2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 5 Member Daire stated his rationale in raising that question was in recognizing it was 196 insufficient for someone not certified or registered to perform the tree inventory and plan 197 (e.g. a surveyor) in order to establish the recognized standard, opining it was only fair to 198 have that requirement up front. 199 Member Bull opined that it was typical of the city’s general policy that went along with the 200 ordinance; with Mr. Gozola stated that it was similar to a drainage or other plan who will 201 review the plan but that’s not clearly stated. However, Member Bull noted that it does say 202 it will be approved by the city engineer; with Mr. Paschke noting that some areas may 203 specify it but not to the magnitude currently being discussed. 204 Page 3, Section B (applicability), paragraph 3, Chair Boguszewski suggested adding a 205 new number (after line 104) such as: “In all instances where submissions by a registered 206 forester or certified arborist are required, submissions will be reviewed or approved by 207 city staff and/or contractors with equivalent credentials.” 208 Page 5, Section F (incentive multipliers), starting at line 149, Member Bull questioned the 209 incentive multipliers based on his review of the example summary table (page 8, line 210 240), stating his preference to see not only a multiplier to encourage preservation of large 211 trees but also a disincentive to exceed a certain amount or to receive additional credit for 212 exceeding preservation of larger and/or heritage trees, suggesting the multiplier doubling 213 if they go over the percentage depending on the type of tree. 214 Discussion ensued about disincentives built in through the multiplier in addressing those 215 calculations; current language on heritage trees; and recognizing some cases where a 216 developer or property owner can’t work around removing trees in attempting to meet city 217 code for setbacks, access, etc. 218 Mr. Gozola stated that the intent of the ordinance is to tag noncompliance but not to 219 bludgeon developers. 220 Member Murphy agreed, using the Cherrywood Point development as an example and 221 inability to construct it without removing trees. While understanding the need for 222 disincentives if other options are available, Member Murphy opined there was also a 223 need to create large disincentives that make if impossible for a developer to do a project, 224 or to make them pay through the nose to do so. 225 Member Bull clarified that he was not saying they couldn’t do the development, but some 226 other provision was needed (e.g. payment in lieu or relocating trees on other city 227 properties) allowing them to make amends off-site if not on-site. 228 Chair Boguszewski stated that he shared the concerns of Member Murphy related to 229 incentives and calculations. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Gozola confirmed 230 that the proposed language as currently written was their recommendation and not weak 231 based on their research with other ordinances that were requiring a great deal of 232 replacement and/or cash in lieu of if going that route, but by upping the disincentive 233 calculations, he opined that it would make developers or property owners pay the 234 maximum if involving a heavily-wooded site. 235 Member Bull emphasized the examples used in the charge if exceeding specimen trees, 236 their removal and/or replacement in caliper inches; with Mr. Gozola clarifying that 237 example based on saving more heritage trees than required and therefore not requiring 238 additional replacement. Member Bull further debated the current calculations using 239 various examples. 240 Mr. Rehder opined that Mr. Gozola had taken a novel approach with the current incentive 241 calculator that should provide more than sufficient incentive, but allow a slap if you go 242 beyond it. Mr. Rehder further opined that the two multipliers definitely served to address 243 the concerns expressed by Member Bull; and that the threshold had been met on the 244 development side and by comparison. Mr. Rehder stated there was never going to be a 245 situation not needing replanting or planting elsewhere, but this allowed it to be 246