Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br /> MEMORANDUM <br />March 9, 1995 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Park and Recreation Commission <br /> <br />CC: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Planning Commission <br />Economic Development Commission <br />Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br />Steve Jankowsld, City Engineer <br />Jessie Hart, Finance Officer <br />Sylvia Frolik, Zoning Administrator <br />Jim Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator <br />Bruce Bacon, Environmental Specialist <br />Glyn Huff, Building Official <br />Dennis Peck, Developer <br />Gary Gorham, Developer <br />Tony Emmerich, Developer <br />Gerald Bauer, Developer <br />Jack Menkveld, Developer <br />John Peterson, Developer <br />Richard Bloom, Developer <br />Dave Segal, Developer <br /> <br />Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor <br /> <br />Draft Tree Conservation Policy <br /> <br />As you know, the iCity hosted a workshop for developers to comment on proposed tree <br />conservation measul[es. The frequent developers in Ramsey were invited and provided a draft <br />ordinance to identif~discussion points. <br /> <br />The attached meeting minutes detail the discussion and attendees. The following is believed to be <br />the consensus recorniu~ endafion resulting from the workshop: <br /> <br />· The City should require comprehensive tree conservation at the builder level. <br /> a) The ~uilder should be required to fence all save trees at the drip line to guard against <br /> accidental damage from subcontractors and others. <br /> <br /> b) The 1~ ilder may be required to prepare a tree lot survey with recommendations by a <br /> privai, e forester. This plan would identify which trees were practical for protection. <br /> In ad~lition, this plan would be of value to the home buyer, particularly if it <br /> provi~led a brief management plan for the woodlot. <br /> <br />· Reputable d0y' elopers could be afforded continued flexibility in roadway grading. <br /> a) Currant flexibility could be continued, provided that the grading plans show all <br /> stand~ of trees and significant individual trees within the init/al grading limits. <br /> <br /> b) Trees that are questionable for preservation in terms of the grading and subdivision <br /> plan ~vould remain for "field" determination by the City and Developer/grading <br /> con.tr~.ctor. The City would be available in a reasonably short notice to authorize <br /> devi~ions in the grading plan in cases where there were clear benefits. <br /> <br /> <br />