►
Description
The live stream was interrupted due to technical difficulties so this is Part 2 of 2. Please find Part 1 of 2 on the City's YouTube Channel.
Regular meeting of the City of Asheville Urban Forestry Commission.
Access the agenda and other meeting materials at the City of Asheville website: https://www.ashevillenc.gov/department/city-clerk/boards-and-commissions/tree-commission/
Participate before and during the meeting on our public engagement hub: https://publicinput.com/A2758
A
C
B
D
Yeah
thanks
Patrick
I
was
just
circling
back
to
that
public
restroom
and
the
trees
issue.
I
saw
a
photograph
and
you
know
again,
I'm
not
convinced
those
trees
need
to
be
removed.
I,
don't
understand
why
they
can't
construct
that
that
facility
and
still
protect
the
trees
again
without
seeing
the
trees
located
on
a
s
plan
and
seeing
the
construction
drawn
it's
hard
to
say.
But
again.
D
This
is
to
remind
the
city
that
there
are
ways
to
save
trees
and
building
construction
and
and
I
would
think
that
a
public
restroom
under
the
shade
of
mature
trees
is
probably
much
more
preferable
than
one
out
in
the
full
sun.
So
I
I,
don't
know
which
Department's
building
it
I,
don't
know
where
the
plans
exist.
But
I
would
like
to
see
something
that
we
could
react.
B
A
Hi
yeah,
thank
you
that
was
along
the
same
lines
as
my
question
just
finding
out
more
about
who
made
these
decisions
and
how
we
can
work
with
them
better,
especially
in
light
of
the
formation
of
the
urban
Forest
master
plan
and
consideration
of
our
public
trees.
So
it'
just
be
great
to
have
some
line
of
communication
with
whoever's
guiding
these
decisions.
B
Yeah,
it
would
be
I
mean
at
least
good
and
these
kinds
of
projects,
if
whoever
is
responsible,
could
just
automatically
at
least
bring
in
Keith
into
the
discussion.
So
let
me
do
my
intelligence,
work
and
I
will
get
back
to
the
commission,
if
not
between
meetings,
at
least
by
the
October
meeting
Cecil.
E
Yeah,
when
I
was
on
Council
I
tried
to
advance
the
idea
of
Standalone
toilets
that
are
used
in
cities
around
the
world.
They
take
only
the
this,
the
area
of
I,
don't
know
a
small,
a
toilet
and
then
a
door
and,
and
they
work
well
and
they
don't
need
a
big
building.
They
don't
need
to
take
down
trees
and
I
totally.
Don't
get
why,
10
years
later,
the
city
is
still
trying
to
build
buildings
for
toilets.
E
C
Yeah
I'm
I'm
also
baffled
you
know
by
by
this
project,
and
you
know
the
the
proximity
to
you
know.
The
other
bathrooms
is
a
good
point.
Cecil
and
I
I
too
think
that
if,
if
this
project
goes
forward,
it's
a
good
opportunity
to
build
around
trees
responsibly,
but
I
also
wanted
to
call
attention
to
the
state
of
the
trees.
You
know.
C
While
they
have
green
canopies
and
they're,
they
appear
to
be
growing
well,
they
have
a
lot
of
stem
girdling
Roots
at
the
base
of
them
and
that's
a
result
of
a
combination
of
being
planted
to
deep
Andor
being
over
mulched
and
I.
Just
want
to
call
attention
to
that,
because
it
happens
very
very
frequently
in
this
town
that
trees
are
planted
incorrectly
and
they're
over
mulched.
C
B
F
B
B
Patrick,
okay,
I
just
will
mention
for
the
sake
of
the
other
commission
members
that
were
very
close,
apparently
on
having
full
approval
with
the
city
on
the
amendments
to
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation,
ordinance
with
the
exception
of
boundary
trees
and
we're
waiting
for
some
kind
of
feedback
from
the
legal
department
on
whether
or
not
the
city
has
jurisdiction
on
requiring
developers
to
notify
Property
Owners
of
that
have
boundary
trees
of
a
a
development
project.
B
I
understand
that
we're
also
very
close
on
the
tree
planning
requirement
am
amendments,
there's
just
a
few
internal
staff
issues
that
need
to
be
ironed
out
and
then
I
hope
we
can
get
back
on
track
with
the
chapter
20
amendments
so
that
we
can
bring
all
those
to
the
city
council
either
by
the
end
of
the
year,
or
certainly
by
the
first
of
next
year,
sort
of
as
a
as
a
package.
