Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 03/30/2015 - Special

Home

its citizenry and not to be punitive or to cause hardship to any individual, private or public company. When considering the existing site, it does not consist of high quality natural areas (it did not even register on the Natural Resources Inventory in 2007) nor does it include natural woodlands, which provide many of the desirable ecological benefits such as wildlife habitat, reduced stormwater runoff (i.e. greater infiltration), reduced soil erosion, and greenway corridors. Not only does the project propose more trees than would be required if the reforestation standard did not exist, but it also enhances the community by providing additional transitional areas between existing homes and the proposed development, both of which meet the spirit of the requirements. This is the second time a proposed project has resulted in very large reforestation requirement (whether it is accomplished through additional plantings or a financial payment). Exemptions were incorporated into the standard to account for certain required improvements, such as stormwater ponds and trails, as well as provisions that would exclude invasive species and/or diseased trees from the removal calculations,. Additionally, the required landscaping within the applicable zoning district isalso eligible to help satisfy the reforestation standard. Even after all these considerations, an additional eighty-nine (89) trees (at 2.5 inches) or $28,000.00 in restitution would be needed. The additional plantings on a project site of this size, or the financial payment to account for the restitution, appears burdensome. Staff believes that a more reasonable application of the reforestation requirement would be to identify the excess inches removed allow that to be reduced by the base landscaping requirements to determine the minimum reforestation inches ([determine excess inches removed and multiply by 1.25] - base landscaping requirements per the applicable zoning district = reforestation quantity in inches). Staff believes that this method is reasonable, prudent and still meets the intent and purpose of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and will be applying this to projects in the future. Stormwater Management The project proposes to utilize storm sewer infrastructure and ponding to address stormwater standards. It appears that the proposed stormwater management efforts comply with the LRRWMO 3rd Generation Plan. Alternatives: Option #1: Recommend approval of the Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter dated March 27, 2015. The Landscape Plan is generally acceptable with revisions outlined in the Staff Review Letter. While a majority of the trees on site are proposed for removal, they are not part of a natural woodland area nor are they considered to be a high quality natural area per the NRI. The reforestation plan will result in larger trees installed initially, provides for transitional areas between the project and existing homes to the north and west, and a greater quantity of trees replanted on the site than just the base landscaping requirement. Staff believes the plans meet the purpose of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and supports this option. Option #2: Recommend that the Tree Preservation Plan be revised to provide additional diameter inches of reforestation trees and/or require a financial payment of $28,000.00 (224 inches x $125). Based on the lot sizes (generally 1/4 acre or so), it may not be desirable to have eighty-nine (89) more trees installed (this number could be even greater if the standard one [1] inch tree were installed) and a payment of $28,000.00 for tree removals could be deemed punitive or burdensome. Staff believes that the proposed reforestation plan meets the intent and spirit of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and does not support this option. Funding Source: All costs associated with this request are the responsibility of the Applicant. Action: Motion to recommend approval of the Landscape and Tree Preservation Plans contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter dated March 27, 2015.