7. City Code Amendment-Landscaping and Tree PreservationCITY OF q
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director
Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: April 20, 1994
SUBJ: Code Amendment for Landscaping and Tree Preservation
BACKGROUND
Adion by City Adrtiin{stfater
6ndor� � -
Modifie
Reiecte
Date Submitted to Commission
We —• ; io Council
The Tree Board has been working on drafting a revised tree protection ordinance in order to
protect as many of the existing trees as possible from future development. These revisions
have been in response to the problems the city has had in establishing means to protect
existing trees as part of the development review process. After numerous reiterations, the
Tree Board has developed an ordinance which they believe will provide adequate directions
for the city's and developers' efforts to save trees.
ANALYSIS
The draft ordinance attempts to move away from looking at the individual tree and to have
developers and the city concentrate on stands of trees and the forested areas. Additionally,
we tried to establish some guidelines and standards for the reforestation of barren properties.
Finally, we tried to provide disincentives for developers to remove viable stands of trees
through replacement penalties if existing canopy coverage was removed in excess of that
permitted under the ordinance.
In order to facilitate tree preservation, the ordinance requires tree surveys earlier in the
development review process. This requirement allows the developer and the city to get a
better understanding of the wooded aspects of a property before any development lines are
' drawn. Additionally, the ordinance requires the developer to create a woodland management
plan for the entire project as a way to get the developer thinking about tree preservation as a
primary part of the development design. Not only will the plan provide specific preservation
criteria for the project, but it must also articulate the philosophy and reasoning behind the
woodland management plan.
MEMORANDUM
Dona Ashworth, City Manager
April 20, 1994
Page 2
The current ordinance, section 18 -61 (a) (1) contains a list of trees that may be used for tree
planting. The Tree Board created another list of trees to be used to fulfill the requirements of
this ordinance. Of the two lists, there are 15 trees that were not listed on the existing tree
' list. Staff has combined these two lists in section 18 -61 (a) (1) of this ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission voted at their April 6, 1994 meeting with a vote of five in favor
' and one abstention to recommend to the City Council that the code amendment for
landscaping and tree preservation be adopted.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve for first reading the proposed code
amendment to the landscaping and tree preservation sections of the City Code as shown in the
attached amendment and schedule the second reading of the amendment for May 9, 1994..
1 Attachments
1. Code amendment
2. Section 18 -61 of City Code
3. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/6/94
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING TREES AND LANDSCAPING
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section L Subdivisions: Section 18.61(a)(1) is amended to add the following tree species:
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name
Carya ovata
Juglans nigra
Quercus rubra
Robinia pseudoacacia
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Aesculus glabra
Betula nigra
Catalpa speciosa
Ostrya virginiana
Populus tremuloides
Prunus serotina
Sorbus spp.
Ornamental
Crataegus spp.
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Phellodendron amurense
Conifers
Larix laricina
Shagbark Hickory
Black Walnut
Oak, Red
Black Locust
Common Name
Ohio Buckeye
Birch, River
Northern Catalpa
Ironwood
Aspen - -
Black Cherry
Ash, Mountain
Common Name
Hawthorne -
�- Russian Oliv
Amur Corktree
Common Name
Tamarack
Section 2. Subdivisions: Section 18.61(d), Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is
amended in its entirety to read as follows :
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
1
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH
size, condition, location of all significant, special, damaged or diseased trees
on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and
identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy
' coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be
included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees
shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease
specified.
(a) Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a
' current aerial photograph (taken within one year of the date of plan
submittal) interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1) Base line Canopy coverage
' 2) Minimum Canopy Coverage Requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of canopy coverage that
must be maintained or provided on -site as part of the development. It shall represent the
minimum canopy coverage, consisting of existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required
for the site. Existing wetland areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of
' site area in the determination of required site coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated
to the City for park land, then this area shall not be included in the base line canopy coverage
area calculation nor shall it count towards the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
2
(1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The
city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil
by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff
and the costs associated therewith, 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, control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to
construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for
birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of the city's physical
'
and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection
and enhancement of the quality of life and general welfare of the city.
It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the
cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and
to ensure the protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty
of the City of Chanhassen.
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH
size, condition, location of all significant, special, damaged or diseased trees
on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and
identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy
' coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be
included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees
shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease
specified.
(a) Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a
' current aerial photograph (taken within one year of the date of plan
submittal) interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1) Base line Canopy coverage
' 2) Minimum Canopy Coverage Requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of canopy coverage that
must be maintained or provided on -site as part of the development. It shall represent the
minimum canopy coverage, consisting of existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required
for the site. Existing wetland areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of
' site area in the determination of required site coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated
to the City for park land, then this area shall not be included in the base line canopy coverage
area calculation nor shall it count towards the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
2
Base Line Canopy Coverage
Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan
Designation 80-100% 60-79% 40 - 59% 20-39% 19%
or less
Commercial/Industrial/ 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
Institutional
High Density Residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium Density 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Residential
Low Density Residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large Lot Residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development
application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is determined by using the matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded lands over
individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No more
than ten (10) percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an individual
tree that is not included within a designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer shall
be required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up to the
minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a loss of
trees that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention requirement,
the developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must
designate an area at least 1.2 times the removed canopy coverage area that shall be
planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall locate additional
trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that are to be preserved or
create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as along roadway corridors, on
the north and west perimeters of the development, in common open areas, or adjacent
to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage:
1) When planting trees, one tree shall be deemed to provide 1,089 square
feet of required canopy coverage,
7
2) tree must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference
given for trees designated as native),
3) no more than one -thud (' /a) of the trees may be from any one tree
species,
4) trees shall average at least 2 inch caliper and may be a minimum of
1 inch caliper,
5) not less than twenty percent (20 %) of the trees shall be conifers,
6) conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of six
(6) feet in height,
7) plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
'
vegetation found on site,
8) trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on
site, and
'
9) trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by
Minnesota Statute Sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
'
(3) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas
and special trees. Special priority for tree preservation shall be given to areas
'
within flood plains, wetlands, stream corridors, wooded slopes, and along
collector and arterial roadway corridors. To facilitate this, a woodland
management plan, which may include preservation, forestation, and replacement
elements, shall be formulated by the developer as one component of the
development proposal. The woodland management plan shall be prepared and
signed by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This plan shall include the following
information:
a. Tree survey
b. Designated woodland areas
C. Location and size of replacement/forestation tree
'
planting areas
d. List of all replacement trees including species, caliper,
'
and planting method
e. Methods of tree protection
f. Location of all protective fencing
g. Special construction methods to be utilized
'
h. Location of all retaining walls
i. Statement explaining why replacement trees are necessary
j. Rationale for selection of replacement/forestation trees
(4) In single - family detached residential developments, the applicant must
demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60' x 60'
building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding into required
setbacks and easements.
