HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Tree Preservation Requirements
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 20, 2006
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TREE
PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to consider an amendment to the tree
preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance
also includes amendments to the definitions of the ordinance, and to the PUD
provisions of the ordinance. This report recommends the Council approve the
proposed amendments.
Historv
On January 18, 2006, the City Council approved the formation of a Tree
Preservation Task Force. Council member Dornbush served on this task force,
together with representatives from the staff, the development community and
residents. The purpose of this task force was 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.
On September 5,2006, the City Council considered a report on the outcome of
the Task Force's work. The Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider this
amendment.
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 health, safety and welfare of the general population of the
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, reasonableness, necessity,
effectiveness and cost of administering the requirements.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendments on October 10, 2006. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the amendments. A draft copy of the meeting minutes is attached
to this report.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
" ';;\\CiilHbione,gB~i44f1:9m;ViBVC:Fax ~44(f~6f7f8C)C
Current Circumstances
There are three parts to the proposed ordinance:
1. An amendment to Section 1107.2100, replacing the existing tree
preservation requirements.
2. An amendment to Section 1101.400 adding a definition of "Heritage
Trees".
3. An amendment to Section 1106 adding a new "Flexible
Development" process.
Section 1107.2100: The proposed ordinance is a departure from the existing
ordinance in that it 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.
The proposed ordinance proposes an administrative approach to the
alternative review. Under this approach, the applicant meets with City staff to
discuss various development alternatives. The ordinance suggests guidelines
to follow for developing these alternatives. The applicant is required to justify
the design in terms of its tree impact. Using the sequencing approach requires
submittal of a more detailed tree inventory, prepared by a certified forester.
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, 35% of the significant caliper inches may be removed without
replacement. The replacement ratio remains at Y:2 caliper inch per inch
removed.
The draft ordinance reduces the minimum size of a replacement tree from 2 Y:2
caliper inches to 1 Y:2 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 Y:2 caliper inch tree will generally be the
same size as a tree which started at 2 Y: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 Y:2 caliper inches in
size.
The draft ordinance also revises the list of significant trees. This list is
intended to clarify which trees are of the highest value and priority. As part of
this amendment, the staff is also developing a revolving list of trees, which will
be suitable for planting as replacement trees or required landscaping. This list
will be included as part of the Public Works Design Manual. By rotating the
lists, the staff hopes to encourage more variety in plantings. This will reduce
the danger of tree loss through disease in the future.
The proposed ordinance also establishes incentives for preserving trees which
might otherwise be removed. These include provisions focused on saving
"heritage" trees, which are trees determined to be of high value because of
type, size, age or other professional criteria. 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." The conditions needed to meet these criteria are also
included in the ordinance. The incentive in the ordinance is a provision
allowing 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
may be allowed to include these trees in the tree inventory. This can result in
a reduction in the amount of required replacement trees.
Section 1101.400: The proposed ordinance also establishes a new definition
for heritage trees. A heritage tree is defined as "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 1107.2103 (3) Ordinance."
Section 1106: 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.
A Flexible Development is processed in the same manner as a preliminary
plat. As part of the development, the developer may request modifications to
the following Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements, specifically
right-of-way and street surface widths, minimum lot areas, minimum lot widths,
and 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 an application for a flexible
development, the developer must submit a plan for development meeting all of
the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and a description
of the impact of the conventional development on the high or moderate quality
natural environment. This will establish the maximum density, and enable staff
to determine the need for flexible development, based on the potential impact.
ISSUES:
The specific language of the proposed amendments is included within the
attached ordinance. The one major issue about the proposed language is:
What percentage of caliper inches may be removed, without replacement, for
building pads, 30 or 35 percent? When the staff presented a report on the
outcome of the Task Force meetings to both the Planning Commission and the
City Council, there was no specific direction on what the percentage should be.
The staff originally suggested, as a compromise, 32.5 percent. The Planning
Commission considered this question at the public hearing and recommended
35 percent.
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that recommendations of the
Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council shall be
supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment
to the following policies:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment
clarifies and strengthens the existing tree preservation ordinance. The
amendment also provides incentives and different development options
that will encourage more tree preservation.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or
policies of the City.
Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include:
. Proved for conservation and protection of the natural environment;
. Provide adequate regulations to prevent the development or existence of
any industrial or commercial endeavor which will, through its operation,
create a hazard to the environment
. Promote sound land use; and
. Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural
environment and the enjoyment of residents.
Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include:
. Enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City.
. Conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community.
One of the five-year goals of the Natural Environment element of the 2030
Vision and Strategic Plan is:
. Promote unique natural areas in the City and annexation areas by
promoting environmentally sensitive development.
