HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Tree Preservation Policy
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MARCH 15, 1999
8A
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REPORT ON TREE
PRESERVATION POLICY AS IT RELATES TO
DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE LOTS
History
On January 19, 1999, the City Council directed staff to review
procedures of the Tree Preservation Ordinance as they relate to single
family lots to determine if steps can be taken to make it more
customer-friendly by considering alternative enforcement steps.
The current Tree Preservation Ordinance was adopted in 1996 after
considerable discussion by the Planning Commission and City
Council. The City Council found that as a matter of policy, it is
worthwhile to take aggressive efforts to preserve the urban forests.
Attached is the report from October 1995, detailing the purpose of the
ordinance. The resulting ordinance requires a developer, builder or
homeowner to provide the City with an inventory of all significant
trees on a vacant lot prior to the issuance of a building permit. This
does not apply to additions and under the new Zoning Ordinance this
provision will apply to redevelopment of lots, that is, lots where a
cabin would be replaced with a larger, year round dwelling. Such an
inventory must be completed by a registered land surveyor; forester,
civil engineer or landscape architect.
Current Circumstances
A $500 deposit is received at the time of building permit issuance.
The deposit is then refunded to the developer/builder/homeowner one
year after the permit was issued. A verification of compliance with the
ordinance must be provided by a surveyor, forester, civil engineer or
landscape architect, in short someone who has knowledge about tree
species and their potential for surviving the construction process. This
can be in the form of a letter, stating the trees to be preserved remain
intact and in good health or a revised tree plan can be submitted
indicating the trees existence on the lot. Upon receiving the
L:\92FILES\99SUlUEC\99-012\CCREPORT.DOC. 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
verification, the $500 deposit is refunded to the
developer/builder/homeowner.
This certification is only required for existing lots of record, where
there is no tree preservation plan on file for the plat. All property
which have preliminary plat approval after the adoption of the
ordinance in 1996 have a tree preservation plan on file, such as
GlynWater, Maple Hills 2nd Addition, Windstar and Northwood Oaks
Estates. Therefore, individual tree preservation plans (for each lot) are
not required. Additionally, a tree preservation plan is not required for
additions to existing dwellings.
Issues
The cities of Savage and Plymouth have similar tree ordinances. The
cities employ a forester who completes the final inspection and
verification of compliance with the tree plan. In both cases, the
applicant submits the tree preservation plan completed by a registered
surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect or forester. Alternatives
exist to reduce the burden of an applicant providing verification after
construction:
1. Employ a forester to verify compliance. In this case the city
would bear the cost. It may be possible for the City to purchase
services from another city's forester.
2. The City could contract a surveyor, landscape architect, civil
engineer or forester to verify the plan. In this case, the City
would bear the cost or the cost could be passed on to the
developer/builder/homeowner with a fee included in the building
permit application. There is a provision in the ordinance
allowing for the City to use the $500 deposit to contract for such
an inspection if necessary. In this case, after the verification, any
remaining deposit would be refunded.
3. The ordinance could be amended to allow verification by City
staff. There are civil engineers on staffwho could conduct the
verification. However, their specific expertise in horticulture is
limited as is time to conduct the inspection and prepare a report.
An ordinance amendment to allow other City staff to verify
compliance with the plan would require training of staff in
forestry. In this case, an ordinance amendment allowing staff to
complete the verification would be an expense to the City.
4. The ordinance could remain as is, in which case, the cost of
verification rests with the developer/builder/homeowner. In this
case, the cost of development is not incurred by the existing
residents of Prior Lake. Since the adoption of this ordinance in
1996, there have been 56 deposits paid as part of the building
permit taken out for single family dwellings on previously
L:\99FILES\99SUBJEC\99-O 12\CCREPORT.OOC 2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
platted lots. To staffs knowledge, there has been only one
complaint regarding the procedure for verification and this
deposit was refunded in January 1999 after compliance with the
ordinance. Single family lots platted after 1996 are not required
to pay the tree preservation deposit, as the developer has
submitted a tree plan for the entire development and a letter of
credit is on file to ensure compliance.
