2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 13 Mr. Bilotta clarified that the City’s current ordinance was all about replacement and not 598 mandating things remaining in place (e.g. heritage trees), and had no ability to protect or 599 preserve any trees valued by the community. Mr. Bilotta noted that another issue that 600 came up a lot was what controls the Planning Commission and City Council had in 601 guiding development in currently ungraded areas that may not be amenable for a 602 developer to address, with the City’s hands currently tied. Also, Mr. Bilotta noted another 603 consideration was if and when the City went too far in the other direction, advising that in 604 some cities a resident had to get a permit to cut down any tree on private property. While 605 the City Council wasn’t ready to go there, Mr. Bilotta suggested a general tweaking of the 606 current ordinance and structural changes to tie them in with City Code and Parks & 607 Recreation Department considerations was preferable. 608 While there may be some obvious areas for improvement, not being a Forester or 609 Arborist, Chair Gisselquist opined that in order to make the best recommendations, there 610 should be some technical expertise behind the recommendations, whether from the parks 611 group as to what constitutes a problem tree species while also recognizing that any tree 612 coming down constitutes some visual element and should be replaced. 613 Member Cunningham reviewed some comments she’d heard from residents prior to this 614 meeting, including specific trees needing to be preserved; more attention paid to species; 615 the replacement ratio of trees not being sufficient; and how to address different scenarios 616 for preservation, replacement, and how to balance that aesthetic need without making it 617 difficult for a property owner to achieve physically and/or financially. 618 Mr. Bilotta referenced Councilmember Etten’s comments at the City Council meeting, 619 suggesting that rather than the City having its own list of trees, since neither they or staff 620 were foresters, that the City Code reference the DNR list of trees and period revisions to 621 that list as times change. 622 Member Boguszewski suggested that a forester or arborist review the ordinance to make 623 sure root depth needed for a species to survive, not just root/fence lines, and other 624 considerations are addressed. If and when the Planning Commission met jointly with the 625 Parks & Recreation Commission (Park Board), Member Boguszewski asked that a 626 qualified forester also attend that meeting to provide feedback and their expertise. As an 627 example, Member Boguszewski stated that he wasn’t convinced the list should be 628 confined to passive DNR references, but also include some of the many arboretums in 629 the State of MN for their input and to provide their expertise. 630 While yet to set a 2015 budget, Mr. Bilotta noted that the City Council had before them a 631 proposal to increase the current City forester form part- to full-time to assist in such 632 efforts. 633 If the staff time was increased, Member Boguszewski opined that he would like to see the 634 requirements of doing to tied to the skills and expertise for whoever held that job, allowing 635 more time for the existing staff person in that role. Member Boguszewski agreed with the 636 comments of Member Cunningham, that if the City valued trees at all, the current way the 637 ordinance was structured for replacement percentages was insufficient and needed to 638 increase while still allowing for flexibility based on age of existing trees or based on their 639 maturity levels. 640 Mr. Paschke stated that he was not opposed to increasing that ratio or number, but 641 clarified that there was no instance where a developer could clear cut a site and not 642 install replacement trees, even for new projects in order to meet landscape requirements 643 for trees and shrubs. Using the Josephine Heights development as an example, Mr. 644 Paschke noted that they received credit for preserved trees, many heritage trees; 645 however, in some commercial areas, it was more difficult to achieve that; or other 646 developments with existing landscaping that couldn’t fit additional trees in based on 647 design standards. 648 Member Boguszewski opined that this wasn’t only about individual sites or micro 649 locations, but had a biosphere affect and benefit for the entire community. Member 650