Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Liaison Strommen stated that if the homeowner plants a tree, they are likely to take <br />care of their tree. Chairperson McDilda stated that he believed the majority of people want to <br />replace trees that die. Board Member Max stated that he felt the requirement should be dropped <br />from the ordinance. Chairperson McDilda concurred that if it is a difficult thing to enforce, then <br />it should be dropped. Environmental Specialist Bacon concurred. <br /> <br />EPB members concurred to recommend that the language of this requirement be dropped. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that Staff would like to discuss trees located in wetlands or other <br />areas that will not be disturbed throughout the development process. He noted that in Staff's <br />opinion, it does not seem necessary to have these trees individually identified. He noted that <br />Staff will be looking for further direction on this matter. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that he is looking for some direction regarding anything that is a <br />"non-construction" item as part of the plat. He stated that he would include wetlands and their <br />buffers, Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson concurred that he gets this complaint that it <br />doesn't make any sense to inventory trees in areas outside the limits of any grading activity. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that they also recognize that by not following the inventory <br />requirement, they won't get credit for it. That just puts more development on the rest of the site <br />if they don't want to go out and do an inventory. Board Member Max stated that the truth is, <br />depending on the season, they may not be able to get out to do the inventory in a wetland. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that as part of a variance process, the City can work with the <br />developer on what the total canopy cover is for that development but also recognize that most <br />wetlands aren't going to have a lot of trees anyway, that it would simply mean the buffer area. <br /> <br />Board Member Freeburg asked about clarifying the verbiage to say "developable properties". <br />City Council Liaison Strommen stated that it would mean the areas that are going to be <br />impacted. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that the City's main concern in <br />drafting the tree preservation was to put some constraints on areas that are part of the site but <br />wouldn't be impacted. He stated that those areas that aren't going to be impacted may not <br />warrant an inventory. Chairperson McDilda stated that in a different time, this may have been <br />more of a concern when discussing the wetland buffer ordinance in conjunction with the tree <br />preservation act. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that once we finish with what we determine to be a significant tree, <br />there probably aren't all that many that are even worth counting. Environmental Specialist <br />Bacon stated that the Black Willow would be one example of a native tree. Environmental <br />Specialist Bacon asked for clarification about whether there won't be planting, but there would <br />be a requirement that people plant native plants. He asked if we would require people to plant <br />trees and shrubs. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that it was based specifically <br />on MNDOT specs. He believed that the major concern is that some species are not shade <br />tolerant. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that hopefully, the City could get <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / October 3, 2005 <br /> Page 14 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />