Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried: V. oting Yes: Planning Commissioners Nixt, Reeve, Watson, Brauer, Shepherd; <br />Park and Recreation Commissioners Jcl:ms, 01ds, Lehman, Rolfe; EPTF Members McDilda, <br />Max, Connolly, Dvorak. Voting No: None. Absent: Planning Commissioners Johnson and <br />Van Scoy; Park and Recreation Commissioners Ostrum, LaMere, Shryock', EPTF Member Sitz. <br /> <br />COMMISSION/TASK FORCE BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Review Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance <br /> <br />EPTF Chair Joe McDilda stated that the objective of this joint meeting is to pre,,sent what the <br />EPTF believes to be very close to a final draft of the tree preservation ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted that the Task Force has worked very hard to create an <br />ordinance unique to Ramsey, and unique ways to approach tree preservation and planting in <br />Ramsey. One significant result is the development of a formula for determining appropriate <br />number of plantings based on canopy cover versus stem count. <br /> <br />Mi'. McDilda explained that there currently is not an ordinance in Ramsey that addresses the <br />preservation of the urban forest. As new development occurs, we need to look at existing <br />vegetation and complement what we exists in the City. Mr. McDilda then proceeded to review <br />the ordinance outline and content. <br /> <br />EPTF Vice-Chair Michael Max described the new Tree Book that has evolved as part of drafting <br />a Tree Preservation Ordinance. There was also a discussion of the new formula devised for <br />calculating the amount of plantings that would be required with new development. The new <br />formula would be based on canopy and would be integrated into City Code in place of the <br />current stem count formula. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission and Park Commission were glad to see that the ordinance encourages <br />preservation but doesn't absolutely prohibit clear cutting, because that is not realistic in some <br />cases. Through the discussion that ensued, it was also clarified that this ordinance does not <br />prohibit the private homeowner fi'om removing trees from their property; that the ordinance is <br />geared more towards new development and related tree requirements. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Chairperson Nixt inquired as to how much it will cost the City to enforce <br />this ordinance. <br /> <br />EPTF member Dvoark stated that a lot of cities have Tree Boards or Commissions to assist with <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the current process wherein City Staff issues a review letter for <br />each development proposal that includes a critique of the landscape plan. The process is in place <br />for addressing trees, but in the broader sense of environmental issues, it may be necessary in the <br />future to appoint an enx ironmental commission, t <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Brauer inquired about the economic impact associated with the adoption <br />of the ordinance. I-Ie questioned what additional duties staff would be taking on and how those <br />additional staff and tasks will be funded. <br /> <br /> <br />