HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/05/2013 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 014, 2013, AMENDINGDATE: February 5, 2013
STAFF: Tim Buchanan
Lindsay Ex
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Trees and Correcting a Cross-
Referencing Error.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the summer of 2012, staff was asked to consider a change to the Land Use Code acknowledging the ecological
value of non-native trees, specifically Russian olive and Siberian elms. As staff evaluated these potential Land Use
Code changes, other suggestions for improvements to the Land Use Code arose, including amending the tree
mitigation radius, requiring mitigation of native cotton-bearing cottonwood trees and female box elder trees, and
correcting minor clerical errors in the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
There are four components to the proposed Land Use Code changes:
1. Non-Native Trees
In July 2012, City Council requested that staff evaluate whether or not the current regulations surrounding non-native
trees, specifically Siberian elm and Russian olives, adequately addressed the ecological value these trees can provide.
Currently, Siberian elm and Russian olives are classified as nuisance species, are exempt from the tree mitigation
requirement, and are prohibited from being planted in the City. In addition, if located within a Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone, staff has often required the removal of Russian olive trees to prevent their proliferation in proximity to natural
habitats and features. At some sites, staff has encouraged selective or partial removal of Siberian Elms based on site
specific objectives.
Staff believes these tree species can provide ecological value (see Attachment 5 for more details). Based on feedback
from the City’s Park and Recreation Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Board,
staff is proposing to update the Land Use Code to acknowledge and require mitigation for the value these species
provide. Non-native tree mitigation is proposed to be analyzed through a project’s Ecological Characterization Study,
and if the trees are found to provide ecological value to the site, mitigation will be required.
2. Tree Mitigation Radius
In addition, staff is proposing to change the requirement that mitigation trees must be planted within a quarter-mile
radius of the project site. The quarter-mile radius requirement has proven to be a challenge to meet, especially with
infill development. Increasing the types of trees that will be required to be mitigated for could exacerbate this existing
challenge. The quarter-mile radius was originally included to place off-site mitigation trees close to the project and
not to overly favor planting trees on City land. If they cannot be placed on site, most developments have preferred
placing mitigation trees on City land due to the ease of coordination and have been constrained in placing mitigation
trees on any other property within the quarter-mile radius.
Based on discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board during its October 2012 Work Session, a tiered approach
is being proposed that requires mitigation to first take place within one-half mile of the project site, then one mile from
the project site if there are not suitable sites within the one-half mile. If a suitable site cannot be found within one mile
from the project site, then the closest, suitable site within the City’s boundaries will be selected.
February 5, 2013 -2- ITEM 17
3. Mitigation for Native Cotton-bearing Cottonwood and Female Box Elder Trees
The Land Use Code currently exempts native cotton-bearing cottonwood and female box elder trees from the tree
mitigation requirements in the Land Use Code, unless these trees are within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, or an area
of land set aside for resource protection. These trees are classified as nuisance trees in City Code and are not
allowed to be planted within the City. However, these species do contribute to the urban tree canopy, regardless of
their position in the landscape. Therefore, based on a recommendation from the Natural Resources Advisory Board,
staff is proposing to amend the Land Use Code and requiring mitigation for these tree species as well.
4. Minor Clerical Changes
Two sections of the Land Use Code incorrectly reference Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural Habitats and
Features. The proposed Ordinance corrects those references.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. This continuous
improvement provides for an adaptable regulatory environment, yet remains predictable for all users and decision-
makers. While there may be no direct financial and economic impacts in the typical fiscal sense, a dynamic Land Use
Code creates a valid and credible legal framework that serves a vibrant local economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City has an internal sustainability goal to achieve a 30% canopy density in suitable areas of City Parks and a
minimum of 70% native vegetation on its Natural Areas. While these Land Use Code changes will largely apply to
private land development, the mitigation of non-native trees with native trees will contribute to the City’s internal goals
by reducing the spread of non-native tree seeds into Natural Areas. The increase in native species that will occur as
the result of non-native tree mitigation will support City Plan Policy ENV 1.1 (Protect and Enhance Natural Features),
Policy ENV 2.5 (Provide Land Conservation and Stewardship), and Policy 24.4 (Restore and Enhance the Poudre
River Corridor). In addition, the mitigation of native cotton-bearing cottonwood and female box elders will increase
the City’s overall tree canopy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 17, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code. During
the January 17, 2013 hearing, the Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item as part of its Consent
Calendar.
