Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Tree Preservation Task Force Report MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: Maintenance Center 17073 Adelmann Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 7B JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TREE PRESERVATION TASK FORCE Introduction The purpose of this report is to present the results of the work of the Tree Preservation Task Force. This report recommends the Council initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the tree preservation requirements. Histor\! On January 18, 2006, the City Council approved the formation of a Tree Preservation Task Force. The purpose of this task force is to look at the tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend modifications to the ordinance that will better preserve the urban forest. The Task Force consisted of the following participants: . Councilmember Cheri Dornbusch . Planning Commissioner Vaughn Lemke . Jane Kansier, Planning Director . AI Friedges, Parks & Fleet Supervisor . Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director . Dustin Kern, Arcon Development (Developers' Representative) . Jim Stanton, Shamrock Development (Developers' Representative) . Kyle Schroeder, Citizen Representative . Margi Atwood, Citizen Representative The mission of the task force was to review the existing ordinance, compare it with ordinances in other communities, identify shortcomings and recommend ordinance amendments. The next step is to submit these recommendations to the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council. If the Council deems such action appropriate, it will initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and direct the Planning Commission to conduct the necessary public hearings. The tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were originally adopted by the City Council in January, 1996, in an effort to preserve our urban forest but to also recognize some tree removal is inevitable. Since then, there have been some minor revisions to the ordinance. On at least 2 occasions since 1996, the Planning Commission also asked staff to review these requirements, especially as they compared to other cities' requirements; no changes were made in these cases. As with any City Ordinance, the purpose of the tree preservation requirements is to enhance the ~~,@_fflM.~are of the general population of the , jj EN D:;\?(H,jl?hpn~.;~$2i44<h~6i1~j!/:;'~ ;~~rflMke618)c City. At the same time, the ordinance must consider the property rights of property owners, including the right to develop land. Finally, we must review each ordinance in terms of the viability, effectiveness and cost of administering the requirements. With this in mind, the Task Force should include representatives of each of these groups. Current Circumstances The Tree Preservation Task Force met several times between February and August, 2006. As a result of these discussions, the committee expressed a desire to build flexibility into the ordinance, but at the same time focus on preservation, especially of "heritage" trees, which are specifically defined in the proposed ordinance. The Task Force members agreed on the attached draft ordinance. This ordinance proposes a sequencing approach to development, similar to the approach used in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The idea is to design a development that 1) avoids direct or indirect impact to the trees, or 2) minimizes the impact, or 3) replaces unavoidable impacts. This approach is intended to balance the environmental concerns with property rights issues. A better design is usually the result of looking at all possible alternatives. Rather than utilizing the formal approval process in the WCA, the draft ordinance proposes an administrative approach where the applicant meets with City staff to discuss alternatives. The ordinance suggests guidelines to follow for developing the various alternatives. The applicant is still required to justify the design in terms of its tree impact. Using the sequencing approach does require submittal of a more detailed tree inventory. The ordinance also requires a certified forester prepare all tree plans. Once the best alternative is determined, the ordinance establishes criteria for replacement. Trees removed for the placement of streets, utilities and stormwater ponds do not require replacement. Outside of these exempted areas, up to 30-35% of the significant caliper inches may be removed without replacement. The replacement ratio remains at ~ caliper inch per inch removed. The proposed ordinance defines a "heritage" tree as "any tree which has been determined to be of high value because of its type, size, age or other professional criteria. II To qualify as a heritage tree, the tree must be one of the species listed in the ordinance, and must meet the minimum size criteria for a heritage tree. The tree must also be in "fair or better condition. II The conditions needed to meet these criteria are also included in the ordinance. As an incentive to preserve heritage trees, the ordinance also provides an additional replacement credit for heritage trees that are preserved. Where heritage trees have been removed, the ordinance also requires replacement trees to consist of the same species as the removed heritage tree, or a tree that has the same potential value as the removed heritage tree. This value shall be certified by a certified forester. The ordinance also provides an incentive for saving trees which may not be on the significant list, as long as the trees meet certain criteria, similar to the criteria used to identify a heritage tree. Subject to City approval, the developer ISSUES: FINANCIAL IMPACT: AL TERNATIVES: may be allowed to include these trees in the tree inventory. This can result in a reduction in the amount of required replacement trees. The draft ordinance reduces the minimum size of a replacement tree from 2 ~ caliper inches to 1 ~ caliper inches. The reasoning behind this reduction is that the smaller trees are more adaptable and will be more likely to grow at a faster rate. At the end of 3 years, a 1 ~ caliper inch tree will generally be the same size as a tree which started at 2 ~ caliper inches. Another new provision in the draft allows required front yard trees to count towards replacement; however, these trees must still be at least 2 ~ caliper inches in size. Finally, the ordinance proposes a mechanism intended to provide flexibility in areas identified high and moderate quality natural environments. These are specific areas identified by the Natural Resources Inventory recently completed by the City. The intent of this section is to offer a process that will provide maximum design flexibility, without the need for a full-fledged Planned Unit Development. This process allows the developer to modify street right-of- way and surface widths, lot areas and lot widths, and structure setbacks. Its scope is more limited than a standard Planned Unit Development in that it does not allow increased density or unit types not otherwise permitted. For example, if a property is zoned for 30 single family residential lots, this process would allow 30 single family lots, but with smaller lot areas, and narrower streets. The idea is to preserve the natural environmental features. The developer would still have the option of pursuing a full PUD to allow other design flexibility. The Task Force members reached a consensus on the majority of the draft ordinance. However, the one question that the members could not reach consensus on is this: . What percentage of caliper inches may be removed, without replacement, for building pads (page 5)? The Task Force members agreed that this question should be discussed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff presented this same report to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2006. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is attached to this report. The Commissioners were very positive about the proposed approach of this ordinance. While the Commissioners expressed a preference for the 30% removal, they took no formal action. The initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has modest financial impact on the City. The City will incur personnel related costs together with costs for preparation and publication of ordinance amendments. Such costs are consistent with the intended purpose and could be outweighed by foregone legal fees and other considerations. The Council has the following alternatives: 1. Adopt the report and initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Tree Preservation requirements. 2. Take no action. RECOMMENDED UAS determintbY the City Council. MOTION: / . t~ Reviewed by: ./ Frank BOV~ ,,,,,nager CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 1107.2100: TREE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 1107.2101 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 subsection has the following specific purposes: ~ Recognize and protect the natural environment consistent with the city's mission statement and goals of the comprehensive plan through preservation and protection of significant trees. ~ Promote protection of trees for the benefits provided, including beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, enhancement of property values, noise reduction, air quality, energy reduction, buffering, privacy and natural habitats. ~ Establish requirements related to cutting, removal or destruction of existing trees, especially significant trees. ~ Establish reasonable requirements for replacement of significant trees. ~ To allow the development of wooded areas in a manner that minimizes and mitigates the removal and destruction of trees, preserves aesthetics, property values, and the nature and character of the surrounding area ~ To provide for the fair and effective enforcement of the regulations contained herein. 1107.2102 Application. This Ordinance applies to the following sites in the City of Prior Lake: ~ All new public or private development on either platted or unplatted property. ~ New construction on vacant building sites on lots platted before January, 1996. ~ Redevelopment of sites platted prior to January, 1996, where existing structures are removed or destroyed. 1107.2103 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. A. Prior to submittal of a preliminary plat application where there is impact to trees, the applicant may meet with City staff to discuss alternative designs for the development of a site. This meeting may also 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 1 be part of a Concept Plan review, permitted under Section 1002.100 of the City Code. B. Alternatives analysis: The following guidelines shall be considered when developing or reviewing proposed development alternatives: 1. It is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; 2. It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; 3. It is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare; 4. It is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and 5. It would create no truly unusual problems. Any plans reviewed by the City as part of this alternative analysis shall be kept on file at the City. C. Determination of impact minimization. The applicant shall provide justification that the preferred alternative will minimize impacts to trees. The following guidelines shall be used: 1. The location of existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration of the project; 2. The sensitivity of the site design to the natural features of the site, including topography, hydrology, existing vegetation, preservation of natural vistas, and impacts on adjacent property. In cases of infill development, consideration shall be placed on sensitivity to adjacent properties; 3. The value, function, and spatial distribution of the trees on the site; D. Unavoidable impacts. Unavoidable impacts that remain after efforts to minimize, rectify, or reduce require replacement according to Section 1107.2106 (3). 