Planning Commission - 07/10/2000 - Workshop APPROVED WORKSHOP MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,JULY 10, 2000 6:00 p.m., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Kenneth E. Clinton, Frantz
Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig,
Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting
STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural
Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Alan Gray, City Engineer
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
Donald Uram, Community
Development/Financial Services Director
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Ray Stoelting opened the meeting at 6 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brooks,
Foote, Stoelting. Absent: Stock. Staff: Gray, Fox, Franzen
II. WORKSHOP TOPICS
A. Shoreland Ordinance
Scott Kipp presented the topic. The purpose of the Shoreland Code is to allow for
development of land and to protect and preserve water bodies. The ordinance was
adopted in 1982. Prior to this the city used DNR regulations and city draft code. In
1996 the DNR adopted revised standards. The ordinance is applied to land within
1,000 feet of lakes and 300 feet from creeks and rivers. Lot size, impervious
surface, lot density, and structure setbacks are all considered in applying the
ordinance. The DNR has recognized that the shoreland ordinance is applied
statewide, and that some flexibility is necessary in applying the ordinance in urban
areas. Waivers are granted through Planned Unit Developments. The shoreland
code addresses different water types; different water types have different setbacks;
these are identified in the staff memorandum. Setback requirements vary according
to zoning district and classification of water. Cities can be more restrictive than
DNR but not less restrictive. To protect the shore and bluffs adjacent to water
bodies, the code includes Shore and Bluff Impact Zones. The Shore Impact Zone
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
JULY 10, 2000
PAGE 2
is one-half the distance of the building setback based on the water classification.
The Bluff Impact Zone includes the bluff as defined in the code, and 20 feet from
the top of the bluff.
The city's downtown area was planned long before any shoreland standards. To
apply the strict shoreland standards to development in this area would prohibit the
development of land and would be considered a property taking. Therefore, the
city reviews projects in this area for reasonable development to occur. The city
controls or owns 66% of the shoreland area within the city.
Kipp presented an example of a site plan where waivers were used for reasonable
development but still protects and conserves the bluff areas. The city granted a
waiver for part of the bluff area. They could have shifted lot lines and developed in
a steeper area. By permitting the waiver, it saved additional slopes and wooded
area. In exchange, the city received a conservation easement.
Foote asked what is done for enforcement of the conservation easement.
Kipp said an easement is recorded and the developer must demarcate the boundary
so residents realize where the area is protected.
Foote asked about penalties.
Kipp gave the example of an encroachment on Mitchell Lake with a resident
cutting trees. The homeowner had to reforest the area.
Foote said he wanted to ensure some means of enforcement.
Stoelting asked about the impervious surface where the ordinance mentions total
area along shoreland not to exceed 30% and the storm water basins used when the
property is adjacent to a body of water.
Kipp said the development must provide for storm water handling and
pretreatment before discharge. The NURP pond will hold water to filter it prior to
leaving to the site; minimizing impervious surface reduces the amount of runoff.
Franzen said the DNR does not require storm water treatment; the issue is 70%
remains natural surface so groundwater is absorbed; the city ordinance allows 30%
impervious surface plus treated storm water; that is where it differs from the state.
B. Wetland Protection
Leslie Stovring presented Standards for Protection of Wetlands. This ordinance
was adopted as final on February 10 this year. It applies to any lot of record
approved after Feb lst. Anything coming in now or came in before then and not
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
JULY 10, 2000
PAGE 3
approved by then is affected. The goal of the ordinance is to balance diversity of
types with development needs. The buffer provides demarcation for development
and wetlands; filtering commercial or residential fertilizer; pesticides, etc. There
are development review guidelines for Wetlands, Buffer Strips, Storm water
Treatment, Erosion Control, Monumentation, and Water Quality Baseline Testing
for exceptional quality wetlands. With the Development Review Checklist, the
applicant identifies whether it is a wetland. If there is a wetland; a delineation
report is supplied as to where the line is. Plan documentation must be shown on the
grading and/or landscaping plans. If the developer is proposing a fill, it must
provide documentation of avoidance and minimization efforts for the proposed fill,
a hardship, and a landscaping plan for the wetland or wetland buffer strip areas
impacted, conceptual wetland mitigation, a signed contract with an environmental
consultant to monitor compliance of wetland buffer strip at end of two years, and
vegetation must come in as proposed. The city has an overabundance of open
water, types 3, 4, 5. A final conservation easement would include wetland and
buffer, boundaries, buffer strips and monument locations; and prohibit activities
which could impact the wetland and/or wetland buffer. Different qualities are
considered as well from exceptional,high, moderate, and low. The next step is to
update the wetland inventory. This was last done in 1997. The city is also starting a
local water management plan from 2000-2001; and a groundwater protection plan
(2000-2001).
Nelson said she assumed when the proposal comes to the board where a structure
is near the wetland that along with the proposal comes all of the documentation the
board would need to approve.
Stovring said yes. The key would be delineation, conceptual mitigation, buffers in
relation to the development; a conservation easement and contractual items.
Brooks asked whether there were major changes to an existing ordinance or
whether it was completely new.
Stovring said it was an entirely new ordinance.
Stock said these ordinances were to protect the wetlands from development. She
asked about the purpose of the waivers.