4
r
(5) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the
following:
a.
realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines
'
b.
consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of
ejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize
grading
C.
reductions in street width and right -of -way and increase in street grade
up to 10% when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree
preservation is directly related to the modification
'
d.
use of private drives in lieu of public streets
e.
variation in street radius and design speed
f.
modified grading plans
'
g.
within PUDs, the City Council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated
by the applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case
shall overall project densities exceed what is allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan. The greater the level of preservation, the greater
flexibility will be considered by the city.
'
h.
within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum
twenty (20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on
adjacent lots. The setback variations shall be established and recorded
as part of the plat approval.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with '
clearly marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction
activities, or other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or
construction activities. Protective barriers must be located at twelve (12) times
the tree diameter at DBH from the base of the tree, the critical root zone, and
must remain in place until all construction activities are terminated. No '
equipment, chemicals, soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed
within the protective barriers. All understory trees and natural vegetation
should be preserved within the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this ,
protection area cannot be maintained or would otherwise render lots
undevelopable, an alternate protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may
be considered and approved by the city. This plan may include the use of
retaining walls, installation of aeration systems, requirement for post
construction deep root fertilization and soil aeration, or construction vehicle
ramp systems.
(7) At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently
marked and signed as a conservation area with low profile monumentation
acceptable to the City. A monument is required for each three hundred (300)
5
1
i
linear feet of tree conservation area. Within designated woodland areas, the
City shall encourage the use of indigenous grasses and plant species to more
closely resemble a natural area. Home owners associations shall be
responsible for the maintenance of vegetation in common areas. Individual
property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of vegetation on their
property. The planting of trees in excess of those required by this ordinance is
permitted within the designated woodland area.
(8) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking
of public rights -of -way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(9) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot
be saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree
canopy coverage.
(10) If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of
trees as the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the
rate of two (2) caliper inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or
lost trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (2 inches
caliper and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one -third ( %) of the trees may be
from any one tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as replacement
trees subject to approval by the City. Alternately, at the city's discretion, if a
developer removes trees within a protected area, the canopy coverage area shall
be calculated for that area and a replacement area 1.5 times the canopy
coverage area that was removed shall be planted. One tree shall be planted for
each 1,089 square feet of required replacement area Trees shall be from the
list of desirable tree species, no more than one -third ('/3) of trees from any one
tree species, average 2 inch caliper with a minimum Ili inch caliper, a
similar species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the soil
conditions. Any replacement trees that cannot be planted on the original site
due to space restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be
determined by the city.
(11) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure
compliance with this section.
Section 3. Section 20 -1, Definitions, of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
adding the following definitions:
Canopy coverage shall mean the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the
crowns of all the trees on the site.
G
r
Critical root zone means an area twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH measured
from the base of the tree.
DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground).
Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been
designated in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation, forestation or
replacement planting area.
Loss of trees means that any of the following may have happened:
a. Grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of
greater than one (1) foot, measured vertically from the existing grade,
affecting forty (40) percent (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more
of a tree's critical root zone; or
b. Utility construction resulting in the cutting of forty (40) percent or more
of the tree's roots within the critical root zone; or
C. Mechanical injury to the tree trunk causing loss of more than forty (40)
percent of the bark; or
d. Compaction to ninety (90) percent of standard proctor to a depth of six
(6) inches or more of forty (40) percent or more of the surface of the
soil within the tree's critical root zone; or
e. The pruning of a tree which eliminates forty (40) percent or more of the
canopy area of a tree; or
f. The complete removal of a tree.
Significant Tree means any healthy tree species measuring twelve (12) inches or more
DBH; Or any healthy coniferous tree measuring twelve (12) feet in height or more.
Special trees mean any large broadleaf trees at least 30 inches DBH, any large conifer
trees at least 20 inches DBH, any medium broadleaf trees at least 20 inches DBH, any
small broadleaf trees at least 12 inches DBH, rare or unusual tree species, or trees of
exceptional quality.
Tree caliper means diameter of a tree measured at six (6) inches above ground.
Tree trunk means the stem portion of a tree from the base to the first branch thereof.
VA
t
!i
J
s
Woodlands shall mean any groupings of significant trees with a canopy coverage of
one (1) acre or more, any groupings of 10 or more significant trees, or any grouping
of trees with at least one (1) special tree and where 25 percent or more of other trees
are significant trees.
