Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-1997 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Jan Berg, Sandy Smith, Liz Hawn and Bill Stoddard. Van Erickson was present representing the Orono Park Commission. The following represented City staff. City Planner /Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Intern Brad Bressler, Director of Public Services Greg Gappa and Recorder Lin Vee. The meeting was called to order by Chair Lindquist at 8:02 a.m. Council has asked that the Planning Commission address issues identified by both the Park Commission and Council relating to the development of a tree preservation ordinance. After developing a model ordinance, public hearings would be held, with Council action following. Van Zomeren referred to the Purpose Statement prepared by the Orono Park Commission on July 7, 1997 noting that Park Commission and Council were in agreement with this statement. In addition, discussion should take place as to whether private property owners would be treated the same as developers regarding tree preservation and reforestation. • Hawn asked if the Planning Commission was designing an ordinance that is really needed. Van Zomeren responded that the Spring Hill Golf Course has raised concerns over tree preservation. Berg suggested the City be pro- active rather than reactive. Lindquist stated one goal would be to prevent clear cutting in new development. Hawn asked if clear cutting has been a problem. Lindquist noted that the shoreland areas already have restrictions on tree removal. Hawn questioned the City's ability to enforce a policy preventing clear cutting. Berg noted that Plymouth experienced a problem with clear cutting before they adopted a tree preservation ordinance. Developers found it easier to clear cut and then transplant. She felt the land across from Billy's Lighthouse would be a similar situation when developed. Hawn asked about an individual property owner who might choose to log the land as trees have value. Could the City be considered "taking" the land by restricting tree removal? Other cities should be researched to determine their policies. Van Zomeren noted the Council and Park Commission do not want to hinder the individual property owner. The Dickey property is an example of large lots with no trees. In such a case, could the City require a developer to plant trees? Berg added that some people don't want trees, and therefore trees would not necessarily increase the value of a property. Lindquist felt the Minnetonka ordinance was close to what Orono would want to accomplish and • suggested working from their ordinance format. Discussion continued relating to the "City of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance ". • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 1. Purpose of Tree Preservation Ordinance. Van Zomeren reviewed the Purpose Statement. Lindquist asked if landscape and vegetation should be added. Members felt the statement should be left in the existing form. 2. Definition. The definition of a Significant Tree was discussed as trees to be protected. Lindquist felt the tree size should be consistent with other lakeshore ordinances which is 6" in the 0 -75' lakeshore setback. Hawn questioned the difference between coniferous and deciduous trees, noting that a 15' coniferous tree would be difficult to transplant. The Park Commission suggested Significant Trees as coniferous trees measuring 8' or more in height, hardwood deciduous trees measuring 8" in diameter or greater and softwood deciduous trees 12" or greater in diameter. 3. Where Significant Trees Can Be Destroyed Without Replacement Hawn thought it would be abusive to applicants to require a tree plan showing all existing • trees. She added that the goal of lakeshore properties is somewhat different than big woods areas. Van Zomeren suggested an inventory of all trees of the same size or larger as those that are protected on lakeshore properties. She asked what would allow significant trees to be removed. She referred to Shadowood Farms where an outlot with trees was created for future access to the Wolf property. Hawn responded that road design can take many trees but might be an area where significant trees could be allowed to be removed. This would be monitored during City reviews so that too many trees were not taken. Berg noted that many final plats are not approved in the same form as preliminary plats because of tree issues. Members agreed that significant trees could be removed "within the areas improved for reasonably -sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements ". Stoddard asked if the Fire Marshall made any recommendations regarding trees within 40' of any buildings. Smith suggested a time limit be added to Section 3 (B). For example, a developer could not cut down trees within 2 years of subdividing. Van Zomeren questioned how staff would know when trees were cut down. Lindquist agreed to adding a 2 year time limit to this statement. Gappa noted that if the goal was to protect trees, it would not make any difference if a subdivision occurred. Lindquist agreed that the private property owner could do what • 2 • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 he wants. Stoddard asked if members were addressing developers or private property owners. Lindquist felt the ordinance was to be designed more for development rather than monitoring individual private properties. Other members agreed. Gappa added that it would be difficult to go back 2 years to monitor when trees had been cut down. Smith felt they were spending time on an unenforceable ordinance. Lindquist suggested leaving the 2 