Boulevard Tree Planting Ordinance

Boulevard Tree Planting Ordinance

PA090692web

The Boulevard Tree Planting Ordinance will come before the City Council at 7 pm, November 1. Since part of the mission of RNeighborWoods is to educate the community about city trees in Rochester neighborhoods we have summarized information about the Ordinance below.

Make an informed decision and communicate with your Council representative your opinion.

Below information taken from a memo to the City Planning and Zoning Commission from John Harford, Senior Planner, dated October 6, 2010, titled “Proposed Amendment R2009-007 TA BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING ORDINANCE. Below that are clarifications to the proposed amendment and also some last minute changes that the CPZC adopted except for one that was dated October 26.

History

In late 2005 the CUDE Tree Committee started to meet to discuss issues regarding the urban forest and tree planting. A number of program areas were discussed by the committee including education for various groups, boulevard tree planting, an urban forest master plan, and woodland protection measures. The committee recognized that some projects would be long term projects and others would be short term or would occur continuously over an extended period. From 2006-2008 the CUDE Tree Committee conducted research on what other communities in Minnesota had done to address tree planting and protecting the urban forest. Several subcommittees were formed in 2007 to address the program areas noted above. Educational activities were ongoing at that time and continue today, mostly through the City Forester and the Public Works Department (stormwater activities). The short term focus of the committees was on education and boulevard tree establishment and what could be done to increase boulevard tree planting. The Council received a presentation in December, 2008. They suggested at that time that the staff consider more education by working with the Rochester Area Builders (RAB) organization and to work with the committee and the RAB on what an ordinance might look like after receiving reports on what other cities in Minnesota were doing.

The Planning Department along with staff from the Park and Recreation Department and Public Works Department and a representative of RAB met to develop the concepts for and an outline of a boulevard tree ordinance. Two versions of a boulevard tree planting ordinance were developed for review by the Council in 2009 and 2010. The first version considered tied the collection of a fee to the application for building permits. The Council requested that staff consider a second alternative suggested by RAB which would be tied to the larger development process such as plats or conditional uses. The staff have met with representatives of RAB several times over the last three years to discuss the concept and find common ground.

In June, 2010 the City Council voted to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. After the initiation the staff developed the second alternative more fully. Attached is the proposal recently recommended as the alternative to review through the public hearing process.

Why Boulevard Trees

During early meetings of the CUDE Tree Committee ordinances from a number of cities was reviewed. The committee was looking to see if other cities protect boulevard trees, require permits for tree planting and control species, and if boulevard trees are a required part of development approvals. The committee found research that supports boulevard tree establishment for a variety of reasons. Attached is a summary of the benefits of boulevard trees that was provided to the City Council as part of the review process. The ordinance includes a purpose statement that very briefly identifies the major benefits of planting boulevard trees. The purpose statement is as follows: Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent: The City of Rochester finds that trees and especially shade trees along streets provide numerous community benefits including: 1. economic stability through enhanced property values, improved property marketability, and as a component of the city infrastructure; 2. energy savings by reducing urban heat island impacts, and reduced building heating and cooling costs; 3. health benefits through an increased sense of community, mental comfort, traffic safety, and support of a walkable community; 4. aesthetic values for residential and commercial areas; 5. the amelioration of noise and glare; 6. air pollution reduction through removal of atmospheric chemicals including greenhouse gases and particulate matter; 7. protection of water quality and enhancing stormwater control. The new Complete Streets policies also reflect a need for boulevard trees. The CUDE Tree Committee and Council discussed the ongoing possibilities for increasing the number of boulevard trees. The City Forester provided detailed information based on a full city inventory of boulevard trees that indicated a net loss of trees occurring citywide that would continue into the future.

There are ongoing planting efforts that include: • city plantings for some street projects, and few grants to the city in the past for tree replacement; voluntary plantings by individual property owners; voluntary efforts by developers; and, the RNeighbors NeighborWoods program that receives support from RPU. 

These efforts at boulevard planting have not kept up with loss of trees and with new development. RNeighborWoods has planted approximately 200-300 trees per year since 2004. The City Forestry Division typically plants trees in parks but not on boulevards. There have been approximately 300 trees planted by individual property owners and by developers annually. At the same time the city loses 500-900 boulevard trees annually that are not replaced by the city. Finally, there are approximately 29,888 existing locations on the city boulevards that do not have a tree according to the City Forestry Division city survey completed in 2010.

The question that the proposal is meant to address, in part, is how to plant more trees on city boulevards such that there is a net gain in boulevard trees citywide consistently over time. Proposed Text Amendment: The text amendment attached to this memo is the product of Council, RAB, and staff reviews and discussions. (That is not to say that all parties are in agreement but simply that each has been involved in the process of developing the proposal.) 

The major components of the ordinance include: 

Inclusion of the Director of Parks or designee in the review of planting plans; boulevard trees will be required for any plat, conditional use permit or Site Development Plan application; boulevard trees can be installed before, concurrent with, or after the development is completed; standards are included for planting distance and size, and for boulevard improvements; requirements for the planting plan submittal.

