Laserfiche WebLink
5.04: Review Tree Preservation Plan Request for Trott Brook North <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the purpose of the case is to review <br />a request from the Excelsior Group on the project generally known as Trott Brook North which is <br />the area between Variolite Street and Nowthen Boulevard NW, north of Trott Brook. The <br />application has requested a deviation from the City's standard tree preservation plan. <br />Board Member Little asked for input as to what would be considered a negative in allowing this <br />plan to move forward. <br />City Planner Anderson commented that on the surface the concern would be whether the standards <br />are being applied consistently and fairly. He stated that the tree inventory is based on inches rather <br />than total trees and therefore there could be a deviation, although perhaps not significantly. He <br />explained that there will be a lot of plantings with this large development along with areas of tree <br />preservation. He noted that the applicant has stated that there would be more time and cost to <br />provide a review in inches. He asked if the Board feels that this method would provide a fairly <br />accurate depiction of what exists and what would need to be replaced. <br />Board Member Little commented that he has experience working with trees and he believes that <br />this method would provide accurate information. He stated that in his opinion he believes that this <br />would be an accurate method but agreed the question would be whether the City wants to deviate <br />from policy. <br />Board Member Hiatt recognized that this was a planted area and therefore the type and size should <br />be similar for the trees as they were planted at the same time. He stated that if this method is going <br />to be allowed it should be noted that this was a planted area and not naturally occurring, in order <br />to prevent precedent from being set. <br />Board Member Little stated that if this method is approved, he would agree to specify that was <br />allowed because it was an artificially planted area. <br />Board Member Hiatt asked how staff feels about this method. <br />City Planner Anderson commented that he agrees it would give a fair representation of what is out <br />there. He agreed that it would be critical to mention that this was allowed because it is unique in <br />that it was a planted area in order to avoid setting precedent. He stated that the hardest challenge <br />would be determining reforestation requirements if the removal threshold is exceeded. <br />Board Member Fetterley commented that this would be an exception to the normal process, and <br />she would be hesitant although this seems like a fair method proposed. She asked if the Board <br />wants to allow another reason for exceptions. She asked if there are other areas similar to this in <br />Ramsey. <br />Board Member Valentine commented that this would seem to be a situation that points out a need <br />for the City to have a process to systematically address variances. He stated that perhaps the <br />developer would need to follow a variance request to request this approach for evaluating the site. <br />