Since the inclusion of mitigation requirements for non-native trees that are prohibited and considered a nuisance is
a departure from the current direction of the Land Use Code, staff met with two City Boards, in addition to the Planning
and Zoning Board, to assess what direction is the most appropriate.
On December 5, 2012, staff met with the Parks and Recreation Board on this topic and the Board voted 8-0 to support
both the amended tree mitigation radius and to require that Ecological Characterization Studies assess any non-native
trees present on a site and, if found to have ecological value, to either preserve or mitigate for this value.
Staff met with the Natural Resources Advisory Board on December 19, 2012 to review these changes. The Board
voted 8-0 to support amending the tree mitigation radius and to require that Ecological Characterization Studies assess
any non-native trees present on a site and, if found to have ecological value, to either preserve or mitigate for this
February 5, 2013 -3- ITEM 17
value. One member of the Board abstained from voting, as he was concerned that the existing mitigation radius
standard should remain.
In addition to supporting the Land Use Code changes discussed, the Natural Resources Advisory Board also
unanimously voted to recommend requiring mitigation for native, cotton bearing cottonwoods and female box elder
trees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Item 929 Problem Statement and proposed Code language for the non-native trees, tree mitigation radii, and
mitigation for cotton-bearing cottonwood and female box elder trees elements.
2. Item 923 Summary Report stating the clerical changes needed in the Land Use Code to correctly reference
certain sections of the Land Use Code.
3. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, December 5, 2012
4. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, December 19, 2012
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, January 17, 2013
6. Memo re: City Code and Land Use Code and Non-native Trees, August 20, 2012
Item 929 – Amend Sections 3.2.1(F) and 3.4.1(D)(1)– Non-native Trees and
Tree Mitigation Radii so that if such trees are found by an Ecological
Characterization Study to have ecological value, they are to be preserved
or mitigated.
Problem Statement
Non-native Trees
Siberian elm and Russian olives are classified as nuisance species, are exempt from the
tree mitigation requirement, and are prohibited from being planted in the City. In addition,
if located within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, staff has often required the removal of
Russian olive trees to prevent their proliferation in proximity to natural habitats and
features.
At the same time, these species can provide ecological value. For example, Siberian elm
is exempt from the mitigation requirement standard due to susceptibility to breakage that
can result in hazards to structures and public safety. In addition, the tree is a prolific
seeder and can easily colonize areas and out-compete native, desirable species.
Further, Siberian elms are breeding sites for both types of elm bark beetles that occur in
Fort Collins; both species of elm bark beetle are capable of and, when exposed to the
Dutch Elm Disease fungus, do transmit Dutch Elm Disease to both Siberian and
American elms. At the same time, this species also provide a measure of ecological
value, especially when found in groves and thickets along the river or in other natural
habitats. These trees also serve as a stabilizing force along stream banks. Staff has
encouraged on some sites selective or partial removal of Siberian Elm based on site
specific objectives.
A second nuisance species, Russian olive, is exempt from the mitigation requirement
standard due to its presence on the state noxious weed list. It is a prolific seeder that
has colonized extensive areas altering the distribution of native species. There are
efforts to remove it from City property. Typically found in groves, the species provides
value by providing cover and acting as a food source. While these trees do provide a
measure of habitat value, it is largely for non-native species which contribute little to the
diversity of wildlife species found in the City.
Tree Mitigation Radii
The Land Use Code currently requires that all mitigation trees must be planted within a
¼ mile radius of the project site. The ¼ mile radius requirement has proved a challenge
to meet, especially with infill development. Increasing the types of trees that will be
required to be mitigated for could exacerbate this existing challenge. The ¼ mile radius
was originally included to place off site mitigation trees close to the project and not to
overly favor planting trees on City land. Most developments have preferred placing off
site mitigation trees on City land due to the ease of coordination and have been
constrained in placing mitigation trees on any property within the ¼ mile radius.
Outreach
As the inclusion of mitigation requirements for non-native trees that are prohibited and
considered a nuisance is a departure from the current direction of the Land Use Code,
ATTACHMENT 1
staff met with two City Boards to assess what direction is the most appropriate: the
Parks and Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
On December 5th, staff met with the Parks and Recreation Board on this topic and the
Board voted 8-0 to support both the amended tree mitigation radius and to require that
Ecological Characterization Studies assess any non-native trees present on a site and, if
found to have ecological value, to either preserve or mitigate for this value.
