New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: GASSMAN Dick L; PLAMONDON Scott F; JACOBSON Jerry P; MILLER Marsha A; <br /> MCKERROW Mike J; LIDZ Jerome <br /> Cc: HAMMITT Bob; ANDERSEN Chris F <br /> Subject: RE: tree preservation ordinance -- "approved development plan" <br /> Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 10:18AM <br /> Hi Dick, <br /> Thanks for your response. However, I was hoping for more of an analyses of impacts. I don't think people or the <br /> Council is really thinking someone else will pick up the work. However, I do think there is a great deal of <br /> misunderstanding on the part of the public or even Council on what process are currently in place which have <br /> vegetation requirements and which part of the organization deals with them. To a very large degree the tree <br /> preservation code only deals with trees which are being requested for removal outside of the development <br /> process. The proposed language works well for that. It is on how the proposed language impacts the <br /> development process where I'm concerned. For expediency, I will try to express my concerns with the <br /> understanding that I'm not intimately familiar with the development processes which are handles by other parts of <br /> our organization. <br /> In this issue, I feel people get the "tree preservation ordinance" often mixed up with other provisions in the code <br /> such as the Chapter 9 requirements in PUDs for addressing the possibilities for saving significant vegetation. My <br /> understanding is that the Planning Division is the lead for the establishment of conditions of PUD approval and <br /> Building Division Land Use Management is lead on providing investigation and enforcement of these conditions. <br /> I'm not aware of any proposed changes to Chapter 9 to remove this requirement. <br /> My specific concern here is that enforcement of tree related conditions in PUDs is one of those things I believe you <br /> are referring to that is currently assigned but that your staffing level doesn't well support. As I read the suggestion <br /> from the attorney's office, citizen enforcement would be allowed if the developer deviated from an approved tree <br /> preservation /removal plan approved in the Planning process. The more detailed the plan submitted to and <br /> approved by Planning (assuming the developer followed it) the more protection the developer would have from <br /> citizen suit. Of course the opposite would also be true. In this specific process (PUD's) it would place the burden <br /> on the developer to be specific for their own protection. I'm unclear where it would Land Use Management staff to <br /> do more or less than they currently do. That is a point I feel needs your or Mike's review. <br /> The key in the PUD process on this issue would seem to be the approval of the tree preservation /removal plan by <br /> Planning staff. There is an existing process but I was hopin• someone in Planning would comment on if this <br /> proposed language would give them additional problems. <br /> • <br /> Regarding the Building Permit process I suspect there could be greater concerns. I'm not aware that any review is <br /> currently being performed for tree issues when a building permit is issues. Under the current ordinance we have <br /> exempted residential properties under 20,000 square feet. For larger residential parcels or commercial parcels the <br /> review was performed by our office and that only for ones considered (or recognized) at potentially controversial. <br /> Again the first burden would be placed on the developer /applicant to be very specific on what they were proposing <br /> to remove which is not now happening in many cases. The second burden would be on staff to determine what to <br /> do with the issue of trees in the permit. The language of the proposed ordinance does not exempt the residential <br /> properties and I think saying that the removal needs to be specifically identified will pose a problem. I'm not aware <br /> of anyone who would be performing review of tree issues on building permits. (Just an idea, perhaps would could <br /> say that the builder /developer would have to obtain certification from a Certified Arborist that the removals are <br /> necessary for the proposed development or permit. Of course the catch to this is that will a little searching you <br /> can likely find a certified arborist or landsca•e architect who will sa what the develo•er wishes them to say.) or <br /> �.. - .r.. a:driytrta��•nniui.aa ■. tal <br /> ties <br /> - - - • - • rom e cur -n • r• finance. This would still leave the issue of what we should do about large <br /> residential and commercial permits.) <br /> I don't believe I have enough experience to make any statements on how this proposed language might impact <br /> Page 1 <br />