with Mr. Gozola advising that after consultation with staff, that had been taken from 134 existing ordinance language. 135 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta suggested that language could be 136 modified if so desired. 137 Page 4, line 110, Member Murphy opined that for city public improvements, the city 138 needed to be held to the same standards as others and obey the same law imposed on 139 others. 140 While agreeing that language could be changed if so desired, Mr. Gozola provided 141 rationale for its current version, using the fire station, water line and sewer lines as 142 examples in the need for their location where they would be expected to provide the best 143 level of service fro the broader community. 144