5. Another alternative is to remove the requirement for tree
verification altogether. However, this could defeat the purpose
of the ordinance if excessive trees are removed and there is no
awareness to City staff to enforce additional plantings that would
be required.
It should also be noted the Planning Commission and City Council
have reviewed the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the new
Zoning Ordinance. On June 23, 1998 at a Council work session, the
City Council amended the ordinance to include the redevelopment of
existing lots requiring a tree preservation plan. The City Council
concurred with staff and the Planning Commission that the remainder
of the ordinance was appropriate as originally adopted.
Conclusion
There are options for modifying the verification procedures for tree
preservation plans, however in all cases there would be additional cost
to the City. The City Council must determine if a change in the
ordinance is appropriate at this time.
1. Leave the ordinance as it is.
2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment as the City Council
deems appropriate and arrange for any employee adjustments required
by the amendments.
3. Continue this item. In this case, the City Council should provide
staff with specific direction.
As the City Council determines.
L:\99FILES\99SUBJEC\99-0 12\CCREPORT.OOC 3
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
(Prior Lake City Code Section 5-5-16)
Adopted 1/16/96, Amended ?/8/97
(~
(A) Intent and Purpose:
It is the intent of the City of Prior Lake to protect, preserve and enhance the natural
environment of the community, and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to
the development and alteration of wooded areas in the City. This section of the Zoning
Ordinance has the following specific purposes;
1. to promote diversity in tree species,
2. to minimize erosion and its detrimental effects caused by construction activities,
3. to allow the development of wooded areas in a manner that minimizes and mitigates
the removal and destruction of trees, preserves aesthetics, property values the nature
and character of the surrounding area, and
4. to provide for the fair and effective enforcement of the regulations contained herein.
(B) Application:
This ordinance applies to the following sites in the City of Prior Lake:
1. All new public or private development on either platted or unplatted property;
2. New construction on previously platted, but vacant building sites.
The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the requiremenfs of the City's
landscape and screening requirements contained in Section 6.10 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance or other City Code.
(C) Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required:
It is unlawful for any person to engage directly or indirectly in land alteration, as defined
in this ordinance, unless such person has first applied for and obtained approval from the
City's Zoning Officer or other authorized city official of a tree preservation plan. No
preliminary plat, building permit, grading permit, or other City required permit shall be
granted unless approval of a tree preservation plan has first been obtained.
(D) Entry on Private Property and Interference with Inspection:
The City's Zoning Officer and/or his/her agent may enter upon private premises at any
reasonable time for the purposes of enforcing the regulations set forth in this section. No
l:\handouts\treepres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.....~._....__._._..,----r--_....._..._,....._.--.
person shall unreasonably hinder, prevent, delay or interfere with the City's Zoning
Officer or hislher agents while they are engaged in the enforcement of this section.
(E) Definitions:
Caliper Inches - means the diameter, in inches, of the trunk of a tree measured at a height
of 4.5 feet above the ground.
Civil Engineer - means a person licensed to practice civil engineering under Minnesota
Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15.
Coniferous Tree - a woody plant having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches
year-round. Coniferous trees are considered to be "significant" for purposes of this
Ordinance at a height of twelve feet (12') or more,. Species of coniferous trees required
to be surveyed for tree preservation plan approval are as follows:
Common Name:
1. Arborvitae (White Cedar)
2. Fir, Douglas
3. Fir, White
4. Hemlock, Canada (Eastern)
5. Junipers
6. Larch, Eastern (Tamarack)
7. Larch, European
8. Pine, Austrian
9. Pine, Eastern White
10. Pine, Mugo
11. Pine, Ponderosa
12. Pine, Red (Norway)
13. Pine, scotch
14. Redcedar, Eastern
15. Redwood, Dawn
16. Spruce, Black Hills
17. Spruce, Colorad Blue
18. Spruce, Norway
19. Spruce, White
20. Spruce, Japanese
Scientific Name:
Thuja spp.
Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca
Abies concolor
Tsuga canadensis
Juniperus spp.
Larix laricina
Larix decidua
Pinus nigra
Pinus strobus
Pinus montana
Pinus ponerosa
Pinus resinosa
Pinus sylvestris
Juniperus virginiana
Metasequoia glyptostroboides
Picea glauca densata
Picea pungens
Picea abies
Picea glauca
Taxus cuspidata
Canopy - means the horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its
trunk.
Deciduous Tree - a woody plant having a defined croWD, and which loses leaves
annually. Deciduous trees are considered to be significant at six caliper inches (6") or
more,. Species required to be surveyed are as follows:
Common Name:
1. Ash, Blue
2. Ash, Marshall Seedless
3. Ash, Summit
4. Ash, White
5. Beech, Blue
6. Birch, River
Scientific Name:
Fraxinus quadrangulata
Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegrerrima "Marshall Seedless"
Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegerrima "Summit"
Fraxinus americana
Carpinus caroliniana
Betula nigra
I :\handouts\treepres.doc
Page 2
7. Chokecherry, Amur
8. Chokecherry, Shubert's
9. Coffee-tree, Kentucky
10. Corktree, Amur
11. Crabapples (ornamental)
12. Dogwood, alternate-leafed
13. Ginko (male trees)
14. Hackberry
15. Hawthorns
16. Hickory, Bitternut
17. Honeylocust, Imperial
18. Honeylocust, Skyline
19. Ironwood
20. Lilac, Japanese tree
21. Linden, Greenspire
22. Linden, Littleleaf
23. Linden, Redmond
24. Maple, Amur
25. Maple, Black
26. Maple, Mountain
27. Maple, Norway & Cultivars
28. Maple, Red & Cultivars
29. Maple, Sugar
30. Maple, Tatarian
3 1. Mountain Ash, European
32. Mountain Ash, Showy
33. Mulberry, Red
34. Nannyberry
35. Oak, Bur
36. Oak, Chestnut
37. Oak, Northern Pin
38. Oak, Northern Red
39. Oak, Pin
40. Oak, Red
41. Oak, Scarlet
42. Oak, Swamp White
43. Oak, White
44. Plum, American
45. Plum, Canada
46. Redbud, Eastern
47. Serviceberry
48. Tulip-tree
Prunus maacki
Prunus virginiana "Shubert"
Gymnoc1adus dioicus
Phellodendron amurense
Malus spp.
Cornus alternifolia
Ginko biloba
Celtis occidentalis
Crataegus spp.
Carya cordiformis
Gleditsia triacanthos "Imperial"
Gleditsia triacanthus "Skyline"
Ostrya virginiana
Syringa amurensis japonica
Tilia cordata "Greenspire"
Tilia cordata
Tilia x euchlora "Redmond"
Acer ginnala
Acer nigra
Acer spicatum
Acer platanoides
Acer rubrum
Acer saccarum
Acer tatarica
Sorbus aucuparia
Sorbus decora
Morus rubra
Viburnum lentago
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus muhlenbergii
Quercus ellipsoidalis
Quercus rubra var. borealis
Quercus palustris
Quercus rubra
Quercus coccinea
Quercus bicolor
Quercus alba
Prunus americana
Prunus nigra
Cercis canadensis
Amelanchier spp.
Liriodendron tulipifera
Developer - any person or legal entity who undertakes to improve a parcel of land by
platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing any building thereon.
Drip Line - The farthest distance away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall
directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree.
Forester - a person holding at least a Bachelor's degree in forestry from an accredited
four-year college of forestry.
I :\handouts\treepres.doc
Page 3
'T""..'-.,.'''-..,-''..-----,...,,,..-----
Horticulturist - a person holding at least a Bachelor's degree in horticulture or field
related to the cultivation of plants and/or licensed as a horticulturist by the State of
Minnesota.
Land Alteration - means any private or public infrastructure and utility installation,
building construction, excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which
may result in:
1. The movement of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth,
2. Any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the
ground on any contiguous four hundred fifty (450) square feet of ground where
significant trees are present, or
3. Any cutting, removal or killing of more than twenty (20) percent of the
significant trees on any land within a period of five (5) years.
Landscape Architect - a person licensed by the State of Minnesota as a Landscape
Architect.
Land Surveyor - means a person licensed to practice land surveying under Minnesota
Statutes sections 326.02 to 326.15.
Root Zone - the area under a tree which is at or within the drip line of a tree's canopy.
Significant Tree - A deciduous tree measuring 6 caliper inches or more in width or a
coniferous tree measuring 12 feet or more in height.
(F) Tree Preservation Permit Process:
1. Tree Preservation Plan Approval Required: It is unlawful for any person to
engage in land alteration, plat and develop land, or build on previously platted,
vacant lots within the City of Prior Lake without first applying for and obtaining
tree preservation plan approval.
2. Allowable Tree Removal:
A. Initial Site Development: For initial site development, up to
twenty- five (250/0) of the total caliper inches of all significant trees will
be allowed to be removed without tree replacement or restitution for the
following activities:
1. Grading of the road right-of-way.
2. Utilities installation, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer,
water, natural gas, electric service, telephone service, cable
television, and other similar public or semi-public utilities.
3. Construction of public or private streets.
4. Construction and/or gr~ding of drainage ways.
In addition to the 250/0 of the total caliper inches of all significant trees
which may be removed without replacement or restitution for the above-
I :\handouts\treepres.doc
Page 4
listed activities, an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
caliper inches of all significant trees on individual lots within sites of
new development may be removed without replacement or restitution.
for the installation of utilities, driveways and building pads.
B. Previously Platted Vacant Lot Development: On individual lots, up to
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant
trees may be removed for the installation of utilities, driveway and the
building pad without tree replacement or restitution.
Significant trees in excess of the limitations of this chapter may be
removed, provided all trees removed in excess of said limitations shall
be replaced in accordance with the Tree Replacement Formula.
3. Tree Replacement Formula: Replacement of removed or disturbed trees in
excess of the percentage allowed by this Ordinance shall be according to the
following guidelines;
A.
B.
I :\handouts\treepres. doc
C.
For development which exceeds the percentage of allowable removal of
significant trees, all trees shall be replaced at the ratio of one-half caliper
inch (1/2") per one caliper inch (1") removed.
Whenever possible, required replacement trees shall be planted on the
site being developed. If a development site cannot accommodate all the
required replacement planting, or planting on the site being developed is
not possible or undesirable, replacement trees may also be planted on
publicly owned or leased sites, such as parks, public lake accesses,
boulevards. Planting on such sites shall be done at the discretion of the
City. In the event that planting of replacement trees on the site being
developed or publicly-owned or controlled sites is either not possible or
desirable, Developers shall be required to pay cash in lieu of
replacement trees at a ratio ($100.00) per caliper inch of excess tree
removal. Cash received in lieu of replacement trees shall be placed in
the Capital Improvement Fund of the City's Parks Department, and shall
be dedicated to maintenance of the City's nursery stock and planting of
trees on public property.
Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
Deciduous - 2 1/2" caliper
Coniferous - 6' in height
Replacement trees shall be from balled and burlapped, certified nursery
stock as defined and controlled by Minnesota Statutes Section 18.44
through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
Replacement trees shall be covered by a minimum I-year guarantee.
Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to other trees found on
the site where removal has taken place, or shall be selected from the list
of significant coniferous and deciduous trees found in the definitions of
coniferous and deciduous trees at Section 6.16(E) of this Ordinance.
Selection of replacement tree types for use on public sites shall be at the
sole discretion of the City.
D.
E.
F.
Page 5
--. -.--I-.~--.~-----_._-._"._---_._.__._--
4. Application: Application for tree preservation plan approval shall be made in
writing to the Zoning Officer. Information to be included in the application.
includes at least the following:
1. The name and address of the person or persons applying for the permit;
2. The name(s) and addressees) of the owner or owners of the land which is
the subject of development;
3. The estimated time period during which any land alteration will occur;
4. A certificate of survey of the land on which the proposed land alteration
is to occur showing the following;
a) The location, size and elevation of building pads;
b) The location of the existing significant trees to be saved and the
location of protective tree fencing at the root zone of such trees;
c) The location of replacement trees;
(1) . Drainage patterns.