Section 4. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL: Section 20 -1178 (c) is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
(c) The standards in City Code Section 18.61 (d) shall be used in evaluating site
plans.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
8
§ 18-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I
M Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to
owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land.
(g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall
not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have
an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of
existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an
additional depth of ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line.
(h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design
features.
(Ord. No. 33•D, § 6.5, 2- 25 -85)
Sec. 18.61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(a) Required landscaping /residential subdivision.
(1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front
,s yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. (the city will provide a list of
species). Coniferous trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must
i
be at least two and one -half (2 inches in diameter at the time of installation. This
requirement may be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate at a
suitable tree having a minimum diameter of two and one -half (2Y2) inches for decid.
uous and six -foot height for evergreen and four (4) feet above the ground is located in
an appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting
requirements:
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Quercus alba Oak, White
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur V , - -- /
Tilia americana Linden, American
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Acer platanoides 'Cleveland'
Acer platanoides 'Columnar'
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King'
Acer platanoides `Emerald Lustre'
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen'
Acer platanoides 'Jade Glen'
Acer platanoides ' Schwedler'
Supp. No. 4
1010
Maple, Cleveland Norway
Maple, Columnar
Maple, Crimson King
Maple, Emerald Lustre Norway/
Maple, Emerald Queen Norway
Maple, Jade Glen
Maple, Schwedler Norway
F,
iJ
1
SUBDIVISIONS
§ 18.61
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Common Name
'
Acer platanoides 'Superform'
Maple, Superform Norway
Acer platanoides `Variegatum'
Maple, variegated Norway
Acer rubrum
Maple, Red
'
Acer rubrum 'Northwood'
Maple, Northwood Red
Acer saccaharinum 'Silver Queen'
Maple, Silver Queen
Betula payryiter
Birch, paper
'
Betula pendula icciminta
Birch, cut leaf weeping
Fraxinus americans
Ash, White
F raxinus pennsylvanica
Ash, Marshall's Seedless
Ginkgo biloba
Ginkgo .—
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis
Honeylocust, thornless
'
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Imperial'
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Skyline'
Honeylocust, Imperial
Honeylocust, Skyline
Gymnocladus dioica
Coffeetree, Kentucky
Ornamental
Acer innala
Maple, Amur
Amelanchier
Serviceberry or Juneberry
'
Malus bacata columnaris
Crabapple, Columnar Siberian
Malus (various species)
Crabapple, flowering - Varieties:
Dolgo, Flame, Radiant,
Red, Silver, Red Spendor
Prunus 'Newport'
Plum, Newport
'
Prunus triloba
Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana 'Schubert'
Chokeberry, Schuberts
Rhamnus frangula ' Columnaris'
Buckthorn, Tallhedge
Syringa amurensis japonica
Lilac, Japanese tree
Tilia cordata
Linden, Littleleaf
Tilia cordata ' Greenspire'
Linden, Greenspire
'
Tilia x euchlora 'Redmond'
Linden, Redmond
Conifers
'
Abies balsamea
Fir, Balsam ✓
Abies concolor
Fir, Concolor
Picea abies
Spruce, Norway r
'
Picea glauca
Spruce, White
Picea gauca densata
Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens
Spruce, Coloardo Green
Picea pungens glauca
Spruce, Colorado Blue
Pinus nigra
Pine, Austrian '
Pinus ponderosa
Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa
Pine, Norway
Supp. No. 5
'
1011
r
§ 18 -61 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Conifers Common Name
'
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch i
Pseudotsuga Menziesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae ! -
Thuja occidentalis Techney Arborvitae
(2) The tree must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or financial
'
guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely installation.
(3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or sodded
,
immediately upon completion of work to minimiz erosion. When certificates of oc-
cupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this requirement, financial guar-
antees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
'
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On -site burial is
not permitted.
'
(5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city
when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the com-
prehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required
'
buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees
and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require
additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately
'
accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be
increased by twenty -five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape
plan must be developed with the preliminary and final plat submittals for city ap-
'
proval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdi-
vision, planned unit development or site plan application.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: '
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas.
(2) Healthy shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper at four (4) feet in height shall be '
saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the
site.
(3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the city may be required on a caliper.
inch - per - caliper -inch basis. At minim however, replacement trees shall conform to
the planting requirement identified in section 20.1178(c)(3).
Supp. No. 5 1012 1
iJ
I i
SUBDIVISIONS
§ 18 -63
(4) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public
rights -of -way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved.
(6) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means
acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground
footprint of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur
within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start
of grading activity.
' (7) Trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction activity shall be
replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city. The city will require the
developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commer-
dally available for transportation.
(8) At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect designated
tree preservation areas.
(e) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure satisfactory
installation of landscaping requirements.
(Ord. No. 33 -D, § 6.6, 2. 25-85; Ord. No. 153, § 2, 11 -4 -91)
Cross reference — Landscaping and tree removal, § 20 -1176 et seq.
Sec. 18.62. Erosion and sediment control.
(a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least poten-
tial for soil erosion.
(b) The smallest practical increment of land shall be exposed at any one (1) time during
development.
(c) Detailed requirements for each plat shall be set forth in the development agreement.
(d) Subdivision development shall conform to the city's Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Best Management Practices Handbook, as amended.
(Ord. No. 33 -D, § 6.7, 2- 25 -85; Ord. No. 178, § 1, 10- 26 -92)
Sec. 18.63. Drainage.
The natural drainage system shall be used to the maximum extent feasible for the
storage and flow of runoff. The following requirements shall also apply:
(1) Proposed drainage facilities shall have adequate capacity to accommodate potential
runoff from their entire upstream drainage area, whether within or without the
subdivision. The effect of the subdivision on existing downstream drainage areas
outside the subdivision shall be considered in evaluating the adequacy of the storm
water management plan.