Franzen said they would grant a waiver if there is a benefit to the city. The PUD
ordinance is an example on the north side of 494 near the Vikings facility. A few
feet closer to the lake in exchange for a conservation area which saved 3000 oak
trees. Once this is done as part of the developers agreement it has be preserved.
The only way this could be developed is by council approval.
Stock asked about development along Lake Idlewild so close to the shoreline.
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
JULY 10, 2000
PAGE 4
Franzen said there was not environmental concerns in this case; if they applied the
ordinance development could not occur. If it results in land taking, the city would
have to compensate the property owner for potential loss; it does not allow
maximum development. The hotels are 30-50 percent of what they were entitled
to. With the most recent proposals, the city started requiring stormwater treatment.
This allowed some development to occur even with waivers. This will happen in
very few cases. There is compliance in 95 percent of the cases.
Stock said the property owners would have purchased the land knowing the
wetland requirements so why would the city compensate?
Franzen said with every piece the city has to look at whether it allows reasonable
use of property. The trees and wetlands in residential areas and the ordinances
mean the extent of development is less. It has to do with the quality of the trees
and wetlands. If the wetlands are very high quality there is more emphasis on
preservation. This requires a judgement call with every project that comes in,
dealing with application of environmental code.
Stovring said the state wetland ordinance was not in effect until 1991 and
developers could not have anticipated prior to that time; there are many cases
where they have owned the land a long time.
Franzen said the Idlewilde guide plan and PUD was approved before the shoreland
ordinance went into effect. The staff and developer did the best job of blending the
rules and ordinances as possible.
Koenig said since people have already developed there; if someone wants
variances that were previously granted and the city said it wasn't possible, would
the proponent have the ability to sue?
Franzen said the waivers are unique and a judge will look at the city's actions;
there are examples around the lake; similar waivers are granted in similar
situations; if site conditions are the same, and the situation is the same, the city
would be obligated to grant the same exceptions.
Foote said there are not many requests for wetland fill. He asked whether for
quality considerations the city would even consider filling type 3 or 5. He said it
seems the requests the city does get are low-lying meadow type.
Stovring said Settlers Ridge had some small pieces; the ones that do not look like
wetlands.
Franzen said the size of most development proposals were so large they never had
to get close to 3, 4, 5; now the city is finding more instances where there are more
projects close to all different types.
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
JULY 10, 2000
PAGE 5
C. Tree Ordinance
Fox said the purpose of the ordinance is to provide standard information to
evaluate tree cover on development sites. Developers try to preserve significant
trees and must mitigate for losses. The history of the ordinance lies in preserving
woodlands around parks and creeks. As a result the city looked at the tree
preservation policy in 1986. There were a number of concerns around the existing
mining ordinance. At that time, no one could remove more than 10% of the trees
without a mining permit. In 1986-90 the city used the policy to evaluate the best
way to review tree loss on projects. The Council requested staff come up with a
comprehensive objective. Staff worked with a developers forum and honed the
tree preservation policy. In 1990, Eden Prairie had the first tree preservation
ordinance in the State of Minnesota.
Staff wanted developers to use the inventory and go into a project knowing what
trees were there. Similarly the topography, other natural resources, and wetlands
are considered. The focus was to inventory trees as a natural resource. The staff
went through pages of calculation to determine the average forest in Eden Prairie.
The significant deciduous trees are over 12 inches in diameter, and 8 inches if
coniferous. Willow, elm, box elder, and aspen trees are not counted as a
significant tree. The goal is to preserve significant trees of 12 inches and larger
that would live for at least 100 years.
The Braxton development as an example shows the tree inventory and the plan
overlays the house pads with existing and proposed grading. This determines how
many trees should be saved. The average is 30% loss for residential development.
Each project is a different scenario depending on lot size, market; and it might be
single family, multifamily and commercial, industrial and office. If there are five
trees on the site and the building is in the middle obviously the trees are 100%
loss.
Most tree loss in residential is in the front yard. There is a much greater loss in the
front than side or rear yards. Developers don't always agree. The front yard trees
are very difficult to save. The 300 plus developments in 14 years have resulted in
a 15% increase in significant tree preservation.
Stock asked how would this apply to private residents and tree removal?
Fox said this is primarily for new development. It is difficult to enforce if it is a
developed area; they are encouraged to keep trees; there have been cases where
trees have been removed for pools. Under the strictest ordinance conditions, the
city could enforce limits but in many cases this would not be practical.
Koenig asked about which trees are most susceptible to construction damage.
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
JULY 10, 2000
PAGE 6
Fox said the hardest to save is black cherry followed by red oak; typically they
will die from construction damage within one year. Burr oak tolerates more
activity and typically takes 5-6 years before death from construction impact.
Stock asked whether the city ever checked on progress of significant trees
following construction.
Fox said they would check normally after a development unless there are flags.
Often with construction, plans are modified to a different house shape or setback.
With larger projects it averages out; some trees are lost that we thought would
stay and the converse is true.
Nelson inquired about the categorization of historical trees.
Fox said they looked at the historical significance such as oak greater than 36
inches in diameter. Most developers are cognizant and if they have a nice tree
they will try to save it.
Koenig said in terms of construction damage; if construction is out of a drip line
will they ensure it will survive.
Fox said it depends on soil type but the general guideline is the drip line.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The workshop adjourned at 6:59 p.m.