year limit in section 4(C) and reviewing at a later time. 4. Replacing Significant Trees. This section sets limits, i.e. no more than 25 trees can be raised per acre. Stoddard noted that 25 trees could be on a very small portion of the property. Van Zomeren felt this section fell short as it did not define what kind of trees, their size or where they were located. Berg commented that 1/3 acre lots are standard in Minnetonka whereas Orono has many 2 - 5 acre parcels which are quite different. Van Zomeren agreed that Minnetonka saw 25 trees as the appropriate number for many of their lots, and the lots would seem densely planted with trees. Lindquist compared 5 acres having 250 trees as being densely planted in Orono. Van Zomeren questioned the time it would take to count trees on a larger parcel. Stoddard asked who would do the counting - the homeowner? Berg noted that the Planning Commission • asked for a tree inventory of the Wolf property and Council didn't think it was necessary. Van Zomeren commented that she was uncomfortable defining a number for required trees. Hawn suggested replacing tree- for -tree except where impossible. Van Zomeren added that there could be a debate over the value of deciduous vs. coniferous trees. Lindquist suggested leaving 25 -50 trees per acre in the ordinance at this time. Replacement of trees native to the area is appropriate. It is standard for a developer to post a bond for completion of a subdivision project. Gaffron agreed that a Letter of Credit is common. If dead trees were not replaced, the Letter of Credit would not be released. Berg questioned how the City would know if significant trees were removed within 2 years of a subdivision application. Van Zomeren responded that it would be difficult to monitor. Lindquist added that this issue could be dealt with at the time of a new application. 5. Tree Sizes Van Zomeren suggested referring to lakeshore standards once again to be consistent. 6. Before Starting Work Members agreed this section was well written. 40 • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 7. City Forester Tree Species List Hawn suggested a list be kept at the City offices rather than listing the good/bad trees in an ordinance. Stoddard did not think it was a bad idea to include a listing in the ordinance as a forester would agree with such a list. Van Zomeren continued with discussion of "An Ordinance Amending Minnetonka City Code Chapter 300 Regarding Tree Protection and Density Ranges" as it would relate to Orono's situation. In Section 1, the definition of a Significant Tree would parallel the lakeshore ordinance. In Section 2, a tree inventory would not be required at the sketch plan review but would be discussed. The performance standards regulating tree removal in Section 3 are all good. Urban development can be omitted. Reference to septic systems should be added. Gaffron suggested adding "other facilities" which would include accessory buildings, pools and tennis courts. Van Zomeren suggested there may be a need for public education on tree preservation unless the • ordinance is just adopted into the Subdivision Code. Stoddard noted that most developers are also builders. Although the developer would not be allowed to cut down trees, there would be nothing to stop the individual homeowner from cutting trees down to build an accessory structure once he buys a lot. He added that other ordinances regulate accessory structures in their size and placement which will affect trees on the property. Gaffron asked if members had discussed whether they should be preserving individual trees or woodlands. He suggested that preserving "significant trees" would allow many smaller trees to be cut down and could change the habitat and character of an area. Lindquist asked for further definition of a woodland. Gaffron felt it would include habitat, understory and the character of an area. The size would be difficult to define. Lindquist felt a woodland would comprise at least 1/2 acre in area. Members discussed the Whitehead property which is mainly woodlands. They questioned how the woodlands could be replaced. Hawn did not think the City should get involved in supervising what individual owners do with trees on their property. Smith stated that it seemed the ordinance would penalize developers but allow individuals to do what they want. Stoddard felt this may be the best the City could do. There would be protection from a • 4 • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 developer clear cutting, and controls in other ordinances also restrict development. Lindquist and Berg referred to the Sugar Woods development and Melamed properties where the woodland atmosphere was preserved. Stoddard stated that if the 25 trees per acre standard was used, the Sugar Woods development would not happen. Van Zomeren suggested the possibility of requiring covenants that would require individual owners to protect significant trees. The question arose as to whether the City would want to monitor such covenants. Berg suggested looking at ordinances from cities that have larger parcels of land such as Maple Grove. She felt Minnetonka had a different type of development and their ordinance may not be appropriate. Van Zomeren thought it would be good to look at other woodland ordinances as well. Hawn asked how the group felt about protection of woodlands vs. tree protection. Lindquist responded that in some areas he would want to see individual trees protected while in other areas he would look for woodland protection. Berg read the Purpose Statement from a Maple Grove ordinance (Gaffron's copy) which was closer to what Orono is trying to accomplish. Maple Grove has a T Tree Preservation District. is Van Zomeren suggested overlay districts similar to the shoreland districts which might include woodlands, lakeshore areas, smaller lot areas such as the Navarre area, etc. Lindquist felt this idea should be reviewed further. Gaffron responded that the City has topographic maps (1 " =100' scale) and air photos which would be helpful in pursuing this idea. Gappa suggested that a buffer area could be required. Van Zomeren questioned whether a buffer zone would be for aesthetics or habitat. Gappa felt it would be for both. A variance procedure could be used for unusual situations. Lindquist suggested looking closer at Maple Grove's ordinance. He asked if a policy statement rather than an ordinance would solve some of the tree issues. Hawn felt an ordinance would be better for developer since better guidelines and quantification could be provided. Hawn referred to the Whitehead subdivision application. It would be impossible to develop three lots and still maintain the woodland character and habitat of the property, if that was the goal. Berg thought a developer would want to be able to build and have some lawn. She asked what percentage of trees to preserve would be appropriate. On 2 acre lots, Hawn felt they couldn't really preserve a woodland. Therefore they should stop looking at such an ordinance unless they look at zones. Van Zomeren added that a septic system, building pad and driveway must also be considered. Lindquist added that it would be difficult to place a house and two septic site on two acre lots. Gaffron noted that PUDs are not really used in the 2 acre zone. Lindquist felt preservation of woodlands was a great idea but impractical in some cases. Hawn asked if the policy statement could include reference to preserving woodlands wherever possible. 0 5 • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 Gaffron thought the tree preservation discussions were a direct result of the Spring Hill Golf Course, since there was not an ordinance in place to protect the Big Woods. Because of the acreage involved in Spring Hill, the golf course could possibly still have been developed. There are no ordinances to prevent development of that area into two acre lots. If the City wants to preserve large wooded areas, incentives need to be offered to developers. Clustering is a possibility but this would require sewer. Council has not been in favor of clustering. Lindquist thought that if they go beyond the policy statement, an ordinance would either be directed at woodland preservation or the 25 -50 trees per acre standard, and he was unsure if either was appropriate. Hawn questioned how a developer might perceive a policy statement. Van Zomeren responded that an experienced developer may work differently and have different expectations than the inexperienced developer. Hawn added that even the seasoned developer would object to something that would "hit them in the pocketbook ". Gaffron stated the existing subdivision code refers to preservation of natural features and shade trees planted by a subdivider. The goal would be to add a statement that gives better direction as to what is the City is trying to preserve. Lindquist agreed with this suggestion. Berg asked if Gaffron could develop a section to add to the existing ordinance. Berg felt is was difficult to define the number of trees that would be appropriate on two acres. Stoddard asked if the Sugar Woods concept of development is what the City was looking for. Berg responded there were not a lot of areas similar to Sugar Woods in Orono. Gappa referred to the Soskin development. The stormwater pond was put in an area where there were not a lot of significant trees in order to preserve the more mature trees. Van Zomeren asked if a tree preservation ordinance was a tool for Planning Commission and Council to slow down development or prevent development, or if it is a guideline to get better development and try to retain the character of Orono. She did not want to see an ordinance developed as a weapon to prevent development. Berg felt the ordinance was to continue the integrity of the topography of the land being developed with the least impact using a common -sense approach to development. Smith asked if the tree preservation issues were coming from Council or if Council was responding to citizen concern. Gaffron responded that he thought Council wanted to have this tool in place prior to the golf course application, not to prevent the golf course but to prevent the destruction of the woods. Tree preservation was discussed shortly before the golf course application was received. • 6 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • TREE PRESERVATION WORK SESSION HELD SEPTEMBER 12,1997 The golf course needed 190 acres of the 200 available acres to be developed. If the 40 acre Big Woods had been protected, the golf course probably would have had to find another area. Lindquist noted that tool would have been a woodland ordinance, not tree preservation. Lindquist suggested Gaffron put together a policy that makes sense. Van Zomeren asked Gaffron if the tools were currently available to get the best residential development possible from the Saga Hill properties. Gaffron felt the City had many tools available but they haven't been used in the past. Many of the ordinances are general and do not provide good guidelines. Lindquist agreed. Gaffron expressed concern over the Saga Hill subdivision as the proposed 1 acre lots, not clustered, would not be able to preserve the woods. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. zoz-" z Dale Lindquis , Chair Pe n �J • 7