So
are
there
any
questions
or
comments?
Yep
Sharon.
H
On
the
update
to
719,
have
we
seen
the
final?
That's
staff
is
working
with?
Are
they
working
with
the
changes,
we'll
get
it
back
again
and
see
it
and
then
have
comments
on
that?
What's
the
order,
because
I'm
still
waiting
waiting
for
my
responses
on
building
impact
and
increase
in
what
trees
they're
going
to
add
for
tree
protection
if
they
take
out
building
impact
I'm
waiting
for
that
kind
of.
H
Yeah,
which
is
yeah,
which
is
tied
into
719,
both
of
them
because
was
7-Eleven
with
a
lack
of
building
impact,
and
then
there
was
stated
that
79
would
then
increase
their
percentage
of
what's
going
to
be
saved.
But
neither
one
of
that
I
haven't
seen
the
719
per
changes
tiie
into
the
lack
of
having
seven
having
building
impact
in
7113.
D
D
G
H
Yeah
you
shared
it
viella
you
just
I,
just
haven't
seen
it
in
writing
on
what
the
percentage
is
going
to
be
in
relationship
to
the
lack
of
removing
building
impact.
I
haven't
seen
you
stated,
but
I'd
like
to
see
it
in
writing.
So
I
can
I
can
prepare
or
understand
percentage
of
increase
to
loss
of
billing
impact.
G
I
And
for
me,
it
kind
of
clarified
some
of
the
things
that
we
to
think
about
next,
specifically
such
as
the
at
the
precise
scope
of
our
inventory
and
whether
we
want
to
issue
separate
rfps
for
the
inventory
and
the
actual
planning.
A
big
part
of
the
Knoxville
plan
is
the
is
the
are
the
community
workshops
which
are
very
impressive
to
me,
the
scope
of
the
of
the
workshops
they
did
and
from
which
they
got
most
of
their
goals
that
they
haven't
actually
released
their
actual
goals.
I
I
D
Yeah
now
you've
covered
it
well
Zoe.
Thank
you.
It's
just
we're
fortunate
to
have
Knoxville
to
look
to
because
they're
so
similar
to
us
in
terms
of
demographics
and
geography
that
we've
sort
of
adopted.
Then,
as
the
urban
Forest
master
plan
sister
city,
as
we
can,
we
can
learn
from
their
experiences
and
and
move
forward
with
this.
So
we're
having
some
good
dialogue
with
the
folks
over
there
and
I
see
a
road
trip
in
our
future
to
to
go
out
and
visit
them
and
and
see
it.
B
I
There
was
actually
one
aspect
of
it
that
came
up
that
I
had
not
expected,
which
they
Rachel
comp
from
Urban.
Canopy
works
also
mentioned
that,
besides
developing
the
urban
Forest
master
plan,
they
helped
develop
a
management
plan
for
the
city
of
Knoxville
that
directly
supported
the
work
of
the
urban
Forester
and
I.
D
I
was
going
to
say
if
I
could
add
they,
they
use
the
planet,
Geo
inventory
database
management
system
as
their
platform
and
can
build
the
Urban
Tree
database
into
an
a
asset
management
system
into
the
city's
Municipal
asset
management
system.
So
you
know
our
conversation
connected
a
lot
of
dots
answered
a
lot
of
questions
that
we
had
about
inventorying
the
trees
using
the
inventory
data
to
generate
a
master
plan,
building
a
management
database
and
tying
that
into
Asset
Management
Systems.
D
H
D
Yeah
they're
still
a
work
in
progress
they're
about
a
year
ahead
of
us.
They,
as
as
Zoe
mentioned,
they're
very
being
very
thorough
with
Community
input.
It's
a
big
part
of
their
planning
process,
and
you
know
I
would
say
that
they
probably
will
have
an
executive
summary.
That's
in
the
20
Page
to
30
page
range
and
a
comprehensive
plan.
That's
probably
three
times
that.
I
Get
it
online
yeah,
you
can
just
Google
it.
A
lot
of
their
present
plan
consists
of
their
enormous
and
impressive
Advisory
Board,
which
I
think
is
probably
something
that
will.
