Minutes - Council - 05/28/2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried. 7.02: Adopt Ordinance #13 -10 to Amend City Code Article II (Zoning) Division 5 (Tree Preservation) Assistant Planner/Environmental Coordinator Anderson reviewed the staff report and recommendation of staff, the Environmental Protection Board (EPB), and Planning Commission to amend the Tree Preservation Ordinance to eliminate ambiguity by replacing the term "Desirable Tree" with "Significant Tree," clarify that all projects (not just multi - family) are subject to removal thresholds, and incorporate more flexibility into the standard by identifying exemptions for certain required improvements and by providing multiple options to address excess removals as part of a project. Councilmember Tossey stated that he reviewed the Planning Commission meeting minutes and spoke with Planning Commissioners and found there are significant issues with the proposed ordinance. He stated his intent to not support adoption of this ordinance since it does not apply equally to the City's actions, negatively impacts the rights of property owners and developers, and results in a property right violation. He stated developers also have property rights and most want to compete in the market and do what is right. Councilmember Riley asked whether "DBH" is an industry accepted term. Assistant Planner/Environmental Coordinator Anderson answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Riley asked whether, for business and development and employment districts, 30% is a reasonable requirement. He also asked if it works. Assistant Planner/Environmental Coordinator Anderson indicated that incorporating the definition of existing tree and removal thresholds will work with those type of developments. He stated the EPB found there is not as much flexibility with that type of development when compared to residential, a higher threshold should be considered. Assistant Planner/Environmental Coordinator Anderson noted if approved, the ordinance would be monitored to assure it is workable and not restrictive. Councilmember Backous stated while he respects the knowledge and expertise of the Environmental Policy Board (EPB), he does not support the ordinance because it is not the City's business to say how many trees are in a residential yard. He stated he had cleared many of the trees on his lot as it had contained a forest, and he does not want the City to make residents pay $125 to cut down their own trees. Councilmember Kuzma stated he also found the ordinance to be too restrictive and would not support adoption. Assistant Planner/Environmental Coordinator Anderson clarified this ordinance is only applicable for a proposed development that creates new buildable lots. The situation of a resident removing trees from their private lot is not addressed in this ordinance. City Council / May 28, 2013 Page 7 of 12