Supp. No. 5
1013
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
that we made. And does staff have all those recommendations ? Thank you.
Scott: Is there a second to the motion? '
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to table the Site Plan Review #94 -1 for expansion to '
the Press and a Kindercare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Scott: When do you think we'll be able to get this back on our schedule so we can see it? I
don't know how we're looking for the next meeting but.
Al -Jaff: If they submit everything by Friday. '
Scott: I just want to make sure that when we table something, that we at least give them the
opportunity to come back as quickly as they're able to. But if it looks like we can, well I
guess it's up to them. We'll make a spot on our meeting in 2 weeks if they have the pieces
in place. Okay.
Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Before we move onto the ordinance, the next item, I just
want to introduce Andrew Mack. He's our new city planner. He joined us 10 days ago.
Scott: ...maybe give him a name tag so we know who he is. ,
Harberts: Can we take like 2 minutes and ask him about his background.
Scott: Did you interview by videotape? ,
Mack: No I didn't. I would like to indicate though that I appreciate the welcome ... and I'm ,
pleased to be a new member of staff here in the city of Chanhassen.
Scott: Good. I'm sure we'll have comments and questions afterwards. ,
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN ,
REVIEW SECTIONS REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: ...significant tree definition. Significant tree means any healthy tree.
I Generous: 12 inches or larger.
' Conrad: So that's a significant tree? Okay.
Generous: And that's just for the surveying part.
Conrad: But that, so that's in the survey. So that goes back into our formula? A significant.
' Generous: No, not at all. It helps us when they're developing their plan. They start with
basically a survey of the site. The next layer on that might be the significant tree to give us
an idea of where these stand on. The third layer would then be the canopy coverage which
would include all the smaller trees and the large trees.
Conrad: Okay so.
' Generous: So it's just to help us in determining, you know n t do massaging
� p g, y t rying o the f o
roadway alignments or lot lines using some larger reference.
Conrad: So what happens to an insignificant tree? Meaning that it's less than 12 inches.
1 Then what can we do there?
Generous: Then we can look at it's canopy coverage. What if that tree contributes to the
canopy coverage of the site.
Scott: So when we get a preliminary plat let's say of a development, what we're going to be
getting will be kind of an outline that will show us what the total canopy coverage is and
then there will be dots representing 12 inches or bigger.
' Generous: The significant tree.
Scott: So we can kind of then get a view of whether the canopy coverage is of significant
trees or not that they're insignificant but less significant.
Conrad: But there's nothing in here that tells me the formula for what significant trees can.
It just says they are represented on a plan. They're representing on a survey. We can cut
them down if we want but they're there.
1
W
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: Well depending. You can cut some out, yes. If you go below your threshold,
you have to replace it on a larger basis. There's two ways ... The first one is if that tree, let's
say you're right at the limit you need. You need 10% tree coverage and you have that.
When you start going in and cutting down the existing trees, you have to replace those on a
larger basis.
Mancino: But what we didn't do was, let's say you have ... tree coverage over 90% and 80%
is little stuff and 10% is in this one area, they are significant. I mean they're big trees. We
haven't put a difference between those.
Generous: Priorities.
Mancino: We haven't put a priority about saving those big significant trees. Let's say
there's a stand within this entire canopy coverage, which I think we may want to think about.
That's a good question.
Generous: Yeah, we did make a distinction between the type of trees. As long as it had
leaves on it, some type of canopy coverage...
Harberts: Let me just comment on that though. It seems though that our discussion though
at our meeting, with regard to variances or whatever, kind of centers around if it's a
significant trees or tree stands. We've asked people to come back showing us where the pads
are, things like that. So if we're looking to be consistent with what we felt was important, I
think Nancy's comment needs to be addressed.
Mancino: Well and we still want to maintain canopy coverage, even the younger ones
because obviously as we said before, that's our next generation of trees. So it's not that we
want to lose those but if, maybe there should be a priority here.
Harberts: But we can put value on that though in some of the Lake Susan Hills. The Jasper
Homes and things like that
Mancino: And being more educated and learning more about it and say let's just not save the
significant but let's save some of the younger ones too. But maybe we need to prioritize it.
Scott: Let me throw something out.
Harberts: I didn't mean to jump in Ladd.
Conrad: No, that was good. Again, I'm real naive on this. I have not participated and I
17
r
1
L
f'
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 6 1
g g p 99 4
' want to understand and I guess if I read it through, I don't. I don't know what this tells you.
Maybe developers are smarter than I am. But just real quick. I don't want to belabor this
point. Joe, you thought you were going to go through this one real fast. But real quickly, a
significant tree to me, you know I'll die for an oak that's 15 inches big but some other trees,
I guess if I know that they're fast growing, they're not as significant to me. So I guess I'm
really picking on the definition here. I just don't, personally I don't buy it but again I
' haven't gone to the committee meetings with you. I think there are significant trees below 12
inches and this doesn't.
Mancino: Those are called special trees but we do have a category for those trees that are
below and that are rare trees.
Conrad: Well you've got 30 inches there.
Mancino: No, it's rare or unusual tree species or trees of exceptional quality and it doesn't
' matter what size those are under the definition of special trees.
Generous: Ladd, also as part, with their requirements they're suppose to develop a
' philosophy of what they're trying to do with that woodland plan. So ... these fast growing
trees, we don't want to keep this. We want to make this an oak and maple forest, for example
because of the soil conditions, the existing tree pattern. So that's, we're trying to give' the
' developer.
