Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried: Voting Yes: Planning Commissioners Nixt, Reeve, V/ason, Brauer, Shepherd; <br />Park and Recreation Commissioners Johns, Olds, Lehman, Rolfe; EPTF Members McDilda, <br />Max, Co~anolly, Drop'ak. Voting No: None. Absent: Planning Commissioners Johnson and <br />Van Scoy; Park and Recreation Commissioners Ostrum, LaMere, Shryock; EPTF Member Sitz. <br /> <br />CO MM [SSION/TAS K FORCE BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Review Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance <br /> <br />EPTF Chair Joe McDilda stated that the objective of this joint meeting is to pr~ent what the <br />EPTF believes to be very close to a final draft of the tree preservation ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted that the Task Force has worked very hard to create an <br />ordinance uuique to Ramsey, and unique ways to approach tree preservation and planting in <br />Ramsey. One significant result is the development of a formula for determining appropriate <br />number of plantings based on cat'~opy cover versus stem count. <br /> <br />M~'. McDilcla explainecl that there currently is not an ordinance in Rarnsey that addresses the <br />preservation o'1" tile urban tbrest. As new development occurs, we need to look at existing <br />vegetation and complement what we exists in the City. Mr. McDilda then proceeded to review <br />the ordinance outline and content. <br /> <br />EPTF Vice-Chair M'ichael Max described the new Tree Book that has evolved as part of drafting <br />a Tree P~'eservation Ordinance. There was also a discussion o~' the new formula devised <br />calculating the amount of plantings that would be required with new development. The new <br />fbnnula would be based on canopy and would be integrated into City Code in place of the <br />current stem count fomqu[a. <br /> <br />The Ptanning Commission and Park Comn~tission were glad to see that the ordinance encourages <br />preservation but doesn't absolutely prohibit clear cutting, because that is not realistic in some <br />cases. Tln'ough the discussion that ensued, it was also ctarified that this ordinance does not <br />proMbit the private homeowner from removing trees from their property; ti'mt the ordinance is <br />geared more towards new development and related tree requirements. <br /> <br />Nam-ting Commission Chairperson Nixt inquired as to how much it will cost the City to enforce <br />tlnis ordinance. <br /> <br />gPT[: member Dvoark stated th~tt a lot of c:~ties have Tree Boards or Commissions to assist with <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />Discussio.a ensued regarding the current process wherein City Staff issues a review letter for <br />each development proposal that includes a critique of the landscape plan. The process is in place <br />fbr addressing trees, but in the broader sense of environmental issues, it may be necessary in the <br />['uture to appoint an envirom'nental commission. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Brauer inquired about the economic impact associated with the adoption <br />o'F the ordinance. He questioned what additional duties staff would be talcing on and how those <br />:~dditiom~l sm I'T amd tm:ks wi I1 be lure;led. <br /> <br />342 <br /> <br /> <br />