Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 01/09/2006

Home

Board Member Bentz asked what the typical average unit for each lot would be as opposed to the total units. Chairperson McDilda asked if the shrub percentage was adhered to in the numbers for the plan. He asked if no greater than 25% of the canopy came from shrubs. Coordinator Anderson stated that was correct. Chairperson McDilda asked what the acreage was on the site plan the EPB was viewing. Coordinator Anderson stated that total lot size was 23.8 acres. He stated that impervious area was 8.9 acres. He stated that pervious area was 14.9 acres. Chairperson McDilda asked for clarification whether or not the plan viewed by the EPB included 14.9 acres of allowable pervious plantings. He stated he counted the trees that would be planted in the area. He noted that approximately 157 trees went into the 14.9 acres, excluding shrubs. He stated that with all of the houses going into the plat, only about 10 acres with approximately 157 trees were being planted. Chairperson McDilda asked if this felt like a good number. Board Member Max asked if this was typical of what Staffwas seeing. Coordinator Anderson stated it was tough to say because of the size of the site, but he felt it ~vas somewhat typical. He noted that the most telling plan was the Town Center 12th Addition. He stated the plan was for a total acreage of 33A acres, with 13A acres of pervious, and 1½ acres impervious. He noted that what was required was 35,000 square feet of canopy cover. He stated the plan was showing 24 Bur Oaks as just one of the plantings going in. Coordinator Anderson stated that gives this site 97,000 square feet of canopy cover. Board Member Max stated that if two-inch Bur Oaks were being put in, they wouldn't mature for 100 years. Coordinator Anderson stated that if things were looked at that way, the developer could have gone with 10 Bur Oak trees and met the planting requirement for the entire site. Chairperson McDilda stated that the plan included only 1½ acres of pervious acres with 24 Bur Oaks. He stated that he felt that appeared to be a lot of Oak trees. Coordinator Anderson stated that it's a different dimension when talking about lineal stretches that are running along streets. Coordinator Anderson stated that it is a different perspective than just looking out of somebody's back yard. He clarified that what the EPB members were looking at was just the street side of the landscape plan. Board Member Freeberg asked how many trees were lost by the development in the storm. Coordinator Anderson stated that there were no trees lost by this particular development. He noted that the plan he was using may be above and beyond what may be deemed as a requirement. Environmental Policy Board / January 9, 2006 Page 4 of 16