Conrad: I think everybody here is telling me something I probably believe and I don't see it
here. I guess I'm not quite sure that the words are saying what you're saying to me right
now. I don't have any more questions.
' Scott: Here's something that I'm going to play this against a development that we saw a
while back that I think was 40 or so acres ... and no trees basically. So that would be 19% or
less. As part of our ordinance we're requiring people to stick 2 trees on the lot just anyway.
' If someone is going to develop a treeless lot, because of this ordinance, are they going to be
required to exceed the other ordinance that we have? I'm not saying whether it's good or
' bad. I'd love if they had to put 3 or 4 so I mean are we basically saying, yeah. If you want
to develop this treeless site, you're going to end up putting 4 or 5 or 6 trees per lot?
1 Generous: Well not per lot. We would encourage they put the requirement per lot but they
would have to create some wooded areas. Massed areas.
Scott: Mass, okay. So it's conceivable based upon this is that, and then let me just ask the
question. How many developments have you had.
18
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Can I take that one step further, what you're asking?
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: Because what you're saying is, then we may have some lots that don't have any
trees on it because we're doing this woodland management and it's all in one area maybe.
And our thinking was, and Tim please join in, is that most people, when they buy a new
home want to go out and landscape it anyway and will put trees on it. And secondly, and I
just lost my train of thought. We still would like to, as a Tree Board, go back and do an
ordinance for boulevard plantings. So that would be in addition to this. We would do
boulevard plantings in different areas too, so.
Scott: Okay.
Harberts: I have an enforcement question too. So how do we enforce this? Especially I
guess with regard to, you know with the dead trees. Removing of this. Who's going to go
out and make sure that the survey they give us is correct? You know in terms of the
different caliper inches. Tree caliper means diameter of tree measured at 6 inches above the
ground. Who's going to go out and enforce that.
Generous: ...to hire a professional landscape consultant. And partially on staff. We're
looking at.
Harberts: Which staff? City's?
Generous: City staff. It's like anything. We have to verify what.
Harberts: And this is why I'm asking. I'm not opposed to this but let's look at it from an
administrative, from a city cost. Look at the developments that we have coming in. One, is
there staff available? Is there money to support staff? Can basically we enforce this
ordinance? These are questions, I don't know the answers and I'll just throw this up to the
City Council to look at I mean they're the ones that set the city budget. Everyone loves to
see the tax dollars go down rather than going up. Keeping the budget status quo. Where
anywhere from a 1% to 5% increase, if even that much. So I guess I question that. You
know it's great to involve the professional landscaping people to put the surveys together but
again, is the city able to enforce it and do we need to understand what that enforcement
process is or is that basically a City Council decision? And I guess my biggest point here is,
are we creating a stick in terms of development or is this a positive government policy to
help create more of a positive partnership?
19
f
i
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: Well from what I've been reading in the planning literature, the greening of the
suburbs is all the rage now. People are moving out to the suburbs to ... because of the green
space. So this will be taking a positive step. As far as enforcement, if this is adopted, staff
1 will one way or another do it. As a part of the discussion items for your joint meeting with
City Council, that is one of the items.
' Mancino: Furthermore, the Tree Board is supporting and has asked for a city forester and
maybe that's 100% Chanhassen. Maybe it's a shared forester with another city. I can tell
you that all the city ordinances that we did see across the country, any city that was seriously
1 getting into tree preservation, which most of them are now, have city foresters. They're on
staff.
' Harberts: Well and I don't know if the city needs to hire per se a staff person or maybe they
need to hire the services of a professional fum that can accomplish the same thing but again,
I just wanted to make sure that it's an ordinance that can be enforced. But what's the cost
' and I just want to raise those issues.
Generous: There's always the other alternative. We require developers to provide funding
for the city to get like an engineering for a consultant.
Scott: There you go.
Harberts: I like that.
' Scott: Yeah, I had a long discussion with our forestry intern and it was kind of nice to see,
to hear some of these comments but the bottom line of kind of my thoughts and was
seconded by him, somebody who's going to be in that position is if you're going to have
somebody to do the enforcement then basically what you do is you have the people who are
going to have this ordinance, or have to deal with this ordinance, you need to have them pay
' for their own cops. So personally, we have this nice formula. I think what we need to do is
to add another fee of some sort when someone files for development. They pay x based upon
y and z and then based upon the development that we have here, I mean we need to fund
' that. I think it would be unfair for the city staff to do it, because you all have full time jobs
anyway. So anyway, enough of that. Just a quick question.
' Harberts: Just one other thing on that Joe. In terms of the enforcement and the monitoring
though. As I understood from some of the conversations that we've had in subdivision
discussions, that some of these trees may not, you know some of those may become stressed
' and they don't due until a year later or something. Has that been taken into account with
regards to enforcement monitoring because yes, they put the fences up and it appears that
i 20
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
they're saving trees but in all likelihood they still got too close. They stressed out the tree
and the tree's going to die. Do we need to take that into consideration? Again, I don't have
the answers. I'm just raising the questions. City Council can deal with it then.
Scott: Well that was the next comment I was going to make is on page 5, item number 10.
It says if the protected significant trees are removed or killed, well.
Harberts: So what?
Scott: Yeah. The question there is, if it dies after a period of years, we don'L..too strange
but I know that city staff has received, and I've received numerous phone calls from people
who spent a serious amount of money on a treed lot only to 3 or 4 years later the trees start
dying on them. And then also too, number 9. I've got a question on the removal of diseased
and damaged trees is permissible only if it cannot be saved. Says who?
Mancino: Yeah, that was one of mine too. It must be approved by the city.
