Laserfiche WebLink
buildable/developable land (which excludes areas such as wetlands) should be subject <br />to the tree inventory requirements. <br />Staff recommended that the Board consider a minimum planting distance from <br />residential driveways, such as ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet, for trees installed within <br />boulevard area. The Board did not have a definitive recommendation on this matter. <br />After more thought on this subject, Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson <br />suggested that this be a policy rather than entering it into City Code. The Board <br />concurred. <br /> <br />The final matter that was discussed involved tree inventory requirements. Currently, the <br />ordinance requires ALL trees, regardless of size/species, be inventoried. Staff would like to see <br />a minimum size required for the purposes of inventorying. Staff has been using four (4) inches <br />or greater as the standard but believes this should be increased to at least eight (8) inches. A <br />subcommittee was formed to address this concern. After further discussion, the Board <br />recommended that the minimum size requirements for mandatory inclusion in a tree inventory be <br />eight (8) inch DBH and larger for all species except oaks. The standard of four (4) inch DBH or <br />greater should remain for all oak species. <br /> <br />Case #4: Review of Canopy Cover Formula <br /> <br />Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson reviewed with the Board the recent history of the <br />tree planting requirements for multi-family developments. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator <br />Anderson stated that the old requirements were excessive and therefore, the EPTF had created <br />the canopy cover formula, which looked more at the available growing space on a site rather than <br />just specifying a certain number of trees that had to be planted. <br /> <br />Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that the typical planting requirements, based <br />on the canopy cover formula, seem to be rather easily met, especially if credit for preserved trees <br />is granted. Thus, Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson inquired as to whether the Board <br />wanted to revisit the formula and look at making a minor tweak to bump up the required canopy <br />cover square footage. Furthermore, there was some thought to seeing if the formula could be <br />removed from City Code and just made reference to so that if future tweaks were necessary, it <br />would not require an ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz raised a concern that he thinks that Ramsey Tree Book is misleading <br />because it does not clarify that the canopy cover square footage has been adjusted with a <br />multiplier for either acceptable or preferred species. After much discussion, the consensus of the <br />Board was that in the next edition of the Tree Book, the column header should be Canopy Cover <br />Value or something to that equivalent. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that he and Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson discussed <br />adding a factor that considers growth rate and life span. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated there needed to be clarification about whether the canopy cover <br />formula itself could be pulled from City code and referred to in the Tree Book. He stated this is <br />already being done, but all of this is going to require a public hearing. He wondered if it could <br />simply be said that the formula is going to be enhanced from time-to-time. He stated he felt the <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / December 5, 2005 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />