Zoning Code Updates

Planning Division Staff and the Planning Commission are in the process of overhauling the current Zoning Code.  Both Tree Preservation and Landscaping standards currently reside in the Zoning Code.  Even though the Landscaping portion was recently reviewed by the Environmental Policy Board (EPB), Staff wanted to provide both of these sections of City Code to the EPB for review and comment/feedback.  Attached to this case are Section 117-364 (Landscaping) and Chapter 117, Article II, Division 5 (Tree Preservation), with Staff's early markups.  The purpose of this case is to:

1. Provide the EPB with copies of both Section 117-364 (Landscaping) and Chapter 117, Article II, Division 5 (Tree Preservation) from City Code.
2. Initiate discussion about potential revisions to either section.
3. Contemplate creating landscaping regulations for the COR district (presently, the Design Framework only addresses streetscape, there is nothing about internal landscaping)

Below are some points of discussion that Staff is interested in feedback on related to Landscaping (Section 117-364):

• (c) (1) b. (Required Ground Cover): this subsection includes a provision that any alternative to sod requires City Council approval.  Is there any scenario in which seeding would not be acceptable?  If not, Staff would suggest that this be modified to simply state that established ground cover is required.
• (c) (5) and (c) (6) d. (plant size): should the minimum size be increased to 2.5 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6 foot height for coniferous and clump (e.g. river birch) trees?  This would match what is required in the commercial/industrial districts, as well as the density transitioning standards.
• (c) (7) f. (Bufferyards): Should Staff attempt to simplify this subsection to indicate that buffering/screening is required between residential and commercial/industrial rather than individual zoning districts?
• (c) (7) f. 2.: Staff would suggest a greater reduction than just 10% of required plantings.

Below are some points of discussion that Staff is interested in feedback on related to Tree Preservation (Chapter 117; Article II; Division 5):

• Section 117-324 (Purpose and Intent): Staff would suggest updating the purpose to focus on protecting important/significant trees and stands of trees that, if removed, would impact the character of a neighborhood.  Additionally, the intent paragraph could be more succinct.
• Section 117-324 (c): Staff would recommend eliminating this altogether.  The Ramsey Tree Book has been in place for years now and is available through the City's website.
• Section 117-326 (d): Staff would recommend eliminating this altogether as it is addressed in the Signs portion of City Code.
• Section 117-326 (g): Staff would recommend eliminating this altogether.  Part of it conflicts with (b) and the part about watering public trees is not necessary in City Code.
• Section 117-327 (c) (2): Staff would recommend being more specific in terms of what must be included within a tree preservation plan (e.g. species, diameter, and location of all significant trees; identification of which significant trees are to be preserved, removed, and exempt from removal calculation; tree protection fencing location(s) and details; tally of total significant tree inches on site, tally of significant tree inches exempt from calculation, and tally of significant tree inches to be preserved).
• Section 117-327 (c) (2): Staff would recommend that tree preservation plans be prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor or forester.  
• Section 117-327 (f): If the definition of significant tree is not going to change, should consideration be given to modifying the preservation standards for both residential and commercial/industrial developments?
• Section 117-328 (Hazardous and/or Nuisance Trees): Staff would recommend creating a separate chapter in City Code to address shade tree diseases and pests, and place more of an emphasis on prevention rather than control, as that is much more cost-effective for property owners.
• Section 117-329 (Exemptions): Staff would recommend eliminating this section altogether.
• Would the EPB consider any potential exemptions from tree inventories/tree preservation requirements for something such as a tree farm?  These trees were planted with the intention of being harvested at some point in the future. They are not a natural woodland, and provide fewer wildlife benefits than naturally occurring woodlands.

For both portions of City Code, the above bullet lists are intended to initiate thought and discussion.  If there are other revisions, or if the EPB wants to see additional standards added, this is the time to raise them.

No specific action is required.  Staff is simply seeking feedback on these two portions of City Code.  Staff will take any direction provided by the EPB and attempt to modify both sections accordingly for review by the EPB in March.