5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the type of
building(s) or structure(s) situated thereon or contemplated to be built
thereon.
6. A tree inventory, certified by a Minnesota registered land surveyor, civil
engineer, landscape architect, horticulturist or forester depicting:
a) The size, species, condition and location on the land of all
significant trees and designated specimen trees. Forest
measurement methods may be used to calculate total diameter
inches of trees when it has been determined (through the review
of the plat map and other documents) that areas within the
subject parcel of land, but outside of land to be altered/graded,
will not be encroached upon. Such areas will be required to
comply with all other requirements of this document including
protective fencing procedures.
7. A tree preservation plan which shall include:
a) A list of all significant trees which will be lost or adversely
affected within the drip line, as opposed to the root zone, due to
the proposed land alteration.
b) The number, type, size and location of trees required to be
replaced pursuant to this chapter.
c) A plan drawing showing the number, type, size and location of
replacement trees.
d) Identification of the construction area.
5. Certification of Compliance with Approved Landscape Plan
A.
No earlier than one (1) year after acceptance of the tree preservation
plan nor later than one (1) year after completion of the work
contemplated by the plan, the Developer shall certify to the City that the
plan has been complied with. This certification shall be made by a
Minnesota registered land surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect,
horticulturist or forester.
The City of Prior Lake may, at its option, hire a consultant to inspect,
verify and advise the City on matters involving this Ordinance. Any and
B.
1 :\handouts\treepres. doc
Page 6
all costs incurred by the City in hiring a consultant shall be reimbursed
by the Developer.
5. Warranty Requirement
A. Sites of New Development. The Developer shall provide a financial guarantee,
in a form satisfactory to the City, prior to the approval or issuance of any permit
for land alteration.
1. The amount of the guarantee shall be 125% of the estimated cost to
furnish and plant replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be provided
by the Developer subject to approval by the City. The estimated cost
shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries
for the furnishing and planting of replacement trees. The City reserves
the right in its sole discretion to determine the estimated cost in the
event the Developer's estimated cost is not approved.
2. The security shall be maintained for at least one (1) year after the date
that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the
Developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion
of the security may be released by the City equal to 125% of the
estimated cost of the replacement trees which are alive and healthy at the
end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released
at the end of the year shall be maintained and shall secure the
Developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which
are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year and to replant
missing trees. Upon completion of the replanting of such trees the entire
security may be released.
B. Previously Platted. Vacant Lots. For construction on previously platted,
vacant lots, the developer shall provide a cash escrow in the amount five
hundred dollars ($500.00) to guarantee compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance. Said security shall be released upon certification of compliance by
the developer to the satisfaction of the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
portion of the security shall be released while there are unsatisfied Developer's
obligations to indemnify the City for any expenses in enforcing the terms of this
agreement.
C. The City may retain from the security required in (A) and (B) above as
reimbursement an amount expended by the City to enforce the provisions of this
section.
(G) This Ordinance does not apply to dead and diseased trees. The City's diseased tree
program is found in Title 8 of the City Code.
I :\handouts\treepres.doc
Page 7
- .......J.,
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
'. '-
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
8E
R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO PLANNING
REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF A
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
OCTOBER 2,1995
STAFF
TREE
During the Spring of 1993, in connection with the plat of Forest Oaks,
Planning Staff was directed to research tree preservation ordinances
and prepare a draft for possible adoption. Throughout 1993 and 1994,
previous members of the planning staff researched tree preservation
ordinances and prepared a draft based on that research.
