Commission debates tree‑preservation rules, asks staff to pull resource‑protection chapter for more work

The Central Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting on proposed amendments to the unified development code (case T2501), centering on site‑clearing, tree preservation and how the new code is presented to the body.

Staff and the code writer said the draft treats site clearing (moving dirt and grading) separately from removal of individual trees and that a disturbance permit is already required for work that moves soil. Under the version discussed, staff said single‑family residential lots would be allowed to clear up to 5 acres of their property without triggering additional site‑clearing requirements beyond the standard disturbance permit; commercial logging would be excluded from that allowance. The draft would also include tree‑replacement requirements tied to tree diameter, and credits and incentives for preserving large or “significant” trees.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff to clarify how the rules would affect existing property owners, agricultural uses and developers. Several commissioners said an owner who purchased land before the code’s adoption should retain the ability to use the property as they had before the rule change; others raised scenarios where a developer or buyer could bypass protections by clearing land prior to subdivision or sale. Commissioners asked staff for clearer carve‑outs for pasture and other bona fide agricultural uses, and flagged a potential substitution loop in which a property owner could subdivide and clear multiple 5‑acre parcels.

Members discussed replacement math and incentives in detail. Staff explained tree replacement would be calculated against diameter, and the draft includes a requirement that replacement plantings amount to twice the removed tree’s diameter (for example, small saplings would be required in large numbers to meet the standard). The draft also proposes incentives — including parking‑space credits — for preserving significant trees on development sites.

The commission also debated the structure and presentation of the proposed Unified Development Code. Several members said they wanted the new code presented in a more conventional redline/comparison format that shows existing language, deletions and additions side‑by‑side so commission members can confirm whether the substance of prior ordinances is preserved. Staff said the draft was organized into a new framework (consolidating provisions that currently sit in multiple places) and that a separate policies‑and‑procedures manual would list detailed items such as the approved plant list, green‑infrastructure specifications and construction details.

Because the group did not reach consensus on the resource‑protection chapter (Chapter 4), a member moved that the body request the mayor and staff present the code using the "traditional" comparative method and moved to defer action on the chapter. The motion passed on roll call. Commissioners directed staff to continue work, break the draft into smaller, digestible sections for future meetings, and to return with clearer language on agricultural exemptions, grandfathering for existing owners and the proposed tree‑replacement formulas.

Staff also told the commission that a draft of the city’s comprehensive (master) plan from the consultant Vovaso and Son will be available for staff review by the second week in April and that staff will present that plan to the commission in segments.

The transcript records extensive back‑and‑forth but no final code adoption; the commission’s recorded action at the meeting was a deferral/pulldown of the resource‑protection portion for further drafting and a recommendation on how the mayor/staff should present the consolidated code for review.