1107.2104 Entry on Private Property and Interference with Inspection. The City's Zoning Administrator 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 person shall unreasonably hinder, prevent, delay or interfere with the City's Zoning Administrator or his/her agents while they are engaged in the enforcement of this Section. 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 2 1107.2105 Acceptable Species. (1) Coniferous Tree. Coniferous trees are considered to be "significant" for purposes of this Ordinance at a height of 12 feet or more. Species of coniferous trees required to be surveyed for tree preservation plan approval are as follows: Arborvitae (White Cedar). Fir, Douglas Fir, White Hemlock, Canada (Eastern) Junipers Larch, Eastern (Tamarack) Larch, European Pine, Austrian Pine, Eastern White Pine, Mugo Pine, Ponderosa Pine, Red (Norway) Pine, scotch Red Cedar, Eastern Redwood, Dawn Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, Colorado Blue Spruce, Norway Spruce, White Spruce, Japanese (2) Deciduous Tree. Deciduous trees are considered to be significant at 6 caliper inches or more. Species required to be surveyed are as follows: Ash, Green Ash, White Basswood Beech, Blue Birch, River Canada Red Cherry, Shubert Catalpa, Northern Chokecherry, Amur Chokecherry, Shubert's Coffee-tree, Kentucky Corktree, Amur Crabapple (ornamental) Dogwood, alternate-leafed Elm, Accolade Ginkgo (Male trees) 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 3 Hackberry Hawthorns Hickory, Bitternut Honeylocust, Imperial Honeylocust, Skyline Ironwood Kentucky Coffeetree Lilac, Japanese tree Linden, all varieties Maple, all varieties Mountain Ash, European and Showy Mulberry, Red Nannyberry Oak, Burr Oak, Chestnut Oak, Northern Pin Oak, Northern Red Oak, Pin Oak, Red Oak, Scarlet Oak, Swamp White Oak, White Plum, American and Canada Redbud, Eastern Serviceberry . Walnut, Black (3) Heritage Tree. Any tree on the above list, or on the list included in the City's Public Works Design Manual, in fair or better condition which equals or exceeds the following diameter size: Tree Type Large Hardwoods Larr::le Coniferous Tree Diameter Size 27" d.b.h. 24" d.b.h. Examples Oaks Pine A tree in fair or better condition must meet the following criteria: a. A life expectancy of greater than 10 years. b. A relatively sound and solid trunk with no extensive decay or hollow. c. No major insect or pathological problem. d. A lesser size tree can be considered a heritage tree if a certified forester determines it is a rare or unusual species or of exceptional quality. e. A lesser size tree can be considered a heritage tree if it is specifically used by a developer as a focal point in the project. (4) Trees not included in the above species list may be included for credit as part of the Tree Inventory subject to City approval and the following criteria: 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 4 a. A life expectancy of greater than 10 years. b. A relatively sound and solid trunk with no extensive decay or hollow. c. No major insect or pathological problem. d. A certified forester determines it is a rare or unusual species or of exceptional quality. e. It is specifically used by a developer as a focal point in the project. 1107.2106 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 approval of a tree preservation plan. All Tree Preservation Plans must be prepared by a certified forester. (2) Application. Application for approval of a tree preservation plan shall be made in writing to the Zoning Administrator. This application m ay be made separately or may be included as part of a development application. Information to be included in the application includes at least the following: a. A Tree Preservation Plan exhibiting a stamp/certification and signature of the certified forester. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared at the same scale as the proposed development plan and shall show the following: ~ Survey location of all significant trees; ~ A significant tree summary sheet identifying the species of all significant trees located on the map; ~ Identification of critical root zones extending from trees located on adjacent tracts, including the location and species of the trees; ~ A table of area sizes for the following: ~ Existing site area, floodplain area, and forest area. ~ Proposed areas of tree retention. ~ Proposed areas of tree removal. ~ Proposed areas of reforestation and afforestation. ~ A graphic delineation of the following areas: ~ Proposed significant tree retention areas. ~ Proposed afforestation and reforestation areas. ~ Proposed limits of disturbance. ~ Steep slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or more; ~ Wetlands, including any required buffers; ~ Topographic contours and intervals; ~ Such other information that the City determines is necessary to implement this chapter. b. A simplified Tree Preservation Plan may be submitted where trees do not currently exist on the site or where existing trees will not be cut, cleared, or graded