Continued subdivision and development activities have spotlighted the
need to move forward in the City's efforts to preserve one of its most
valuable natural resources and amenities. This report is intended to
give the City Council an overview of the possible approaches to a tree
preservation ordinance and program, highlight critical issues or
problems which should be addressed in designing an ordinance and
program for the City of Prior Lake, and an overview of the ordinance
draft which had previously been prepared. Much of the background
material is culled from, or based on information from the American
Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service Publications.
The Value of Trees and Woodlands
One of the first and most vital steps to be taken in designing a
community's tree preservation efforts is to identify the community's
reason or reasons for wanting to preserve its trees and woodlands.
The following is a brief listing of the benefits associated with trees and
woodlands;
* Provide visual scale and continuity to the physical environment of the
community;
* Provide visual screening between individual properties, disparate
uses or relatively undesirable physical elements;
* Moderate climatological factors such as heat and wind (this in turn
can result in significant energy conservation);
* Play an important role in preventing or reducing soil erosion, water
and air pollution;
* Provide noise buffers.
* Increase property values because of the factors identified above.
The City's most readily identifiable feature and resource is, of course,
Prior Lake. It's shores have long been, and continue to be, attractive
16200 E'!g1I~ffi>ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
TREEPRES.DOC
locations for quality residential development. In addition to Prior Lake,
the City is dotted with several smaller lakes and numerous wetlanq
areas. These lakes and wetlands, along with the woodland areas
associated with them, are important resources in preserving the City's
environmental quality. At the same time, they are amenities which
make areas of the City potentially very attractive for high quality
development. In other words they provide a sense of space and
place, visual continuity, visual screening and noise buffering which is
highly prized in the market place.
For the reasons stated. above, a tree preservation ordinance and
program for the City of Prior Lake should focus on the preservation of
environmental values represented by the City's trees and woodlands.
At the same time, such an ordinance and program should encourage
developers to incorporate the natural landscape into their plans. This
should have the dual impact of the creation of higher value
developments which in turn add to the City's visual and aesthetic
continuity.
Approaches to Tree Preservation
Tree preservation ordinances generally take one of three approaches;
1. Tree preservation ordinances,
2. Timber harvesting ordinances, and
3. Woodland protection ordinances.
Tree preservation ordinances are generally concerned with preserving
as many street and yard trees as possible. Such ordinances set
standards for tree preservation and replacement, and may require
permits for the cutting of mature trees. Many communities, both
nationally and in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, have taken this
approach.
Timber harvesting ordinances are intended to regulate the impacts of
commercial forestry, especially in urbanizing areas. This approach is
not germane to the issues facing the City of Prior Lake.
Woodland protection ordinances seek to protect the ecology of
sensitive woodland areas. Staff is unaware of any communities which
have adopted a woodland protection ordinance. Note should be taken,
however, of the recent passage in the City of Maple Grove of a
referendum to finance the acquisition of about 100 acres of prime,
wooded developable acreage for preservation.
Metropolitan Area Ordinances
Planning Staff previously surveyed and obtained copies of ordinances
from the following eight Metropolitan Area communities;
v1h?i~
V~
~
Apple Valley
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Inver Grove Heights
2
Lakeville
Lino Lakes
Maple Grove
Plymouth
All of the ordinances provided by these communities are of the "tree
preservation" type. They vary in their definition of "significant trees",
the areas of the city to which they apply, the percentages of trees
which may be lost or must be preserved, and the mechanism by which
they are enforced. I have not included copies of these ordinances with
this report in the interest of space. Copies of these ordinances are
available in the planning office for Council review.
ISSUES:
Following are some of issues the city council should address in order
for the staff to complete final preparation of the ordinance.
1. Definition of Significant Trees
The Ordinances surveyed varied in their definitions from 6" - 12" in
diameter for deciduous trees, and 8' to 12' feet in height for coniferous
trees. The most common dimension for deciduous and coniferous
trees was 8" in diameter and 12' in height respectively. Are these
appropriate for Prior Lake?
2. Application of Tree Replacement requirements
Many of the ordinances surveyed apply such requirements to the entire
city based upon the definitions of "land alteration" contained in the
Ordinance. In short, they apply to both new and existing development.