There is a separate city ordinance (Chapter 46) that requires planting permits that allows the City Forester to determine species allowed. The proposed text amendment does not address Chapter 46 of the Code of Ordinances. The proposed text amendment allows the developer/property owner to plant trees on their own or pay a fee to the city that will be used to install the trees. It allows a developer/property owner to install trees prior to development or concurrent with the development, or at a time specified in a phasing plan. If a developer/property owner decides that the boulevard trees are to be planted following the construction of infrastructure and buildings, the development agreement and boulevard tree green facilities agreement will be written and applied to the development. CPZC Action: Staff is recommending approval of the amendment and that the CPZC send the proposal to the City Council for a public hearing. 

 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Commission as of October 26, 2010

 In a meeting with representatives of the Rochester Area Builders (RAB) a number of questions were asked and points made to clarify the proposed ordinance.  Each is addressed below. 

  1. Tree planting at the zoning certificate stage:  This proposal does not require tree planting at the time a zoning certificate is issued.  This proposal allows a developer to determine how the trees will be installed and by whom.  The Development Agreement and the Boulevard Tree Green Facilities Agreement will determine when the planting must be completed and will be written specifically for each development.  The language provided is an example of what could appear in an individual agreement. 
  2. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 2(3):  The last sentence in this section is redundant as the same standard is also stated in subpart 4.  Remove “The applicant must obtain a Tree Planting Permit from the City Forester.”  It is not necessary to include either statement as the related tree permit is a separate ordinance of the Code of Ordinances and does not affect this proposal. 
  3. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 2(4):  This section specifies the minimum size for trees.  For a single stem canopy tree the minimum size requirement is 1.5” and for an understory tree the minimum size is 4’.  This section applies to other bufferyards not associated with boulevard trees.  The City Forester has recommended that these sizes allow for improved survival and that the trees on the city list are available at the size specified. 
  4. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 2(5)(a):  As written this subsection states “Land subdivision other than a final plat that creates new lots (61.222).”  The intent is to require these small subdivisions to plant trees.  The question is does it apply to the original lot or only the new, as yet and many times undeveloped, lots?  To clarify the statement it should be rewritten to state, “Land subdivision other than a final plat that creates new lots (61.222).  The standard applies to new and residual lots included in the land subdivision.” 
  5. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 2(6):  This subsection lists what should appear in the planting plan.  The intent is to make it a guide that allows the developer to determine how trees can be established to meet the minimum requirements and to anticipate where problems may occur that affect compliance with the standards.  The suggestion is to state that the plan is a guide not a permit, although it was suggested that it could be both.  Add a sentence to subsection 6 as follows:  “The planting plan will be considered a guide to compliance for the developer.” 
  6. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 7(a):  Add the words “and driveway approach” to first sentence.  The sentence would state, “No boulevard shall be paved by the property owner or developer outside of the area established for the sidewalk required for the property and driveway approach, …”. 
  7. Proposed 64.160, Subd. 7(b):  Change the word “access” to “approach”. 
  8. Proposed 63.265, Subd. 6:  The statement should recognize through lots and lots that abut alleys.  The standard would be changed to state: “For residential through lots and lots abutting alleys, as defined, boulevard trees shall be required only on the street that provides direct access or is adjacent to the front lot line.” 
  9. Change in the footnote to Table 63.265:  The proposed standard is as follows.  Add the highlighted term in the third sentence. 

A boulevard tree planting plan shall be submitted to the city that requires a tree every 50’ based on the frontage along public streets within and abutting the development.  Boulevard trees are not required to be established by the property owner or developer within the CDC-CBD, CDC-Medical, and CDC-Fringe.  Within the CDC the developer or property owner shall supply the City Forester and Public Works Department construction plans indicating the location, depth, size of areas of CU-Structural Soil or Deep Root Cells or similar system acceptable to the City.  The developer or property owner shall install the approved system to meet the requirements of the Director of Park or designee and Public Works Department. 

10.  The RAB committee recommended including a statement that any parkland that abuts a public street that is part of a proposed subdivision should be excluded from the planting requirement by the developer.  If a statement is included that reflects that recommendation it should appear in 63.265, Subd. 5.  Add a second sentence “The planting distance shall not include boulevard area that abuts city parkland within residential development.”

11.  Proposed 60.424, Subd. 8(B):  Add a Design Modification to allow for changes in the number of trees where difficult to plant.  The suggested language is: 

 

Subd. 8.  Bufferyards

 

B.  Boulevard Tree Modification:  The modification of the boulevard tree planting standards may be considered as a Type I Design Modification.  The zoning administrator or Commission, where applicable, shall consider the following guidelines in considering the Design Modification Request for fewer trees than required by 63.265.  The Design Modification shall be submitted with the tree planting plan. 

 

(1)   Existing narrow street right of way that causes the boulevard to be less than 3 feet wide;

(2)   Existing extensive subsurface utilities located under the boulevard or paved surface that does not allow for necessary soil depth and size to support boulevard trees;

(3)   Topographic constraints that do not permit the establishment of vegetation including boulevard trees. 

(4)   Boulevard trees existing at the time the development is acted on by the city. 

(5)   In no case shall a Design Modification be approved that reduces the number of boulevard trees by more than 50 percent of that required by Section 64.160 of this ordinance, unless the street is covered by a corridor plan identifying boulevard infrastructure as a City or other road authority responsibility. 

Have a comment? Join us on Facebook!