The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals, objectives
and policies by providing strengthening the existing ordinance, and by
providing incentives and alternative methods for development which will
encourage more tree preservation.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
Federal requirements.
This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The adoption of this amendment has modest financial impact on the City. The
City will incur 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.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance as
proposed or with changes specified by the City Council.
2. Deny the amendment to the ordinance.
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Alternative #1.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Motion and second to adopt an ordinance amending Sections 1101.400, 1106,
and 1107.2100 of the Prior Lake City Code.
Reviewed by:
~J
Frank B
Maintenance Center
17073 Adelmann Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO.106-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400, 1106, AND 1107.2100 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the
following definition:
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 1107.2103 (3) Ordinance.
2. Section 1106 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following
Section:
SECTION 11 06B
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH HIGH AND MODERATE QULAlTY
NATURAL COMMUNITIES
11 06B.1 00: PURPOSE AND INTENT. 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:
~ Right-of-way and street surface widths
~ Minimum lot areas
~ Minimum lot widths
~ 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.
. . . \ www.F.i~rf~RAlak~.com
1:\06 fll~i\06 ordln ar:nen<:I'ihQnlnC' troo rrA~Arv::l n n xx (\('
Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678
1106B.200 FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the City and its residents will benefit
by creating a process which will allow for greater flexibility in the
development of a parcel or property in areas with high or moderate quality
natural communities. Such benefits include, but are not limited to:
(1 ) Provides a flexible approach to development which is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
(2) More creative, efficient and effective use of land, open space and public
facilities.
(3) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics and open space,
and protection of sensitive environmental features including, but not
limited to, steep slopes, wetlands, and trees.
(4) High quality of design compatible with surrounding land uses, including
both existing and planned.
1106B.300: ApPLICATION. Flexible Development may only be utilized in areas
identified in the "Natural Resources Inventory and Land Cover Mapping
Report" (adopted herein by reference) as High and Moderate Quality
Natural Communities. The permitted uses and densities within these
districts in governed by the underlying Use District. In Residential Use
Districts, the allowable dwelling unit density may not exceed the allowable
density in the underlying use district. Flexible Development is subject to
all applicable requirements of the underlying use district except as
modified according to the provisions of subsection 11068.400.
1106B.400: MODIFICATIONS. As part of approval of flexible developments,
modifications to the following requirements of the underlying use district
may be approved:
~ Right-of-way and street surface widths
~ Minimum lot areas
~ Minimum lot widths
~ Structure setbacks
Any modifications requested pursuant to this section shall be identified in
the initial application. Any modifications shall be consistent with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and shall be approved upon a
finding that the modification does not significantly adversely affect
surrounding properties. Such modifications shall be approved as part of
the preliminary plat and shall be included in the resolution approving the
preliminary plat and in the development agreement required in subsection
11068.405 and 11068.500.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
2
1106B.500 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES. Developments under this
Section shall be proposed and considered according to the requirements
of this subsection.
11068.401 Concept Plan. 8efore filing an application for approval of a Preliminary
plat, the applicant is encouraged to submit a Concept Plan for review and
comment by the City staff. Materials and information necessary for a
Concept Plan include a map showing the location and size of the
property, and any preliminary plans developed for the property. The
applicant should be prepared to discuss the following: Comprehensive
Plan consistency, relationship of the proposed development to the
existing neighborhood, parks and open space, streets, utilities, steep
slopes, wetlands and environmentally sensitive issues, and drainage and
storm water management. The applicant may request a review of the
Concept Plan by the Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's
nonbinding comments on its merits.
11068.402 Preliminary Plan. The preliminary plat plan provides an opportunity for
the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing the basic intent and the
general nature of the entire development.
11068.403 Application for a Preliminary Plan. An application for a Preliminary
Plan shall include all of the following information:
(1) All information required for consideration and approval of a preliminary
plat.
(2) A plan for development meeting all of the requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances, and a description of the impact of the
conventional development on the high or moderate quality natural
environment.
(3) A list of the requested modifications, and a description of the justification
for each modification.
(4) A statement showing how the Flexible Development will meet the stated
purposes and objectives of this subsection.
11068.404 Procedure for Approval of a Flexible Development Plan. An
application for Flexible Development shall be processed and administered
in the same manner as a preliminary plat, as outlined in Section 1002.200
of the Subdivision Ordinance. Upon approval of a preliminary plat, the
Developer shall file an application for a final plat, as provided in the
Subdivision Ordinance.