Alternatives which the City Council could consider for application of a
tree preservation ordinance include;
1. Application to new development and existing land alteration
in the entire City.
2. Application to new development only.
3. Establishment of overlay preservation zones (e.g. In and
around the City's lakes and major wetlands.
A second issue related to application is the species and size of trees
permitted as replacement for lost trees. The City's current list is not
very extensive, and the City Council may wish to have staff review it.
3. Replacement Tree Species and Size:
Most ordinances reviewed provide for a minimum tree replacement
size of about 3" for deciduous trees and 6'-7' for coniferous trees.
Typical, allowable species included are identified in the attached draft
ordinance provided for the City Council's information. The Council
should advise staff as to whether or not these size requirements are
acceptable, and whether additional tree species should be considered.
4. Enforcement
TREEPRES.DOC
3
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
TREEPRES.DOC
The basic options available are 1) to make the Ordinance self-
enforcing or 2} to provide for city inspection and enforcement. Among
the communities surveyed, most provided some city enforcement. In
many cases those responsibilities were combined with other
responsibilities such as parks and recreation or maintenance. Other
approaches involved hiring consultants to review plans, and in at least
one case, the city no longer followed its ordinance.
Were the City to adopt ~ self-enforcing approach it would require that
site plans be prepared by qualified professionals either retained by the
City or hired by the developers. Builders and developers would certify
to the City that they had complied with approved site plans once
construction is complete. This approach involves the least cost to the
City in terms of staff time. Is this the most appropriate initial approach
for the City to take?
Previous Draft Ordinance
In 1994, a draft ordinance was prepared by previous Planning Staff. A
copy of this draft ordinance is attached to this report in order to give the
Council additional background information. This draft ordinance is not
presented as a draft for the Council to consider for adoption. The draft
ordinance would have applied to 1} all new development sites, 2} all
new construction sites, and 3} all sites where a City issued grading
permit would be required. Significant species were identified, and 8"
and 12' were established as the measures for significant deciduous
and coniferous trees, respectively. Replacement sizes specified were
2.5" in width and 6' in height or 1.5" in width or 4', depending on which
of 2 categories fell into.
The draft ordinance provided for City inspection, to be carried out either
by staff or a consultant hired by the City. Any costs incurred by hiring a
consultant were to have been defrayed by developers. The draft
ordinance also required filing of security at the rate of 150% of the
estimated cost of furnishing and planting replacement trees.
A motion setting forth the direction which the City Council wishes to
take relative to the issues identified above, or any other issues, and
directing Staff to prepare a draft ordinance consistent with those
wishes.
4
i
-==7
(~ 'Tv~ f,~s, r:/-('
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998
5:30 P.M.
MUUNTENANCECENTER
I. ZONING ORDINANCE SET ASIDE ISSUES:
. Riparian Lots
. Setback from Ordinary High Water Mark
. Recreational Equipment Storage
. Irrigation of Landscaping
. Marinas
. Downtown Business District
. Bluffs
. Tree Inventory
. Garage Sales
. Rl Designation for Non-Serviced Parcels
. Recreational Vehicles
. CamivalslFestivals - Make them Site Specific
. Outdoor On-Sale Liquor Service
. Hours of Operation Gas Stations
. Amortization of Unpaved Parking Lots/Landscaping Parking Lots
. Landscape Islands
. Garage Setback for Lake Lots Accessory Structures in FY
. HV AC Units Encroaching Side Yard Setback 1101.34
. Accessory Structures Garage Size/Ratio
. Accessory Structures as Part of Principal Structure
. C-3 Uses
. Underground Utilities for Building Expansions
. Parking Lot Landscaping
. Buffer yard
II. TAX BASE ISSUES
I:\COUNCIL\ WORKS\ZONE623.DOC
,-~
-/
at the property line or at the edge of the dock structure furthest from the
shore.
(d) Boat tours are permitted between the hours of 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
(e) One parking space for each four boat slips must be provided. If.tour
boats are based at the marina, an additional] parking space for each 4
seats on the boat is required.