for the proposed development, and where adequate tree protection devices and long-term agreements are established for the 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 5 protection of existing significant trees. This simplified plan may be included on the "Existing Conditions Survey" required as part of the preliminary plat. (3) Allowable Tree Removal. a. Following the concept plan review and alternative analysis, listed in Section 1107.2103, significant trees may be destroyed without any required replacement within the width of required easements for public streets, utilities and storm water ponding areas. b. In areas outside of the exempted areas listed in subsection a, up to 130%) 35% of the total caliper inches of all significant trees may be removed without replacement or restitution. c. Vacant Lot Development on Lots Platted Prior to January, 1996. On individual lots, up to .(30%) 35% of the total caliper inches of all significant trees may be removed for the installation of utilities, driveways and the building pad without tree replacement or restitution. d. Redevelopment of Lots Platted Prior to January, 1996, and Developed Lots. On previously platted and developed lots, where the structures have been removed or destroyed to more than 50% of the current market value, up to (30%) 35% of the total caliper inches of all significant trees may be removed for the installation of utilities, driveways and building pads without tree replacement or resolution. e. Significant trees in excess of the limitations of this Section 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 subsection shall be according to the following guidelines: a. For development which exceeds the percentage of allowable removal of significant trees, all trees shall be replaced at the ratio of 1/2 caliper inch per 1 caliper inch removed. b. For each heritage tree saved, the developer may receive credit towards the required replacement trees. This credit will be at a rate of 2 caliper inches for each 1 caliper inch saved. To receive this credit, the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary measures have been taken to preserve the heritage trees that otherwise would not be saved. c. Required replacement trees shall be planted on the site being developed. The applicant may also request approval to plan replacement trees on boulevards. Planting on such sites shall be done at the discretion of the City. d. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 6 ~ Deciduous - 1 1/2" caliper ~ Coniferous - 6 feet in height e. Replacement trees shall be from balled and burlapped, certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by Minnesota Statutes ~18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act, as may be amended from time to time. Replacement trees may also be from bare root stock, provided the trees are planted no later than May 15th, and the planting is inspected by the City. f. Replacement trees shall be covered by a minimum 1-year guarantee. g. 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 Public Works Design Manual. Selection of replacement tree types for use on public sites shall be at the sole discretion of the City. h. Where heritage trees have been removed, replacement trees shall consist of the same species as the removed heritage tree, or a tree that has the same potential value as the removed heritage tree. This value shall be certified by a certified forester. For the purposes of this paragraph, value is defined as.... i. New subdivision trees, as required by Section 1005.1000, may be counted towards required replacement. New subdivision trees must meet the size requirements listed in Section 1005.1001. (5) Certification of Compliance with Approved Landscape Plan. Upon completion of the required landscaping, the Developer shall notify the City and request an inspection of the work. Following the inspection, the City shall notify the Developer that all work has been satisfactorily completed, or what work is still required. The required warranty period outlined in Section (6) below, shall begin on the date of the letter satisfactory completion issued by the City. The City of Prior Lake may, at its option, hire a consultant to verify and advise the City on matters involving this Ordinance. Any and all costs incurred by the City in hiring a consultant shall be reimbursed by the Developer, if not included within a Development Contract. (6) 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. ~ The amount of the guarantee shall be 125% of the estimated cost to furnish and plant replacement trees. The estimated cost shall 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation. doc 7 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. ~ The security shall be maintained for at least 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 vacant lots platted prior to January, 1996, the developer shall provide a cash escrow in the amount of $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. Redevelopment of Lots Platted Prior to January, 1996, and Developed Lots. For construction on previously platted and developed lots, the developer shall provide a cash escrow in the amount of $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. d. The City may retain from the security required in (a), (b) and (c) above as reimbursement an amount expended by the City to enforce the provisions of this section. 1107.2107 This Ordinance does not apply to dead and diseased trees. The City's diseased tree program is found in City Code Section 602. DEFINITION OF HERITAGE TREES: Any tree which has been determined to be of high value because of its type, size, age or other professional criteria. The specific criteria for heritage trees are listed in Section 1107.2105 (3) Ordinance. 