Staff met with the Natural Resources Advisory Board on December 19 to review these
changes. The Board voted 8-0 to support amending the tree mitigation radius and to
require that Ecological Characterization Studies assess any non-native trees present on
a site and, if found to have ecological value, to either preserve or mitigate for this value.
One member of the Board abstained from voting, as he was concerned that the existing
mitigation radius standard should remain.
In addition to supporting the Land Use Code changes discussed, the Natural Resources
Advisory Board also recommended (by a vote of 9-0) to require mitigation for native,
cotton bearing cottonwoods and female box elder trees.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to amend Sections 3.2.1(F) and Sections 3.4.1(D)(1) of the
Land Use Code to achieve the following:
• Explicitly require mitigation for Russian olive and Siberian elms that have been
documented to provide ecological value, e.g., through a project’s Ecological
Characterization Study.
• Allow mitigation for Russian olive and Siberian elms to be governed by site-
specific restoration methods, e.g., a more diverse range of species and
caliper/height sizes in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) below, instead of
requiring that trees be upsized.
Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) If the development causes any disturbance within
the buffer zone, whether by approval of the decision maker or otherwise,
the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures within
the buffer zone such as regrading and/or the replanting of native
vegetation. The applicant shall undertake mitigation measures to restore
any damaged or lost natural resource either on-site or off-site at the
discretion of the decision maker. Any such mitigation or restoration shall
be at least equal in ecological value to the loss suffered by the community
because of the disturbance, and shall be based on such mitigation and
restoration plans and reports as have been requested, reviewed and
approved by the decision maker. Unless otherwise authorized by the
decision maker, if existing vegetation (whether native or non-native) is
destroyed or disturbed, such vegetation shall be replaced with native
vegetation and landscaping.
• Amend Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code to specifically include non-
native trees (Siberian elm and Russian olive) in the Ecological Characterization
Study requirements; this would require new developments to evaluate the
ecological value of non-native trees.
ATTACHMENT 1
• Amend the tree mitigation radii for mitigation trees to the following tiered
approach:
o Prioritize planting mitigation trees within ½ mile radius of the project site;
o If mitigation sites cannot be found within ½ mile, increase the radius to 1
mile;
o If sites for a project’s mitigation trees cannot be found within 1 mile, then
the City Forester shall determine the most suitable location for tree
mitigation.
• Require mitigation for cotton bearing cottonwood and female box elder trees.
Code Change
Section 3.2.1(F):
(F) Tree Protection and Replacement. Existing significant trees within the LOD
and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably
feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set
forth above. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning
of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (2) below.
Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance
to significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall accurately identify
the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled
showing the applicant’s intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to
transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such
tree(s) according to the following schedule and requirements. Replacement trees
shall be used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section. Replacement
trees shall be planted either on the development site or in the closest available
and suitable planting site. The closest available and suitable planting site shall be
selected within one half-mile (2640 feet) of the development site. If suitable
planting sites for all of the mitigation trees are not available within one half-mile
(2640 feet) of the development, then the planting site shall be selected within one
mile (5280 feet) of the development site. If suitable planting sites are not
available for all of the mitigation trees within one mile of the development site,
then the City Forester shall determine the most suitable planting location within
the City’s boundaries as close to the development site as is feasible within one
thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (¼ mile).
(1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than
one (1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the
loss of value of the removed significant tree. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, significant trees found to contain ecological value, as provided
in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Land Use Code, that would have been
exempt from mitigation under subsection (2)(c) below shall be mitigated in
accordance with Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this Land Use Code. The
applicant shall select either the City Forester or a qualified landscape
appraiser to determine such loss based upon an appraisal of the tree to
be removed by using the most recent published methods established by
the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Replacement trees shall
meet the following minimum size requirements:
ATTACHMENT 1
(a) Canopy Shade Trees 3.0" caliper balled and burlap
or equivalent
(b) Ornamental Trees 2.5" caliper balled and burlap
or equivalent
(c) Evergreen Trees 8' height balled and burlap or
equivalent
(2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall
be exempt from the requirements of this subsection:
(a) dead, dying or naturally fallen trees, or trees found to be a
threat to public health, safety or welfare;
(b) trees that are determined by the city to substantially obstruct
clear visibility at driveways and intersections;
(c) tree species that constitute a nuisance to the public such as
cotton-bearing cottonwood, Siberian elm and Russian olive and
female box-elder, unless the trees are identified as containing
ecological value as provided in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Land
Use Code. Native cotton-bearing cottonwood trees and female
box-elder trees, when located in a natural area buffer zone, are
not nuisance tree species.