(f) Retail sales are limited to motors, parts, bait, equipment, gas and oil, and
accessories. On-site preparation and sale of food and beverages is .
allowed, subject to the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
including, but not limited to, parking, lighting, signage hours of
operation.
(g) Rental of boats and boat and motor repair may be permitted as an
accessory use to the marina.
6) Downtown Business District (1102/P56)
. The issue is how this district, as written, fits into the proposed downtown
redevelopment plan currently under discussion by the Downtown
Redevelopment Task Force. Attachment 1lists the Task Force
recommendations for uses which should be permitted, permitted with conditions,
and permitted with conditional use permits, in the C-3 District.
. SUGGESTION: Incorporate the attached list of uses into the C-3 District.
7) Bluffs (1104/P6)
. The Council was mainly concerned that the recent changes to the bluff ordinance
had not been incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance. Attachment 2 is
ordinance #98-12, adopted by the City Council in June 15, 1998.
. SUGGESTION: Incorporate the provisions of Ordinance #98-12 into new
zoning ordinance.
8) Tree Inventory (1107/P44)
. The issue here pertains to lots platted prior to the effective date of the tree
preservation requirements. The question has been raised as to whether or not all
trees on these lots must be inventoried, or only those trees within the disturbed
area.
. A second issue concerns the redevelopment of existing lots. For example, a lot
with an existing cabin may be redeveloped with a larger new home. The tree
preservation requirements do not apply to these lots. In many cases, some trees
may be removed for the larger structures.
. The tree inventory provides us with a record of what exists on the lot, prior to
any land disturbing activity. If the lot is cleared for any reason, we will have
some way to know what should and should not be replaced. In additio~,
inventorying all trees on the lot may eliminate the need for tree replacement.
1: \newzone\misc\issues.doc
3
"._._._..._._~--_._._._._......,_._--_._--_.._.-
. Redevelopment of existing lots is more difficult. While the loss of the trees is
an issue, there are not nearly as many trees on these lots as there are on
undeveloped lots. Furthermore, the trees may be removed before the existing
structure.
. SUGGESTION: Leave the language in the ordinance as written. The issue of
redevelopment should continue to be monitored.
9) Garage SaleslY ard Sales
. Garage sales are not presently regulated under the zoning ordinance. The
concern is that without regulation, a property owner could potentially run a
garage sale every weekend.
. In order to eliminate this concern, we can define garage or yard sales, and limit
the number of sales in a year. We can also include these sales as an accessory
use in the residential districts. Garage or yard sale signs are already regulated
under Section 1107.700.
. SUGGESTION: Include the following definition of Yard Sales in Section
1101.400 (Definitions):
Yard Sale: Sometimes called garage sales, a sale of assorted secondhand
objects, conducted by the property owner or occupant, on the premises for a
short period of time, usually 2 or 3 days. Yard sales are not the primary use of
the property, or the primary occupation of the property owner or occupant.
. Add the following to the list of accessory uses in the "R" Use Districts:
Yard Sales, provided they do not exceed 4 days in duration, and there are no
more than 3 sales per year conducted on the premises. Sign age for this use is
regulated by subsection 1107.400.
10) R-l Designation for parcels without municipal sewer and water
. The issue here is how to zone parcels such as Titus Addition which do not have
access to public sewer and water service at this time.
. Titus Addition is one of the only areas in the City which is zoned R-l, but does
not have access to public sewer and water service. The lots in question are 2+
acres in size, and many residents have animals, such as horses.
. One approach is to maintain the R -1 zoning designation, but include a minimum
lot size for parcels without sewer and water services.
. Another approach is to zone the parcels Agricultural until services are available.
In this case, the lots become nonconforming due to size. There are also some
agricultural uses which may not be appropriate for this area.
. A third approach is to create a zoning district specifically for large lot parcels
without public sewer and water service. The district would include larger lot
sizes to accommodate private wells and septic systems, and would also _
potentially accommodate horses. This approach would require an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to designate rural subdivisions.
I: \newzone\misc\issues .doc
4