07/23/2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Jeff Smyser, City Planner July 11, 2001 Page 2 but does not require tree mitigation or replacement. A tree ordinance that does nothing more than identify significant trees is of little use to the community. Council staff recommend the city incorporate protection and reforestation components in the ordinance to preserve its forests for future generations. Council staff would be happy to help the city refine its tree ordinance. The Council's Regional Blueprint (December 1996) states that the Council will encourage protection of the region's significant woodlands and the long -term management of the urban forest. The draft EAW states that 67 tamarack trees will be planted in the northwest and east areas of the site to replace 21 tamaracks slated to be removed from the wetland area. Council staff feels the project applicant could do much more to remediate the loss of trees from the site. We recommend native deciduous hardwood trees (especially oak, maple, and cherry) be planted on the site as part of the 2.5 ac of suburban landscaping. In addition, replacement of typical turf landscaping with native vegetation will recreate destroyed wildlife habitat, will require minimal irrigation, and will require no application of herbicides or pesticides. The concerns about the proposed development impacts on the Regional Park include: 1. The potential to- degrade water quality do to a large amount of hard surface proposed in the development that will prevent a significant amount local infiltration. (28.7 acres of hard surface of the 40.15 acres site total) 2. The large amount of hard surface will likely elevate the temperature of the storm water runoff temperatures due to the sun heating the extensive roofs and parking lots of the development. This increase in runoff water temperature could negatively impact the park wetlands and the corresponding bird and wildlife populations. 3. The Wetland Conservation Act requires avoidance as the first step of compliance. This plan is proposing to fill 3.64 acres. Replacement wetlands typically have significantly less diversity than natural wetlands and therefore have significantly less natural resource value. The proposed wetland area to be filled was directly part of the wetland complex in the regional park. It has been severed by the construction of Interstate 35W but it likely still functions in conjunction with the regional park through subsurface waters and well as plant and wildlife interaction on the surface. (4.88 acres of wetland reduced to 1.24 acres) Is there a hardship that merits the filling of 3.64 acres of wetland, cutting down 1.64 acres of forest with a proposed removal of 474 significant trees adjacent to a regional park? Also the removal of 32.3 acres of Brush/grass land and creating 2.82 acres of sterile storm ponds that will have virtually no natural resource value. (Pages 9 and 10). 4. The loss of a significant amount of trees adjacent to the park will result in a loss of habitat for birds and wildlife that use this area in addition to the park area. From a parks and open space perspective, the wetland and tree covered property on the east side of the property should be left undisturbed and the development concentrated on the western portion of the property. The remaining natural areas should be restored to a higher quality native vegetation state. The upland forest oaks that are 24" to 30" should be preserved. Why is the city asking for removal of 21 significant cottonwood and aspen? Is this an attempt to manage the forest type? A detailed site evaluation should be done by a professional ecologist for rare and endangered species.