(3) All existing street trees that are located on city rights-of-way abutting the
development shall be accurately identified by species, size, location and
condition on required landscape plans, and shall be preserved and protected in
accordance with the standards of subsection (G).
Section 3.4.1(D):
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature
Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature
shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only
approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project
development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the
Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based
on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in
conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site
contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or
feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or
from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife,
plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection,
then the developer shall provide to the city an ecological
characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the
areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. The
Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this
requirement if the city already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set
ATTACHMENT 1
forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development
("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological
characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the
following:
(a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of
wildlife using the area, the times or seasons that the area
is used by those species and the "value" (meaning feeding,
watering, cover, nesting, roosting, perching) that the area
provides for such wildlife species;
(b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description
of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by
those wetlands;
(c) any prominent views from or across the site;
(d) the pattern, species and location of any significant
native trees and other native site vegetation;
(e) the pattern, species and location of any significant non-
native trees, as defined in Section 3.2.1(F)(2)c) of the Land
Use Code, and non-native site vegetation that contribute to
the site’s ecological value;
(ef) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any
perennial stream or body of water on the site;
(fg) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive
and Specially Valued Species;
(gh) special habitat features;
(hi) wildlife movement corridors;
(ij) the general ecological functions provided by the site
and its features;
(jk) any issues regarding the timing of development-related
activities stemming from the ecological character of the
area; and
(kl) any measures needed to mitigate the projected
adverse impacts of the development project on natural
habitats and features.
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 923 – Amend Section 3.2.1(M) and Revegetation Standards and
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), River Downtown Redevelopment Zone (R-D-R)
Development Standards to reference the correct subsection of Section
3.4.1
Problem Statement
As Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural Habitats and Features, evolved, the
sections of the Land Use Code that reference back to this section were amended,
except for two sections in the Land Use Code that reference an incorrect section of
3.4.1.
Proposed Solution
The solution is to correct the reference to Section 3.4.1(C) of the Land Use Code to
Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. In the Revegetation Standards section, the
revision will reference ‘Development Activities within the Buffer Zone’ in Section
3.4.1(E)(2) instead of ‘Wetland Boundary Definition’ in Section 3.4.1(D)(2). In the River
Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) standards, the revision will reference the
‘Establishment of Buffer Zones’ in Section 3.4.1(E) instead of the ‘General Standard’ in
Section 3.4.1(C).
Code Change
Section 3.2.1(M):
(M) Revegetation. When the development causes any disturbance within any natural
area buffer zone, revegetation shall occur as required in paragraph 3.4.1(DE)(2) (Natural
Area Buffer ZoneDevelopment Activities within the Buffer Zone) and subsection 3.2.1(F)
(Tree Protection and Replacement).
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a):
(D) Development Standards.
(1) Transition between the River and Development.
(a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in
Section 3.4.1(CE) (Natural Habitats and FeaturesEstablishment of Buffer
Zones) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the
applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape
buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition between
development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible, the
landscape buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub
cover. (See Figure 20.) The landscape buffer shall be designed to prevent
bank erosion and to stabilize the River bank in a manner adequate to
withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event. The bank
stabilization shall comply with the following criteria:
ATTACHMENT 2
Retention & Mitigation of Non-Native Trees During Development – Tim Buchanan, City Forester
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner presented with Tim the Land Use Code Amendments. The current regulations require
that any trees that cannot be preserved be mitigated and the mitigation must occur within ¼ mile of the development site.
Although trees can be planted on private property, developers are not typically interested in approaching private land
owners, so finding public property for planting can be challenging. We are proposing an amendment to the Land Use
Code to allow for a tiered approach to allow for more flexibility in finding a place to plant the trees. Tier 1 – within a ½
mile of the developed site; Tier 2 – within 1 mile of the developed site; and Tier 3 – within the City boundaries, but as
close to the project site as possible.
