Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />AGENDA ITEM V B <br />STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser <br />P & Z MEETING DATE: November 8, 2000 <br />TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Ordinance 09 -00 <br />Tree Preservation Ordinance <br />BACKGROUND <br />At the September 13 meeting, the P & Z continued the public hearing to the November <br />meeting. The Board recommended that staff hold a meeting with interested developers to <br />discuss the tree ordinance. We sent letters to eight development firms inviting them to <br />the meeting on October 24. Representatives of four firms attended. Mary Aslesen and I <br />also attended. The discussion ranged widely, but focused primarily on increasing the <br />costs of development with new tree survey and replacement requirements. The <br />developers present unanimously oppose the new ordinance. <br />The attachments to this report include a list of the invited firms and a sample letter. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Recall that the draft ordinance requires three basic steps. One, count and measure the <br />healthy trees on the site and calculate the total diameter inches. Two, calculate what will <br />be lost because of the development plan. Three, calculate what percentage of the loss <br />must be replaced. Certain less desirable trees do not need to be counted or replaced. <br />The purpose of this somewhat complex method is to create a disincentive for tree loss. <br />That is, as the tree loss increases, the replacement costs increase at an increasingly higher <br />rate. Minimizing tree loss reduces the required replacement and its costs. <br />Overall, the goal of the ordinance is not only to reduce tree loss, but to clearly describe <br />the requirements. Right now, the City's tree preservation requirements are not clearly <br />described in one ordinance. This has left us with a project -by- project method that is <br />inefficient, takes up an inordinate amount of staff time, causes delays and <br />misunderstanding, and results in uncertain documentation of tree preservation <br />requirements for each project. It is also a somewhat arbitrary process, which brings up <br />fairness issues. <br />This is not a negative reflection on staff. Simply stated, there is too much to do under the <br />current method for one staff member to handle. Better documentation, submitted by the <br />