Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Policy Board(EPB) 5.3. <br /> Meeting Date: 04/17/2023 <br /> By: Chris Anderson, Community Development <br /> Information <br /> Title: <br /> Review Proposed Tree Preservation and Landscaping Ordinance Updates <br /> Purpose/Background: <br /> The Planning Division is currently working on an overhaul of the Zoning Code,which includes topics such as <br /> Tree Preservation and Landscaping. Attached to this case are the tree preservation standards of various <br /> communities that are generally similar in nature to Ramsey(developing community,rural and urban areas, etc.) <br /> for comparison purposes. Also attached to this case are the drafts proposed by Staff. <br /> Observations/Alternatives: <br /> Landscaping <br /> A general synopsis of proposed revisions to the landscaping standards is below. <br /> .Eliminate much of the language related to the Ramsey Tree Book. <br /> .Modify planting sizes so that there is consistency across all zoning districts. This represents an increase in <br /> planting size in residential districts, and a reduction in planting size(for deciduous overstory trees)in <br /> commercial/industrial districts). <br /> .Deciduous overstory tree: 2 inch caliper <br /> .Deciduous understory tree: 1.5 inch caliper <br /> .Coniferous tree: 6 feet in height <br /> .Multi-stem deciduous tree: 6 feet in height <br /> . Shrubs: 24 inches in height or width,dependent upon growth characteristics <br /> . Specify that internal landscaping is required in the COR district,based on the canopy cover formula. But, <br /> built in flexibility in case space is too limiting to meet the minimum planting requirements. <br /> . Simplified the bufferyard table by eliminating the requirement to buffer between commercial and industrial <br /> uses(bufferyards will only be required when commercial or industrial development occurs adjacent to <br /> existing residential development) and specifying a singular width of the bufferyard regardless of residential <br /> zoning designation. <br /> Tree Preservation <br /> .Expanded the purpose and intent sections. <br /> •Eliminate (or relocate to other sections of City Code) language not specific to tree preservation. <br /> .Added specific tree preservation plan content requirements. <br /> . Simplified the tree protection measures. <br /> . Section 117-328 (Hazardous and/or Nuisance Trees)has been removed from the tree preservation <br /> standards. Staff intends to create a new chapter in City Code to address shade tree disease management, <br /> but did not have time to do so in this case. Most of the language would remain unchanged or very similar, <br /> but Staff does plan to incorporate more preventative measures,which are much more cost effective than <br /> control measures. <br /> Staff would like specific feedback from the Environmental Policy Board(EPB) on the current definition of <br /> significant tree(all oaks and evergreens that are four [4] inches or greater in diameter at breast height [DBH] and <br /> all other trees that are eight [8] inches or greater in DBH). In reviewing other communities' standards,what is <br /> considered a significant tree varies somewhat, as indicated below: <br /> .Andover: all trees with a DBH of four(4) inches or greater. <br /> .Champlin and Elk River: all trees with a DBH of six(6)inches or greater. <br /> •Lino Lakes: deciduous trees with a DBH of six(6) inches or greater and evergreens that are twelve (12) <br />