Agenda - 10-01-2024; 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Landscaping Standards

Browse Search

37 DRAFT EXCERPT 328 Cy Stober: It's about what is effectively the legacy tree and what we're going to prioritize for preservation. If 329 you feel that's wrongheaded or you'd like to preserve smaller trees,which is what we do today, 330 then that can be part of your motion. 331 332 Charity Kirk: What is the rationale for changing it from 1 to 2 feet? 333 334 Cy Stober: It's very difficult to enforce that narrow,that small of a DBH for us as staff. To get to Perdita's 335 earlier point of going out for the pine straw,for staff to go out and measure 1-foot DBH is a much 336 greater challenge than 2 feet because those are much more obvious. 337 338 Lamar Proctor: My concern on that is just doing some research as to DBH and different types of trees, the DBH 339 has to be factored in with the growth rate of the tree. But just for example, a red maple with a 340 DBH of a foot is a 37-year-old tree, so I mean my concern is, and I understand, now that 1 341 understand the rationale that it's a time-intensive thing for staff, but I think raising that from 1 foot 342 to 2 feet, you're only preserving trees that are like 70 or 80 years old, and you're cutting down 343 trees that are 30 to 50 years old, depending on the tree. The trees have different growth rates, so 344 in terms of preserving native healthy trees that form an integral part of our ecosystem, I would 345 oppose increasing that to 24. 1 would keep it at 1 foot. Or somewhere in between. 346 347 Charity Kirk: Eighteen inches? 348 349 Lamar Proctor: I don't know how much time goes into measuring these things or evaluating in these buffer zones 350 the tree sizes and all that. I mean,just sitting here thinking about it, it does seem a rather labor- 351 intensive process, but I don't know if you can give me some examples. 352 353 Cy Stober: I can. Other than anecdotes of staff of going out to sites and going, oof, okay. So that was the 354 response, and this is a reactive amendment. It's again addressing the enforceability of the 355 ordinance. But to get to look at the consistency with our comprehensive plan,to your point, Mr. 356 Proctor, I could see why there would be other goals and objectives that are in that comp plan that 357 would be underserved by reducing this. So, you're not going to hurt our feelings, but it is a 358 formidable challenge to enforce the 1-foot DBH. 359 360 Charity Kirk: Would 18 inches be easier to enforce? 361 362 Cy Stober: Probably. Just either way we're going to have to get used to a new standard if we change it. 363 There was not a scientific process to this. We did not do a lot of research on this. It sounds like 364 Lamar has done more research than most of my staff, other than perhaps Patrick. 365 366 Lamar Proctor: Well, if y'all name a tree I can tell you how approximately, according to these calculations, how old 367 it is based on 1 foot or a 2 foot. 368 369 Cy Stober: I will also add to this point, if it is a point of concern,while it is a difficult matter to enforce, it is not 370 creating massive headaches for us as staff. It is not a formidable challenge; it is more about the 371 clarity of what a 2-foot DBH tree is versus a 1 foot, and we can move forward in either way. 372 373 Chris Johnston: And to confirm, staff is doing this; it's not the applicant who then goes through and provides these 374 numbers. Correct? 375 376 Cy Stober: In an ideal world, it would be the latter. It is more often than not the staff. 377 378 Chris Johnston: Sure. 379 380 Charity Kirk: Do staff mark the trees that can't be removed? 381