Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-1997 Planning PacketCity of OroDO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:August 26, 1997 TO:Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Work Session This is a reminder that we have scheduled a work session to discuss a tree preservation ordinance for Friday, September 12th 8:00 a.m. Please confirm whether you will be able to attend by calling the front office staff (Carole Lin or Jamie) at 473-7357. I will not be in the office the week of Labor Day. I will be back from vacation on September 8th, if you have any advance questions about the enclosed material. The September 15th agenda is tentatively set, a draft copy is enclosed. Have a good Labor Day weekend!!! CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 1 NOTICE The Planning Commission will meet on Friday, September 12, 1997 in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway, beginning at 8:00 a.m., to discuss tree preservation policies and ordinances in Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations (Zoning) and Chapter 11, Subdivision, of the Mumcipal Code of Ordinances. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to be present. Written comments are solicited. For more information, contact Liz Van Zorncren at 473-7357. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Elizabeth Van Zot;^ren Planner/Zoning Administrator To be published the week of August 30,1997. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator August 14,1997 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance Attachments: 1, Draft Outline of Tree Preservation Ordinance 2. City of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Background-Process of Ordinance Development The Park Commission has developed a general outline of a tree preserv ation ordinance and has identified a number of issues to be addressed. The Council has referred the tree preservation ordinance to the Planning Commission to address issues identified by both the Park Commission and the Council, and to provide a recommendation to the Council regarding the key elements to be included in a tree preser\'ation ordinance A joint work session will then be held with the City Council to firm up the elements of an ordinance to enable stalT to draft the ordinance. A public hearing will then be held at the Planning Commission regarding the tree preservation ordinance and the ordinance will then be brought to the Council for final approval. Tree Preservation Issues/Outline 1. Definition of significant trees (see the city of Minnetonka Guide to the Tree Preservation Ordinance) 2.When should the tree preservation ordinance apply? a. ) At the time of a subdivision b. ) At the time a parcel is initially developed c. ) As part of a commercial site plan review (particularly for commercial development along Highway 12) d. ) At the time an existing structure is expanded or an additional structure is added to a developed parcel. The city of Minnetonka ordinance indicates that tree removal on property with an existing home or principal structure will be exempt from the tree preservation requirements unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. 3.Protection of existing trees on undeveloped property prior to development (discouraging tree removal in advance of a development proposal). a.) Set a time period prior to development within which any trees removed must be replaced. 1.) If this is included, w hat should the time period be? The city of Minnetonka uses a two year time period. A longer time period may be beneficial. However, as the 1 Tree Preservation Ordinance Continued 4. 5. time period increases so does the difficulty of documenting and monitoring existing trees years in advance of a dev elopment. Reforestation - should the city go beyond protecting existing trees to requiring additional trees in non-forested areas? a. ) Commercial development. The city may want to include landscaping requirements as part of its commercial site plan review, particularly along Highway 12. b. ) Subdivisions. 1. The city's current subdivision ordinance enables the city to require some tree planting. The city may want to add specific landscaping requirements to its subdivision regulations. 1 An important element running through the above issues is a balancing of the city's interest in preserving trees with the property owner's rights to use the property. ^>ufei(vevooot)r SDPPLEMENTT^ SHEET TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OP SUGAR WOODS SUBDIVISION M fekrs Ho 5d(i.-hcjy\s address • 1^5 reque's'^ted^fn^the o\°on\''BJ^l'ldTng Pepa^k^t^t^ within the Sugar Woods subdivision: 1. Your site plan must designate the Specific Building Setback A? Jront 50', rear 50' and side 40' for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1; and B) front 50', rear 50' and side 30' for ail other lots in Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2 Per Orono resolution #2652, each lot shall f singll driveway/one curb cut at a 20* maximum The driveway width shall be measured located road, Sugarwood Drive. The portion of the drive located within the front/street setback area V)e straight alignment from the loop road and shall not bt. curved. 3 An inventory of all hardcover on the lot must accompany each application (see worksheet attached. Attachment A). All hardcover improvements on each lot shall building pad defined as that portion of the lot that within the building setback area * n ?ont leading to Sugarwoods Drive located within ^ building setback area, retaining walls and similar scaping structures that may be built within e ^ building setback area). The hardcover ?Sr lot shall not exceed 80% of the area of the building pad fo each lot. The hardcover areas of each lot shall «;urface area on the ground of each of the following improvements on the lot (the inventory shall include allowed imorovements within the front/street setback area): A) Footprint of each and every structural on the lot, including each house, garage, acce y building, porch and covered walkway; B) All wooden decks and boardwalks regardless of the spacing between the planks on the surface; C) All driveways and parking areas that are paved or graveled ; E) All walkways and patios that are asphalt, concrete, paving blocks , space in between the blocks), or covered ®Je rock or woodchips upon an underliner (whether tnc underliner is impervious or not), but not walkways that are dirt, grass or gravel, rocK woodchips without an underliner; 4. 5. 6. 7- F) Each and every landscaped area with an underliner (whether the underliner is impervious or ' regardless of whether the area is covered with woodchips, stones, dirt or plants; Any swimming pool or wading pool? H) Any tennis court covered with concrete, asphalt or clay, but not any tennis court covered with grass. Lot Coverage. Per Ordinance 80, 2nd Series adopted February 19I0, the total combined footprint principal and accessory stmctures shall not of the 1 acre average density at 6,534 sf. be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures. a) b) all roofed structures which extend more than 6 above grade level; . • ,tennis courts, patios, decks and all similar open 6' above grade level ( if any . structure extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot pools,^including pool basin and associated latio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence. All lots shall be provided with a functional means of backing out. The City will not approve the backing out of motorized vehicles onto Sugarwood Drive. ^«„.,ired For all applicants who find they cannot meet the s?Ldards for development within the Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development, please refer to Attachment B f Written ^confiraat ’ion from Rebers Construction t^'at the building plans and site plan have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee for Sugar Woods. At the time a Certificate of hasdwelling within the subdivision of Sugar Woods, th^e Ci y has to execute and deliver to the owner of each lot a Partiai lllease of subdivider's agreement for that lot. Upon the instrument and the memorial of the partial reiea subdivider's agreement. Please contact the Building and Zoning Department <^^-735^ if yo^havl any questions concerning the directives fisted abo v_^ Prior to a^ site preparation,^ tr^ cutting, lan^ ------ —r— _____^ a. ^4-f-KiA Pm 1aXber^ns^r fencing may be removed. Attachment B REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ALL APPLICANTS UNABLE TO MEET SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SUGAR WOODS PLAT All owners' or builders' seeking special consideration must submit a written request to the Zoning Administrator 7 days before the official Planning Commission meeting for the month (third Monday of the month). The City Council of Orono has approved an abbreviated review process for all such request whereby the Planning Commission shall assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendation regarding these specia" requests. Each applicant shall have the right of appeal before the Council of all decisions of the Planning Commission. All appeals to the Council shall be placed on the Council agendas for'the following Monday (fourth Monday of the month). Applicants may find that the strict enforcement of these special requirements for residential development to not be practical nor functional when certain site conditions are found within a building lot. The following site conditions are listed below as examples to assist applicants in the preparation of their specific request: $ 1. the shape or limited area of a building envelope? 2. unique or mature trees within a building front/street setback area; envelope or 3. the topography of a building envelope? 4. desire to place house within a building pad so as to minimize impact on adjacent properties. All special requests shall consist either of one or more of the following submittals, depending upon the specific site conditions to be considered: 1. survey/site plan designating structures, pathways, drives and type of back out improvement? 2. inventory of hardcover (be sure to include all hardcover within front street/street setback area); 3. topographic mapping of property? 4. location of mature, unique tree specimens?"^ 5. other unique physical characteristics of property that requires special placement of house/drive on site. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Pa; kway P.O. Box 66 OronOy MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax; (612) 473-0510 memorandum August 14, 1997 Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Piar.net/ Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance comments to the July 14, 1997 City Council meeting. The City Council voted to send this issue to the Planning Commission. The minutes from the PMk CoLnission and City Council meeting are included with this memo. Recon ?»"g»<*ation session. Attachments Minutes from July 7, 1997 Park Commission meeting Minutes from July 14, 1997 City Council meeting Park Commission subcommittee work Minnetonka tree preservation ordinance ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 7,1997 DRAFT ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following mem^s present: Chair Susan Wilson, Commissioners Sherokec Dse, Andrew McDermott, James White (who arrived at 7:40), and David Beal. Van Erickson and Peter Wdles were absent. Representing Staff were Pubbc Service Director Greg Gappa, City Planner p|]7qVi*>th Van 2fommeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:20 pjn. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 2,1997 MEETING Wilson noted that the Commistion decided not to meet earlier on Ae for this meeting as indicate in the June minutes to discuss the sketch plan being contidcred for property on Saga Hill due to changes being considered for the ^etch plan. Beal moved, M<^)ermott seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Park Comnrission Meeting of June 2,1997. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Item #2 follows Item #6.) (#6) TREE PRESERVATION POUCY Beal reported that a meeting of the sub-committee was held resulting in a broad ba^ policy. Points 1 through 5 will be discussed with Council and the policy will be reviewed by the Planning Commistion for a recommendation. The policy is directed at developers with fmphatia cn commercial properties. Beal said the committee recogniz^ th© rights of private property owners and has recommended a brochure be provided relating the plnlosophy of Orono regarding preservation of its rural theme. GafBron had mentioned td that meeting concern for "taldng" of land. The policy will be reviewed by Coundl at their July 14 meeting. Wilson indicated that a couple meiribers of the Planning and Park Commissions could review with Staff and possibly the consultant to provide the detaHs of the policy. Wilson indicated that the policy as currently presented is a broad parameter and the Mayor has asked the policy to move forward. Beal asked Staff if details could be developed once Council received the broad policy. It was indicated that the consultant could aid in this development. 1 Tl".'MIOTTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSIONmeeting HELD ON JULY 7,1997 - Tree Preservation - Continued) waso. asked V» Zomeren her opWoa she has reviewed U« aonmg «<h^«. ^‘^^““^^eSTnored for detaaed Z^eren noted that the City of Mimteapolis requires commercial property ^ 12/o ^ zo^eren would Uke to see more 20% and questions whether 12^ is adequate.. _ ^ ^ ^ process developed site plan regulations for conunercial properties. She saw s of recodifying the zoning codes. Van Zomeren noted the need for ^ ^g^e poking and be for the Hi^way 12 Super Valu in NaiLre. She opined that nrinimum landscaping required for Ricks S p opportunity for being a catalyst additional trees and ™“''ll?^^iedged Councindecision to decline provi&ig in improving commeraal areas. She ac ,.* • y^ Zomeren noted thatmmit in landscaping on a prior commeraalapphcation. Van^merro commercial site plans are related but separate from tree preserve Wilson asked how coimneicial site plaffi “*^^^^^“(^^,^^°ieMwhere sa’,; " a; picservation should occur and “ reservation belonged in ate “grificaS trees are located. Wdson <!“**«»“*?.mea in pSg or as a separate issue noting the possibihty ofreqi^_em^J»^^ ^ Lmimercial properties to maintain the rurd atmosphere. Vanzomer preservation could be part of the landscaping plan. Beal Indicated the 12% landscaping re<iuir«nent 6ils to sute where the landscaping should be placed. Vm. Zomeren reviewed the existing or^^ “SnSlSS'ro Sh'IS » nr««l distributed to Park Commisaonas noting forproviding needed feel to property. She saw the references as eing oMieral but have no specifics to pT^toL It was noted that the requiremenU are more general but have no speem hold owners to a standard. Examples were shown in the compreh^ve plan * natural resources were indicated (3.18), natu nrobibiting clear or thin cutting proposals (3.21) and retention noted there arc slope restrictions (3.22) requiring CUP in 0-75 setback. .. without a CUP according to Lr 18%. Gappa indicated bluff ar^ ehe^^f Dse noted that the compreh^ive plan is more general or semi-specific that could developed in the zoning ordinance. .• * • mi rMW9\ fTiilwjil STiETTOnElli iiTtyi« kiilUfI If ■ f f-Jm •'1 • I r« 1 9 1 f kllTtliHflfi :TfiTt'»Mi riTi¥«K11i] ^WiMVltUTi' •mvif r?irjriiiii iTTiirHflfJl€ili?i*^: liWi'.i •T«th / rtiiut ./^ ^ minutes of the regular orono park commission _ —MEETING HELD ON JULY 7, 1997 OR * (#6 - Tree Preservation - Contimicd) McDermott questioned the definition of a significant tree. White said cannot be cut in the shoreland district. Van Zomeren said the zomng code is scatty its reference to Uees but is clear in the 0-75’ lakeshore in aU zoning dismcts clear cutting of trees. She believes tree preservation should be com^tible ^ to significant trees. She asked what the Commission would be conrfortaWe with d«fi^n of agnificant trees. Beal noted that the de^tion elsewhere. Use suggested 6" as used in the 0-75* setback ^ead * replacement. WUson said it should be ^cerinc as to what is done. She not^^ zoning code refer*' to a 12" trunk above .;.ound level as not less than 2 diameter. There arc good lists of species for both conifeious and deciduous trees. Van Zomeren said there b the bsue of improving what is Beal removal. Wilson feh tree removal is only occuni^ r^domly and not clw .. noted this docs not refer to private property. White cited the cicainple o e involving dead tree removal. This cannot be done without inspection. WUson asked what should be brought to Coundl in light of comments made by Van Zomeren. Beal asked what is involved in sttengthening the zoning ordinance. fetation plan could be expanded regaling types of trees. Bed asked rf tins c^d be dOTC with a new ordinance. Van Zomeren said it should all be refoenc^ m Me addendum to the ordinance as the “tree preservation ordiimM ud elsewhere in the ordinance to the Uee poli.^. She fdt the requirements ar e reviewed regarding direction to applicants. She oT^thould be incorporated. The tree preservation would be a n^ in the zoning code. Van Zomeren said the code would have to be '*7*"^*® are no contradictions. She said the commercial subifivisions are r^at^ districts and is reportedly satisfied with what is written in the zoning code Theco^ be amended, deleted, and upgraded where necessary. The zomng code to^.^to reference the tree ordinance poUcy to strengthen it. Van Zomeren confirmed that all developers, both residential and commercial, must adhere to the zomng Wilson asked how what has been done so far fits In with the codes ^d whether it cm be enforced. Van Zomeren indicated the purpose, authority, and broad a. placed in the purpose statement. Beal can the first draft which was more detailed could be referenced. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7, 1997 (#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Commissioners discussed whether points one and two were necessaiy. Beal noted #2*s intent is to inform private land owners what can be done. Van Zomeren said the distkiction is when an application is made to the City to divide land, which would initiate the tree inventory and how trees are to be preserved. Wilson noted that this would not affect a person wanting to remove a tree on their property. She feh the right of the private property owner needs to be recognized. McDermott questioned if tree removal would be allowed if it affected maintmning the ruralness of the property. He noted tree removal is restricted in the shoreland district. Wilson noted that the purpose of the shoreland ordinance b to orotect lakes from polludoiL Beal said the purpose of #2 is to show tl government b not to be heavy handed regarding what private property owners can dc with th^ property. Use questioned whether the policy can protect the right of each property owner versus a person subdividing thdr property. Beal indicated that it has been determined that the City has the right to regulate subdivision. Wilson indicated that she feels the buffer zone areas arc important. McDermott felt #2 goes against buffering and questioned whether some restriction would be included for private property owners. Wilson did not agree with McDermott but thought there would be some restrictions. Van Zomeren questioned the effect of deciding level of enforcement on subdivisions may impact the ruralness of the property. She noted smaller properties may not have the same impact. She indicated that the ability to inventory trees and regulate "v^at happens vnth trees will not change. Beal suggested #2 be dumnated and buffering cited ebewhere. Wilson noted the purpose is to set guidelines. Gdppz noted that the guidelines would only affect new construction or subdKision. Van Zomeren said tree loss can occur with the installation of a new septic. It was determined that #2 shewed the thought process the committee was taking. Beal suggested starting with the guidelines for development. Wilson said addirional detril can come later and present the general concept to the council with some direction. Van Zomeren noted that the purpose is not to micromanage individual properties. Beal questioned whether the Issue was people clear cutting trees. McDermott said he would not be happy «f that occurred but people have that right. . • • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMNDSSION _ meeting held on JULY 7, 1997 ^ Commisnon dctennined to ddetc #2. #1 would remain with the reference to the City of Plymouth deleted. « was revised to say, "Provide a guidebook for property owners, reco^en^tions on basics of tree preservation and reforestation and maiiitimatirA This IS considered an important........that is targeted at commerdal and residential devxl^ers. (#3now become U2 smcc the original #2 was deleted.) The last sentence m #4 (now #3) will say* Specifics regarding tree preservation and reforestation wfll be provided by outside consultants with Staff Regarding #4, Van Zomeren questioned whether the number of tree would create a problem for providing a building pad. McDermott said Council can make individual excqjtions. Van Zomeren sdd she is not dear on density of zoning districts. She ched the example ^ 100% of the property docs not have to be protected and the intent could result in no devdopment. Wilson said the property would have to meet certain parameters. Beal suggested leaving the parameters to be set by consultant. Re^dmg poUcy for commerdal properties. Van Zomeren dted what she looks for in appDcauons. She acknowledged the need to preserve trees but fek li’.ere was more need for landscape devdopment. She said the Commission needs to recognize that there are other needs than tree preservation alone. She suggested a separate commercial site development policy should be considered. White noted that Navarre is not rural and does not reflect Orono’s philosophy of a niral community. Wilson agreed that the statement in #4 is an ambiguous statement. Se oSber^ddin^ ^ required to follow tree preservation policy along with McDermott questioned what #4 would do for properties such as the Dickey Property. Wilson said it needs reforestation. Vm Zoi^en questioned what should be required for subdrviaon of what is now com fields. Wilson said the requirements should include buffering. Wilson suggested buffering adds grace and softens property. Ilse q^oned what the Commission wants Highway 12, which is the heart of Orono, to look like. Van Zomeren said she is concerned with the Highway 12 parcel that is available or development. Wilson said tree bufifering diould occur. McDermott said it would req^c a specific ordinance for that to occur. Use and Beal agreed that a separate ordinance should be required. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 7,1997 draft (#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Van Zomerco questioned whether parking lot reqi^ements should be traded with increasing landscaping and trees. Wilson encouraged Van Zomeren to be stringent. The new #4 is the detennination of criteria. #5 will state, * A commerdal rite devdopment policy is needed to encourage development.* Wilson said this should contain very ^ecific guidelines for specific buffering. It was suggested that a #6 be added to refer to reforestation. The consultant will be deferred to regarding internal tree % and buffering. Commissioners voiced concern with comfidds or pasture land now becoming reforested and whether that was the goal MdDermott suggested referencing the S>acre zoning and returning properly that was once prairie back to prririe. Wilson suggested #6 be reforestation or prairie devdopment. Use asked how this would affect horse farms. Wilson srid 5 acre properties should be dealt with different^. Wilson said there should be a parameter for reforestation or preservation. McDermott suggested different parameters for different parcel rizes. Wilson thought this was dealt with under #4 where criteria is determined. McDermott said the larger acrei^es can be retrined as open field or prairie under criteria determined in #4. It will be noted in the preamble that Orono has been developed well over the years (wUch was noted at the end of the ori^nal #5). Wilson said she would like to encourage the Council that the next stq;) in the process be the crafting of the policy with the consultant, Stafi^ and several members of the Planning and Park Commissions. Van Zomeren noted that the consultant is under contract. Wilson said Council will to asked to pay the cost of using the consuhant for this task. Wilson asked if the consultant would be lu^ to handle the tree preservation issues once a policy is established. White said the developers could be required to hire a consultant. Beal win redraft and subnut with assistance firom Van Zomeren for Council review on July 14. Wilson thanked Beal and Van Zomeren for thrir work on this issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION ^ MEETING HELD ON JULY 7, 1997 4 (#2) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL UPDATE Gappa reported that the bike trail has been paved to the student center. Some restoradon and seeding is still required. The Council has rejected the bids for the last section as a result of a challenger to the process regarding an addendum. It will be rebid in 198S, which will allow the Chy to know the plans being considered for the school property. Hennq)in Parks will also be constructing their section of the trail next year. "Wilson asked if the DNR grant money has been received. Gappa said the money has not yet been received but shall be when the last trail connection is made. McDermott questioned fencing placed along the trail south of HighwsQr 12 on Old Crystal Road. Chq)pa said the particular fencing was a result of an easement agreement (#3) PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANNING/MAINTENANCE Wilson noted that the Commission will regularly review the paric plans. Gappa will update the progress beiqg made at each park and hs maintenance each month. A. ANTOINE Gappa reported that the playground equipment should arrive shortly. She preparation will take place when that occurs. Completion of the improvements should occur in early August. Gappa wll call and check on the antidpated date of arri\^ for the equipment. Gappa mdicated that the ndghbors have asked that a portion of a garage be saved and doors removed. Gappa and Park Commistionen agreed that all of the buildings will be removed as planned. B. CRYSTAL BAY The poor condition of the fields was noted during the Park Tour. Gaj^ rqx>rted that a contractor had extra black dirt he donated for use at the park. The Chy has agreed to pay for spreading of the 2,000-3,000 yards of dirt. Wilson questioned whether the dirt will be se^ed. Gappa said dormant seeding and mulcfaing wili be done in the fall. Commistioners ask^ that something be done now. White suggested seeding now with rye. Gappa said he would attenqrt to put some type of seeding on the dirt. * * % 8 I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 14,1997 ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Mo<Kse, Chy Attorney Tom Barrett, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael GafGron, PlanneryZoiHiig Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services I^ector Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #S, 9, and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#2) REGIILAR MEETING OF JUNE 23,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 23, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, N^s 0. PARK COM^^SSION COMMENTS (#3) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UPDATE Van Zomeren referred the Council to the memo regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance. She noted that the subcommittee and staff met several times regarding the issue. The Park Coramis^on directed the memo written by Beal be forwarded to the Council for their review. The Park Commission recommended a committee made up of two Park and two Planning Commissioners, along with Staff, and Consuhant develop the spedfics of the ordinance for review and adoption in the fall. Goetten said it was her understanding that the Planning Commission would redew the ordinance. Van Zomeren indicated that the Planning Commission has not seen the draft. Jabbour asked to discuss the agenda item later in the meeting noting he was tfissadsfied with the process taken. (The agenda item was discussed fiuther following the Zoning Administrator's Report.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commisnooer Stoddard had no additional comments at this time PUBLIC COMMENTS Kdth Vanden Brandeo, 1480 Long Lake Boulevard, asked to address the Coundl regarding the nuyor problem that has erupted with milfoil in Long Lake. He asked for Coundl direction regarding what action property owners can take and with whom the matter ^ould be disoissed. Vanden Branden feh the problem arose from use of the public access by boats and th^e ^ould be a public contribution to rectify the problem through an agency such as the DNR. Jabbour informed Vanden Branden that each boat license issued creates a $2*$3 contribution toward milfoil control. Orono does not receive any of these funds. He told Vanden Branden that the increased clarity in the lake has caused the milfoil's growth. Jabbour said he has ^ken with the DNR. Moorse indicated that he has spoken with a person from the DNR who said the darity of the lake has allowed the growth of milfoil to occur. He said there were two options for treatment that could be used, chemical or harvesting, neither of which would solve or dhninate the problem. Jabbour cautioned Vanden Branden regarding the use of chemicals and their toxicity, which he personally feels is a problem. He noted that aquatic birds also create infestation of the milfoil. He suggested Vanden Branden q>eak with the DNR on the matter. Jabbour said if chemicals are used, the property owners should recdve proper notification of Hs use. He suggested Vanden Branden review the chemicals used and make his own conchision. KellQr asked who pays for milfoil harvesting on Lake Minnetonka. Jabbour said the LMCD has three harvesters and another wUch was donated by Hennepin Parks and receives funding from the DNR. It was noted that the MCWD is not involved. Kelley asked whether the DNR could be petitioned regarding treatment of milfoil. JabbW said they could. Moorse noted that there is DNR grant money available for such use. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 9. 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Tree Preservation Ordinance Overview A Park Commission subcommittee has met several times with staff to review other tree preservation ordinances from other municipalities and to review information provided by the American Planning Association entitled "Tree Conservation Ordinances". On July 7. 1997, the subcommittee reported on their work to the Park Commission. The Park Commission discussed a draft memo prepared by David Beal and voted to send the attached memo to the City Council. , PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To request that the City Council appoint a subcommittee or work group of two Park Commission Members and two Planning Commissioners to finalize a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance with assistance from city staff and consultants, such as Dahlgren and Schardlow. The ordinance would be in draft form by mid-September 1997 with ordinance adoption by November 1997. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the Park Commission recomme ndation Attachments: Memo prepared by David Beal dated July 7, 1997 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance re: shade trees and tree preservation Draft ordinance prepared by David Beal dated April 4, 1997 Tree Preservation, Maintenance, & Reforestation Policy for City Council Review and Action Prepared by Orono Park Commission July 7, 1997 Introduction The Park Commission has been asked to prepare the first draft of a Tree Preservation, Maintenance and Reforestation Policy. The process involved review of other municipal ordinances in the metropolitan area (Wayzata, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Eden Prairie). Several meetings have taken place with Park Commission subcommittee members and city staff. The Park Commission voted at their July 7th meeting to propose the following for review and action by the Orono City Council at their July 14, 1997 meeting; Purpose Statement It is the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve existing natural resources. Trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to: stabilization of soil by prevention of erosion and sedimentation; reduction of storm water runoff; improvement of air quality; reduction of noise pollution; control of urban heat island effect; protection and increase of property values; protection of privacy; energy conservation through natural insulation; providing habitat for birds and other wildlife; and conservation and enhancement of the city's physical/aesthetic environment The Park Commission recomir.cnds that an enforceable policy be enacted to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with development or construction would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or subdivision. The policy would also apply to public projects and commercial development. The Park Commission notes that Orono has been well served over the years by "good development". Former cornfields and open pastures, such as Webber Hills, are now forested and covered by vegetation A Tree Preservation policy and ordinance would continue to encourage appropriate development. Authority The state statutes provide the authority to enact tree preservation ordinances under enabling legislation in Chapter 462. Further, the City's Comprehensive Plan (June 1980), notes the importance of tree preservation in several sections, environmental protection goals, urban area 3. 4. Si'" «cTo=»z~rs» .S™ .Sw— "• .^*»» ■" »"”»••«• tr^s. Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Chapter are attached to this me . Key Concepts for a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance 1, Direct a tree preservation policy and ordinance at residential and commercial development. Clearcutting of forested areas would be discouraged. 2. Prepare a guide for property owners tiiat provides information on tree preservation, maintenance, and reforestation. Preservation of the rural theme of Orono should be the purpose or theme of the Rural characteristics include wooded areas as well as open prairie or pas re The ordinance should address specific development such as: . foresmion of pasture land proposed for housing development . tree replacement in wooded areas proposed for development . creation 01 buffers between public and private pro^rty . . tree planting and landscaping for commerical development/redevelopment Establish criteria for preservation, maintenance, and reforestation, to include • tree size and type • density . canopy cover as a percentage of total lot size 6. Prepare amendments to the existing Zoning Code and Subdivision Chapter that address tree preservation, maintenance, reforestation and landscaping. The nroDOsed guide is considered an important companion to the tree preservation “ IJ^vKin and assistance. The Park Commission believes that ^ TOidents enjoy the ratal character and want to protect and mamtam trees. The gu to encourage residents in this endeavor. Consultants who have specific knowledge of trees (landscape architects and foresters) can assist Lff with developing specific criteria for preservation, mamtenance. and reforesuuon. 5. r Recommended Action The Park Commission recommends that the City Council appoint a subcommittee or work group consisting of two Park Commissioners and two Planning Commissioners to work with Liz and Mike to fmalize the policy, ordinaire, and citizen's guide. Assistance would be provided to staff on an as needed basis by consultants (Dahlgren and Schardlow are considered to have expertise in this area and are already consultants to the city on other matters). A draft policy would be prepared by mid-September with ordinance adoption scheduled for November 1997. h COHP PNVTRONMENT JUNE, 1980 The statistical result of this study was the realization that a natural storm water drainage and filtration system was eccnomicalXy practical for Orono, but that excessive urbanization would outstrip the natural capacity of most of the wetlands leading to flooding potential and to increasing levels of nutrient pollution in Lake Minnetonka. Three of the twelve study recommendations are most significant in terms of the effect on this CMP; 1.Every available means should be utilized to preserve the natural water storage and treatment system, which is one of Orono's best assets. 2.The City of Orono should protect land adjacent to marshes which require more than their total existing areas to control storm water runoff and preserve the water quality. 3.The City of Orono should acquire supplementary land which is needed to preserve the integrity of the natural system of pollution treatment and runoff control. QRQNO^S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT :he Goals and policies of this Chapter are basic to the remaining sections the Community Management Plan. Without environmental stability, Orono's character and vitality would be lost. With environmental care and concern, Orono citizens expect their forefather's heritage to live on for generations to come. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOALS 1. 2. 3. « t e TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETONKA. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF ALL OTHER LAKES IN ORONO. TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLAND AND NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. TO PROVIDE FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SUCH THAT THE CITY IS PROTECTED FROM BOTH FLOODING HAZARDS AND POLLUTION HAZARDS. 5.TO PROTECT THE CITY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES FROM POLLUTION AND FROM DEPLETION. TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM AIR, WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION. TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR, INCLUDING SOLAR ACCESS FOR PROPERTI TO PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATIVE WOODLANDS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ORONO'S HERITAGE. 9. TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT IN WOODLANDS AND WETLANDS. 10. TO PROTECT THE LAND FROM SOIL EROSION AND THE HAZARDS OF DUST AND SILTATION. CMP 3-18 k I I K — < P| H u m i m n m i 1 cnVIRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 11. I development or alteration of floodplains will be restricted. Most of the City’s identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected visions applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplai do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling will be etricily controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. NATURAL resource INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. The extent of each such review will be determined by probable environmental impact. Greater detail will be required of larger projects than of smaller ones. As proximity to Lake Minnetonka or a major wetland increases, so will the care and concern increase in direct proportion. ri3. B ON-SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE ’REQUIRED AS PART OF PATTERNS. Whenever a development's location, size, scope or har cove would tend to increase the quantity of runoff, increase the spee o the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing quantity, reducing speed and/or improving quality. No development will be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, y changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting s orm water drainage. 14.LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT THE EXPENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No land will be permitted to be su Jivioea or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the p..pose use because of flood hazard, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. No land use will be allowed to adversely a^^ect the neighborhood's air or water resources nor will any use be permitted to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution. CMP 3-21 'ft. ENVIRONMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each con^rac^or will be required to ninitnize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fxll must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RPSnilRCE MANAGEMFNT 1. / 2. 4. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space put docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation, use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATIO] VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards^Jil^Te established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN IVETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, **^*^^^i®*'*l pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on-site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for wlrter street treatment will be minimized, now removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, espec a y salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring c eanup w 1 promptly remove road sands and salts before environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 g^VTRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 7. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE retained ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space^ each urban property TTJ^^e'J^LOP iSte ' W^ BE DESIGNED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR, and SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. p^ipfrl ARF^ POl TCIFS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 4. land USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE POLLUTION LOADING OF PURAL MARSHES AND DRAINAGEWAYS. Rural densities will be low enough to ensure permanent reliance upon satisfactory on-site sewer and water systems and to ensure that rates of phosphorus and nitrogen generation will not adversely affect t^water the natural^drainage^ RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate hcmesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total watershed population increases, even at our relatively low rural densities, the volume of runoff increases as does the nutrient input. Upland marshes and wetlands will be required for flood control water retention and for maximum nutrient assimilative capacity. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE FARMING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO CONSERVE THE SOIL AND GROUND WATER. Where farming occurs in the rural areas, the use of innovative tilling methods, land banking, crop rotation an wind breaks are encouraged to protect the native soil from erosion and deterioration. Animal sanitation methods will be enforced to assure minimal pollution of draina vays or ground waters. CMP 3-23 D UiL JUNE, 1980 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OP FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease­ ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT, in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development-ubi-clL can be destructive if not properly regulated.laturai vegetation will be preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 1 oc: in Mzo i i- 1 LJ^ND USE JUNE, 1980 13. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique-elatural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. 5Coc:w zc Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale ^2^^0X>ation of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density^ ^IJJ^JJJJ^JJJJ^jEJffiNTSraOUiraDTOACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura­ tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. ALL PHYSICAI, IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided \nd or required by such density increase. I I CMP 4-15 I • ftND USE JUNE, 1980 RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and Internal improvement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. . RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODi AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marsh­ lands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. 0. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the watershed increases, the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase. Orono*s rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters Including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. . I CMP 4-21 § 11.03 55^ "Setback" - The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, system, or facility and a natural feature, property line, right-of-way line, OHWL, structure, system, or other facility. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-24-92 56. "Sewage Treatment System, On-Site" - A device or series of interconnected components designed, installed and main­ tained for the purpose of safely treating and disposing of sewage and domestic waste, whenever such system is not part of a municipal sewer system. a. "Individual System" - A system serving an individual building, typically a single family residence. ^ b. "Collective System" - A system serving two or more buildings, typically including individual septic tanks connected to a common soil treatment and absorption area. c. "Commercial System" - A system serving any non-residential building. 57. "Screening" - A man-made or natural visual barrier of a type that will form a year-round dense_^creen 59. "Shoreline" - A line denoting the ordinary water elevation of any lake, stream or other body of ordinary high water elevation shall be as established by t Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources or any other agencyr whichever elevation xs the highest. 60. "Slope" - Vertical distance in feet per 100 feet of horizontal distance. 61. "Street" - See Roadways. 62. "Structure" - Anything, or part thereof, which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building iLd, or any piece of work artificially built parts joined together in some definite manner, location on, below or above the ground, land, or to something having a location on the ground, land, or water. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-24-92 ORONO CC 423 (4-1-84) s 11.10 a vegetation ^ •_____T^al information ™mres«a dY tne zoning AdinuusTrator or Planning Commission such ^rrs' r°o^ rVvrrr.ri^£^ii=\ “o^“t%1"ael^/fop1er ^oT\^a°i£lc^% i^e hazards, and congestions of population; (c ^ ® y^g^j^^^ent to that°7rope°rty ""which is b^in^Proposed"""for^ the relationships between the 11^ be shown to i;:a^«V o‘£°"thrc%tv“coa:°aT/mt ^H"ap\°er!^"truncation aoes not subdivider. D Application Deadlines. The subdivider shall file a complete Preliminary Subdivision Idiinistrator at least thirty aays prror « "^e Planning Commission meeting at which a p 9 scheduled. Subd 11 Staff and Agency Review of the Preliminary ro^o-^^a^^ttu o1%^‘rim\^%fy"Tuh^J^^^£ty^ all L\\nT'’ffifttaU^r'’"?l^y= itioTmt^'oV status U ^the^ review^hy tt^e%^^o"'’a^"^%p\’*cu"^ns^nitftut "he" governmental agencies. A Referral to Planning Commission. Upon receipt "h\“^c“h^^arfnr"s^tee^"s^t"a’ultt.™™V^V?latun^^^ shall then begin reviewing the proposal. ....„, ...u ~y>.T- >{H£ ‘ •=>: re;"a°i;s^"pti- U^thrmVtttng." -^inc^^Ln oi said ORONO CC 432 (4-1-84) § 11.60 SEC. 11.60. ^RESE^ATION^^F^ATURAI^FEATURES^^AN|^^fffiNITIB^ Subd. 1. General. Existing features which would add value to residential development or to the City as a whole, such as trees, as herein defined, watercourses and falls, beaches, historic spots, and similar irreplaceable assets, shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision. No trees shall be removed from any subdivision nor any change of grade of the land effected u«^til approval of the preliminary subdivision has been granted. All trees dn the subdivision plan required to be retained shall be preserved, and all trees where required shall be welled and protected against change of grade. The vegetation map shall show the number and location of existing trees, as required by this Chapter and shall further indicate all those marked or retention, and the location of all proposed shade trees required along the street side of each lot as required by these regulations. Subd. 2. Shade TreesPlant£d_by_Subdr^^ A. As a requirement of subdivision approval, the City may require that subdivider plant shade trees on the property of the subdivision. Such trees are to be planted within ^ feet of the right-of-way of the road or roads within and abutting the subdivision, or, at the discretion of right-of-way of such roads. One (1) tree shall be planted for every forty (40) feet of frontage along each road unless the Council, upon recommendation of the City staff shall gran a waiver. B. New trees to be provided pursuant to this Chapter shall be approved by the City and shall be plante in accordance with the specifications of the City. Such trees shall have a minimum trunk diameter (measured twelve (12) inches above ground level) of not less than two (2) Locust, Hard Maples, Ginkgo, Ash or other long-lived shade tre-s, acceptable to the City shall be planted. SEC. 11.61. NONRESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. General. If a proposed subdivision includes land that is zoned for commercial or industrial purposes, the layout of the subdivision with respect to such land^shall make such provision as the Council may require. A nonresiden^ial subdivision shall also be subject to all the requirements of the site plan approval set forth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Site pla^ approval and nonresidential subdivision approval may proceed simultaLously at the discretion of the Council. A nonresidentlal subdivision shall be subject to all Chapter, as well as such additional standards required by t Council, and shall conform to the proposed land use and standard established in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and Zoning Chapte of the City Code. ORONO CC 469 (4-1-84) hPP 04 *97 i0:0lHri TP hVELII hi'S F.Z IZ Date: From: To: CC: Subject: April 03, 1997 David Beal Park Commission Members Elizabeth VanZomeren, Mike GafTron, Greg Gapa and Ron Moorse Tree Policy On March 19 a Park Commission sub-commitlec consisting of David Beal, Susan Wilson and Jim White met at the City Hall on the Orono Tree Policy. Liz, Mike and Greg were in attendance The purpose of this committee is to develop a proposal for consideration by the City Council. A general discussion took place, with everyone giving his or her opinion. It is unanimously agreed that Orono needs a policy, but there is disagreement as to whether it should be a policy passed by resolution or as an Ordinance Generally speaking, it was felt that a policy should be aimed primarily at developers because most citizens of Orono arc here because they (we) like Orono's rural setting with it's open space, trees, parks, trails, etc Most citizens, we agreed, have the environment at heart and will tend to do the "right thing" when it comes to preservation of irccs. The writer of this memo has reviewed a number of policies from other cities, including Shorewood, Wayzata, Chanhassen, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie and Austin In all cases the tree preservation and replacement pobey is very specific as to what can and cannot be done, both by developers and individual citizens alike It is the writer’s belief that Orono should adopt the same type of policy because, if there arc no clear applications, definitions, application procedures and enforcement mechanisms, there will be too much opportunity for improper activity to take place. Action needed 1. If the Park Commission and the City Council agrees with my position I will proceed to "flesh out" a policy, borrowing heavily from policies a.ready developed by the cities mentioned earlier Following is an outline, with details to be filled in, for your consideration. OR 2 If the Park Contunission and Council would prefer to implement a general "guide and recommendations" for tree preserv*ation and replacement a much shorter document can be prepared. NOTE; If a Policy and Ordinance is enacted an attractive, concise, layman's guide to tree preservation and replacement should still be produced and distributed to all residents of Orono. hPP 04 '97 1Q:03hI1 TPhVELIIh'.S P.3 IZ (Si Af3!9J. 'TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY CITY OF ORONO I Purpose. It is the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded characur of the area, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limiterl to. stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction ot storm water runoff, improvement of air quality, reducuon of noise pollution, control ^an heat island effect, protection and increase of propeny values, protection conservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildUfe and conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic environment The purpose of this policy is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or construction would adversely affect the character of or semipublic projects This policy also recognizes that, despite the best efforts of the City and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in the development or construction process. In those cases tree replacement or reforestation shall be required. Requirements where there would be greater public need for the project than to mw requirements of this policy The terms and provisions of this Policy , in conjunction the Orono Tree Preservation Ordinance No shall apply to all activity which requires e issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit m Derinitions. All words in this Policy have their customary dictionary definition except as specifically defined herein The word "shaU ’’ is deLed words "should" and "may" are permissive Technical terms used m this Policy arc define in Appendix A RniiHahlP Area- The portion of a lot which is not located within any mimmum required yard, landscape strip/area, or buffer, that portion of a lot wherein a building may be located, as prescribed by the Orono Zoning Code. hF'P 04 ••?7 10:Q5hM TP hVELHhVS P.4 IZ nsH (Oiftmeter-at-Brftast-Heig htV A standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one«haIf feet (4 1/2') above ground If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (4 1/2'), then the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split nHpHngt A vertical line extending from the outer surface of a tree's branch tips down to the ground T .anrf Pkmrhance Permit: An official authorization issued by the Building and Zoning Administrator, allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction Protection Zone All lands that fall outside the buildablc area of a parcel. ■<iipmfigant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inches(8") DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12") DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (8 ) or more in height. Box-cldcr, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees. Tr«»e or ^tanri Any tree or grouping of trees which has been determined to be of a high value by the Building and Zoning Administrator because of its species, size, age, or other professional criteria Structure' Anything w'hich is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Tree: Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a single woody-trunk, and a potential DBH of two inches (2") ? . more. Tree Preservation Plan : A plan established in Section TV(B) of this, Policy See Appendices B and C ftiiiirfinp anH 7nning Administfatof: The agent of the City of Orono ba^'ing the primary responsibilities of administration and enforcement of this Policy. IV Procedures A. Development Standards (copy to be added). 1. Size of trees. 2 Species, health and attractiveness of the trees including. a. Sensitivity to disease b. Life span i .4 12 hPP 04 ‘37 10:O4Hn TPhVELUhiS f-'.T- li c Nuisance characteristics d. Sensitivity to grading 3. Potential for transplanting 4. Need for thinning a stand of trees. 5 Effect on the functioning of a development B. Land Disturbance Permit Procedure. (Details of items 1-10 omitted) Here would be a listing of approved tree species to be used as replacements when trees are lost or removed. For example; Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvcmica Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia 1 1 Financial guarantce(Si;bdividers) (copy omitted) 12 Financial Guarantee (Builders) (copy omitted) V, Jrgg ^ Sifg Related D-WturbaDCtS^ nrnt^tion zoncs' (Here would be wording on tree protection and disturbance prevention regarding physical tool damage, indirect root damage, tturdt and crown disturbance, and direct physical root damage, etc. es yf. MfthffdS of Protectiona. A. Planning and considerations, (copy omitted) B. Protective Barriers (copy omitted) C. Encroachment, (copy omitted) D. Reclamation of the Growing Site., (copy omitted) hPP 04 '97 lOmUHtl TP hVE:L11 hiS p.t. 1£ JRFF PftFSF.RVATTON POT irV CJTY OF ORONO Tecbnical Terms: appendix a Cambium: The tissue within the woody ponion of trees and shrubs which gives nse to the woody water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees Cambial dieback: The irreparable radial of vertical imermption of a tree's cambium, usually caused by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat. Cortiferous; Belonging to the group of conc-beaiing evergreen trees or shrubs. Deciduous- Not persistent; the shedding of leaves annually. Feeder roots A complex system of small annual roots growing outward and predominantly upward from the system of "transport roots" These roots branch four or more times to form fans or mats of thousands of fine, short, non-woody tips. M^v of these small roots and their multiple tips are 0 2 to Imin or less in diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long These roots constitute the major fraction of a tree's root system surface area, and are the primary sites of absorption of water and nutnents. Major Woody Roots First order tree roots originating at the "root collar’' and growing horizontally li the soil to a distance of between 3 and 1 5 feet from the tree s trunk These major woody roots include anchorage, structural support, the storage of tood reserves, and the transpon of minerals and nutrients. Protected Root Zone; The rooting area of a tree established to limit root disturbances. Tliis zone is generally defined as a circle with a radius extending from a tree s tru^ t p“el®than the furthes, crown dnplinc Disturbances wi.hin rhis zone w.Il d.recrly affect a tree’s chance for survival. Root Collar; The point of attachment of major woody roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the gi oundline and associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk. Root Respiration. /Vn active process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and involving tlie consumption of oxygen and sugars with the release o* energy and carbon-dioxfde Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport ot minerals and nutrients essential for tree survival. P.6 12 i^'P 04 ’97 10:04hM TP hVEUI hVS P.7 12 ll Rope Roots; An extensive network of woody second ordei roots arising from major ^e^aieTze inctin^^amVer.The^^^^^^^ of rope roots is the transport of water and nutrients, and the storage of food reserves. SoU Compaction: A change in soil physical properties which includes an increase in soil weight per unit volume, and a decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated vibrations, frequent traffic and weight. .\s related to tree roots, compacted soil can cause physical root damage, a decrease in soil oxygen levels with an increase in toxic «ases, and can be impervious to new root development. Transport Roots. The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roots. It or ees. i:pp 04 '97 10:04hI! TF-hVELI IH i'S P.8 IZ I^££_2RESEE^AIIQN-EQL1CXX1I^lJ!1H-DR0NQ A.PPENDIXB. ■ r Checklist for Tree Protection Plan; Tree Protection Plans. a ProvUiom for troo protoctron on the s.te shall be, at minimum, in confotmance «th the requirements of the City of Orono Tree Preserv-'ation PoUcy m conjunction with the Orono Tree Preserv'ation Ordinance No b. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either as part ot a landscape plan, preliminary plat, or as a separate drawing, to include the following; (1) All tree protection zones r) Approximate location of all specimen trees or stands of trees (3) Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preservation is questionable, or might result in a change of the site design (4) Identification of specimen trees to be removed. (Removal of specimen tr is subject to Building and Zoning Administrator approval.) (5) Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as grading, trenching, etc. w ere these disturbances may affect tree protection zones (S') Proposed location of underground utilities (7) Methods of tree protection shall he indicated for all tree protect.on zones, aeration systems, staking, signage, etc ^ The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, maten^ ^ concrete washout, and burial holes where these areas img t a ec re protection. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans and a grading plans in large letters; land dim'rbance. ,2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building construction (}> Contact the City of Orono Planning Department at 473-7357 for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation. hPP 04 "S7 lQ:0THri TFhVELI iH'i'S P.9 II KEY CH-CHE3flY R.O.-aeoQAK W.O. - WHITE OAK A-ASH tree preservation policy CITY OF ORONO appendix c SAMPLE DRIVE V F.O. GPCUP -------- 1S FOOT WORKIMG S.NVSLOPS FENCING & SVARNING SlCNAGc UnUTY ALLE'r stockpile perimeter tree TO ee REMOVED TOS.od 10.0 driveway 1 in®.24.0 garage 1 5« •• »> % ' ^ 24.: ikd - - s.o 3!:.35 PROPOSED HOUSE 24.0 40.0 20 s.o W.O. GROUP C.l t••••••• to.o f^-p OJ ' ?7 10:0ThII TPh'.CLUh■ S P.ll IZ es0i VCanopy Drip-line tiooooow ■^.'■vvtxs;uv^s<^wES5;;;CC^^ ;I^W^.OCr>-7 ' _j^"^ - Criucal Root Radius Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-line Actual r..H.r Root System Ext,^:jfe«Jg2Sji!«J^J'^“’£'^ figure 1 typical critical root zone r n f CITY OFu[ ORONO J UBECiO^LS CITY OF MINNETONKA GUIDE TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ’*•f •< JUN Z&. 1991 1. PURPOSE OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE The City of Minnetonka has establish!^ a Tree Preservation Ordinance to govern the preservation, protection, and removal of trees within the city. This document is a summary of the ordumce. For specific details of the ordinance, please refer to City Code Section 300.28, subdivision 19 or call the planning department at 939-8290. . 2. DEFINITION The Tree Preservation Ordinance only applies to trees that meet the city’s significant tree definition. Trees that do not meet this definition are not regulated by the ordinance. Significant Tree - A deciduous tree of at least eight inches caliper or coniferous tree of at least 15 feet in height, excluding a diseased tree which is likely to die. The caliper of a deciduous tree shall be measured 4.5 feet above the base of the tree. 3. WHERE SIGNIFICANT TREES CAN BE DESTROYED WITHOUT REPLACEMENT A. Significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas: 1) within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities, and the required areas for surface water ponding, 2) within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements, and 3) within the footprints of buildings and 20 feel around buildings with frost footings. B.Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall be exempt from this subdivision, except as stated in 4C below, unlgss the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. 4. REPLACING SIGNIFICANT TREES • • • • A. For each significant tree removed in areas outside of those identified in 3A above, a replacement tree must be planted on the property, subject to the following: - Th® applit^ will not be required to raise the number of trees above 25 trees per acre. r - - 2) If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate location for some or all of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. '.V- •« l»i v;^“ •• • * ; \J! in f B. Any trees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarily species native to the area, may not. include any species that are subject to disease epidemic or are on the list of less desirable tre« established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. The required trees must be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they die within one year after installation.;; T • ^ * C. A significant tree diat was removed or otherwise destroyed by human means within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of 4B above. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. m 6. TREE SIZES All replacement trees must be at least two and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and six-feet tall for coniferous trees, except that for property located in the Planned 1-394 District they must be at least thr ee and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and ten-feet tall for coniferous trees. 6. BEFORE STARTING WORK Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion control fencing, or a similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees to be preserved or that are located nearby on adjacent property. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees and when the risk to the trees designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. 7. CITY FORESTER TREE SPECIES LIST The following trees arc considered by the City to be less desirable trees. New replacement trees may not be of these species and the City will take into consideration the less desirable qualities of such trees in the review of a development proposal. ■ t Less Desirable Trees Boxelder: Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay. Cottonwoods: Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay, heavy seed production. Susceptible to Dutch elm'disease. . < • • «■. - ••• • Rapid growth, weak wood, short-lived. Rapid'grwrth, weak wo^, prone to dewy^aiid wind damage,. Elms: *. Poplah': Willows: 4 *; • A- ‘.•iT* Vr • G:\WPVFO^VU\TRE£?RES.FRM - APR97 ■. *•. > rV ‘V.***-.• ' • ... •1 V'. ) J CfTYOF ORONO ) SEBOW ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 iJUN 2 6 1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MINNETONKA CITY CODE CHAPTER 300 REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND DENSITY RANGES »• • • THE CITY OF MINNETONKA DOES ORDAIN: ARTICLE I - TREE PROTECTION Section 1. The following existing definition in City Code §300.02 is amended to read as follows: Significant Tree - A deciduous tree of at least eight inches caliper or coniferous tree of at least 15 feet in height, excluding a diseased tree which is likely to die. The caliper of a deciduous tree shall be measured 4.5 feet above the base of the tree. Section 2. City Code §300.28, Subd. 16(b)(3) is amended to read as follows: a tree survey showing all significant trees and a tree preservation plan; Section 3. City Code §300.28, Subd. 18(a) is amended to read as follows: a) The plan shall comply with the performance standards regulating tree removal under subdivision 19 below. Section 4. City Code §300.28, Subd. 19 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 19. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REGULATING TREE REMOVAL. Standards governing the preservation, protection, and planting of trees are necessary to: 1) prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compaction, filling or excavation near tree roots; 2) prevent or reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and storm water runoff; improve air quality and reduce noise pollution; 4) enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading; control the urban heat island effect; increase and maintain property values; -•*. * ) ) ) ORDINANCE NO. 97- 778 7) protect privacy by maintaining buffers between similar land uses and establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses; and 8) • preserve the variety and extent of trees which exist in the city and which are an integral part of this city's identity. A certain amount of tree removal is an inevitable consequence of the urban development process. Nevertheless, construction of streets, utilities, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities must be located in a manner to save as many significant trees as possible. Iri enforcing this ordinance, the city may give preference to the preservation of higher quality significant trees over less desirable trees. A tree may be considered of higher quality based on its species, size, location, or other relevant factors. The city forester will establish a list of species that are considered less desirable, and this list will be kept on file in the planning department. The city may require that a property be rezoned and developed as a Planned Unit^ Development to utilize flexible development standards to preserve significant trees; the city may require the clustering of buildings where this would preserve significant trees. Significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas: within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities and the required areas for surface water ponding. within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements, and 3) within the footprints of buildings and 20 feet arou.nd buildings with frost footings. If a significant tree is removed in other areas, trees must be planted to meet the number of significant trees which existed in those other areas before development, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (f) and (g) below. f) The provision of replacement trees is subject to the following: ) ■ ) ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 3 g) i) j) • The applicant will not be required to raise the number of trees above 25 trees per acre. If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate location for some or all of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. In calculating the number of replacement trees, only trees meeting the minimum sizes in subparagraph (g) below may be counted. Notwithstanding the above, any development that is subject to Section 300.27 must meet the minimum landscape requirements of that section. Any trees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarily species native to the area, may not include any species that are subject to disease epidemic or are on the list of less desirable trees established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. They must be at least two and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and six feet tall for coniferous trees, except that for property located in the Planned 1-394 District they must be at least three and one-half Inches in diameter for deciduous trees and ten feet tall for coniferous trees. The required trees must be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they die within one year after installation. Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion contro fencing, or similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees that are to be preserved or that are located nearby on adjacent property. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees and when the risk to the tref.s designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. The city may require a conservation easement to ensure that selected areas of significant trees are not destroyed after development has been approved. A significant tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of paragraph (g) above. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ■ *ordinance. k) The area of any compensatory water storage may not be located where there are any significant trees, unless approved by the city. The compensatory 4 ) ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 4 storage area must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. I) Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall be exempt from this subdivision, exc ipt as stated in paragraph (j) above, unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. Section 5. City Code §300.22, Subd. 3{a) is amended to read as follows: a) Each P.U.D. shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated Wetlands, Floodplain or Shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: 1) unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a P.U.D. will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2) the property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a P.U.D. or planned unit resident development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; 3) the property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan; 4) the property is proposed to be developed with single family dwelling lots having a minimum area of 15,000 square feet; or 5) the property contains a significant amount of significant trees which could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. Section 6. City Code §300.10, Subd 5 {g){2){b){3) is amended to read as follows: b.variances to permit lots with reduced frontage on public right-of-way, neck lots or lots with no frontage on public right-of-way which access by psrmanently recorded easements will be considered, but not necessarily granted, only upon evidence that the following standards are met: age 4 ORDINANCE NO. 97-778 Page 5 earby i shall jnless of the thin a ss the ;nding lysical lunity; operty isident ension id use in the ig lots which design )llows: )f-way, :ess by 3ssarily 3) the city determines that a right-of-way exterision wouid adversely impact natural amenities including wetlands or stands of significant trees; Section 7. City Code 1300.24, Subd. 8 and 9 are amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 8. REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT Und ma7be removed from the Floodplain district only by a Dormant to the provision of section 300.09 of this ordinance and only if is provided in an amount compensatory to that removed by such ee*'°h chanced hydrologic engineering data is presented which indicates , a„y such that the floodplain characteristics can be maintained. The ' compensatory water storage cannot be located where there are ^ unless aoDroved by the city. The compensatory storage area mu.,t be ^reatea in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. In addition to . Tequhements the city may require submission and approval of the following information: a) a concept plan indicating ultimate utilization of the property, b) a grading plan with appropriate drainage calculations and erosion prepared by a registered engineer; c) a floodplain survey in accordance with the provisions of this dinance, d) a landscaping or revegetation plan; e) a review of the proposal by the Minnesota department of natural resources if applicable and the appropriate watershed district; and f) such other information as may be necessary or convenient to review request. SUBDIVISION 9. ALTERATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN. No alteration district shall be allowed without a floodplain alteratiori P®'™' - inuncil recommendation by the planning commission and approva o a ci y • Alterations will only be allowed for correction or enhancement purposes . water storage is provided in an amount compensatory to that remove o -uanned hydrologic engineering data is presented which indicates how conditions have changed such that the floodplain characteristics can be mamtained. The ®;®® ° compensatory water storage cannot be located where there are any ^ unleL approved by the city. The compensatory storage area rnust be crea ed in a Tanner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. In determining the ige 5 ) ORDINANCE NO. 97*778 Page 6 srsely s of Land iment corage ptable anged f any trees, td in a cation owing appropriateness of an alteration request, the city council shall consider the size of the Floodplain district, the magnitude of the area proposed for alteration and the hydrologic effect. Application for floodplain alteration shall be accompanied by such information as required by the city and may included the following: a) a concept plan indicating ultimate utilization of the property; b) a grading plan with appropriate drainage calculations and erosion controls prepared by a registered engineer; c) a review of the proposal by the Minnesota department of natural resources if applicable and the appropriate watershed district; and d) a landscaping or revegetation plan. Dntrols jrces if ew the )odpIain ject to council. J only if ceptable changed of any nt trees, jted in a ling the ARTICLE II - RANGE OF DENSITIES Section 1. City Code §300.10, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-1 district is to provide a district for singl? ^'•mily detached dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with w.ie low density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and compatible with surrounding land use characteristics. Development within this district shall occur at densities not exceeding four dwelling units per acre. The allowed density for a piece of prop.3rty will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site plan; the type of housing units proposed, including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but ihat avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards of this ordinance; the potential impact ^rom traffic generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burdan of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 2. City Code §300.11, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R*2 district is to provide a district for single family and two family dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with the low density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and ^age 6 of the rologic nation jntrols roes if riot for sistent patible occur 9 piece sation. operty easing tiands, ype of se the )rdable ig; the ;t from den of on the rict for nent is an and ) ORDINANCE NO. 97- 778 Page 7 compatible with surrounding land use characteristics. Development within this district shall occur at densities not exceeding four dwelling units per acre. The allowed density for a piece of property will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site plan; the type of housing units proposed,-including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that Is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but that avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards of this ordinance; the potential impact from traffic generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 3. City Code §300.12, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-3 district is to provide a district for attached dwellings in those areas where such development is consistent with the low or medium density residential designation of the comprehensive plan and compatible with the development pattern of the surrounding area. Clustering of buildings to permit more orderly development and to enhance the preservation of open space is encouraged within the district. Development within the district shall occur at densities not exceeding 12 dwelling units per acre. The allov/ed density for a piece of property will be determined by the city at the time of the development application. The determination will be based upon the site specific characteristics of the property and the requested development. Factors to be considered in increasing or decreasing the allowed density include the existing environmental conditions such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and significant trees; the specific site .plan; the type of housing units proposed, including whether greater density is desirable because the development contains affordable housing that is consistent with the city's affordable housing goals but that avoids unacceptable concentrations of such housing; the requested zoning; the minimum standards of this ordinance; the potential impact from traffic generated by the development; and the surrounding area. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of the high end of the density range will be on the applicant. Section 4. City Code §300.13, Subd.1 is amended to read as follows: SUBDIVISION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the R-4 district is to provide a district for attached and multiple family dwellings in those areas designated for medium density residential development in the comprehensive plan. Development within this district shall occur at densities greater than four but not exceeding 12 dwelling units per acre. •Ht [•mau] •llfl« •MiilallsT*•KIOIcVcl •llllT«llfT« tl^«1 [•vsicatraiM [•■•iMTirt rtr^^rt [•IffWa •llfitl •I^i L«i»Ofl0»0i«iiMr0rs]/s70 •1V/^0V«MfT0ii«r«i [•I0I«I«1K tlMtltlcfsTi rtiifTti ;lal« •ic«rsi« r«»f«]fiifi0 •■•1 [•lllil«ll0l0l •llltf* •1^0 0leHi1 [0]fsifr0iiV0^r0B0iM iil0liV^i0j0l <10] [0lfslV0] [0M#cr0i