10. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment regarding Landscaping & Tree Preservation Requirements 1 , CITYOF / 0
1 Itir CHANHASSEN
I690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 0
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
kw t*r Ct", ..' tntsi J
1 MEMORANDUM g. -e
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 12.;,''�
i J.: - 9.1
IFROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II it-:. 7,:-- r s;:..;
DATE: September 19, 1991
ISUBJ: Landscape Ordinance, First Reading - - q- 3 (li
BACKGROUND
I
The idea of revising the landscaping ordinance has been in
discussion with the Planning Commission since February. Early this
1 year, staff performed an analysis of the existing ordinance
indicating areas in which it was felt there needed to be
improvement as well as areas where the existing ordinance was
1 satisfactory. This discussion is contained within the February
26th memo which is attached. Generally, we found that while the
existing ordinance contained a lot of good elements but there were
portions of it which were inappropriate or difficult to administer.
I A series of goals were developed, along with an ordinance format
discussion. These include the following:
I GOALS
A discussion of the landscaping standards should begin with
I agreement on goals as to what is to be achieved by the ordinance.
The following goals were presented for discussion purposes. The
Planning Commission was encouraged to redefine, add or subtract
from this list as appropriate.
I1. The landscaping standards should provide for aesthetic
planting of sites and buildings. These plantings should be
I designed to add color, natural growth, as well as an
introduction of the natural environment into sites.
I 2. Landscaping standards should provide for screening for. visual
impacts associated with a given use, including:
o truck loading areas,
I o trash storage,
o parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters,
I
1
11
11 Landscape Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 2
IIO large unadorned building massing (reference the recent
site plan approval for McGlynn's that used landscaping to
I minimize the visual impact of high, blank walls,
o garage doors associated with auto oriented uses, and
o vehicular stacking areas for drive through uses
I 3. Buffering between high intensity and low intensity uses should
be outlined as to where this is required and what constitutes
a suitable buffer.
I4. Buffering of a site for major streets and highways relative to
noise and visual impacts.
I 5. Boulevard or streetscape planting should be investigated.
Boulevard and streetscape planting typically takes place off
site and is often not the direct responsibility of a
I developer. At the present time, the City is working with
MnDOT on a Highway Beautification Program for the new section
of Highway 5 through downtown Chanhassen.
I6. Mature stands of trees and natural areas such as wetlands
should be protected. Protection of existing features and
their enhancement where possible should be the primary focus
I with replacement being considered only after alternatives are
reviewed and dismissed.
I7. Reforestation should be considered where appropriate.
ORDINANCE FORMAT
I The following constituted an understanding of what needs to be
incorporated into an effective landscaping ordinance. These
guidelines were used to critically review ordinance amendments that
Iwere considered for adoption.
1. The ordinance should be comprehensive covering all sorts of
I developments. At the present time, the ordinance is effective
only under site plan reviews. Regulations affecting
subdivisions are handled elsewhere in the ordinance and are
less effective. P.U.D. 's do not have any specific
IIrequirements.
2. The ordinance should provide ample guidance as to what the
I City's design expectations are without unduly limiting design
flexibility. There are a number of landscaping ordinances
that become so regimented in their approach to defining
I landscaping standards that you wind up with a cookie cutter
approach to landscaping design. Ideally, the ordinance would
allow a good designer to reflect the demands of the site and
the setting it is placed in.
I
Landscape Ordinance I
September 19, 1991
Page 3
3. Minimum standards should be provided to ensure that a baseline
level of quality is achieved.
4. The ordinance should be relatively easy to interpret and
enforce. There are a number of ordinances that have been
drafted that promote high quality design but are so complex
that only a landscape architect can reliably interpret them.
We should strive to have an ordinance that is understandable
by lay people as well as professionals. Enforcement should
also be taken into account. For example, an ordinance may
require "80% opacity" in a landscape screen between a parking
lot and a residential site. In our opinion, this is almost
impossible to enforce since it is difficult to define what 80%
opacity actually means and then get a reliable interpretation
of this out in the field.
A summary of problems with the existing problems includes: '
1. Existing ordinance standards are contained in several portions
of the zoning ordinance and presented in a manner that are
confusing and difficult to interpret and understand.
2. The intent section needed to be better defined.
3. No landscaping of any sort is required under the current
subdivision ordinance. Thus, in instances where subdivision
may for example be located against a collector street, the
city was not in a position to require landscape screening.
