2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 4 Member Daire noted that could also apply to private property and private development. 145 Member Murphy noted recent park structures constructed that may have caused removal 146 of a number of trees; reiterating that the city needed to be held to the same standards as 147 its citizens. 148 In various references throughout the document, Member Murphy asked how one became 149 a certified arborist, with Mr. Rehder explaining the credentials and requirements, 150 continuing education, examinations, and experience for that title as well as those required 151 for a registered forester. Using himself as an example, Mr. Rehder advised that he held a 152 Bachelor of Science degree. Member Murphy asked if that was standard nationwide or 153 state-wide credentialing, with Mr. Gozola advising that the person would need to be 154 licensed within the State of Minnesota, similar to a licensed engineer, with a degree in 155 place and then applying for registration as a certified forester or arborist that would also 156 apply nationally and satisfying the qualifications of whichever agency applied. Whatever 157 title, Mr. Rehder advised that a minimum 4-year forestry degree would be required, with 158 the certified arborist similar but perhaps the requirements were less stringent. 159 Member Gitzen suggested including the definition of both a “registered forester” and 160 “certified arborist” in the ordinance to ensure the City’s intent is clear. 161 Page 5, line 143, Member Daire referenced exemptions in Section 4.a and how/who 162 determined invasive specie definitions, using several examples in the community of trees 163 that may be considered invasive (e.g. west side of Snelling Avenue on the south side of 164 County Road E) but were glorious in the fall. 165 Mr. Rehder clarified that the general reference was when those trees were within or 166 planted near the edge of a woodland and their potential encroachment onto that 167 woodland where they would take over. Mr. Rehder advised that was the rationale used 168 with all invasive species. 169 Page 5, line 164, in again referencing the registered forester or certified arborist, Chair 170 Boguszewski asked who was responsible for paying them for their services and 171 determined their level of expertise if and when a developer presents a plan provided by 172 such a titled person. Chair Boguszewski questioned the process for that plan from the 173 private developer to the city’s similarly titled personnel vetting the plans, and what 174 happened should they differ in their interpretation. 175 Mr. Paschke stated that typically, the city would not hire out its contract consultants, but 176 those consultants would review the plans as presented as currently done by city 177 engineers or consulting engineers with specific expertise in their review of site plans 178 presented for approval to the Planning Commission and City Council and subsequent 179 permit issuance. 180 Member Daire reviewed the process from his perspective: the applicant would be 181 required to perform a tree preservation inventory and provide a plan completed by a 182 registered arborist or certified forester that would be presented to the City. Then, Member 183 Daire asked if the city was going to trust in that person’s credentials that it is right or have 184 it reviewed by someone on city staff or someone similarly qualified or registered. 185 Mr. Paschke reiterated the typical review process, with a private developer hiring the 186 necessary expertise to provide a plan to the city, at which time that plan is sent directly to 187 qualified in-house staff and/or consultants (e.g. city planners, civil engineers, watershed 188 districts, etc.) for their review of the plan, and forwarding if found appropriate for the 189 approval process; and in addition to the general review and analysis of staff. 190 Member Daire asked if that wording should be included, with Mr. Paschke questioned if it 191 was needed as it was part of the typical approval process, whether done by in-house staff 192 or an outside contractor hired to perform that function; and would be no different than 193 plan review with the zoning ordinance and making sure everything was consistent with 194 code. 195