2015_1116_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B 99 Page 4, line 110, Member Murphy opined that for city public improvements, the city needed to be held to 100 the same standards as others and obey the same law imposed on others. 101 While agreeing that language could be changed if so desired, Mr. Gozola provided rationale for its 102 current version, using the fire station, water line and sewer lines as examples in the need for their 103 location where they would be expected to provide the best level of service fro the broader community. 104 Member Daire noted that could also apply to private property and private development. 105 Member Murphy noted recent park structures constructed that may have caused removal of a number of 106 trees; reiterating that the city needed to be held to the same standards as its citizens. 107 In various references throughout the document, Member Murphy asked how one became a certified 108 arborist, with Mr. Rehder explaining the credentials and requirements, continuing education, 109 examinations, and experience for that title as well as those required for a registered forester. Using 110 himself as an example, Mr. Rehder advised that he held a Bachelor of Science degree. Member Murphy 111 asked if that was standard nationwide or state-wide credentialing, with Mr. Gozola advising that the 112 person would need to be licensed within the State of Minnesota, similar to a licensed engineer, with a 113 degree in place and then applying for registration as a certified forester or arborist that would also apply 114 nationally and satisfying the qualifications of whichever agency applied. Whatever title, Mr. Rehder 115 advised that a minimum 4-year forestry degree would be required, with the certified arborist similar but 116 perhaps the requirements were less stringent. 117 Member Gitzen suggested including the definition of both a"registered forester" and "certified arborist" in 118 the ordinance to ensure the City's intent is clear. 119 Page 5, line 143, Member Daire referenced exemptions in Section 4.a and how/who determined invasive 120 specie definitions, using several examples in the community of trees that may be considered invasive 121 (e.g. west side of Snelling Avenue on the south side of County Road E) but were glorious in the fall. 122 Mr. Rehder clarified that the general reference was when those trees were within or planted near the 123 edge of a woodland and their potential encroachment onto that woodland where they would take over. 124 Mr. Rehder advised that was the rationale used with all invasive species. 125 Page 5, line 164, in again referencing the registered forester or certified arborist, Chair Boguszewski 126 asked who was responsible for paying them for their services and determined their level of expertise if 127 and when a developer presents a plan provided by such a titled person. Chair Boguszewski questioned 128 the process for that plan from the private developer to the city's similarly titled personnel vetting the 129 plans, and what happened should they differ in their interpretation. 130 Mr. Paschke stated that typically, the city would not hire out its contract consultants, but those 131 consultants would review the plans as presented as currently done by city engineers or consulting 132 engineers with specific expertise in their review of site plans presented for approval to the Planning 133 Commission and City Council and subsequent permit issuance. 134 Member Daire reviewed the process from his perspective: the applicant would be required to perform a 135 tree preservation inventory and provide a plan completed by a registered arborist or certified forester that 136 would be presented to the City. Then, Member Daire asked if the city was going to trust in that person's 137 credentials that it is right or have it reviewed by someone on city staff or someone similarly qualified or 138 registered. 139 Mr. Paschke reiterated the typical review process, with a private developer hiring the necessary 140 expertise to provide a plan to the city, at which time that plan is sent directly to qualified in-house staff 141 and/or consultants (e.g. city planners, civil engineers, watershed districts, etc.) for their review of the 142 plan, and forwarding if found appropriate for the approval process; and in addition to the general review 143 and analysis of staff. 144 Member Daire asked if that wording should be included, with Mr. Paschke questioned if it was needed as 145 it was part of the typical approval process, whether done by in-house staff or an outside contractor hired 146 to perform that function; and would be no different than plan review with the zoning ordinance and 147 making sure everything was consistent with code. 148 Member Daire stated his rationale in raising that question was in recognizing it was insufficient for 149 someone not certified or registered to perform the tree inventory and plan (e.g. a surveyor) in order to 150 establish the recognized standard, opining it was only fair to have that requirement up front.