2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Paschke noted that may depend on tree classification numbers, suggested some 397 changes were needed in that section, including tree ranges and whether or not they were 398 considered significant; and suggested staff take a look at those numbers to ensure their 399 consistency. 400 Chair Boguszewski noted a number of grammatical corrections needed throughout the 401 document prior to final presentation to the City Council; and to ensure tabulated 402 formatting was consistent. 403 Page 4, Section E (tree classifications), line 129, Member Murphy suggested changing 404 “common” trees to “significant trees with measurements of 12’ tall or greater based on his 405 personal interpretation of language as written. 406 Page 7, line 220, Member Daire noted if an additional column is added to the table of 407 calculations, it also needed to bee reflected in that line, (table starting at line 313). 408 Mr. Gozola noted that line 220 text referenced the summary table and its intensions and 409 the number of trees removed in each category. 410 In that case, Member Bull suggested that the table should reflect 8’ rather than greater 411 than 8’ in, opining that the calculations in the table (line 313) were shown backwards. 412 Page 10, Section J.2.a, line 309, Member Bull stated his preference that the text state 3 413 DBH replacement inches and move on in increments from there, with Member Murphy 414 questioning if this rationale was based on science or personal preference, with Member 415 Bull stating it was based on his experience with coniferous trees and their typical height. 416 Member Murphy sought feedback from Mr. Gozola and Mr. Rehder based on their 417 expertise in the field and how 6’ was originally derived at. 418 Based on his field experience, Mr. Rehder responded that for larger measurements he 419 had worked backwards, but he recognized the point made by Member Bull as having 420 merit and that measurements should not be based one to one all the way across; but 421 should indicate measurements for each species and show representative values for 422 those height ranges accordingly. 423 Consensus of the Commission, staff and consultants was to revise the table at line 313 to 424 more closely reflect that experience at lower height ranges. 425 Member Bull clarified that this would reflect changes in Section J.2.a to start at 3’ versus 426 6’; with the consultants verifying that intended change. 427 Page 11, Section K (tree protection required), line 347, Member Bull sought additional 428 information on ramifications if the area around a tree in the protection area was not 429 properly protected; with Mr. Rehder responding that the potential for a stop work order for 430 the developer was one option if they were found in violation; and if necessary staff would 431 enforce that if such a situation arose. Member Bull noted there may be damage to the 432 root system that may not be as evident as damage to the tree above ground. 433 Mr. Bilotta noted this was the reason for including the unplanned loss protection since 434 with those trees assigned a slightly higher replacement rate to discourage working in 435 proximity to them. Mr. Bilotta advised that the forester would make a determination at that 436 point if he found the intrusion significant enough that would cause eventual tree loss 437 (unplanned loss), using the 2 year warranty period and field inspection with negotiations 438 as needed. 439 Member Bull questioned if there was sufficient language in the draft ordinance for the 440 forester to make that determination. 441 Mr. Bilotta responded affirmatively, noting that field issues happen all the time and 442 negotiations are part of the process for a condition of approval of other mechanism in 443 place throughout city code for those type of responses throughout a normal construction 444 process. 445