11068.405 Resolution of Approval. The City Council shall adopt a resolution
including findings of fact for the basis of its decision.
1106B.500 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
3
(1) Development Agreement. The City and developer of a Flexible
Development shall execute a Development Contract as part of the final
plat which shall incorporate the resolution approving the Flexible
Development and all conditions set forth in the resolution. The
Development Contract shall require the developer to provide an
irrevocable letter of credit provided by a financial institution licensed in the
State of Minnesota. The form for the irrevocable letter of credit shall be
provided by the City. The irrevocable letter of credit must be approved by
the City. The letter of credit shall reference the Development Contract
and be in an amount sufficient to insure the provision or development of
improvements called for by the Development Contract.
(2) Operating and Maintenance Requirements for Common Areas. If
certain land areas or structures within the Flexible Development are
designated for common open areas, the owner(s) of such lands shall
execute appropriate documents in a form acceptable to the City which
assure the continued operation and maintenance of such areas or
facilities. These common areas may be placed under the ownership and
control of the Landlord; or of Homeowners' Association, if all of the
following conditions are met:
~ The Homeowners' Association must be established prior to the
sale of any property in the PUD.
~ Membership must be mandatory for each owner and successive
buyer.
~ The open space restrictions must be permanent.
~ The association must be responsible for liability insurance, taxes
and maintenance.
~ The landowner must pay its pro-rata share of an assessment
levied by the association and that share if unpaid must become a
lien on the property owned by the landowner.
~ The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet
changed needs.
3. Section 1107.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete the
section in its entirety and to add the following language:
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.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
4
~ 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 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:
1 Arborvitae (White Cedar).
I Fir, Douglas
I Fir, White
I Hemlock, Canada (Eastern)
I Junipers
i Larch, Eastern (Tamarack)
Larch, European
Pine, Austrian
Pine, Eastern White
Pine, MUQo
p Pine, Ponderosa
. Pine, Red (Norway)
Pine, scotch
Red Cedar, Eastern
Redwood,Dawn
Spruce, Black Hills
: Spruce, Colorado Blue
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
5
~ Spruce, Norway
Spruce, White
Spruce, Japanese
(2) Deciduous Tree. Deciduous trees are considered to be significant at 6
diameter breast height (DBH) inches or more. Species required to be
surveyed are as follows:
I Ash, Green
I Ash, White
I Basswood
I Beech, Blue
I Birch, River
I Canada Red Cherry, Shubert
I Catalpa, Northern
I Chokecherry, Amur
I Chokecherry, Shubert's
, Coffee-tree, Kentucky
Corktree, Amur
Crabapple (ornamental)
Doawood. alternate-leafed
,
Elm, Accolade
i Ginkgo (Male trees)
, Hackberry
Hawthorns
Hickory, Bitternut
, Honeylocust, Imperial
Honeylocust, Skyline
, Ironwood
Kentucky Coffeetree
i 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
i Oak, Red
Oak, Scarlet
Oak, Swamp White
Oak. White
, Plum, American and Canada
Redbud, Eastern
Serviceberry .
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
6
, 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
LarQe Coniferous
Tree Diameter Size
27" dbh.
24" dbh.
Examples
Oaks
Pine
a. A tree in fair or better condition must meet the following criteria:
~ A life expectancy of greater than 10 years.
~ A relatively sound and solid trunk with no extensive decay or
hollow.
~ No major insect or pathological problem.
~ 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.
~ 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) Other Trees. 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:
~ A life expectancy of greater than 10 years.
~ A relatively sound and solid trunk with no extensive decay or
hollow.
~ No major insect or pathological problem.
~ A certified forester determines it is a rare or unusual species or
of exceptional quality.
~ It is specifically used by a developer as a focal point in the
project.
1107.2104 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.
(1) 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 be part of a Concept Plan review, permitted under Section
1002.100 of the City Code.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
7
...
Prior .J..!1" Spring
Lake ~ Lake
-- --
RECEIVED
NOV - 6 2006
WATERSHED DISTRICT
November 1, 2006
Mr. Frank Boyles
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Boyles:
I am writing to offer the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District's (PLSL WD) enthusiastic support
ofthe proposed modifications to the City of Prior Lake's tree preservation ordinance. The proposed
amendments are a great example of how creative zoning requirements can provide incentives for natural
resource protection while allowing for orderly development within the City.
The PLSL WD especially appreciates the proposed inclusion of design flexibility to promote the
preservation of high and moderate quality natural environments. The benefits of this approach are
many. In providing flexibility in street widths, minimum lot areas and widths, and setbacks, the
amendment would allow developers to achieve allowable zoning densities while preserving larger areas
of open space. This will help facilitate the protection of wetlands and storage areas in addition to
preserving trees. At the same time, the approach has the potential to reduce impervious areas and
decrease runoff volumes.