4. It was unclear as to what the goals and intent of the
ordinance were. For example, it may talk about screening HVAC
equipment or trash storage but would be mute on truck loading
areas and other similar uses.
5. The existing ordinance contains a standard that there be one
tree for every 40 linear feet of frontage. We believe this
archaic and does a disservice to design standards. In
essence, there was no minimum amount of landscaping that could
be required on a site plan except for this 1 per 40
requirement. The new ordinance takes a different approach of
establishing a ratio of landscape costs to project value costs
and lays out what our expectations are.
6. There has been a good deal of discussion that the existing
requirement of 1 tree per single family residence is too low
and concerned voice that this should be increased in our new
ordinance. The current proposal requires 3 trees. I
The Planning Commission worked diligently on this matter over a
series of meetings. Staff reports from each are attached, although
II
1 Landscape Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 4
Ifor the sake of brevity, I have left out all of the various
versions of the ordinance that predate the current proposal. At
I the August 21st meeting, the Planning Commission was essentially
satisfied with the ordinance but added language to improve
standards for the protection of trees during construction.
IIPLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
II On September 4, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the proposed landscaping ordinance. This item was discussed
before the Planning Commission several times, making changes and
I modifications along the way. The main area of concern is the list
of tree species. The Planning Commission is recommending that 3
trees be required with each building lot. , These trees would be
selected from two lists; one list of high value (deciduous) trees
I and one list of conifer trees. One tree would be picked from each
list, with the third tree being chosen from either list.
I The DNR has reviewed Chanhassen's existing species list and have
stated that they feel the list is adequate. Staff has also
reviewed the University of Minnesota Agriculture and Natural
Resources Extension Services. The final source was the Landscape
IArboretum with information provided by Councilman Wing.
Based on the previously mentioned input, staff is recommending the
Ifollowing species list be used:
DECIDUOUS
ISpecific Name Common Name
Acer saccharinum Maple, Silver
I Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
Quercus alba Oak, White
I Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Prunus nigra Plum, Canada
Amelanchier sp. Serviceberry
II Betula nigra Birch, River
Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree, Kentucky
Carpinus caroliniana Blue Beech
Phellodendron amurense Corktree, amur
II Malus sp. Crabapple (ornamental)
Magnolia acuminate Cucumbertree
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo (male trees)
I Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Crataegus sp. Hawthorn
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood
Syringa reticulata Lilac, Japanese tree
I
I
I
Landscape Ordinance
September 19, 1991
Page 5
Tilia cordata Linden, Littleleaf I
Tilia sp. Linden, American (Basswood)
Acer ginnala Maple, Amur
Acer platanoides Maple, Norway
Acer tatarica Maple, Tatatian
Sorbus sp. Mountian Ash
Viburnum lentago Nannyberry
Quercus velutina Oak, Black
Cercis canadensis Redbud, Eastern
EVERGREEN
Specific Name Common Name '
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae (white Cedar)
Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca Douglas Fir
Abies concolor Fir, White
Larix, sp. Larch
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus strobus Pine, Eastern White
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado
Taxus sp. Yew
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves first reading of Landscape Ordinance as
shown in Attachment #1 and including the proposed tree list. "
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Landscape Ordinance.
2. Memorandums/staff reports dated February 26, May 22, July 31,
August 14 and August 30, 1991.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 1991.
I
1
1
1
II
II CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 AND CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE
II * The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordain3:
*
I Article XXV
ing and Tree Removal
IIDIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance.
I (a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance
of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way;
to require buffering between non-compatible land uses; and to
I protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and
value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health
and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution,
Ivisual pollution and glare.
* _
rc3idcncc3 in the Al/A2/RR/REF Di3trict3 which. are regulated by
(b) This article does not apply to single family detached
1 residences in the A-1, A-2, RR and RSF zoning districts which are
regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the Subdivision
Ordinance.
I (c) No new site development, building, structure or vehicular
use area is allowed, unless landscaping is provided as required in
this article.
' (d) No property lines shall be altered nor shall any
building, structure or vehicular use area be expanded, unless the
I minimum landscaping required by the provisions of this article is
provided for the entire property. •
II (e) The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for
visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not
limited to:
II o truck loading areas;
o trash storage;
o parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters;
Io large unadorned building massing;
1
I
II
I
o garage doors associated with auto oriented uses; and
o vehicular stacking areas for drive through uses
(f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and
low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and
highways and in areas where buffering is required by the
Comprehensive Plan.
