Ray Wiley, 2100 Shields., noted he had heard that the ordinance <br />would not have prevented the clear cutting that occurred in the <br />west end of Shields, that the allowed five trees per lot would have been <br />sufficient for the developer to have done what he indeed had done. <br />He did not feel the neighborhood's concerns had been adequately <br />addressed and recommended the ordinance be modified to be more <br />restrictive in the number of trees, or sent back to the Planning <br />Commission for further strength. <br />Dewey Newman, 2040 Hawkins Lane, represented Hawkins Highlands <br />Association. They requested some strengthening of the ordinance <br />and felt the circumference of the trees should be defined as much <br />smaller as 36 inches. <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony <br />presented. <br />Mr. Obie requested clarification, noting the Planning Commission <br />spoke in terms of a Joint Parks Committee and he seemed to remember <br />there was a special Mayor's committee. He felt it better for the <br />Mayor to appoint a committee that would have a more balanced member- <br />ship with interested individuals with expertise. <br />Mr. Long responded to Mr. Obie's earlier question regarding no tree <br />removal prior to a building permit being issued. He said the approach <br />is to regulate but not to prohibit tree cutting. He said this ordi- <br />nance does not attempt to confiscate merchantable timber. If Council <br />wishes to address the question, then it would have to address it in a <br />totally different approach as no words would fit into this approach, <br />noting they would have to develop a new scheme. That approach would <br />not be possible under the present ordinance. <br />Mr. Obie said the present ordinance now allows five trees per lot <br />per year and it seemed to him that if they allowed no trees per <br />lot in any year until a building permit were issued, that change <br />could be made. Mr. Long said he and his staff would want to do some <br />very in-depth research before adopting the ordinance saying the <br />person could not cut any tree. The City could face a claim of taking <br />private property without just compensation. He said without making <br />a full-scale reassessment, he would not want to expose the City <br />to such a claim. <br />Ms. Smith recollected in previous discussions that Mr. Saul had <br />said limiting tree removal until after a building permit had been <br />issued would be a very expensive procedure and felt if Council <br />wished to go that way it needed much more information. Mr. Saul <br />said he had told Council previously that in any event keying <br />into a building permit simply shifts the time when the removal of <br />trees would occur. To go beyond that point raises all sorts of <br />9/26/77--11 <br />1~~ <br />