The proposed ordinance modifications reflect the City's commitment to its 2030 Comprehensive Plan
goals of conserving and protecting the natural environment and promoting environmentally sensitive
development. The approach is also responsive to comments the PLSL WD provided during the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process, and would help the PLSL WD achieve its goals of improving
water quality and managing runoff volumes in the watershed.
The PLSL WD would like to commend the City for its commitment to protecting our local natural
resources, as evidenced in this creative proposal. We appreciate the work ofthe Tree Preservation Task
Force and City staff that went into developing the proposed ordinance modifications, and we look
forward to continued partnership with the City to achieve our shared goals of protecting and restoring
our local water resources.
2U~
Shannon M. Lotthammer
District Administrator
CC: PLSL WD Board of Managers
(952) 447-4166 · Fax (952) 447-4167 · 15815 Franklin Trail S.E. · Prior Lake, MN 55372
www.plslwd.org · info@plslwd.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2006
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 9, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Absent*
Present
*Commissioner Ringstad arrived shortly after roll call.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were
approved as presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. 06-175 Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Tree Preservation
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated October 9,2006, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On January 18, 2006, the City Council approved the formation of a Tree Preservation
Task Force. The purpose of this task force was 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.
On September 5,2006, the City Council considered a report on the outcome of the Task
Force's work. The Council directed staf:Ho-prepare an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2006
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 health, safety and welfare of the general population of the 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.
There are three parts to the proposed ordinance:
1. An amendment to Section 1107.2100, replacing the existing tree preservation
requirements.
2. An amendment to Section 1101.400 adding a definition of "Heritage Trees".
3. An amendment to Section 1106 adding a new "Flexible Development"
process.
The specific language of the proposed amendments is included within the draft
ordinance. The one major issue about the proposed language is: What percentage of
caliper inches may be removed, without replacement, for building pads, 30 or 35 percent?
When the staff presented a report on the outcome of the Task Force meetings to both the
Planning Commission and the City Council, there was no specific direction on what the
percentage should be. The proposed ordinance suggests, as a compromise, 32.5 percent.
The Planning Commission should specifically make a recommendation on this number.
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states recommendations of the Planning
Commission and final determinations of the City Council shall be supported by findings
addressing the relationship ofthe proposed amendment to the following policies:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment clarifies and
strengthens the existing tree preservation ordinance. The amendment also provides
incentives and different development options encouraging more tree preservation.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance,
the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City.
Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include:
. Provide for conservation and protection of the natural environment;
. Provide adequate regulations to prevent the development or existence of any
industrial or commercial endeavor which will, through its operation, create a hazard
to the environment
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN1 00906.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2006
. Promote sound land use; and
. Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural environment
and the enjoyment of residents.
Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include:
. Enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City.
. Conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community.
One ofthe five-year goals ofthe Natural Environment element of the 2030 Vision
and Strategic Plan is:
. Promote unique natural areas in the City and annexation areas by promoting
environmentally sensitive development.
The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals, objectives and policies
by providing strengthening the existing ordinance, and by providing incentives and
alternative methods for development which will encourage more tree preservation.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal
requirements.
This amendment is consistent with Federal and State laws.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and the
enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in
this report, staff recommends approval.
Comments from the Public:
Victoria Ranau, 2041 140th Street, questioned the motive behind the ordinance. Was it to
preserve heritage trees or preserve natural resources? If natural resources preservation is
the goal, she disagreed it achieved the goal. It has a lot of esthetics elements to
preserving the trees but tree preservation does not equal natural resource preservation.
Ranau stated she is a botanist and explained dividing up a maple basswood forest,
preserving a lot of the trees can still destroy the forest. In the natural resource inventory
there is non-forest; wet meadows and prairies. The tree preservation policy does not just
work with wetlands and prairies. How does this ordinance really work for high quality
natural resources that are not treed?
Kansier said main focus of the task force was the tree preservation element. The idea
was to accomplish all of those things but at the same time recognize property rights.
There are developers who have a certain right to develop the land. The first section is
specifically to do with trees. The flexible provisions are intended to preserve the entire
natural environment. In addition to this ordinance, there are many other natural
environmental ordinances we need to follow - stormwater ponding, W ACA, the Wetland
Conservation Act, etc. Staff is trying to utilize the entire ordinance and have quality
developments and preserve as many elements as possible.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI 00906.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2006
Ranua questioned why there were so many non-native trees allowed for replacement.
Kansier explained the Park Maintenance Supervisor has extensive experience in tree
planting and felt the trees on the list are the best trees to survive and grow well. We're
trying to maintain a big enough variety that if there was some sort of blight (like Dutch
Elm) we wouldn't lose everything.
The public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. This is a win-win. The key word is "flexible". City Staff and a developer can sit
down and discuss what is available without having the rigidity of something that
preceded this.
. Agree with the three criteria. There is a public need for the amendment. It is
consistent with State and Federal laws and will accomplish one or more ofthe
purposes of the ordinance.
. Heard this presentation before and will whole heartedly support.
. Support 32.5% caliper inches to be removed.
Billington:
. The key to any sort of program of this type is that it is orderly and flexible.
. Like the approach - similar to the W ACA approach makes sense. It minimizes
the impact and replaces unavoidable impacts. There is some room for dealing
with many situations with reasonable parameters.
. Go with 35% caliper inches.
. Like the draft replacement requirements and heritage definition.
. Support.
Lemke:
. Agree with all comments. Especially there is a public need for the ordinance
amendment and what it will accomplish.
. It is consistent with the State and Federal requirements.
. It is not perfect however it's better than what we had. The flexibility in this will
allow a much better development. We can't save all the trees but we'll do a better
job than we did before.
. Support.
. Will go with 35%.
Perez:
. Agree with fellow Commissioners. The task force accomplished their goals.
. There are incentives to work with this ordinance.
. Agree this meets the amendment findings.
. Like the 32.5% as a good compromise.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
October 9, 2006
. This would work very well with the County Roads 18 and 42 concept.
. Support.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Commissioners - it is a great improvement over the present
ordinance. What is difficult with writing ordinances is having to write them in
generalities. The great thing here is that it recognizes not every tree is the same. It
creates a way to adapt a piece of the land we are reviewing.
. Our lone testifier made some good points on saving natural features. The purpose
ofthis is primarily to save trees but there are other natural features within a
development.
. The City saves larger tracts of natural features through other ordinances - bluff,
Shore land, wetland, park, etc.
. Support.
. Go with 35% caliper inches.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY
STAFF REPLACING 32.5% WITH 35% CALIPER INCHES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go to the City Council on November 6, 2006.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A. Vote for new Planning Commission Chair.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO NOMINATE VAUGHN
LEMKE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,
2006.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Lemke. Stamson abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, NOMINATING DAN RINGSTAD AS
VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Lemke. Stamson abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc
5
(2) Alternatives analysis: The following guidelines shall be
considered when developing or reviewing proposed development
alternatives:
a. It is capable of being done from an engineering point of view;
b. It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and
practices;
c. It is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public
health, safety, and welfare;
d. It is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a
review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and
e. It would create no truly unusual problems.
f. Any plans reviewed by the City as part of this alternative
analysis shall be kept on file at the City.
(3) Determination of impact minimization. The applicant shall
provide justification that the preferred alternative will minimize
impacts to trees. The following guidelines shall be used:
a. The location of existing structural or natural features that may
dictate the placement or configuration of the project;
b. 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;
c. The value, function, and spatial distribution of the trees on the
site;
(4) Unavoidable impacts. Unavoidable impacts that remain after
efforts to minimize, rectify, or reduce require replacement according
to Section 1107.2106 (3).
1107.2105 Tree Preservation Permit Process.
(1) Application. Application for approval of a tree preservation plan
shall be made in writing to the Zoning Administrator. This
application may 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 or arborist. The Tree
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
8
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 protection of
existing significant trees. This simplified plan may be included
on the "Existing Conditions Survey" required as part of the
preliminary plat.
(2) Allowable Tree Removal.
a. Following the concept plan review and alternative analysis, listed
in Section 1107.2104, 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 35% of the total dbh 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 35% of the total dbh inches of all
significant trees may be removed for the installation of utilities,
driveways and the building pad without tree replacement or
restitution.
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
9
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 35% of the total dbh
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 dbh 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 dbh 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:
~ 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
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
10
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
or arborist. For the purposes of this paragraph, value is defined
as a species which has the same growth and life potential as the
removed tree.
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.
(4) 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 (5) below, shall begin on the
date of the letter satisfactory completion issued by the City.
a. 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.
(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.
~ 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.
~ 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
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
11
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.
1107.2106 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.
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.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 20th day of November, 2006.
ATTEST:
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
12
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 25th day of November, 2006.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
17073 Adelmann Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\06 files\06 ordin amends\zoning\tree preservation\ord106xx.doc
13