Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 01/09/2006

Home

Board Member Sibilski stated it would be wise to come up with the average life expectancy of a tree, basing it on the life expectancy of a 100 year old Oak tree. He noted that since there aren't that many 100 year old Oak trees in the City, if the average life expectancy is 30 years that will require a lot less canopy coverage than the fully mature trees. Board Member Bentz stated the danger he saw, depending on how the formula is worked, is people won't want to grow Oaks. Chairperson McDilda stated that would require a recommendation for diversity that would have to go into City code. Environmental Specialist Bacon stated that could be an important way to look at the mix of species to try and come up with a formulaic bonus for diversity so that as a management goal, the City could sponsor the inclusion of certain species. He noted if the site plan doesn't include Oaks or resistant American Elm, there's hardly any place in Ramsey where they wouldn't survive. Environmental Specialist Bacon concurred with Board Member Sibilski that if they are street trees, their longevity is certainly to be reduced. He concurred with Board Member Bentz that the incentive to plant Oak shouldn't be diminished. He stated there should be a way to increase the incentive for preferred canopy. He stated there didn't seem to be any difficulty for these site plans to meet criteria. Chairperson McDilda stated when the City started down this path as a City and Task Fome, the concern was about clear cutting developments coming in with very little, if any, plantings after the fact. He stated that what was being looked at was an evolution which requires refinement. Board Member Max differed with Chairperson McDilda's statement, noting that initially the requirements per unit were so high that it would have required 180% canopy cover under the old regulations. Coordinator Anderson stated the Alpine Acres development was required to plant approximately 600 ornamental trees, another 300 over story trees, and thousands of shrubs above and beyond the density transitioning plantings that they had to do between the development and existing homes. He stated that Staff saw the previous planting requirements as overkill, too many plantings that would eventually start to choke each other out. Chairperson McDilda stated the EPB looked at incentives for leaving existing trees. He stated that if it is too easy to come in with three plantings, and all the developer is doing is clear cutting developments, then the objective was missed. Board Member Max stated if that is the case, he saw a need to take on the grading ordinances. He proposed that to be a task taken on for 2006 instead of changing the formula. He stated he would like to see something that stated 25% of plantings must be a preferred species, and no more than 20% of any one species. Chairperson McDilda cautioned that overall formulas are based upon what is believed to be acceptable canopy cover for many residential areas. He stated that whether or not it's easy or difficult to meet, he didn't feel that would be beneficial. Environmental Policy Board / January 9, 2006 Page 6 of 16