2016-05-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

screening on their development sites for adjacent property owners, and thereby target the development area first. Mr. Paschke stated that one possibility that may be of particular interest to the P WETC in expenditure of those funds would be public improvement projects in the general area or within a 1/4 mile of the subject site. If unable to get closer, Mr. Paschke noted that the question then became where else in the community can we look to provide additional tree coverage. At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Paschke clarified that the replacement trees would be brand new and typically would not involve relocating trees from one property to another. Interim Community Development Director Collins confirmed they would be brand new trees, with staff already charged by city code to review the number of trees being removed and available space to plant new trees as dictated by the City Council's adopted calculations. Ms. Collins noted that the goal was to provide the same amount of coverage if possible; but when that is not an option, provision by the developer of cash in lieu of tree replacement, or some other solution with property owners is indicated. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Paschke advised that the determination of $500 per tree for cash in lieu of had been provided by the city's contracted forester as a fair cost for a tree of a certain diameter, and actually was on the lower end of the cost of the tree plus labor, depending on species and other parameters. Mr. Paschke advised that this was all part of the developer/property owner's application process and submission of a tree and landscaping plan as part of that application package. Again, Mr. Paschke used a recent development, Cherrywood Point, as an example of tree replacement calculations and plans, as part of the overall development proposal. Specific to the final sub-bullet point (Determination of tree replacement funds on public lands within the general area or one-quarter mile from the subject project site), Chair Cihacek opined that seemed to him duplicative with the first point (retention of tree fund expenditures within the general area of the subject development/redevelopment site or one-quarter mile), and questioned if it was needed. Member Lenz agreed that it seemed duplicative. While they appear similar, Mr. Paschke clarified that one bullet point was pointed toward public land within that quarter-mile, while the other was intended to address removal of trees and their replacement elsewhere (e.g. sewer reconstruction needed through an existing treed area). Chair Cihacek suggested the need for the policy to define "public improvement" and "public land;" but reiterated his interpretation that the fourth bullet point may not be necessary nor did it add anything to the policy. Page 4 of 17