The committee grappled with the intricacies of landscaping requirements, focusing on a proposal to modify tree preservation and replacement strategies. The proposal underscored the benefits of trees, including environmental, economic, and health advantages, while examining the current method of calculating tree replacement and preservation. A case study exercise was carried out to illustrate the proposed changes, sparking a robust dialogue amongst committee members. Key points of contention included the counting method, starting caliper size for trees, and the calculation of replacement trees.

Particularly contentious was the debate surrounding the proposed tree cap, which led to discussions on the relationship between the cap and site dynamics. The cap aimed to prevent over-penalization of wooded lot owners during development but raised concerns about the fairness and financial implications for developers. The possibility of a tiered system for tree replacement ratios based on tree size was discussed, alongside concerns that the current calculation method might disincentivize tree saving.

Further complicating the issue, the committee considered the impact of a fixed number versus a percentage-based cap on different types of developments and the ramifications of including preserved trees in the count post-calculation. Members also discussed the potential for a graduated scale for tree replacement, reflecting the size and maturity of trees, and the concept of double counting trees in the calculation.

Discussion extended to the fee schedules associated with tree replacement, with the committee expressing a preference for counting replacements based on inches rather than numbers of trees. This approach considered the cost and practicality of planting larger trees, and whether different planting rates should apply to areas like the downtown core that lack open space requirements. Additionally, the necessity for tree protective barriers for replacement trees was debated, with the committee seeking to align with best practices from other cities.

The committee reviewed proposed changes to the wetland protection section, focusing on language clarity and the approval process for wetlands, which often involves multiple agencies. The role of the city in wetland protection was scrutinized, with members questioning the city’s control and authority over wetlands and discussing the importance of wetlands in flood mitigation and groundwater recharge.

One member compared tree replacement requirements to wetland mitigation, drawing parallels between compensating for tree removal and wetland impact. This analogy underlined the broader environmental considerations at play in urban planning and land development codes.

Moving beyond the environmental scope, the committee reached a consensus on revising certain terminologies within the code. This included changing the wording from “four years” to “two years” and from “barricades required” to “barriers required”. Additionally, adjustments to the replacement schedule for violations and the fee schedule for unknown numbers of destroyed trees were considered, with a set amount proposed for clear-cut properties.

The committee also tackled changes related to Champion trees, setting fines for various violations, and removing the requirement for obtaining a contractor’s license while instituting a payment for the city’s environmental consultant services. Furthermore, the topic of stormwater retention within an upland buffer was addressed, seeking clarity on its permissibility.