1996 Local Street Tree Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

MEDLIN Johnny R From: LOWE Allen D To: PLAMONDON Scott F Cc: MEDLIN Johnny R; FERGUSON Joe M Subject: RE: Street Trees for Development Date: Friday, July 14, 1995 12:48PM At today's LSP meeting, we discussed this a bit. I explained the approach you suggested at our last meeting on this. The group thought it would be a good idea to have the LSP section on Street Trees include a discussion, not only of the proposed recommendations, but also include some discussion of the options that were considered and rejected; i.e. the "why" of this approach. You talked about some of your reasons for recommending this approach when we talked before. I don't have any modificaitons - just lots of questions. I think we need to meet again - as soon as it can be arranged - Ideally, before next Friday's LSP meeting. We only have two more staff meetings scheduled before the plan has to go to graphics for document preparation. We may have to schedule a few more meetings to resolve some things. In general, I think there needs to be quite a bit more detail, in both the "discussion" and "recommendations" section. Some immediate questions 1 have about the approach are: - Will there be a mechanism for developer of a single tax lot in an infill situation (Joe 6 pack buys a lot and builds a house) to plant their own trees and maintain? - Will we require these of PUD's as well as subdivisions and partitions. All partitions or just ones that create streets (major partitions). What about mobile home parks where we may not have public streets? - How will the number of trees to apply the $200 per tree be calculated - i mean do you have some standard for not including the area that wouldn't be planted anyway near street corners - like 20' back from an intersection or something. What about coordination of tree spacing with light standards and such? - Is there any latitude for varying the 30' spacing? I.e., what if you're planting sugar maples or elm or red oak - something with a substantial canopy. Do you maintain the 30' spacing assumption there AND on streets where you might be planting red maples or liquidamber, or something else with less canopy? - Do you have the standards and specifications referred to in (b) developed yet, or, if not, will they be done by the time we go to hearing? - (c) is not clear about WHO will replace trees that are removed. It just says they will be replaced. Does this mean at property owner /developer's expense? How will that work? How will be ensure that we get the replacement? - Need more discussion (in "discussion" section) about the elements of this program. How it would work, i.e. developer pays us $200 per tree and specifically what that money is used for: (your time in developing planting plan, admin. & overhead), contract cost for watering /planting, program costs for Tong -term pruning and maintenance, etc., etc. 77777 We will be asked (FOR SURE) to justify the $200 /tree number. We should know before this goes to public, how to explain that and be able to justify. - Need more discussion on your Note #2 also - its an advantage of this approach to be able to communicate with homeowner about city street tree programs and urban forestry program. - We also discussed, some time ago, having the integrated street tree lists as an attachment to this ordinance. Is that still going to be possible to develop by September? If we go with this approach, it wouldn't be a necessity for residential developers to have it (though non - residential developers would need something for their street tree plan), but it would be nice to explain to public as part of this discussion we'll have with them about kinds of trees were proposing to plant in residential areas. Are they all "large- scale, high canopy' ' types sepcifically selected to fit our areas soil and climiate conditions - or a mixture of small, medium and large types to fit site conditions. And, by the time this goes to public hearing (probably in October), the actual ordinance needs to be Page 1