The other mitigation involves non-native trees. The current regulation requires tree mitigation for certain species if they
are in a buffer zone; but other species e.g., Russian olives and Siberian elms are exempt. In some cases, we may want to
keep these trees if they are providing habitat; so the proposed amendments would be: 1) Ecological characterization study
examines if non-native trees contribute to the site’s habitat, 2) If the trees contribute, then preserve or mitigate; and 3)
Mitigation based on replacing value lost, not tree for tree. As an example, if we needed to remove a thicket of Russian
olives then we would want to replace it with native trees or habitat that would provide an equivalent type thicket or benefit
in order to preserve the habitat; and the native trees provide the most value.
Our questions to the Board are:
1) Does the Board support amending the radius for tree mitigation?
2) Does the Board support replacing the ecological value lost from the removal of non-native and other species in
development.
Discussion
Board – Does this code pertain to private and public development?
Staff – Yes, however if a tree is deemed unsafe and removed in a park for instances, than we’re not obligated to follow the
code in that type instance.
Board – The reason I asked was because of all the trees that were removed at the new Transit site. Someone was upset
that they removed the trees and I said they would have to replant others; so I was hoping I gave the correct information.
Staff – The Code did apply to the South Transit Center and the plan provides for new and mitigation trees.
Board – Could the City reach out to citizens and have a list of homeowners interested in having a tree planted in their
yard?
Staff – That’s a great idea.
Board – Can the developer provide cash in lieu? Is that part of the amendment?
Staff – Some developers have paid us to plant, but we don’t have this as part of the amendment.
Board – In Denver we were taking out trees and they valued them at $5,000.00; the trees we replaced were $700.00 so we
had to pay the difference in value to the City.
Staff – The only time we’ve collected on full appraised value is if there were negligent damage; and we’ve collected on
that.
Board – Having no other discussion, do we have a motion on the questions?
Motion: Does the Board support amending the radius for tree mitigation?
Discussion:
Should some type of criteria be in place to try to work within the ¼ mile first?
The City Forester is not going to allow a tree to even be removed without a compelling need, so I think we can trust
that they will do their best to always keep the mitigated trees as close as possible to the development site.
Having no further discussion do we have a vote?
Vote: 8:0 in support
Motion: Does the Board support replacing the ecological value lost from the removal of non-native and other
species in development.
Discussion
ATTACHMENT 3
Parks and Recreation Board
December 5, 2012
None
Having no discussion do we have a vote:
Vote: 8:0 in support
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned 9:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Rankin
Carol Rankin
Administrative Support Supervisor
Parks Department
Board Attendance
Board Members: Ragan Adams, Richard Barnhart, Rob Cagen, Brian Carroll, Michael Chalona, Todd Galbate, Bruce
Henderson, Dawn Theis
Staff: Craig Foreman, Carol Rankin, Mike McDonnell, Marty Heffernan
Guests: Wendy Ryan, CSU Colorado Climate Center
Dr. Gina Mohr and 10 students from CSU Marketing Class
Tim Buchanan, City Forester
Lindsay Ex, City Environmental Planner
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
ATTACHMENT 3
Parks and Recreation Board
December 5, 2012
Excerpt from Natural Resources Advisory Board December 18 meeting
Ecological Value of Non-Native Tree Species in Landscaping
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner in the Current Planning Department and Tim Buchanan, City
Forester, presented staff recommendations to require mitigation when certain Russian olives and
Siberian elms are removed as a result of development, and to create tiered distance requirements
when “mitigation” trees are planted. They asked the board to weigh in on two questions:
1. Does the Board support amending the radius for tree mitigation?
2. Does the Board support replacing the ecological value lost from the removal of non-
native and other species in development?
Discussion
• Justin Shepard: I think it would be worthwhile to target suitable areas where you would like
to see trees.
• Harry Edwards: Does mitigation apply to private developers? (Yes. It is part of City Code)
• Joe Piesman: Who plants the trees? (Some property owners pay the City to plant them)
• Harry Edwards: Were trees mitigated in City projects like the new museum? (Yes, they were
mitigated on the site)
• Joe Piesman: What language are you proposing? (Proposed mitigation regulations are a
tiered approach:
o 1 – ½ mile from development site
o 2 – 1 mile
o 3 – within city boundaries
• Joe Piesman: Who would object to tree mitigation unless trees are migrating from the center
of the City? (We would make a strong effort to place them as close to the site as possible.
