Tree Ordinances and Admin Orders

New Search

CUPs, subdivisions, or (adding another category) site reviews. Hope the above is helpful in framing the issue. Thanks Johnny From: GASSMAN Dick L To: MEDLIN Johnny R; PLAMONDON Scott F; JACOBSON Jerry P; MILLER Marsha A; MCKERROW Mike J; LIDZ Jerome Cc: HAMMITT Bob; ANDERSEN Chris F Subject: RE: tree preservation ordinance -- "approved development plan" Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:18AM Normally, when the Council chooses not to fund a particular work activity it means that the work is just not done. However, in this case, when Council chose not to fund Public Works to do this work, I sense there is a belief that other work units will pick up the work. I can't speak for Planning, but there is no capacity in our area to do either review or enforcement of tree issues. At present we are not doing all the work that is currently assigned to our work unit, so we are not in a position to take on any more. I don't understand the logic of transferring responsibility from one work unit to another without providing funding. From: MEDLIN Johnny R To: PLAMONDON Scott F; JACOBSON Jerry P; MILLER Marsha A; MCKERROW Mike J; GASSMAN Dick L; LIDZ Jerome Cc: HAMMITT Bob; ANDERSEN Chris F Subject: RE: tree preservation ordinance -- "approved development plan" Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 7:58AM Hi Folks, The purpose of the code changes is recognize the Council decision not to fund Public Works' involvement in the permitting or review of trees on private property. With that as a given, I would suspect whatever review that would get done would happen either in Planning or Building. I think a larger group of people should be aware of these proposed changes. So I'm forwarding Jerry's memo to an expanded group. With this on the Council Agenda for a Public Hearing on February 16th, we need people to look at this quickly. Thanks Johnny From: LIDZ Jerome To: JACOBSON Jerry P Cc: MEDLIN Johnny R Subject: tree preservation ordinance -- "approved development plan" Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 1:40PM Jerry, You may be aware that there is a pending proposal to amend the tree preservation ordinance, currently found at Code sections 6.300 - .330. Under the proposal, street tree preservation would be moved to chapter 7, and the provisions in chapter 6 would apply only to private property. For private property, instead of a permit procedure, owners would be prohibited from cutting more than 5 trees in a year on undeveloped parcels over 20,000 square feet and from cutting any trees on undeveloped parcels less than 20,000 sq feet. "Undeveloped parcel" means a lot having neither existing dwelling or commercial structure nor approval for one. The restrictions on tree felling will need an exemption for felling that has been approved somewhere in the planning process. Were seeking your advivce on how to define the exemption. The first draft of the revised rules provided an exception when "the tree felling is the minimum necessary for implementation of an approved development plan." That raised the question of how to define "approved development plan." In addition. when Johnny met with the Homebuilders, they objected to "minimum necessary"; Johnny and I discussed substituting "consistent with" for "minimum necessary for implementation of'. The problem with that approach, I think, is that nearly anything may be "consistent with" a development plan -- i.e., the developer could cut all trees that weren't specifically marked for retention in the plan. Page 2