PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance

In 2003, the City adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance to establish reasonable protection of the community forest during development.  While it is understood that there will be some tree loss associated with development, the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance is to guide more sustainable development and encourage, where possible, preservation of existing trees. Preservation of existing trees provide greater ecological services (stormwater retention, air filtering, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration etc) than young trees that are planted.

One of the action items on the Environmental Policy Board's (EPB) City Council approved work plan was to review the Tree Preservation Ordinance and make suggested revisions, if needed.  The intent was not to create more restrictions, but rather to look for opportunities to improve the ordinance.  Thus, the EPB's first step was to review Ramsey's current standards along with tree preservation requirements of a number of similar communities to better understand how Ramsey and others approach this subject.  The EPB reviewed model ordinances from adjacent and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area communities. This led the EPB to identify several recommended revisions that would improve the current ordinance by removing ambiguity while also incorporating more flexibility for replacement of trees removed during development.

The Notice of Public Hearing was properly published in the Anoka County Union.

As presently written, only multi-family developments are subject to a removal threshold and replacement standard.  If more than sixty percent (60%) of trees are removed as part of a multi-family project, than the developer is responsible for replacing them on a one (1) to one (1) basis. This is in addition to the required landscaping for the applicable zoning district.  Additionally, there is no flexibility within the ordinance if this replacement standard cannot be met other than a variance. 

The existing ordinance contains definitions of a significant tree, which is important to the analysis below. A significant tree must be:

• At least four (4) inches at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). DBH, according to City Code, is measured at fifty-four (54) inches from the ground for oak and evergreen trees
• At least eight (8) inches at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). DBH, according to City Code, is measured at fifty-four (54) inches from the ground for all other deciduous trees

The EPB believes that the removal threshold should be applicable to any type of development, not just multi-family projects. However, the EPB feels there should also be exemptions for other required improvements, such as storm water ponds and public trails and sidewalks.  Thus, the proposed revisions clarify that:

• Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Districts: at least forty percent (40%) of the inches of existing significant tree DBH (see definition above) shall be retained on site
• Business and Employment Districts: at least thirty percent (30%) percent of the inches of existing significant tree DBH (see definition above) shall be retained on site. 

The proposed revisions also specify that if removals exceed the allowable threshold, that the developer shall either replace each significant tree inch removed with 1.25 inches (diameter) of new trees or provide the City with $125.00 in restitution. These funds would be placed into a Community Reforestation Fund for reforestation efforts throughout the community.  Finally, the proposed revisions specify that trees removed for water quality treatment ponds, public trails and sidewalks, and arterial and collector streets are exempt from the removal threshold calculation as are the removal of invasive (undesirable) species.  All required reforestation plantings would count toward the required landscaping for the applicable zoning district.

Alternative Options

Option #1.  The proposed amendments will accomplish several things.  First, it eliminates ambiguity by replacing the term Desirable Tree with Significant Tree. Desirable Tree is not defined in City Code and is subjective. Significant Tree is already defined in City Code.  Secondly, the amendments clarify that all projects, not just multi-family projects, are subject to removal thresholds (forty percent (40%) for residential projects and thirty percent (30%) for business and employment projects).  Finally, the proposed amendments incorporate more flexibility into the standards by identifying exemptions for certain required improvements and by providing multiple options to address excess removals as part of a project.  Both the EPB and Staff believe that these amendments align more with the intent of the ordinance (protecting/enhancing the community forest) and support adopting them.

Option #2.  Do not amend the current Tree Preservation Ordinance.  While the current ordinance provides a measure of protection for the community forest, only multi-family projects are subject to replacement requirements.  Presently, if a developer cannot comply with the replacement standards the only option available is a variance.  Again, the replacement standards are in addition to the required landscaping standards for new development of the underlying zoning district. The current ordinance also does not provide exemptions for removals due to other required improvements or for removal of invasive (undesirable) species.

Preparation of the Ordinance is being handled as part of regular Staff duties.

The Environmental Policy Board (EPB) recommends adoption of Ordinance #13-10 amending City Code Article II (Zoning) Division 5 (Tree Preservation).

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt/not adopt Ordinance #13-10 amending City Code Article II (Zoning) Division 5 (Tree Preservation).