Loading...
Parks and Recreation - 01/30/1995 sa ;r l? a' S.i 1995 JANUARY 3 0 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIEI.L",# E APPROVED MINUTES �I= JOINT MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL, PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1995 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS Council Members Present: Mayor Jean Harris (late); Ron Case, Nancy Tyra-Lukens PRNR Commission Members Present: Diane Popovich Lynch, Bruce Bowman, Richard Brown, Claire Hilgeman, David Kracum, Vicki Koening Planning Commission Members Present: Katherine Kardell, Ken Clinton, Randy Foote, Douglas Sandstad, Ed Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner Council and Commission Staff Present: Carl Jullie, Chris Enger, Bob Lambert, Stuart Fox, Don Uram, Scott Kipp, Al Gray, Jeff Johnson I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Member Tyra-Lukens. Council and Commission members, as well as staff introduced themselves. II. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Possible Revisions to Tree Preservation Ordinance Tyra-Lukens requested Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, to provide some background on the rationale for the request to discuss possible revisions to the Tree Ordinance. Fox provided a brief summary of how and why the Tree Ordinance was developed. He also reviewed the legal issues that were considered when developing the Tree Ordinance, and the original concerns of the development community regarding a Tree Ordinance. The Tree Preservation Policy was used for two years before the City was satisfied that it was reasonable and effective prior to developing that policy into an ordinance. l 1 The City has reviewed over 70 projects under the Tree Policy and Ordinance. These projects total over 2700 acres of land reviewed under the Tree Preservation Ordinance since 1986. There is approximately 1,300 acres of land that is remaining undeveloped that will be subject to the Tree Replacement Ordinance. Staff also discussed additional rules that have been developed recently that effect development and continue to make development more costly. Those rules and laws include the Wetland Conservation Act, the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and a new NURP standards. Chris Enger referred to the original philosophy behind the ordinance. The City developed the original Tree Preservation Policy in order to attempt to preserve the "woodland character," but still allow development. Fox had done an extensive study of typical woodlands in the west metro area and in Eden Prairie specifically. The majority of our natural woodland areas are either oak/hickory forests or maple/basswood forests. Approximately 70-80% of the trees in our woodlands are less than 12" in diameter. In terms of volume 50-70% of the woods is contained in trees less than 12" in diameter. The 20% of the larger trees provide the mass of the woods, and the majority of the canopy. Staff admitted that the selection of "12" in diameter" as the criteria for a "significant" tree is a very subjective decision. Twelve inches seemed to be the �. break point in much of the evaluation criteria used by forestry studies. Tree losses went from an average of over 50% tree loss of significant trees before the ordinance was adopted to less than 30% on an average after the ordinance was adopted. Enger pointed out that Eden Prairie was sensitive to tree loss before the ordinance, but every development was determined on a subjective judgement. There was no standard to compare whether or not any development was better or worse than previous developments. The Tree Policy set the first standard. This policy and later this ordinance became the first Tree Preservation Ordinance in the State and as far as we know in the nation. Many other communities have used this ordinance as a model to develop their Tree Preservation Ordinances. Diane Lynch summarized concerns of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The commission is concerned about the aesthetic value of tree masses of smaller caliper trees and the complete disregard for that value under the existing ordinance. She noted there is no way to replace a 50" caliper tree with ten five-inch trees. She also noted the commissions concern about bonding for protecting the existing trees during development. She suggested evaluating whether or not we can retain the bond for a longer period of time, as some trees take three to five years to die due to damage caused during construction. 2 Bruce Bowman suggested that after seven years of operating under the policy and ordinance we should evaluate it to determine if we can make it better. Bowman " noted that a 40" cottonwood and a 25" aspen are significant trees in his point of view. Fox pointed out: that the existing ordinance identifies all conifers trees 8" in diameter or greater as significant trees, and all deciduous trews 12" or greater, with the exception of elm, willow, boxelder, and aspen. Hilgeman referred to the site that had 249 trees, but 209 were not considered significant under the ordinance because they were less than 12", or they were boxelder, aspen, willow, or elm. So when the City saved "70% of the significant trees" we were only saving 21 trees out of 239. Hilgeman also recommended considering a requirement that a percentage of the deciduous trees that have to be replaced should be replaced with the same type " of trees that are lost. Dick Brown asked about additional protection to save existing trees on adjacent properties or on the property that is being developed. Enger defended the Tree Ordinance stating that it has worked very well but it can be improved; however, there is a practical limitation as to the ability of staff to protect every tree from every developer. Fox described how developers try to save trees that the City has already counted as lost. When residents see one of these trees dying, they think the developer has broken an agreement; however, the City may have already counted that tree as lost. Katherine Kardell discussed the additional restrictive criteria that has been placed on developers over the last few years and reminded every one of how these additional restrictions add to the cost of development and seriously affect the ability to provide affordable housing within this community. Ken Clinton concurred with Kardells' concerns regarding additional restrictions that might affect development costs and ultimately the cost of housing within the community. Lambert reminded everyone that the Tree Ordinance seems to be working very well and, in fact, some developers that are developing in wooded areas do not have enough space to plant the replacement trees on their own property. This might lead one to believe that the existing policy is working quite well. He also reminded those in attendance that a developer had challenged our Tree Replacement Ordinance several years ago and the City backed off a portion of the requirements, rather than go to court and try to defend the ordinance. Our own City attorney cautioned us that the Tree Replacement Policy comes close to "a taking" if it so restrictive that the developer cannot have reasonable use of his property. Lambert referred to the development that occurred immediately west 3 C of Bent Creek Golf Course. Although many residents complained about the loss of the mass of trees in that area, if the Tree Replacement Policy preserved that mass of trees the developer would not have been able to develop on that property at all. Diane Lynch suggested reviewing the ordinance to see what small changes might be considered and what the results of those changes would be on development. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission is very focused and concerned about environmental issues; whereas, the Planning Commission and City Council have to look at issues well beyond environmental issues when reviewing development proposals. The City of Eden Prairie has been a leader in many different ways "let's see how far we can get on changing or improving the Tree Replacement Ordinance" without being overly restrictive on developers. Koening stated that the Tree Preservation Ordinance should include requirements for standards for protecting trees during development. Fox referred to the "Centex Plan" that is often required by the City of developers in wooded areas at this time. Ed Schlampp stated that conifers are much hardier that deciduous trees. He also ; C noted that oak trees "aren't great for lawn areas because you can't grow anything underneath them." He questions how feasible it is to require developers to put fence around all trees during construction. Ron Case noted that if we improve the percentage of significant trees saved during development from 50% to 70% and the significant trees are only 20% of the woods, we have only improved our effort by 4%. He thinks we can do much better than that. Dave Kracum suggested reviewing case law that has occurred over that last eight years regarding other communities' Tree Preservation Ordinances before we make any changes with our current ordinance. He indicated that we should be concerned about regulation versus taking and there are recent issues regarding restrictive regulations and the impact that has relating to discrimination against affordable housing. Enger stated we need to review the ordinance, see what it working, what isn't working, and what we want to do to change it. Council member Lukens suggested the City consider appointing a task force with builders, developers, commission members, and Council members to review the ordinance to see if it can be more effective in preserving the character of our woodlands. The Council will take action on setting up this task force at a regular meeting. 4 B. Establishing a Neighborhood Environmental Watch Program Fox described the rationale for putting this item on the agenda. Diane Lynch summarized the reasons the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission suggested discussing this issue with the Planning Commission and The City Council. She suggested that a program that would empower citizens to review development proposals might assist the City in managing the number of developments that occur throughout the year. Koening summarized her experience with a development that was occurring adjacent to her home. She did not want the environmental watch program to be "anti development" or cause more work for the City staff. The goal of the program should be to educate developers and neighbors as to the dangers of destroying trees on the site during development and how those trees can be better protected. Hilgeman suggested using neighborhood concerned citizens as the eyes for the City to determine if the developer is actually following the plan as approved. She gave the example of a row of trees within a City park that were cut down by a neighbor in a new development. She is not proposing "an environmental police c force" but noted that staff can't be protecting every tree every day. If there was a way that neighbors would have a general idea what was approved and what was not approved and would know who to call directly if there was a concern, the City might be able to save a number of trees that are supposed to be saved and protect streams and lakes when erosion control areas are failing, etc. She suggested that a volunteer from the neighborhood meet on site with City staff to review the development proposal, so they would understand exactly what was approved. Lambert noted that City staff met to discuss this environmental watch concept and had decided that the best method to inform neighborhoods of what was approved would be to send a notice at the end of the development to neighbors to inform them what the Council had approved at the end of the process. That sheet of paper might include a plan for the subdivision that would note if it was a conservation area that would be protected. It would also give estimated times when the development would start and when it would be completed, as well as the telephone numbers of which staff should be called and their telephone numbers when various problems occur on the site. Lambert indicated that the City had a lot of concerns about the liability of implying that any citizen had authority over a development or the right to go on a property and stop development, etc. Staff also were concerned about the length of time it would take to really educate an individual in a neighborhood adjacent to each development in the community so that person would completely understand any development well enough to be the "expert" in the neighborhood on the project. 5 ' tr .. .,,... ,. -ir. ,....e^.:L_.:::,:..A _,.t;.: ...:.. .. ..._ ,t.. . .9_9. _._..,_. _ YS .-. ,.... ,... r i ;v:,,,r.a:••aro...e:.,........,....,.... Enger agreed with Lambert that no neighbor should be authorized to walk onto a development site and stop a project; however, he suggested a neighbor could be selected to be trained as the expert on a development and would perhaps save the City a lot of telephone calls if people in the neighborhood could get information from their neighbor. Lynch noted that Lambert's approach and Enger's approach were different and that perhaps staff should draft a program that should be presented to the Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and the City Council for approval. Tyra-Lukens requested the City staff draft a plan and bring it through the commissions to the City Council for approval. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Robert A. Lambert Recording Secretary I 6 •xw