That
will
also
happen
here
and
that's
largely
what
the
the
contractors
have
been
working
on
for
about
a
year
is
getting
this
Buy
in,
and
educational
capacity
of
these
meetings,
which
I
think
is
really
important.
Ag
thank.
A
Update
we
had
a
meeting
with,
let's
see,
I
met
with
shardon
and
Keith
a
couple
weeks
ago,
and
we
created
a
list
of
suggestions
and
it
sounds
like
vidilla
is
also
creating
an
appropriate
species
list,
so
we're
trying
to
hopefully
collaborate
and
not
double
up
on
our
efforts.
Yay
vidilla
is
on
the
phone
he's
on
the
call
all
right.
Let's
hear
yeah,
let's
hear
what
vidilla
says.
G
G
That
that
Ed
and
others
suggested
to
we,
we
change
and
call
it
the
appropriate
species
list.
So
we've
been
working
on
it
for
a
while
doing
a
lot
of
updates
and
then
most
recently,
keath
I
think
is
sort
of
taking
it
over.
So
I
think
you.
What
you
can
think
of
is
that
you
guys
are
taking
over
what
we've
done
and-
and
you
you,
you
run
with
it,
as
you
will
I
mentioned
to
Keith,
just
a
hope.
G
We
that
that
we
at
least
maintain
some
of
the
the
adjustments
that
we
made,
because
there
was
a
lot
of
thought
that
went
into
them,
in
particular,
adding
trees
that
are
prohibited
for
certain
applications
in
particular
parking
lots,
because
we
in
some
places
like
parking
lots.
We
really
want
canopy
trees
that
provide
shade
and-
and
there
are
certain
species
that
are
heavily
being
used
because
they're
they
don't
provide
canopy
and
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
retailers
prefer
prefer
that
to
not
sort
of
block
the
signs
and
things.
G
So
that
was
my
only
request,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
have
two
two
things
going,
so
you
know
you
guys
do
that
as
you
may,
and
and
and
we'll
just
chime
in
if
I
could
have
a
look
at
it
before
it
gets
approved
and
and
and
just
I'm
sure
you
know
if
Ed's
involved,
there's
a
couple,
other
people
I've
been
working
with
just
to
make
sure
that
they're
ultimately
have
a
review
of
it,
but
why
don't
you
guys
just
take
over
it?
Basically,
at
this.
J
Yeah
I'm,
currently
in
the
process
of
combining
those
lists
with
a
list
that
we
had
come
up
with
Charon
and
Karen
and
I
and
I'm
hoping
to
get
that
out
here
in
about
10
days.
And
let
people
review
it
and
look
it
over
see.
If
there's
any
changes
and
then
my
goal
is
to
have
it
finalized
by
the
end
of
the.
B
E
E
A
This
well,
we
had
talked
about
one
option
would
be
finding
out
the
best
easiest
way
for
our
Public
Works
director
or
whoever
is
issuing
violations
regarding.
You
know,
trees
being
taken
down
on
steep
slope
or
Etc,
how
we
can
add
more
transparency
to
that
process,
so
that
as
a
a
communication,
awareness
and
also
sort
of
an
educational
tool,
so
that
people
can
understand
the
process
better
and
there
there
can
be
more.
E
Consistency
yeah
now
that
now
that
you've
said
that
it,
it
seems
like
if
we
had
somehow
more
consistency
regarding
steep
slopes.
That
would
help
that
sorry,
I've
lost
my
lost
the
page.
Okay
here
I
am
back
to
it.
This
page
that
if,
if
somehow,
when
building
permits
were
enforced
on
steep
slopes,
wouldn't
it
be
useful
for
the
purchaser
of
a
steep
slope
property
to
be
informed
at
that
point
that
that
there
are
rules
regarding
the.
B
H
If
I
could
chime
in
in
a
perfect
world-
yes
CEC,
so
they
are
they're
when
they
talk
to
the
planner.
If
it's
a
level
one
or
any
type
of
application,
it
is
notified,
they
notify
the
person,
that's
doing
the
application,
that
they
are
on
steep
slope,
A
or
B,
and
certain
things
are
required.
What
I
was
trying
to
get
done
when
Ricky
Hurley
was
in
z?