(g) The City shall encourage reforestation through boulevard ,
and streetscape planting shall be pursued by the city.
(h) Mature stands of trees shall be preserved. '
(i) Reforestation shall be pursued as appropriate.
Section 20-1177. Plan Submission ; Time of Completion;
Financial Guarantees.
The property owner or developer shall prepare a landscape plan ,
drawn by a registered landscape architect or other professional
acceptable to the city for review by the city. The city shall 11 apply the following conditions in approval or disapproving the
plan:
(1) The contents of the plan shall include the following: '
a. Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale,
showing and labelling by name and dimensions, all
existing and proposed property lines, easements,
buildings, and other structures, vehicular use
areas (including parking stalls, driveways, service
areas, square footage) , water outlets and landscape
material (including botanical name and common name,
installation size, on center planting dimensions
where applicable, and quantities for all plants
used) .
b. Typical elevations and/or cross sections as may be
required.
c. Title block with the pertinent names and addressed
(property owner, person drawing plan, and person
installing landscape material) , scale date, north
arrow (generally orient plan so that north is to
top of plan) , and zoning district. I
d. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the
required plan and any material in satisfactory
condition may be used to satisfy this article in
whole or in part.
2
I
(2) Where landscaping is required, no building permit shall
' be issued until the required landscaping plan has been
submitted and approved, and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until the landscaping is completed as certified by
an on-site inspection by the building inspector, unless an
irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution,
financial guarantee acceptable to the city has been submitted.
' * (3) When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements
to property are required by this ordinance, a letter of credit
or cash escrow shall be supplied by the owner in an amount
' equal to at least one hundred ten (110) percent of the value
of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The
security must be satisfactory to the city and shall be
' conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the
city for engineering, legal or other fees in connection with
making or completing such improvements. The guarantee shall
be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
' shall be valid for a period of time equal to one (1) full
growing season after the date of installation of the
landscaping. The city may accept a letter of credit or cash
' c3crow. In the event construction of the project is not
completed within the time prescribed by building permits and
other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the
' work required at the expense of the owner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for
completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to
1 conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the
developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine (9) months,
may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an
' extension is granted, the city shall require such additional
security as it deems appropriate.
' DIVISION 2. TREE REMOVAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS.
Section 20-1178. Generally.
' (a) 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.
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted
except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or
' site plan application.
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating
subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve
• ' significant woodland areas.
3
1
(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 minimum, however, replacement trees
shall conform to the planting requirement
identified in Division 3 of this article.
(4) During the tree 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
commercially available for transportation.
(8) At the city's discretion, conservation easements '
may be required to protect designated tree
preservation areas.
DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
Section 20-1179. Landscape Budget. 1
(a) There Landscaping shall be provided
that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided in the table
below.
1
4
I
I
I
PROJECT VALUE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE
VALUE
(Including building construction,
•
site preparation, and site improvements)
IBelow $1,000,000 2%
I $1,000,001 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% of
Project Value in
excess of
I $1,000,000
$2, 000,001 - $3,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75%
I of Project
Value in excess
of $2,000,000
1 $3, 000, 001 - $4, 000,000 $37,500 + 0.25%
of Project
Value in excess
Iof $3,000,000
Over $4,000,000 1%
IAt the city's discretion, the value of tree preservation may be
utilized to offset landscaping requirements.
ISection 20-1180. Screening for Visual Impacts.
(a) Any visual impact Visual impacts must be screened or
I buffered as required by the city. These shall include including
but not be limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking
lots, interior lot areas and perimeters, outdoor storage areas,
I large unadorned building massing, garage doors associated with auto
oriented uses and vehicular stacking areas for drive-thru uses.
Ithe Al, A2, RR and RSF • districts. Ctructurc3 -may be grouped
thc tallest of the structurc3.
I1) Required screening or buffering for any visual impact may
be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or
I other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall
be architecturally harmonious with the principal
building. The use of wooden screen fences or chain link
fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms
I shall not exceed a slope of 3:1 unless provided with
landscaping designed to minimize maintenance. The screen
shall be designed to employ materials which provide an
Ieffective visual barrier during all seasons.
5
I
1
2) All required screening or buffering shall be located on
the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or
structure to be screened. No landscape screening et.
buffcring shall be located on any public right-of-way or
within eight (8) feet of the traveled portion of any
street or highway.
3) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be
of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this
section. Height of plantings required under this section
shall be measured at the time of installation. ,
(b) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1) Principal buildings and structures and any building
or structure accessory thereto located in any
business, industrial or planned unit development
district containing non-residential uses shall be
buffered from lots used for any residential
purpose. i
2) Principal buildings and structures and any building
or structure accessory thereto located in any R4,
R8, R12, R16 District or planned unit development
district containing residential development at
densities exceeding 4 units per acre shall be
buffered from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or RSF
District.
3) Additional buffer yard requirements are established
by the City Comprehensive Plan and listed in
individual district standards.
4) Outside storage in any district subject to these 1
provisions and allowed by other provisions of this
ordinance, shall be screened from all public views.
Section 20-1181. Vehicular Areas. ,
(a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including
driveways and drive aisles, are not entirely screened visually by
an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of-
way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct
views of cars and hard surface areas. The goal of this section is
to break up expanses of hard surface areas, help to visually define
boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas.
(b) Interior Landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas: 1
1) Any open vehicular use are (excluding loading,
unloading, and storage areas in IOP and BG
6
r
11
I
11 (6,000) containing more than six thousand
(6,000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more
vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior
landscaping in accordance with this division in
addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior
landscaping may be peninsular or island types.
' 2) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction
thereof, of vehicular use area, five (5) square
feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
' 3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be
sixty-four (64) square feet, with a four foot
minimum dimension to all trees from edge of
' pavement where vehicles overhang.
4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas
' to be properly dispersed, no required landscape
area shall be larger than three hundred fifty (350)
square feet in vehicular use areas under thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet. In both cases, the
' least dimension of any required area shall be four-
foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of
pavement where vehicles overhang. Landscape areas
' larger than above are permitted as long as the
additional areas are in excess of the required
minimum.
' 5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for
each two hundred fifty (250) square feet or
fraction thereof, of required landscape area.
' Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five (5)
feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall
be landscaped with shrubs, or ground cover (not to
' include rocks or gravel) , not to exceed two (2)
feet in height.
6) Parked vehicles may hang over the interior
' landscape area no more than two and one-half (210
feet, as long as a concrete curb is provided to
ensure no greater overhang or penetration of the
' landscaped area.
7) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete
' curbing.
Section 20-1182. Foundation and Aesthetic Plantings.
(a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of
plantings around the exterior footprint of all buildings. The
intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the
Istructures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building
7
I
I
elevations. These plantings are not intended to obscure views of
the building or accessory signage. ,
(b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected
wetlands and tree preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded.
In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and other plant material
shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
(c) Where undeveloped or open areas of a site are located ,
adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-
story boulevard trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty
(30) feet of frontage is required. The City may approve
alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance.
Section 20-1183. Landscaping Materials. ,
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
* (1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of
natural stone, brick or other appropriate
materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood.
Chain link fencing will be permitted only if
covered with plant material or otherwise screened.
(refcr to Section 20 1100 [1]) .
(2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical '
barriers which block or screen the view similar to
a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be
constructed with proper and adequate plant material '
to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation
between areas requiring screening does not
constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not
be considered as fulfilling any screening
requirement.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living ,
plants; artificial plants are prohibited. Plant
materials shall meet the following requirements:
a) Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an
average mature crown spread of greater than
fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which
can be maintained with over five. (5) feet of
clear wood in areas which have visibility
requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight (8) foot clear
wood requirement will control. Trees having
an average mature spread of crown less than
fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by
grouping of the same so as to create the
equivalent of a fifteen (15) foot crown
spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overall
8
11
I
' height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter,
measured six (6) inches above ground for trees
up to four (4•) inches caliper) of at least two
and one-half (21) inches immediately after
I planting shall be required. Trees of species
whose roots are known to cause damage to
public roadways or other public works shall
not be placed closer than fifteen (15) to such
public works, unless the tree root system is
completely contained within a barrier for
I which the minimum interior containing
dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and
five (5) feet deep and for which the
construction requirements shall be four (4)
Iinches thick, reinforced concrete.
b) Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a
minimum of six (6) feet high with a minimum
caliper of one and one-half (111) inches when
planted.