Scott: You back into it with your heavy equipment, well let's get it out of here. So anyway,
we've got.
Harberts: Well and you know again, I mean from my perspective, I think the City Council,
perhaps the Planning Commission needs to understand though what is the role of the city here
versus that of the homeowner. Certainly we want to develop that frame work to provide a
comfort level to protect the interests of the homeowner or whatever but again, it's just
understanding what the role should be here of city government. Do it in such a way that it
isn't really a stick approach to the developer but more of a positive partnership. You know
where's the balance and I guess that's the challenge. Where's the balance here?
Scott: Any other comments?
Nutting: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat new to this issue but if I could raise a point on page
6 of the ordinance—this deals specifically I believe with the issue pertaining to enforcement
but there are conditions for financial guarantees and surety and those are certainly types of
things that will trigger an analysis of the existing conditions after improvements have
been—to ensure that the tree saving plan has worked before the funds can be released.
Scott: Okay.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, Ron brought up a good—go ahead.
�J
n
L
I
21
J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Nutting: That's okay. Well, yeah. I was just, if you've got a barren piece of land.
Someone comes in and wants to do high density residential, this ... 15% canopy coverage is
required which leaves the landscape barren...
Mancino: 15% of the total.
Nutting: Yeah but, I guess my question is, is that going to hinder the development of that
land.
' Conrad: It also is a contradiction. We require one tree. We've got some property that we're
seeing that we've got out in farm fields and we require one tree. Now I assume, and ... look at
low density residential and we're saying because it's in the 19% or less category, we require
one tree and we're assuming it's going to cover 25% of the area.
Generous: It won't. No. It covers about, one tree will equal about 2 1/2% of the canopy.
Conrad: Okay, so 1 don't understand it.
Generous: We based it on the formula. To get a canopy coverage credit, you plant 40 trees
per acre. If you have an acre of barren land that you need to cover, you have to put 40 trees
in there.
Scott: That would be really good to put into the ordinance. Here's all this and then so what
' this really means is da, da, da, da.
Generous: ...didn't like it that way. One tree counts as 1,089 square feet of canopy
coverage.
Conrad: So what that does ... in a farmland right now, this ... to plant 5 trees per 15,000 square
foot. Okay, so that just took up your own cost by how many dollars?
Scott: So this particular ordinance will supersede any other.
' Conrad: And the City Council ... 2 trees per parcel.
Scott: Well and then, affordable housing in Chanhassen is $175,000.00.
Tim Erhart: As Nancy points out, I'm Tim Erhart. I'm on the Tree Committee here and
worked on this I guess for a year so far and we're looking forward alot to making, to creating
a boulevard tree planting ordinance which I think will do as much if not more than what
we're doing here but I think, you know one thing you've got to keep in mind in this whole
! 22
LI
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Tim Erhart: But I think what ...this is really not a simple issue. It's really complicated. '
There's just a lot of factors involved in terms of people and environmental factors and it's
very tough to come up with something that balances ... for this project. So I think it's
recommending changes at this point, we could end up stopping just a lot of work to go back ,
and redo the whole thing again and...
23
'
thing is that we tried to come up with an ordinance that creates a positive relationship with
the developer. Keeping in mind that the city doesn't, when you're talking about existing
trees, the city doesn't own those trees. And you know so when we want to start, when we
start talking about penalties and stick some things, you know it may be self defeating because
it's, we're trying to work with these people to make sense. The developer wants to save
trees. The days are over where it makes sense to go clear cut. We've had an ordinance for
'
many, many years now that you can't clear cut. You can argue that we have no legal right to
do that but the developers don't want to clear cut. And they want to work with the city. I
think the whole ordinance is designed to create an environment, to create a street pattern and
'
development where it's thought ...to save these big trees. And it's identified in the remarks.
We found, or at least what I understood through this whole discussion is they ... because
someone goes out there with a bulldozer after we've laid out a nice plan and the developer
and the staff agrees what's going to be saved and they disregard and just throw the fences off
to the side and push down the trees anyway. That's for the big important ones. And we've
tried to write that kind of enforcement into the code penalties and stuff ...from the way I
understand it, talking to Paul Krauss at one time, tried the idea of going out and getting really
critical one big tree at a time. And what they found was that was unmanageable. You have
somebody bought a lot and he designed, that couple designed a house to fit that lot and in
order to put that house on that lot without taking that tree and it turned into a big emotional
thing that was really beyond what the staff had at the time ... so at that time we actually - had
one ordinance and we adjusted it more to deal with the concept of the canopy. Try to deal
'
with that lot ...so I think that was the outcome. Then we added another thing too which I
think is really kind of new and that is say if you got raw land, in order to make it fair for
those ... you've got to add a significant tree. And then the question is, well yeah you can
,
probably do that and then the question is, you're adding costs to every house when you do
that ... maple grove and everything so we had a lot of discussion about well gee whiz. At what
rate do you want to add trees and one time we had 60 acres, 60 trees per acre and I believe
'
we cut it down. Tried to find something that seemed reasonable.
Mancino: Well we did it with the existing subdivisions that had come in. We said you
know, how many did we, we took a Lundgren one and we saw the landscaping plan and we
found that our ordinance was about the same as what they were going to be putting into
'
landscaping of that development anyway. So we did some comparative studies on it too.
Tim Erhart: But I think what ...this is really not a simple issue. It's really complicated. '
There's just a lot of factors involved in terms of people and environmental factors and it's
very tough to come up with something that balances ... for this project. So I think it's
recommending changes at this point, we could end up stopping just a lot of work to go back ,
and redo the whole thing again and...
