06/02/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In the Definitions sections, the definition of Diameter at Breast Height (dbh) was clarified to reflect that it is the diameter of the tree at 54 inches above the ground. Ms. Sitz referred to Section 9.24.05 (Hazardous or Nuisance Trees), Subd. 1 (Notice to Take Action) and stated that this section only forces people to take care of trees that may affect public trees. She felt that this ordinance should be applicable to persons having trees that have the potential to adversely impact private trees also. Consensus was that the Task Force can revisit the possibility of protecting private trees in a future amendment. The consensus was that Section 9.24.04 (Private Trees In New Residential Development Areas) should establish that the number of plantings required shall be in accordance with the performance standards established in the respective zoning district regulations. Ms. Frolik noted that if Section 9.24.04 is intended to be applicable to commercial as well as residential development, then the title of the section needs to be modified to remove the reference to 'residential'. The consensus was to eliminate the reference to 'residential' in the title of Section 9.24.04 and modify the text of the section to refer to 'site plans' as well as preliminary plats. Motion by Committee Member Max and seconded by Committee Member Connolly to ratify the final draft of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson McDilda, Committee Members Max, Connolly and Sitz. Voting No: None. Absent: Committee Members Dvorak and Reeve. Ms. Frolik noted that Community Development Assistant Chris Anderson has reviewed the proposed ordinance with respect to existing tree related regulations in City Code. He has drafted a memo identifying sections of City Code that will need to be modified or updated as a result of the new ordinance. Ms. Frolik was directed to email Chris Anderson's memo to all Task Force members. Staff will have to follow up to make the necessary amendments to City Code. Case #3: Preparation for June 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing Committee Member Dvorak arrived at this time. Ms. Frolik suggested since the new 'canopy formula' is only referenced in the proposed Tree Ordinance, it might be best not to go into a great amount detail regarding the new formula at the public hearing. A detailed presentation of how it works might be more appropriate when an ordinance is actually brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council to implement the new formula into zoning district regulations in Chapter 9 of City Code. Case #4: Discuss Presentations For The June 19 EPTF Meeting Ms. Frolik stated that the June 19 meeting will be advertised as a regular meeting. It is being held at the Fire Station on Armstrong Blvd. so that the presentations by Mr. Max (Minneapolis Inven-Tree) and Mr. Biske (Ramsey Land Cover Survey) can be televised. Special invitations to attend the meeting for the benefit of seeing the presentations will be sent to the Park Commission and the Planning Commission. Case #5: Summer Hours