New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Tree Issues, Hendricks Park
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Tree Issues, Hendricks Park
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 9:52:26 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 9:51:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
COMMITTE.TRE Page 1 <br /> July 21, 1 997 <br /> TO: Bob Hammitt, Maintenance Director <br /> FROM: J.R. Medlin, Maintenance Support Manager <br /> SUBJECT: Henricks Park ad - hoc Tree Committee <br /> From attending the July 17, 1997 public forum at Hendricks I'd like to submit the following observations <br /> and recommendations. <br /> GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: <br /> 1. With the group of about 30 people in attendance the City as a whole has very little credibility or trust <br /> when it comes to proposals to remove trees. <br /> 2. A strong feeling was present that the City should have solicited citizen input prior to the phase where <br /> staff was making a recommendation. Even though it was stated that no final decision had been made <br /> on the 18 trees posted, people strongly felt it was already a done deal. <br /> 3. A large majority of the group felt that the City was too quick to let a potential liability casue the <br /> removal of a tree. The feeling was expressed and I believe the majority agreed that people need to <br /> take on a degree of liability by entering a park, living adjacent to park, or even driving through a <br /> wooded park. There might of been a start of a concensus that some removal of trees that showed <br /> signs of immediate potential to fall on private houses may be appropriate. <br /> 4. Disagreement on several arenas was presented on what defects should cause a tree to be determined <br /> to be hazardous. (i.e., should the concern of the spread of fungal diesase be a concern?) <br /> 5. There was a fear that development projects near or in the park would take place without allowing for <br /> citizen involvement. (i.e., Moon Mountain PUD and fear that plans were already in the works to <br /> curb and gutter Summit.) <br /> 6. There was concern about how and who made decisions regarding new tree plantings within the park. <br /> 7. There was unanimous agreement that a master plan for the park was needed. <br /> 8. In general, I would estimate the feeling ran 10:1 in opposition to the tree removals even after <br /> explanation and discussion by two abutting property owners who expressed fears. <br /> DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: <br /> As you are aware, both Chris Andersen and Laurie Swanson - Gribscov were in attendance for the majority of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.