Area cities take steps to protect trees from developers' bulldozers
By Joan Little

When bulldozers started knocking down the woods behind her home in south St.
Louis County, Kathy Wieland knew the many large oaks and maples were coming
down to make way for a subdivision of 128 homes.

Still, it was a shock. At one point, Wieland and her husband climbed the ridge
overlooking their back yard to see what the area beyond looked like. It was
laid bare.

"I cried," she said. "It made me so sad. All these trees were piled up in a big
mound."

Loretta Karner, whose house sits next to the 34-acre project at Lemay Ferry and
Old Lemay Ferry roads, said the clear-cutting of trees also disturbed her.

"This was all woods in here," she said, looking at the barren ground
next to her home. "They just pulled the trees out like they were toothpicks.
They could leave some trees."

A growing number of cities in the St. Louis area are adopting tree preservation
or tree planning ordinances, especially for new development. Some cities, such
as Wildwood, Town and Country and St. Peters, have stricter ordinances than
others. Many of the measures provide protection for trees and require
developers to either save a percentage of the existing trees or to replace
trees they cut down.

For instance, St. Peters requires developers to maintain half the tree and
shrub coverage on any wooded lot larger than three acres. In Wildwood,
developers are required to preserve roughly 60 to 65 percent of existing
vegetation. Edwardsville requires developers to commit a certain percentage of
their land to green space.

But in unincorporated St. Louis County, which covers large areas in the south
part of the county and the northeast corner, there is no tree preservation
policy beyond standard landscaping requirements. Neither Madison and St. Clair
counties in Illinois nor Jefferson County in Missouri have tree protection
measures, either.

Local arborist Skip Kincaid thinks that's a mistake.

"I think trees need to be part of the planning process, just like we require
developers to consider storm-water runoff," said Kincaid, who has worked with a
number of cities locally to develop tree ordinances. "Can you imagine where
we'd be right now if no one took into account water runoff? It's the same thing
with trees."

A factor in Wildwood

Cutting trees carries many costs, said American Forests, a Washington-based
nonprofit organization that studies tree cover in urban areas. Trees help clean
the air and keep ground and air temperature down, reducing air conditioning
costs in summer. The loss of trees increases storm-water runoff and requires
larger storm pipes, the group said.

The lack of a tree ordinance was costly to St. Louis County in 1995, when it
lost jurisdiction over 67 square miles of prime real estate when the city of
Wildwood was formed. One of the main reasons that Wildwood incorporated was the
county's refusal or inability to put restrictions on developers who clear-cut
property.

At the same time residents in the Wildwood area were pushing for incorporation,
St. Louis County formed a commission that spent nearly a year studying the idea
of adopting some type of tree preservation ordinance. In the end, it never
adopted anything, some say because local developers, with their political
clout, didn't want such an ordinance.

"I think the county government is afraid to enact laws that restrict
developers," Kincaid said. "Obviously they want more development."

Kincaid stresses that he is not "an ultra tree-hugger." He said he understands
that some trees need to be cut down when developing a site.

"It's a world where there are no absolute right answers," Kincaid said. On the
other hand, he adds, "I'm not in favor of allowing free rein when it comes to
development of property. There has to be some planning to what happens on that
site."

At a minimum, St. Louis County's subdivision ordinance requires developers to
plant one street tree for every single-family home, with a second tree on every
corner lot. But officials say the majority of developments now fall under a
zoning known as planned environment unit, and in general, the county requires
more landscaping buffers and tree plantings for those subdivisions.

St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, said he hasn't seen a
lot of concern from residents over tree issues, at least not since the Wildwood
days.

"St. Louis County is pretty fully developed," he said. "We don't see the zoning
petitions that we used to see."

But both he and Councilman Richard "Skip" Mange, R-Town and Country, say the
pieces of property they do see tend to be more hilly and challenging to
develop. And some of those are heavily treed.

Mange, who used to be mayor of Town and Country, noted that his city has a
tough ordinance that prevents bulldozing of trees.

"It's very restrictive, and it's caused problems a number of times," Mange
said. "On the other hand, I don't think the county even speaks much to the
issue."

Still, Mange said he thinks the county's case-by-case approach works pretty
well.

"I would like to see our planning department be a little more aggressive in
requiring the saving of trees," he said. "I don't know that we need to codify
it in the form of an ordinance."

Yet it's the lack of a consistent policy that causes problems, say local
foresters. Mark Grueber and Rob Emmett, both local urban foresters with the
Missouri Department of Conservation, encourage cities and counties to adopt
tree ordinances.

Such measures shouldn't be seen as being anti-developer, said Grueber, who's
worked with cities in St. Charles County to develop tree ordinances. Cities
aren't trying to block development, he said. "Rather, let's try to do it in a
sustainable manner that's good not only for the developer but also for the
natural resources."

Rules in place

Under an ordinance adopted by St. Peters in 1998, developers are allowed to
clear 50 percent of the woods on a property. But if they go beyond that, they
must replace the trees at the rate of 600 1-inch-diameter trees per acre,
either on that property or somewhere else in St. Peters, said Vicki Phillips,
the city's horticulturist.

Developers can plant 200 3-inch trees, as long as the total equals 600
1-inch-diameter trees.

Developers can also donate the trees' value to the city's tree bank. But most
tend to plant on their developments, because they want the landscaping, said
Phillips. Some developers have planted hundreds of trees, she said.

"We have not had any development hindered as a result of the ordinance," she
added.

Fast-growing St. Charles County has a relatively recent requirement that
developers save 25 percent of the trees on a site, or 10 percent of the site's
surface area, whichever is larger.

Patrick Sullivan, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of
Greater St. Louis, said someone driving down the road looking at a leveled
woods can get the wrong impression of what's going on areawide.

"It's almost a hysteria that somehow we're losing all our trees," he said. He
said a study a few years ago looked at high-growth areas in St. Louis County,
St. Charles County and northern Jefferson County. Over a 30-year period, those
areas gained in tree canopy, according to the study, which was commissioned by
the Urban Choice Coalition, a group of local business leaders and state and
local officials formed to help counter criticism of urban development.

"As a housing industry, we recognize the value of trees and forested land,"
said Sullivan. "But there's a misperception among the public that somehow we're
losing trees."

Sullivan said a lot of the developed land in the study was once farmland, or
open fields, that was turned into subdivisions.

Emmett, the urban forester, noted that the study also didn't look at the types
of trees in today's canopy. "If you're planting a 1-inch (diameter) crabapple
tree, it doesn't take the place of a 200-year-old white oak you took down," he
said.

Emmett said the newest wrinkle is how cities are handling trees amid the
growing trend of "teardowns." In Clayton, for example, if someone wants to tear
down a house and build a larger one, the city requires a certified arborist to
assess trees on the property.

"Each tree you take out has to be replaced," said Emmett, or else the property
owner is required to pay Clayton the value of the trees, which are then
replaced on public land.

Catherine Powers, director of planning for Clayton, said she thinks attitudes
towards the importance of trees have changed.

"Ten years ago, everyone just clear-cut their property and built their houses,
and we were losing a lot of really nice, mature trees," said Powers. "We've
really become a lot more aware of trees in general." 

Reporter Joan Little
E-mail: jlittle@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 636-500-4111