' c) Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be
at least two (2) feet in average height when
planted, and shall conform to the opacity and
I other requirements within four (4) years after
planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least
two (2) feet in average height and two (2)
feet in diameter.
d) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12)
inches high at planting, and are generally
Iused in conjunction with walls or fences.
e) Grass br ground cover. Grass shall be planted
I in species normally grown as permanent lawns,
and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or
seeded; except in swales or other areas
' subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion
reducing net, or suitable mulch shall be used,
nurse grass seed shall be sown for immediate
protection until complete coverage otherwise
I is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and
free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases.
Ground cover such as organic material shall be
I planted in such a manner as to present a
finished appearance and seventy-five (75)
percent of complete coverage after two (2)
complete growing seasons, with a maximum of
fifteen (15) inches on center. In certain
cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks,
pebbles, sand and similar approved materials.
9
I
I
I
f) Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in
height, including stage walls which
cumulatively exceed five (5) feet in height,
must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape
architect of brick, concrete or natural stone.
Artificial material may be approved if
appropriate. I
DIVISION 4. MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION.
Section 20-1184. Generally. ,
The owner, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held
jointly and severally responsible to maintain their property and
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly
appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground
cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and
which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of
notifications by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine (9) months by the director of planning in order
to allow for seasonal or weather conditions.
Section 2. Section 18-61 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
Section 18-61. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements. I
(a) Required Landscaping/Residential Subdivision I
* 1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of three
(3) trees, two (2) trees shall be deciduous and one
(1) a coniferous tree. The type of tree shall be
subject to City approval. (the city will provide a
list of species) . Coniferous trees must be at
least 6 feet high and deciduous trees must be at
least 21 inches in diameter at the time of
installation. At least one (1) deciduous tree must
be placed in the front yard area. Trees mu3t be
in3tallcd prior to receiving a certificate of
city mu3t be provided to ensure timely
installation. This requirement may be waived for
up to two (2) of the required trees by the city
when the applicant can demonstrate that suitable
trees having a minimum diameter of .6 2% inches for
deciduous and 6 foot height for evergreen and 4
feet above the ground are located in appropriate
locations on the lot. The waiver shall be applied
10
r
I
for each existing tree against each required tree
on a one-for-one basis.
•
2) Trees must be installed prior to receiving a
certificate of occupancy or financial guarantees
acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure
timely installation.
1 4}3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or
construction must be seeded or sodded immediately
upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When
certificates of occupancy are requested prior to
the satisfaction of this requirement, financial
guarantees acceptable to the city, must be
' provided.
3}4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after
development. On-site burial is not permitted.
4-}-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 Comprehensive Plan and
where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land
I 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 25% over zoning district
standards. The landscape plan must be developed
with the preliminary and final plat submittals for
' city approval. 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 subdivision, 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.
11
•
1
(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 _ _ -
- - „ - -
o=— ed trees approved for removal by the city
may be required on a caliper inch per caliper inch
basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees
shall conform to the planting requirement
identified in Division 3 of this article.
(4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be
removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-
of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 1
(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
commercially available for transportation.
(8) At the city's discretion, conservation easements 1
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. 1
REPEAL CECTION 2.0 117, Maintenanee of site and landscaping AND
CECTION 20 119, Land3caping financial guarantcc required.
* Section 3. Section 20-117 and Section 20-119 of the
Chanhassen City Code are hereby repealed.
1
12
•
11
1
' * Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
' ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
' * Recommended changes from City Attorney
1
1
1
i
I13
CITYOF
1
II
0 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I
(612) 937-1 900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
I
DATE: February 26, 1991
SUBJ: Issue Paper/Landscaping Ordinance I
BACKGROUND
I
Recently there has been considerable discussion concerning the
City's Landscaping Ordinance and improvements that may be made to
it. Improvements that would result in a higher standard of
I
development in the City have been established as a goal by the
Planning Commission and similar sentiment has been echoed by at
least several members of the City Council. This report is intended
I
to give an overview of the purpose behind landscaping standards as
well as current ordinances, reviewing their positive aspects and
shortcomings. Your response to this information will be given for
consideration for inclusion in any new ordinances that would be
developed. .
GOALS
I
A discussion of the landscaping standards should begin with
agreement on goals as to what is to be achieved by the ordinance.
I
The following goals are presented for discussion purposes. The
Planning Commission is encouraged to redefine, add or subtract from
this list as appropriate.
1. The landscaping standards should provide for aesthetic
planting of sites and buildings. These plantings should be
designed to add color, natural growth, as well as an
I
introduction of the natural environment into sites.
