Agenda - Council - 07/25/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board Member Hiatt agreed that this is too many oak trees going away from a mature area and the City should fight hard to preserve that. He noted that the zoning would need to be changed to support this plan and therefore he would ask that the zoning amendment not be approved further along in this process. Board Member Trossen asked how many trees would be saved with fewer lots. City Planner Anderson stated that you likely would preserve more trees but you would still need stormwater treatment and septic system drain fields, which would both require tree removal. He stated that he was unsure that the rate of removal would be considerably less than that proposed. He stated that the Board could state that because of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment are required and that the oak forest was identified as moderate value, the Board could recommend denial of the request Motion by Chairperson Stodola and seconded by Board Member Hiatt to recommend denial of the Tree Plan and Landscape Plan because of the impacts to the oak forest and the need for the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Further discussion: Board Member Hiatt stated that he would love to see a comparison development plan that would meet the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding to determine the extent of the oak forest that could be preserved. Board Member Covart stated that she likes the idea of larger lots and asked if the proposed plan would have individual septic systems. City Planner Anderson stated that this proposed plan would have City sewer and water while lots developed under the current zoning would require individual septic. Councilmember LeTourneau stated that he has heard the support from the Board to preserve the oak forest. He stated that there is a tree preservation policy in place that helps to guide development in the City but noted that an exception could be made to that policy in this instance. He provided an example of how he had to clear a lot of trees from his lot to build but now 30 years later his lot looks great. He noted that there is a large section of the community in this quadrant that is under pressure from a lot of things. He stated that there are a lot of people in that quadrant that would like to have the commercial node viable and more rooftops will be needed in order to make that happen. He stated that this is another step along that path and noted that while it is unfortunate that there is a tree stand in that area, this is a step in the right direction for that quadrant of the community. He provided an example of another route a developer could take in the future to provide a connection to the lot to the north. Board Member Hiatt stated that the tree preservation policy assumes that all trees are equal and maybe a future improvement to the policy should put prioritization on certain species. City Planner Anderson stated that the tree preservation standards do identify a definition for significant trees, which puts a greater emphasis on oaks and evergreen by virtue of including all of those that are four inches or greater in diameter as significant trees compared to eight inches or greater for all other deciduous trees. Board Member Valentine asked whether the tree preservation is a policy or ordinance. City Planner Anderson replied that it is an ordinance. He noted that the Natural Resources Inventory includes four levels, noting that moderate falls just above low and there are two higher quality categories. Board Member Valentine stated that this seems to be a very common contention between development and preservation and the solution often falls in finding a balance point for each of the parcels as they come forward. He asked the type of progress that should be anticipated because this does not have the ordinance behind for