H
J
Apart
from
the
the
the
developer
and
the
the
buer
on
the
project,
it
sounds
like
you
know:
I
was
on
a
couple
two
weeks
ago,
and
that
was
pretty
much.
The
the
the
whole
point
of
it
is
is
that
the
the
home
owners
just
don't
know
they're,
just
they
don't
have
any
idea.
People
are
telling
them,
they
can
and
can't
do
things
and
cannot
do
things,
and
you
know
I
think
that's
where
we're
losing
it,
not
necessarily
inspectors,
because
I
think
the
inspectors
are
doing
their
jobs.
G
Wait
a
minute
vill
just
just
to
chime
in
you
know,
I
had
to
put
together
a
a
steep
slope
layer
for
the
gis
recently
for
this
missing
midle
housing
project
for
our
consultants
and
while
I
was
doing
that
it
occurred
to
me
that
you
know
this
isn't
public
information.
You
know
everybody
has
to
find
out
what
they're,
whether
they're,
within
the
seep
slope
based
on
their
own
parcel.
G
H
And
then
they
try
to
live
within
the
the
gradients
that
they're
having
to
do
depending
on
whether
they're,
A
and
B.
Then
you've
got
that
that
group
of
people
that
aren't
aware
and
then
you've
got
the
inspectors
that
go
out
and
look
at
it
that
don't
necessarily
know
that
they
can,
and
they
cannot
do.
They
will
know
the
grade
for
a
a
driveway.
They'll
know
how
the
house
should
sit,
but
they
won't
know
about
the
trees
and
the
critical
root
Zone
and
how
that
sits.
Now.
H
I
do
know
that
we're
in
the
process
of
retraining
inspectors.
So
in
my
six
years
of
dealing
with
this
all
the
way
down,
the
line
has
been
breakdowns
for
people,
not
understanding
in
each
little
individual
pocket
and
as
videla
stated,
if
we
could
get
all
that
information
in
one
area,
then
we'd
have
more
people
more
informed
in
every
step
of
the
way
of
where
it's
not.
E
B
I
I
think
around
the
6th
of
August
and
the
only
thing
I
saw
in
there.
They
had
not.
The
tree
ordinance
was
not
in
there
anymore
as
a
possible
barrier,
nor
are
the
landscape
requirements.
The
only
thing
that
was
in
there
that
I
saw
and
commented
on
was
the
requirement
for
a
a
20
foot
barrier
between
RS
and
RM:
that's
single,
family
and
and
multiple
family
housing.
The
possible
reduction
or
removal
of
that
20
foot
buffer
I
wrote
an
opposing
comment
about
that.
B
Meeting
moving
forward
legislative
update,
I
think
at
the
last
meeting
I
mentioned
this.
These
two
proposals
that
are
advancing
through
the
city
system
by
Barry
beik,
who
is
a
local
developer
of
affordable
housing
and
was
a
former
chair
of
the
affordable
housing
advisory
committee.
One
dealing
with
flag
Lots,
the
other
with
cottage
clusters,
and
his
idea
is
to
make
some
changes
that
would
open
up
more
Parcels
for
the
development
of
affordable
housing.
However,
his
two
proposals
could
have
an
impact
on
tree
loss
in
the
city.
B
I'll,
just
briefly
mention
Cottage
clusters,
because
it's
the
easiest
one
to
understand
right
now
under
Parcels
that
are
zon
for
cottage
clusters,
the
minimum
number
of
are
five
and
both
under
the
State
subdivision
statute,
as
well
as
and
and
reflected
in
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation,
ordinance,
cotage
cluster
developments
would
be
subject
to
the
Tre
canopy
preservation.
B
Ordinance,
The
Proposal
would
be
to
reduce
the
minimum
number
of
units
to
two
and
that
potentially
could
remove
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation
ordinance
applicability
to
that
kind
of
development.
On
the
flag
lot
proposal,
this
gets
more
complicated,
but
there
are
certain
changes
being
proposed.
That
would
make
it
easier
to
build
single
family
units
on
flag
lots
and
flag.
B
Lots
are
usually
a
lot
behind
a
lot
that
has
a
street
Frontage,
usually
owned
by
the
same
property
owner,
who
has
subdivided
the
the
property
into
two
Parcels
it's
more
complicated,
because
the
state
law
regarding
sub
divisions
is
not
settled
law.
So
it's
not
clear
whether
the
tree
canopy
preservation
ordinance
would
apply
to
that.
