CCMIN011696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti also looked at the tree and agreed it is beautiful. She felt it was difficult to make the findings that comply with the ordinance. If Council says that maintenance problems are a basis for removal, then the ordinance should be amended. In this case, the tree is very large, but there are other trees that are more dangerous in terms of shallow roots, etc. If Council agrees to removal of this tree, she felt the ordinance must be amended to reflect allowance for special circumstances, such as ability to maintain, etc. She felt there would be many more cases before Council if the Gilmore appeal is upheld. Mr. Tarver felt ordinances were adopted to accomplish specific objectives. We want to preserve heritage trees and staff is doing what is called for in the ordinance. When they cannot make the findings, the matter is referred to Council. Mr. Tarvet felt he could make findings on behalf of the appellant in terms of safety issues, whether the tree could survive significant pruning, the inability to maintain the roof, etc. He was not sure he wanted to amend the ordinance. If people can make a good case for removal, they should be allowed to. He viewed the ordinance in a different way, as a means of preventing devastation to large numbers of trees as development occurs. He felt there had been more damage to heritage trees from widening wads and development than from individual property owners. He wanted to be flexible on a case by case basis and supperted the appeal without changing the ordinance. Mr. Lum noted that if Council is considering treating native and non-native trees differently, that 90% of the heritage trees are non-native. It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Denni-% to uphold the appeal and require the G|!mores to plant a 24N box tree in its place. Ms. Michelotti asked if there was any suppen in amending the ordinance or was this motion based on a safety factor? She preferred reviewing the ordinance, because she felt there were other options in this case before agreeing to remove the tree. Mr. Tarver did not feel this was something to add to the priorities for staff. Ms. Dennis was not opposed to a few simple changes to the ordinance so long as it did not take tremendous research. Ms. Michelotti sympathized with the Gilmores but could not make the f'mdings to support the appeal. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmember Dennis and Mayor Tarvet NOES: Councilmembers Miehelotti and Pico ABSENT: Councilmember Mohr ABSTAIN: None 01/16/96 -5-