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 8 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH HIGH AND MODERATE QULAlTY NATURAL COMMUNITIES As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Prior Lake has adopted a report titled "Natural Resources Inventory and Land Cover Mapping" (prepared by Bonestroo Natural Resources, April, 2005). The report classifies and maps the land cover of natural and semi-natural areas within the City based on the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), Version 5.4. For areas identified in the "Natural Resources Inventory and Land Cover Mapping Report" as High and Moderate Quality Natural Communities, a developer may request approval of flexible development as part of the preliminary plat application. The purpose of flexible development is to preserve and protect the specified High and Moderate Quality Natural Communities. Under this process, a developer may request modifications to the following Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements: 1. Right-of-way and street surface widths 2. Minimum lot areas 3. Minimum lot widths 4. Structure setbacks In return for the modifications, the developer must prove that the specified High and Moderate Quality Natural Communities will be undisturbed by the development. As part of this approval, the City Council may also require enhancement of the existing Natural Community. The flexible development process may not be used to increase permitted density or to allow uses or dwelling types that would otherwise not be permitted in the district. 1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\draft4 tree preservation.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 14, 2006 Open Discussion with comments: Billingt . A e with Stamson but it is a concept plan and the applicant has a with Work with staff and you will come to a good solution. continu . Sullivan ted the concept sketch does not show the berming d landscaping. . What time e are they looking at? Sullivan said hopefull~ ext spring. Lemke: . Agreed with eve hing Stamson said especially the m erate home. Just does not feel the PUD ocess is the way to go. . Kansier said it wou be helpful to outline the bene ts for a PUD. The City looks at what it would get 0 er and above standard dev opment. Kansier then explained the PUD ben ItS. Moore pointed out the applicant's t proposals - foot street widths, private streets, smaller lot areas - 7,000 square feet. Sullivan felt they could improve . dor with some upgrades. Kansier said it is up to the developer to e cr tive with the development. The benefits do not have to be on site. The Commissioners would like to see re 0 en space and/or additional trees and landscaping. Ringstad: . Looking for subst al benefits. The tot lot in tH middle is not going to carry a lot of weight. . If the applicant t to take that back with you. . The key wo I am looking for is "substantial". A little s is not goi to do it. . In his 0 words the applicant says he needs this many lots to ake it work. The falls ay short of a PUD. . Fo face value the applicant is speaking of financial benefits, whic e PUD process. T . item will go to the City Council on September 5, 2006. ~ D. 06-105 Tree Preservation Task Force presentation. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated August 14,2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 14, 2006 On January 18, 2006, the City Council approved the formation of a Tree Preservation Task Force. The purpose ofthis task force is to look at the tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to recommend modifications to the ordinance that will better preserve the urban forest. The mission of the task force was to review the existing ordinance, compare it with ordinances in other communities, identify shortcomings and recommend ordinance amendments. The next step is to submit these recommendations to the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council. If the Council deems such action appropriate, it will initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and direct the Planning Commission to conduct the necessary public hearings. The tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were originally adopted by the City Council in January, 1996, in an effort to preserve our urban forest but to also recognize some tree removal is inevitable. Since then, there have been some minor revisions to the ordinance. On at least 2 occasions since 1996, the Planning Commission also asked staffto review these requirements, especially as they compared to other cities' requirements; no changes were made in these cases. The ordinance proposes a mechanism intended to provide flexibility in areas identified high and moderate quality natural environments. These are specific areas identified by the Natural Resources Inventory recently completed by the City. The intent of this section is to offer a process that will provide maximum design flexibility, without the need for a full-fledged Planned Unit Development. This process allows the developer to modify street right-of-way and surface widths, lot areas and lot widths, and structure setbacks. Its scope is more limited than a standard Planned Unit Development in that it does not allow increased density or unit types not otherwise permitted. For example, if a property is zoned for 30 single family residential lots, this process would allow 30 single family lots, but with smaller lot areas, and narrower streets. The idea is to preserve the natural environmental features. The developer would still have the option of pursuing a full PUD to allow other design flexibility. One of the questions the task force could not reach a consensus was the percentage of caliper inches that may be removed, without replacement for building pads. The task force agreed this question should be discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . Questioned staff s point of view in reviewing street widths and other issues, is that something the Planning Commission is going to look at? Kansier responded "Yes" . . Staff would be looking at the Public Works Design Manual, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, basically the ordinances overall. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 14, 2006 . Stamson said after reviewing a recent development that was not approved, it may appear some of our streets/cul-de-sac might be too wide for what we need. Kansier responded we probably do in some areas. There is a balancing act between public safety, public efficiency (snow plowing and street cleaning) and environmental protection. Staffhas talked internally about these issues and will be coming before you eventually. . Stamson pointed out how the Commissioners look at impervious surface and yet a cul-de-sac can take up a lot of asphalt. . Kansier said stormwater management and runoff are big issues. Stafftalked about "islands" in the cul-de-sacs. Perhaps we should start allowing islands in cul-de-sacs. We're going to look at all those issues. . Kansier noted another issue to look at is the disease tree section of the ordinance. Dustin Kern, Arcon Development (representative from the developers' side) thanked Jane for her outstanding job in putting this together. Kern felt the task force was made up of a very good cross section of people and thanked all members involved. There was a lot of give and take. It was a good method of working things out. The solution on paper is something everyone can live with. There are benefits to all. Look forward to hearing comments. Billington: . Questioned where does he come down on the caliper percent removal? Kern said there are certain things that have to be done to develop but looking at other city ordinances helped make decisions. Kyle Schroeder said he wanted to echo Dustin's comments in support of Jane. From a personal standpoint he came into the meetings with a biased opinion because of Crystal Bay. After this process, he realized he did not understand the process or the history. He also came away from this process understanding the developer has a right to build. Schroeder would like to point out the focus should be on preservation rather than replacement. He also felt the policy provides some sensitivity to infill-type develv}-'wents. Kansier explained the Golden Pond development with the tree preservation procedures. 480 caliper inches were saved with this process as well as $80,000 in tree replacement fees. Lemke: . Praised Jane for her involvement. Lemke questioned the bare root stock deadline for May 15. Kansier said it had something to do with the tree stock itself. It trees were planted before May 15th there is a good time line for survival. Dustin said bare root trees would not be planted in the boulevards or areas in the public right of way. Staff would inspect. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc 11 '\, Planning Commission Meeting August 14, 2006 Kansier explained nurseries give a warranty. Another commitment for this is contracting for a certified forester to do the inspections. Lemke: . Felt there were compromises from all sides including the City. In terms of narrower streets and reduced radiuses in cul-de-sacs it will be harder to plow streets in the winter time but we'll get a better project out of it. Lemke said he was proud of what has been accomplished. Perez: . Questioned what the percentage would be with the public improvements and utilities. Kansier replied with a typical development about 25% to 30% ofthe land area is taken up with those type of things. Stamson: . Questioned the current tree replacement requirement. Kansier answered. Perez: . Felt there was enough incentive and flexibility in the ordinance for a developer. . It's a big leap forward for everyone involved. Comfortable with the 30%. Stamson: . Agreed - the people who worked on it should be commended. It is a very comprehensive ordinance. It will be great for the City. The improvement on Golden Pond made it worth while. . Agree with the 30%. . Maybe on vacant or redevelopment lots the percentage could be different. The building pads are already in place for teardowns. Could be 15%. . What about a heavy wooded lot. There wouldn't be enough room for replacement. . Overall, very impressed and a great plan for the city. Ringstad: . Thanks to Vaughn for representing the Commissioners on the Task Force, Jane and all citizen representatives involved. . It is a giant leap forward for the City. . Lean toward the 30%. Billington: . In looking at the work effort - thanks to everyone. . The results are super. . How do you satisfy all the interests on the caliper removal? It's a tough one. Given what has been discussed, I can endorse 30 inches. Will take this to City Council on September 5th. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 14,2006 Lemke said he is leaning on 35% to include a driveway. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: There are no items on e August 28th meetin, erefore the meeting will be canceled. Met Council has accepted Ian Amendment and the hearing will be on October 11 th meeting. A r that, staff will looking at the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is keeping a list of co ems. The process will t e 3 to 6 months of reviewing. 9. The mee' g adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN081406.doc 13