B
G
Okay
I,
admittedly,
this
is
confusing
and
it's
and
it's
difficult
to
shed
light
on
it
without
visuals
and
a
more
prepared
discussion
or
presentation.
I
think
what
I
can
say
is
that
the
city
has
a
process
by
which
the
public
can
request
changes
to
the
code,
and
so
we
have
a
developer
of
single
family
housing.
Who
is
proposing
to
change
the
code
to
who
is
recommending
that
the
minimum
flag
lot
be
significantly
reduced
today
we
require
that
a
flag
lot
has
at
least
20
feet
of
Frontage.
G
So
if
you
can
imagine
that
there's
20
feet
of
Frontage
and
then
it
goes
into
the
back
of
somebody's
property
and
then
it
flares
open
where
there's
a
larger
piece
of
property
that
can
build
a
house
because
of
that
requirement.
We
don't
get
many
of
them
and
there's
a
good
reason,
because
flag
Lots
can
be
problematic.
G
So
this
single
family
home
developer
would
like
to
reduce
that
five
feet
wide
and
so
we're
trying
to
to
figure
out
what
the
impacts
would
be
and,
as
Patrick
mentioned,
some
of
some
of
the
impacts
that
most
relate
to
what
you're
reviewing
are
sort
of
unsettled
legally
and
it's
confusing.
So
we're
trying
to
to
get
us
a
stronger
sense
of
of
I.
Think
what
the
city
feels
comfortable
with
and
that'll
determine.
G
Our
position
on
on
this
I
I
I
do
want
to
say
that
that
the
timing
is
somewhat
unusual
because
we're
just
finishing
up
with
this
missing
middle
housing
study,
which
we
should
have
the
final
report
at
the
end
of
this
month.
So
by
the
end
of
this
month
we
should
know
what
the
Consultants
are
recommending
for
for
housing,
and
it
may
be
the
case
that
the
the
better
recommendations
would
not
be
to
start
by
changing
flag
lot
standards,
but
it,
but
they
they
may
be
something
else.
G
So
I
I
would
like
to
say
that
we
can
come
back
with
more
clarity
in
a
month.
That
would
give
you
a
better
better
picture
of
of
what
the
real
issues
are,
what
the
possible
impacts
may
be
and
if
we
don't
recommend
moving
forward
with
flag
Lots
what
what
other
policies
for
for
housing
we
think
make
more
sense
at
the
time
and
with
that
I'll
I'll
turn
it
back
to
you.
Patrick.
H
H
Well,
we
can
think
about
how
we
can
work
this
out
together,
offline
and
change,
maybe
some
of
the
language
as
he
presented
it.
So
it
could
be
something
more
Equitable
for
everybody
and
and
my
response,
which
was
not
I,
made
the
response
on
the
trees.
I
was
told
that
it's
not
applicable
because
it
doesn't
affect
on
the
flag.
Lots
due
to
I,
said
for
the
fact
that
we
had
the
potential
on
flag
Lots,
because
it's
easement
sharing,
so
you've
got
them
sharing
the
same
driveway.
H
H
So
in
In
the
Heat
of
the
Moment
I
said
it
has
the
potential
of
reducing
a
tree
canopy
without
knowing
whether
it
did
or
didn't,
and
so
it's
a
conceptual
thing,
not
not
a
real
thing,
but
a
lot
of
what
the
billing
department
statements
and
a
lot
of
what
ad
addressing
especially
stated,
is
that
it's
going
to
be
a
major
nightmare.
If
this
type
of
flag
lots
that
he
is
proposing,
go
through,
it's
going
to
change
so
much
in
the
building
department
and
so
much
in
the
addressing
Department.
H
B
B
Correct
correct,
correct,
so
the
October
meeting
you
know
can
come
back
and
give
us
a
more
updated
and
detailed
information
on
it.
In
the
meantime,
I
may
try
and
get
some
kind
of
legal
reading
from
the
Law
Department.
Regarding
the
unsettled
legal
aspect
of
the
state
subdivision
law,
and
then
we
can
have
all
that
information
in
the
for
the
October
meeting
and
make
a
a
an
informed
decision
on
if
we
want
to
take
a
position
and
what
that
position
would
be.
So
thanks.
Everybody.
Thank
you,
vidilla.