Review Natural Resources Aspects of The Preserve at Northfork Preliminary Plat (Project No. 19-147); Case of BK Properties

The City has received an application for a Preliminary Plat for The Preserve at Northfork, a new residential subdivision proposed south of Alpine Drive, west of Puma Street and the Riverstone subdivision (the "Subject Property").  The Preserve at Northfork proposes a combination of more traditional suburban lots (80 feet wide and 10,800 square feet in size) as well as villa style lots, similar to the products being offered in Riverstone, directly east of the Subject Property.

Existing Vegetation
Per the City's Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), the Subject Property is classified as an Altered/Non-Native plant community.  In the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, the site is classified as a dry grassland.  According to the Tree Inventory, the site is dominated by Red Cedar, Boxelder, Cottonwood, and Siberian Elm (invasive), which would not necessarily be considered a quality mix of species.

Wetlands and Floodplains
There are no identified wetlands or floodplains on the Subject Property.  However, the Subject Property is within 1,000 feet of Lake Itasca and thus, it is within the Shoreland Overlay District (even though it is south of Alpine Drive).

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan
A Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan was prepared and submitted with this application.  As previously noted, there are not any high quality woodlands on the Subject Property; however, the Tree Preservation Ordinance is still applicable.  A total of 8,001 inches of significant trees were inventoried.  Just over half of those inches qualify as being exempt from the removal calculation due to being either off-site, listed as an invasive species (Siberian Elm), or being removed due to improvements such as trails, sidewalks, and stormwater ponds.  So, there are 3,896 inches of significant trees and the project is proposing to remove 3,856 inches (about 99% of the significant tree inches).  

Due to the proposed removals, reforestation and/or restitution will be required.  A total of 1,898 inches of trees will need to be replanted or a payment of $125 per inch paid into the Community Forestry Fund, or some combination of the two.  Required landscaping does count toward the required reforestation, but, based on the Landscape Plan, only 946 inches are being proposed.  This leaves a gap of 952 inches of required reforestation or a payment of $119,000 (or some combination of the two).  There likely is not sufficient space for an additional 952 inches of trees on site.  Staff is seeking direction from the Environmental Policy Board on whether a reduction in reforestation and/or restitution may be considered.

Landscape Plan
The Landscape Plan includes a good mix species as well as both deciduous and coniferous trees.  Due to the amount of reforestation required, the plan is proposing all trees to be 2.5 to 3 inches in caliper (minimum required size is 1 inch).  Based on the proposed zoning for the Subject Property, which would be a split between R-1 Residential and R-2 Residential, part of the project requires two (2) trees per lot (R-1 Residential) and the other (R-2 Residential) would be based on the Canopy Cover Formula.  However, again, based on the reforestation requirements, additional plantings are necessary to erase the 'gap' left after base landscaping standards are met.  Thus, Staff does not see a need necessarily to require the plan to be revised to address this matter and finds the Landscape Plan generally acceptable pending feedback from the EPB on the reforestation question.

Policy Question
As the EPB is now seeing aspects of Land Use Applications, specifically the Landscape and Tree Inventory/Preservation Plans, and how current regulations impact projects, Staff would like the EPB to assess how well the reforestation standard is working.  Prior to the adoption of the reforestation standard, projects were simply required to provide a tree inventory to inform the City of what was present on a site and what would remain after development.  That, along with a desire to persuade developers to attempt to preserve higher quality wooded areas, was the major purpose for developing a reforestation standard.

While reforestation is certainly a good thing, Staff would like feedback from the EPB on how its implementation is working.  Presently, the same standard applies whether a site has a quality wooded area (e.g. oak woodland) or consists of mostly lower valued or less desirable species.  Whether a project site is classified as a high quality natural community or an altered/non-native plant community, the same reforestation standard applies.  Some things that Staff would like input on from the EPB are:

• Should an attempt be made to base reforestation on the quality of the existing vegetation on site?
• Should the City revisit the definition of a significant tree, specifically whether the size of oaks and evergreens should be increased?
• Should the City develop a replacement value for groupings of species (e.g. desirable, less desirable, undesirable)?
• Should a 'cap' be established in terms of maximum amount of reforestation and/or restitution that would be required, regardless of the amount of trees removed?
• Does the EPB think that the current Tree Preservation Standards are appropriate as is?

All costs associated with this review are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Based on discussion regarding reforestation specific to this project.