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Basically I'd say the world that we're probably going to be dealing with is most of the
developments that we see are 19% or less or I think Lake Susan Hills 9th was probably. a
major, a very rare situation. Some property but yeah, I'm certainly not against reforestation.
' I just wanted to make sure that we understood how this ordinance would play against some
other ones that deal with reforestation. Let's see. Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: I had one thing. I think overall I support the amendment. I think it's an excellent
step in saving the remaining tree coverage. But we've talked about, or I've talked about the
issue as it relates to monumentation in item 7 on page 5. Essentially we're requiring a sign
on every lot in a single family development which likely will amount to encountering a sign
every 90 feet as you walk along the edge of a tree preserve and for me, I don't think that's
appropriate. I would like to see that requirement removed. I understand that you want to
educate but at the same time I think that would be more negative than positive.
Mancino: What would be your solution? Would you then go in to say, in all situations a
' monument is required for every 300 linear feet of tree conservation area and just have that
and not every lot?
' Ledvina: Well I think maybe that's a little more palatable because you have a lot of people
in their backyard you know enjoying their backyard on their deck or whatever and they see a
sign there and I mean they don't see their sign. They don't just see their sign, they see the
neighbor's sign. The other sign there and then 2 more signs that way. So I can at least in
terms of the scenario that I'm envisioning, I wouldn't like it. So maybe a compromise is 300
linear feet.
Mancino: And the other is ... what these signs look like.
Ledvina: Well I don't know either. Maybe they're little signs on a wood post or something
but we have so many signs in our lives and we have a nature preserve that we have to put
signs around and I don't like the idea. So I guess Nancy, I would agree that maybe as a
compromise there, maybe just one every 300 feet. If we just eliminate the sentence, in single
family residential subdivisions a monument is required for each lot.
Mancino: Okay, and then I'd say try that and if we're having a problem with you know in a
certain subdivision people going in and cutting or getting into that conservation and we do
something.
Ledvina: Right. I think the preservation or the major part of the preservation occurs when
the site is developed and certainly starts with the planning and then when it's developed, I
think after that point people are aware of what they have bordering their property or on their
24
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
property. Maybe that isn't the case but they don't have real strong reasons to go in and start
mucking things up as opposed to the problems that could occur at the development stage.
Conrad: Matt, why can't we put a, you're thinking of a sign that comes out of the ground. I
guess I don't know that you need to do that. I think you can put flat. You can put, like of
golf courses where you've got markers.
Ledvina: A tee marking?
Conrad: Yeah. So we're not obtrusive. I'm real concerned like wetlands that people will
destroy them. I'm concerned that after time, after a year or the next family goes in, it's gone.
The sign's gone or whatever but if we get the monument or a marker that's metal in the
grass, I don't think that's obtrusive at all and I think that might, that was what I was
envisioning. I don't know if that solves your problem.
Ledvina: Well I don't know. I guess if that's possible.
Mancino: An unobtrusive monument sign.
Ledvina: Low profile.
Mancino: Yeah, profile. That's a good idea.
Ledvina: Maybe if you added those words in there. It's just a scenario, bumping into a sign
as you're walking in the woods. That's unpalatable to me but if we can. I can understand if
someone starts cutting the underbrush and they see the sign, then okay. Hey if something's
happening here and maybe this means something. Maybe I should check it out if they're
uneducated so from that perspective that may make some sense.
Mancino: Let's come back with a sign design and just make sure it's what we want.
Ledvina: Well maybe, we don't need to say it here or have a picture of a sign in the
ordinance but maybe when developers come up and say, what are you talking about here for a
monument, have like kind of a standard plate or whatever that can be used.
Generous: Maybe we should do exactly like the wetland ordinance...
Ledvina: Okay, well if we could add the word low profile to monument. I guess that would
be more acceptable.
25
i
I
J
Planning ommission M -
g Meeting April 6, 1994
' Scott: Are there any other comments?
' Mancino: Yeah, I just have a few. On that same page, 5. Up in the first paragraph, fifth
line down. It says any understory trees and natural vegetation should be preserved. I'd like
to put all instead of any. All understory trees and natural vegetation. Also on page 1,
paragraph 2. Bob, when I read that it doesn't tell me that this, or does it. You tell me. That
this survey, where does it tell me that it has to be done by a professional? I guess I'd like to
make sure that the survey that the city gets from the developer is done by a professional
arborist.
Generous: Page 3.
' Mancino: But that's the woodland management plan. It's not the survey.
' Scott: We can just add, prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape. Or you fill in the blank. I don't know what the
blank should be but.
Generous: Use the same language on number 3.
Mancino: Exactly. A licensed forester or other professional approved by the city or
landscape architect. So I'd like that also included then in 2. On page 2, (a). Based on this
survey and either site observation or measurement or aerial photograph interpretation. I
' would like to make sure it is a current, and when I say current, within the last year or two,
aerial photograph. Because there are a lot of aerial photographs that are around here that are
5 or 10 years old.
' Scott: That can work against you too.
Mancino: I mean yeah. I can either work for or against you but I think it should be
current... developer prior to bringing in a site plan because you have on page 2, the baseline
canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development application is
filed with the city. So somebody could go in and take down quite a few before the, yeah.
Ledvina: Well I think something like that would be noticed as staff visited sites and then...
photos would come into play.
I Mancino: Yeah but remember Minnewashta.
26
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Ledvina: Right. I
Mancino: I mean nobody knew exactly what had come down and what hadn't except for a '
neighbor came.
Ledvina: Well and there were, there was an evaluation of what was done there and I mean ,
we looked at stumps and all that kind of thing. I think you can do that after the fact if you
have to.
Mancino: I agree. I just think it would be good if the city did have photographs. If we
could use those too.