The project design would keep trees a factor.)
• Joe Piesman: Who is responsible for keeping mitigated trees alive? (The developer usually
has a landscape contractor tend to them for the first few years after construction is over.)
• Phil Friedman: Do you have enforcement capability? (Right now, yes, but our load is
increasing.)
• John Bartholow: Do developers feel comfortable with your rating? (Code says you can use
City Forestry staff or private businesses. Almost all developments have had the City do it)
• John Bartholow: How many trees per year do you mitigate? (We mitigated approximately
300 in 2012.)
• John Bartholow: I feel we support the direction you want to go.
• Phil Friedman: I am having a hard time understanding something. If cottonwoods are a
native species, why is that tree not required to be mitigated? Native species are valuable.
Why do you lump native species with nuisance trees. They shouldn’t be on the nuisance list.
• Liz Pruessner: I support both questions. I could write more a formal fleshed out memo for
the February Council meeting.
Discussion
• Justin Shepard: Does it halt development if you can’t find a mitigation site? (Most of the
mitigation is done on site. Applicants are very interested to do this if possible.
Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion that the NRAB supports amending
the radius for tree mitigation in a three-tiered fashion and supports replacing the ecological
value lost from the removal of non-native and other species in development.
Motion passed – 6– 0 – 1
Harry Edwards abstained because he saw this as an enabling process to denude the core of the
City and move trees further out.
ATTACHMENT 4
• Harry Edwards: Is there any project where the ¼ mile requirement couldn’t be met? (The
hospital site and Lincoln Center. There are also a few coming up that might have difficulty)
• Phil Friedman: I see even if you increase the radius it would be in a random fashion. We
would be moving trees from one place to the other, or would it move trees from the center of
town? (I don’t think so. We will still try to place them within a block of the site.
Phil Friedman moved and John Bartholow seconded a motion to remove native trees,
e.g. cotton bearing cottonwood trees and box elder trees, from the list of nuisance
species in the land use code because they have an inherent ecological value.
Motion passed unanimously
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board
January 17, 2013
DRAFT minutes
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, spoke to his concerns about the Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
and their activities. He asked that someone on the Planning and Zoning Board continue to participate
(as former member Brigitte Schmidt had) on an advisory committee (Citizens Action Group (CAG)) to the
URA to help the community.
Election of Officers
Chair Smith invited nominations for Chair.
Member Hatfield nominated Andy Smith for Chair. Member Campana seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 5:0.
Chair Smith invited nominations for Vice-Chair.
Chair Smith nominated Gino Campana for Vice-Chair. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5:0.
Chair Smith asked if the board, staff, or audience if they wanted to pull any items from the consent
agenda. No one did.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the November 14 Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing and the December
20, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
2. Land Use Codes (LUC) Amendments Related to Removal of Election Signs
3. Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments Related to Ecological Value of Non-Native Trees, Tree
Mitigation Radius, and Clerical Changes
Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the minutes
from the December 14, 2012 Special Hearing and the December 20, 2012 Hearing, Land Use Code
Amendments Related to Removal of Election Signs, and Land Use Code Amendments Related to
Ecological Value of Non-Native Trees, Tree Mitigation, and Clerical Changes. Member Hatfield
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6
1
ORDINANCE NO. 014, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING TREES AND
CORRECTING A CROSS-REFERENCING ERROR
WHEREAS, Siberian elm and Russian olive trees are classified as nuisance species and
are exempt from tree mitigation requirements under the Land Use Code, and are also prohibited
from being planted within the City; and
WHEREAS, Siberian elm and Russian olive trees sometimes provide ecological value for
other species and habitat; and
WHEREAS, on those occasions when the nuisance species of Siberian elm and Russian
olive trees provide desirable ecological value for habitat, the City Council believes that such
species should be mitigated if not preserved under the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the native tree species known as female box elder and cotton-bearing
cottonwood contribute to the City’s tree canopy and habitat goals; and
WHERAS, because these trees provide ecological and urban canopy values, the City
Council believes that these trees should be mitigated in accordance with existing standards; and
WHEREAS, compliance with the tree mitigation radii as contained in the Land Use Code
has been difficult to achieve and the City Council believes that the tree mitigation radii should be
adjusted accordingly; and
WHEREAS, there are two occasions within the Land Use Code where the cross-
references pertaining to buffer zones are incorrect and should be corrected; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these proposed amendments to the
Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection
. . .
