Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

Regular Planning Commission 5. 2. Meeting Date: 05/02/2013 By: Chris Anderson, Community Development Information Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Background: In 2003, the City adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance to establish reasonable protection of the community forest during development. While it is understood that there will be some tree loss associated with development, the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance is to guide more sustainable development and encourage, where possible, preservation of existing trees. Preservation of existing trees provide greater ecological services (stormwater retention, air filtering, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration etc) than young trees that are planted. One of the action items on the Environmental Policy Board's (EPB) City Council approved work plan was to review the Tree Preservation Ordinance and make suggested revisions, if needed. The intent was not to create more restrictions, but rather to look for opportunities to improve the ordinance Thus, the EPB's first step was to review Ramsey's current standards along with tree preservation requirements of a number of similar communities to better understand how Ramsey and others approach this subject. The EPB reviewed model ordinances from adjacent and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area communities. This led the EPB to identify several recommended revisions that would improve the current ordinance by removing ambiguity while also incorporating more flexibility for replacement of trees removed during development. Notification: The Notice of Public Hearing was properly published in the Anoka County Union. Observations/Alternatives: As presently written, only multi -family developments are subject to a removal threshold and replacement standard. If more than sixty percent (60%) of trees are removed as part of a multi -family project, than the developer is responsible for replacing them on a one (1) to one (1) basis. This is in addition to the required landscaping for the applicable zoning district. Additionally, there is no flexibility within the ordinance if this replacement standard cannot be met other than a variance. The existing ordinance contains definitions of a significant tree, which is important to the analysis below. A significant tree must be: • At least four (4) inches at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). DBH, according to City Code, is measured at fifty-four (54) inches from the ground for oak and evergreen trees • At least eight (8) inches at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). DBH, according to City Code, is measured at fifty-four (54) inches from the ground for all other deciduous trees The EPB believes that the removal threshold should be applicable to any type of development, not just multi -family projects. However, the EPB feels there should also be exemptions for other required improvements, such as storm water ponds and public trails and sidewalks. Thus, the proposed revisions clarify that: • Single -Family and Multi -Family Residential Districts: at least forty percent (40%) of the inches of existing significant tree DBH (see definition above) shall be retained on site • Business and Employment Districts: at least thirty percent (30%) percent of the inches of existing significant tree DBH (see definition above) shall be retained on site.