Ledvina: Sure.
Mancino: In addition to. '
Scott: Also too, I'd like to see where each, when a preliminary plat is brought to us, I
personally don't even want to see it unless this is taken care of before hand. I don't want to
be wasting our time and the applicant's time just to table it. So personally I don't want to
see anything unless all the ducks are in a row.
Richard Wing: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one thing?
Scott: Yes.
Richard Wing: A recent site plan review included pictures and a description of the trees that ,
were a part of the site plan and I'd like to see staff have each one of the trees that's on our
tree list, I think should be on record and I think we should get a picture of that tree and a
description of that tree and everytime the site plan is presented, those trees and that
description and that picture follows the site plan so we can see what kind of tree they're
talking about. How it looks and how it's going to fit in. They just, the last site plan review
at the City Council we had that included and it was interesting to be able to see the type of
tree, the height of the tree, the crown that the tree had and the...
Scott: So that was something like there was a list of species kind of like we have in here and '
then with a picture along side of it?
Richard Wing: I would request staff to continue including pictures and description of the
trees when these site plans come forth with the landscaping plan so ... or a honey locust, it
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
1 means nothing to me unless I can see a picture of it and a description of it. At the same time
you approved the site plan for Byerly's monument sign of roughly 8 x l l...and no other
information whatsoever that makes sense. Just a suggestion that that be included.
' Scott: Sounds good to me.
' Mancino: I have another question. Tim, I can't remember this and I'm asking you. On page
3, if a developer goes in and takes out more than the 45% canopy coverage and decides to go
and take 60% out, we have that replacement being a 1.2 times replacement?
Tim Erhart: Yeah. I think it's a ratio on that.
' Mancino: Yeah. But on the other one, when they go in after it's already protected and
everything is 1.5, why did we have a difference there? Why don't we stick with 1.5 for both
applications?
' Tim Erhart: If somebody's agreed to save the trees ... in a position to go back and ... because
he didn't do what he said he was going to do. Versus the other one is more or less a trade
1 off and it's discussed and negotiated up front.
Mancino: So there is a 20% penalty for going in and taking additional canopy coverage and
let's say there are significant trees in this canopy coverage. There are some huge, old growth
trees and I can take out, I've decided to take out a little bit more because I can fit a certain
house on there and all I have to do is put 20% back in of these young, new little trees.
' Tim Erhart: Yeah. We went per through what the cost r acre and what it costs to do that...
g
Mancino: Okay. Because I know we were playing around with 1.2, 1.3, 1.4.
Tim Erhart: And I don't think there was any clear agreement.
Mancino: On what that percentage was.
Tim Erhart: ...magic ratio that anybody felt was just right. We sort of agreed on some point
in the middle. But clearly I think we all agreed that if somebody takes a tree down, that we
' thought was going to be saved, clearly ought to be penalized substantially.
Mancino: I just wonder if there shouldn't be again a priority. If it's a significant tree, it's a
little bit more. That's reworking the whole ordinance. Okay.
1 28
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Harberts: I have a question for staff. Was it about a few months ago we had looked at like a
landscaping ordinance. Is this like a subset of this then? Is that how that fits into it?
Scott: On parking lot?
Harberts: Yeah. Is that how that fits into it? This is kind of like a subset or is this like a.
Generous: This is a different section. It deals with you, well as far as the site plan, we have
the two will be meshed but as far as this is separately under the subdivision ordinance.
Harberts: Oh okay. What kind of action are we looking for tonight? Consideration to move
it up to the City Council?
Mancino: Yes.
Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Code Amendment to the Landscaping Tree Preservation Sections in the City Code as shown
in the March 30, 1994 amendment from the Planning Staff.
Scott: Is there a second?
Harberts: I'll second it.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff's recommendation. Is there
any discussion?
Harberts: I would just encourage the City Council to, I know I read somewhere here about,
oh here it was. In the Planning Director's report about considering funding for an urban
forester for the city and I would just encourage the City Council to consider, before they look
at adding on a permanent staff to the city rolls, that they look at perhaps purchasing that
service from a company rather than putting that on as permanent staff. There might be a cost
advantage to that but we certainly want to make sure that the work is done. So I would just
encourage city staff to, or the City Council to look at purchasing the service from an existing
agency rather than putting on a staff report if there's value to doing that.
Scott: Is there any other discussion?
Ledvina: I would like to also add to my motion that the discussion undertaken this evening
29 1
C
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
as it relates to suggested language changes be made prior to forwarding this ordinance to the
City Council.
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of City Code Amendment to the landscaping and tree preservation sections as shown in
the staff report of March 30, 1994 and amended to reflect the changes discussed. All
voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
Scott: And your reason for abstaining?
Conrad: I'm really not comfortable with the minimum canopy requirements chart. And I've
tried to rationalize it because I think those on the Tree Board have done a terrific job here. I
don't buy some of the percentages. I think I would have done it differently but I didn't want
to ... well enough. I think there should be a standard per district that you aim for and that may
be 50% coverage in a residential area but what we're doing is we're saying, based on how we
started it, we're going to let one district have a different standard and within the same zoning,
if the farmer cut down all the trees, they really only have to reforest it to a certain percentage.
Whereas if you started with a lot of trees, we're going to keep them up at that high level and
I would have cut it at a standard per zoning district that we're achieving. But I understand
the logic here. I don't know...
Scott: Thanks for your comment.
SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I think we were talking about allowing pylon signs on property with Highway 5
frontage.
Mancino: But just in the general business district. I mean no in multi family, no in single
family, no in IOP.
' Scott: BG.
Mancino: Yeah.
Generous: BH is the only two that would be affected. Highway Business district which is
30