(F) Tree Protection and Replacement. Existing significant trees within the LOD and
within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible
and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth
above. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this
2
Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Streets,
buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to
significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall accurately identify the
locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing
the applicant’s intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to
transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s)
according to the following schedule and requirements. Replacement trees shall be
used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section. Replacement trees shall
be planted either on the development site or in the closest available and suitable
planting site within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (¼ mile) of the
development site. The closest available and suitable planting site shall be selected
within one-half (1/2) mile (2640 feet) of the development site, subject to the
following exceptions. If suitable planting sites for all of the mitigation trees are not
available within one-half (1/2) mile (2640 feet) of the development, then the
planting site shall be selected within one (1) mile (5280 feet) of the development
site. If suitable planting sites are not available for all of the mitigation trees within
one (1) mile (5280 feet) of the development site, then the City Forester shall
determine the most suitable planting location within the City’s boundaries as close
to the development site as feasible.
(1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1)
or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of value
of the removed significant tree. Notwithstanding the foregoing, significant
trees found to contain ecological value, as provided in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of
this Land Use Code, that would have been exempt from mitigation under
subsection (2)(c) below shall be mitigated in accordance with Section
3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this Land Use Code. The applicant shall select either the
City Forester or a qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based
upon an appraisal of the tree to be removed by using the most recent
published methods established by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers. Replacement trees shall meet the following minimum size
requirements:
(a) Canopy Shade Trees: 3.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(b) Ornamental Trees: 2.5" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
(2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be
exempt from the requirements of this subsection:
(a) dead, dying or naturally fallen trees, or trees found to be a threat to
public health, safety or welfare;
3
(b) trees that are determined by the city to substantially obstruct clear
visibility at driveways and intersections;
(c) tree species that constitute a nuisance to the public such as cotton-
bearing cottonwood, Siberian elm and Russian olive and female box-
elder, unless the trees are identified as containing ecological value as
provided in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Land Use Code. Native cotton-
bearing cottonwood trees and female box-elder trees, when located in a
natural area buffer zone, are not nuisance tree species.
(3) All existing street trees that are located on city rights-of-way abutting the
development shall be accurately identified by species, size, location and
condition on required landscape plans, and shall be preserved and protected
in accordance with the standards of subsection (G).
Section 2. That Section 3.2.1(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(M) Revegetation. When the development causes any disturbance within any natural
area buffer zone, revegetation shall occur as required in paragraph 3.4.1(DE)(2)
(Natural Area Development Activities within the Buffer Zone) and subsection
3.2.1(F) (Tree Protection and Replacement).
Section 3. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
. . .
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary of
any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant
and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and
shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in
conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is
within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site
likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the
City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified
in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least
ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan
application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological
characterization study of the entire property must be prepared by a qualified
4
consultant and submitted to the City for review. The Director may waive any
or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already
possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the
buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of
development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological
characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
(a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the
area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species and the
"value" (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, perching)
that the area provides for such wildlife species;
(b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological
functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands;
(c) any prominent views from or across the site;
(d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and
other native site vegetation;
(e) the pattern, species and location of any significant non-native trees, as
defined in Section 3.2.1(F)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code, and non-native
site vegetation that contribute to the site’s ecological value;
(ef) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial stream
or body of water on the site;
(fg) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially
Valued Species;
(gh) special habitat features;
(hi) wildlife movement corridors;
(ij) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features;
(jk) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities
stemming from the ecological character of the area; and
(kl) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the
development project on natural habitats and features.
Section 4. That Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(D) Development Standards.
(1) Transition between the River and Development.
5
(a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in
subsection 3.4.1(CE) (Natural Habitats and FeaturesEstablishment of
Buffer Zones) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer
zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous
landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible,
the landscape buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and
shrub cover. (See Figure 20.) The landscape buffer shall be designed
to prevent bank erosion and to stabilize the River bank in a manner
adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event.
The bank stabilization shall comply with the following criteria:
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of
February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of February, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk