Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/09/1990 ........................................................................................................................... ................................................ .. kill ;? ...................................................... >a : 2 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION z z APRIL 99 1990 is ii^if.'ii%:•5>5�v>iiir}[iijti;: •::::v::•:;•:•:•::::...��:'%::..'.: ::v::......::::.:�::::::::::::::.::....v??????;:::::::::.v..,».,,.v.q;?v.y:.,•:::::;;ti}yn v::::::::::::::::::::.::.�.�..?:A:: ''::::;:: i::ii,^<:•:is k� >:i{ :;:k,•. :. ............r....r.r......r..............rrr......r......r............r.rr....r.....r.r.....r.........r.r..........rr......r..........rr...r............rrr.r...........rrw..rrr............r.....r...r..............rr.r.....rrrr...........wr... AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 09, 1990 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Scott Kipp, Assistant Planner, Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. ORDINANCE REVIEW 7:45 A. TREE ORDINANCE Amending City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning) " by adding an Environmental Preservation Regulations section which will regulate tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other things. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AG040990.MMR 0 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION -";APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1990 7:30 PM CITY BALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Don Uram, Planner; Scott Kipp, Planner; Stuart Fox, City Forester; Roger Pauly, City Attorney; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Hallett, Ruebling, and Norman absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS •III. MINUTES MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of the March 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. IV. ORDINANCE REVIEW A. TREE ORDINANCE Amending City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning) " by adding an Environmental Preservation Regulations section which will regulate tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other things. Enger reported that the City Council had directed the Planning Commission in 1986 to begin work on policies directed to better preserve woodlands, hills and slopes, and wetland areas. Since 1986, the City had implemented the Tree Replacement Policy on over 50 developments. The policy had been modified over the last 3 years to make it as fair and as workable as possible. The Tree Replacement Policy was reviewed by a Developer's Forum subcommittee in 1988 which subsequently recommended changes that were incorporated into the City's Tree Replacement Policy as presented in the April 6, 1990 memorandum. The Developer's Forum endorsed the Tree Replacement Policy upon incorporation of their recommendations. The draft of the Ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney's office based on the policy. A minor change in the policy, which is to become part of the Ordinance, is that 10% of the trees could be removed from a parcel without any replacement or review by Staff. This change was adopted to respond to concerns regarding single- family, individual lots. Staff met on January 8, 1990 with Developer's Forum representatives to discuss concerns before the final review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The concerns and Staff's responses are included in the information packet. Enger stated that one concern, which warranted special comment, was that the ordinance suggested that the City Council would need to hold separate hearings to approve a land alteration permit and a preliminary plat. Staff had recommended that. the ordinance be reworded to reflect the approval of a land alteration permit be concurrent with the approval of the preliminary plat. Enger stated that prior to the Tree Replacement Policy, tree loss was approximately 50% within a development and since the policy's adaption, this figure has been reduced to approximately 27%. Enger believed that because of the tree policy, a significant number of trees had been saved and the policy had been an effective incentive to good site planning. . Enger stated that a tree inventory was a very helpful tool in the site planning process. Enger recommended that the Tree Preservation Ordinance be given favorable approval as part of the Land Alteration Ordinance and forwarded to the City Council. Bill Gilk, 8415 Eden Prairie Road, asked the Planning Commission if a copy of an alternative ordinance drafted by the Developer's Forum had been made available to them. Enger replied that the Planning Commission had been given a "copy. Gilk believed that something was missing in Staff's approach to the tree policy and that was why he had taken issue with it on his project, Red Rock Shores. Gilk believed that in the isolated situations where the property was heavily wooded the property was held hostage by the present Tree Replacement Policy. Gilk recommended that a minimum of 1 new tree per lot be required to be planted even if tree loss had not occurred. Gilk believed this recommendation to be a more positive approach. Gilk requested that the Planning Commission not approve and forward this ordinance to the City Council, but instead recommend that a task force be formed to review a plan to require new plantings and discourage excessive tree removal. Gilk believed that . all the developers were interested in preserving trees and were merely recommending a look at other alternatives. Gilk believed that a development in a heavily wooded area was penalized. Dick Feerick, developer, stated that he was pleased to see the effort made by Director Enger and the Planning Department • Staff to meet with the developers. Feerick believed that it was important to develop a policy which was easy to administrate, one which was fair to everyone, and achieves the basic objectives. Feerick presented the Planning Commission with a copy of the Woodbury Tree Ordinance, which he believed to be a very simple policy. Feerick supported Gilk's recommendation to form a task force and that a continuing effort be made between Staff and the developers to come to a compromise. Feerick recommended consideration of the alternative ordinance presented by the Developer's Forum. Brian Helmken, director of Municipal Affairs for the Builders Association of Minnesota, stated concern that many questions were left unanswered at this time and believed that .more discussions should occur and a task force be established. Helmken believed that the preservation of trees was a worthy cause. He added that past experience had proven that the simpler the policy the better and a policy that all parties can work with effectively. Helmken believed that the . Eden Prairie policy still had some areas which needed further discussion. Enger stated that Eden Prairie was one of the first communities to work on a Tree Preservation Policy. He added that this policy 'had not been developed in a hasty manner, • which should be quite evident by the fact that the current policy had undergone modifications for the past 3 years. Enger noted that Eden Prairie did not set out to draft a policy which could work necessarily in other communities. Enger believed that Eden Prairie had unique circumstances and that the policy had been endorsed by 900 of the local builders. Enger stated that he was somewhat taken back by those speaking this evening suggesting that more time was necessary for further discussion, when the policy had been in the working and revision stage for over 3 years. Enger noted that the City Council had called this issue back and requested that the policy be drafted into an ordinance format. Enger believed that the current policy does provide an incentive to preserve trees. Enger added that he believed that the -recommendation to plant a tree for every lot certainly had merit; however, Staff was reluctant to add more requirements because of -the lack of support on the current policy from the development community. Enger stated that the current policy had worked on 56 projects, Staff had. worked diligently with the Developer's Forum to reach a reasonable compromise, but at this time a difference of opinion exists. Enger reported that a study of the Developer's Forum alternative draft would actually result in less trees being planted. Walter Carpenter, nursery owner., stated that there was a major national thrust for greening up America and believed that Eden Prairie was a prime prospect for'a new program being proposed. • Carpenter said that he would like to see the policy encourage the planting and utilization of more trees. Carpenter believed that the ordinance as proposed emphasized the preservation of trees, but at a steep penalty to the developers. He believed that a double burden was placed on the developer because trees need to be removed in order to develop the property which decreased the value of the property. Carpenter believed that a major issue needed to be fair and equitable basis. Jim Ostenson, '11553 Welters Way, stated that as a member of the Developer's Forum had worked with Staff for some time. Ostenson added that the developers- highly valued the trees. Ostenson believed that when trees were removed from the land, an economic lose occurs. 'Ostenson also believed that the developers and Staff were more sensitive to the tree loss than they were 10 to 12 years ago. He concurred with Staff that it. was necessary to control development, but would support a policy which was easy to administrate. Ostenson stated that the current system creates an economic hardship and was difficult to administrate. Ostenson stated that the developers concurred with Staff that a tree inventory should .be made on each project. Ostenson added that the developers believed that the permitting which • goes along with the Grading and Land Altefation Permits should be addressed at the same time as the Preliminary Plat. Ostenson .stated that the third concern was the current bonding procedure. He added that currently the developer had the cost to plant the trees plus the cost of the bond, which results in approximately ' 2.5% times the cost of the trees. Ostenson stated that it was difficult to get bonding and, therefore, the developer was forced to provide a letter of credit, which affects the working capital. Ostenson recommended that a 125% bond or letter of credit be required; however, once the trees were planted the bond would be reduced to 40%. He added that the typical tree loss after planting was between 5 and 10%. Ostenson further recommended that after one year, the lost trees would be replaced and one year later, the total bond returned. Ostenson believed that a differentiation between a bond, letter of credit, and cash surety should be made. Ostenson noted that the main point of difference between the developers and Staff at this time was how the tree loss was calculated. Ostenson explained the Plymouth tree policy, which stated that if trees were damaged outside of the construction limits, the developer was responsible to pay $100 per caliper inch -and that tree replacement was not required within the construction zone. He added that the developers believed that this same policy .could work in Eden Prairie. Ostenson stated that roads were necessary for projects to be developed and recommended that the developer be responsible for replacement of trees in the right-of-way area or 1 tree per lot which ever would be the greater. Ostenson noted that the majority of area left in Eden Prairie to be developed was not heavily wooded. Ostenson believed that the developers proposal would not only replace trees in the wooded areas, but would increase the number of trees throughout the entire Eden Prairie community. Ostenson believed that multiple-family and commercial development should be given further consideration. Ostenson also believed that the City needed to be more flexible in the allowance of steeper grades, cul-de-sacs, and flag lots to help the developer preserve more trees. Dodge asked if the Plymouth policy related to going outside the construction boundaries would be difficult to police. Enger replied that many policies were difficult to police. Enger added that the Tree Replacement Policy was believed to be more objective than subjective. The policy was to be used as a tool by the developers to determine if the tree loss would be viewed as excessive by Staff and a tool to mitigate the tree loss. Enger believed that the developers have lost less lots in the development process because of the tree policy. Enger stated that the problem with the Plymouth Ordinance, which is currently the argument against the Eden Prairie Ordinance, is how many trees will actually be lost and exactly where the construction area is. Enger believed that the problem with the Plymouth Ordinance was that the developers would have a natural tendency to request a larger • construction area than was actually necessary. Enger noted that the biggest argument with the current policy was not the formula used for the calculation for replacement, but how the actual construction area was defined. Enger stated that City Forester, Stu Fox, had developed an extensive criteria to determine the tree loss. Enger stated that he did not see an incentive for tree preservation with the Plymouth Ordinance and questioned the legal standing related to the $100 fine per caliper inch. Enger believed that the Eden Prairie Ordinance dealt fairly with developers in the heavily wooded area and provided a true mitigation to the loss. Bauer stated that he understood the developers to contend that the current policy did not work for commercial areas, small wooded areas, or open areas. It appeared that the only point that the developers believed to be acceptable was the requirement of a tree inventory. Enger replied that he believed that the policy worked for all of these categories. Enger noted that it was commercial and industrial properties which actually started the policy. The policy was modified to better deal with heavily wooded areas. Enger believed that the policy had proven itself successful on 56 projects over the past 3 years. Enger further believed that the cost impact per lot was minimal. Bye believed that both preservation and reforestation were addressed in the Ordinance. Bye encouraged reforestation. Bye believed that since this policy had been worked on for over 3 years, if additional time were needed for a task force to review this further, this should be the decision of the City Council. Bye believed that the City had been flexible in the commercial areas. Feerick believed that industrial sites did bear a double burden and should be reviewed further, and that the ordinance did not work well as written for the heavily wooded areas. Gilk stated that on the Red Rock Shores project he would have been required to supply a $50, 000 bond for trees. Gilk believed that with only a couple more meetings, a stronger ordinance could be developed. Gilk strongly recommended that more time be given to this issue. Bauer believed that the developers and the Staff were not close to a compromise. Gilk replied that within the last 60 days, more dialogue had occurred between the developers and Staff than in the past. Gilk believed that the disagreement over the Red Rock. Shores project was the catalyst for the Ordinance to be drafted at this time. Dodge stated that over the "last 3 years only 1 or 2 developers had raised issue with the Tree Replacement Policy at the Planning Commission level. Dodge added that she had believed that the policy had worked well for both the developers and • Staff. NOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Environmental Preservation Regulations, which include regulation of tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other provisions. Motion carried 4-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0. 011-G040990.MMR