2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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