Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 02/06/2006

Home

Acting Chairperson Max explained that if it is a species with a very small difference of potential spread, and this is a tree that will grow from 18-20 feet wide, it actually ended up covering more area because it got to that spread faster. He stated that was not an unreasonable expectation because they were all smaller species that can be expected to mature to fit the maximum size. He noted that the species with large differences ended up covering less areas, and most of those were undergrowth or under story trees, things that grow in the shade but would be significantly smaller. He stated that didn't cover as much as the committee wanted but that it wasn't a very big concern to the committee because there weren't that many that would impact the canopy. Acting Chairperson Max noted there were two other things that were noted. He stated that no more than 25% of the required canopy can be shrubs or ornamental trees and no genus can contain more than 20% of any planting. He explained that 15 different kinds of maples could not be planted to meet the requirement. Board Member Bentz asked if the committee discussed pine trees. Environmental Specialist Bacon stated he wanted to look at the genus species criteria since cultivars would be the same species, there would be a variety. He stated that restricting it to genus versus species would mean that the sugar maple, red maple and silver maple could potentially be part of a genus. Director Frolik noted current code read that acceptable planting shall be determined by the City planting schedule. The complement of trees fulfilling the landscaping requirements shall not be less than 25% deciduous and not less than 25% coniferous. Acting Chairperson Max provided the board members with two examples from the plans that were passed out at the last EPB meeting. He noted that one plan had a requirement for 101,000 square feet of canopy. He noted that the current formula came up with 140,000 square feet. He noted the proposed formula was 137,000 square feet. He noted there were a few less trees but they were still way over the requirement so there was no impact. He noted there wasn't a problem because the back page of the plan indicated 23.86% Black Hill spruce. He noted that technically, by the genus of 20%, there were too many Black Hill spruce. He noted that in adding those together it totaled 28% of coniferous trees, making it okay for the total but arriving at too many of one genus according to the requirement. Acting Chairperson Max noted that the second plan indicated a number way over what was needed, approximately double. He noted that 35.5% of the planting was shrubs and ornamentals, but in looking at the plan, none of those were required to make the minimum. He noted that the fact there were over 25% shrubs, didn't present to be a problem. He noted if they were putting in extra shrubs it was okay. He stated that in going down the list, there are only .44% of Black Hill spruces. Director Frolik stated the Mr. Anderson was looking for some flexibility in the 25% requirement. She noted there was not a pine tree on the plan that was native to the development site. She stated that Mr. Anderson would appreciate the liberty to not hold to the 25% for non-native plantings. Environmental Policy Board/February 6, 2006 Page 3 of 10