Agenda - Council - 05/23/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I TREE CONSERVATION POLICY WORKSHOP CITY OF RAMSEY ANOKA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA The City of Ramsey conducted a workshop on Tuesday, February 21, 1995 at the Ramsey Municipal Center, 15153 Now laen Boulevard N.W., Ramsey, Minnesota, in order to review the proposed tree conservation policy.i Present: Gem rl Zimmerman, Councilmember Jill J~ ,hns, Park & Recreation Commissioner Mar~ Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor Brue: Bacon, Environmental Specialist Den= is Peck, Developer Gary Gorham, Developer Tony Emmerich, Developer Janette Monear, Resident, 8513 164th Lane NW The workshop cormlaeneed at 6:03 p.m. Mark Boos, Parks/l. tilities Supervisor, stated that the City is considering a tree conservation policy for two reasons: (1) to ensure quality subdivisions, and (2) to set uniform standards for developers. He explained that resid~nts purchasing lots need reason to trust that the City has looked out for trees and have also taken car~ of trees that should not have been protected. He stated the proposed policy is designed to conside! preservation first and then restoration when feasible. Dennis Peck, Deveioper, viewed the proposed policy as creating lots of development problems and lots of unnecessarylbureaucracy. He referenced item II, "Applicability," and inquired as to who is being protected, i Mr. Boos stated thal~ the policy is intended to apply to the subdivision process. The City does not have the right to tell a homeowner what he/she can do to their trees. Mr. Peck responded that the language "any person or entity" should then be clarified as it is over- reaching and overb~oad. He then inquired what criteria would be utilized if he were developing a parcel and chose to ~o through the middle of the woods. Mr. Boos stated tha! was addressed in item IV.A.5. (Procedures). Mr. Peck was concerned about development decisions affecting the amount of trees to be taken. Mr. Boos replied that it might equal out to the required yard space which would be needed anyway. Mr. Peck inquired if the intent was to protect the buyer. He commented that things happen once the buyer gets involvedil and he felt it will be difficult to set up criteria. Mr. Boos explained!the process of monitoring. Mr. Peck was concdrned about the length of the review process in order to get to the site plan, whether it would be 24 h0ur~ or 3 months. Mr. Boos agreed that there should be a turn-around time limit with automatic acceptance of the plan if the limit is not met. T~ee Conservation Policy Workshop/February 21, 1995 Page 1 of S