2. Landscaping standards should provide for screening for visual
impacts associated with a given use, including:
o truck loading areas,
o trash storage,
o parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters,
1
1
II
II Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 2
I o large unadorned building massing (reference the recent
site plan approval for McGlynn's that used landscaping to
minimize the visual impact of high, blank walls,
I o garage doors associated with auto oriented uses, and
o vehicular stacking areas for drive through uses
I 3. Buffering between high intensity and low intensity uses should
be outlined as to where this is required and what constitutes
a suitable buffer.
II 4. Buffering of a site for major streets and highways relative to
noise and visual impacts.
I 5. Boulevard or streetscape planting should be investigated.
Boulevard and streetscape planting typically takes place off
site and is often not the direct responsibility of a
I developer. At the present time, the City is working with
MnDOT on a Highway Beautification Program for the new section
of Highway 5 through downtown Chanhassen.
I 6. Mature stands of trees and natural areas such as wetlands
should be protected. Protection of existing features and
their enhancement where possible should be the primary focus
I with replacement being considered only after alternatives are
reviewed and dismissed.
7. Reforestation should be considered where appropriate.
IIORDINANCE FORMAT
I The following constitutes our understanding of what needs to be
incorporated into an effective landscaping ordinance. These
guidelines, plus any others proposed by the Planning Commission,
I should be used to critically review any ordinance amendments that
we wish to consider.
1. The ordinance should be comprehensive covering all sorts of
I developments. At the present time, the ordinance is effective
only under site plan reviews. Regulations affecting
subdivisions are handled elsewhere in the ordinance and are
I less effective. P.U.D. 's do not have any specific
requirements.
I 2. The ordinance should provide ample guidance as to what the
City's design expectations are without unduly limiting design
flexibility. In our opinion, there are a number of
landscaping ordinances that become so. regimented in their
I approach to defining landscaping standards that you wind up
with a cookie cutter approach to landscaping design. Ideally,
I
III
Landscaping Ordinance ,
February 26, 1991
Page 3
the ordinance would allow a good designer to reflect the
demands of the site and the setting it is placed in.
3. Minimum standards should be provided to ensure that a baseline ,
level of quality is achieved.
4. The ordinance should be relatively easy to interpret and
enforce. There are a number of ordinances that have been
drafted that promote high quality design but are so complex
that only a landscape architect can reliably interpret them.
We should strive to have an ordinance that is understandable
by lay people as well as professionals. Enforcement should
also be taken into account. For example, an ordinance may
require "80% opacity" in a landscape screen between a parking
lot and a residential site. In my opinion, this is almost
impossible to enforce since it is difficult to define what 80%
opacity actually means and then get a reliable interpretation
of this out in the field.
CURRENT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following is a review of the various landscaping requirements
contained in our current ordinances. Landscaping standards are
found in several different portions of the ordinance. ,
Article XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal.
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY 1
Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance.
(a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance
of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way;
to require buffering between noncompatible land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and
value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health
and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution,
visual pollution and glare.
(b) This article does not apply to single family detached
residences. '
(c) No new site development, building, structure or vehicular
use area is allowed, unless landscaping is provided as required in
this article.
(d) No property lines shall be altered no shall any building,
structure or vehicular use area be expanded, unless the minimum
landscaping required by the provisions of this article is provided
for the entire property.
I
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 4
•
ICOMMENT: The intent section is good to have although quite
possibly we would consider expansions to better define the
City's purpose in landscaping. The exclusion of single family
I development is noteworthy. Single family development does not
undergo site plan review, therefore, the only effective
ordinance that comes into play is the Subdivision Ordinance,
I No. 18. This will be commented upon later. We also note that
due to the language of the current PUD ordinance, PUD's are
also exempt from provisions of the Landscaping Code.
I
Section 20-1177. Plan Submission and approval.
The property owner or developer shall prepare a landscape plan
for review by the city. The city shall apply the following
Iconditions in approval or disapproving the plan:
(1) The contents of the plan shall include the following:
I a. Plot plan, drawn to an easily readable scale,
showing and labelling by name and dimensions, all
existing and proposed property lines, easements,
I buildings, and other structures, vehicular use
areas (including parking stalls, driveways, service
areas, square footage) , water outlets and landscape
I material (including botanical name and common name,
installation size, on center planting dimensions
where applicable, and quantities for all plants
used) .
b. Typical elevations and/or cross sections as may be
required.
Ic. Title block with the pertinent names and addressed
(property owner, person drawing plan, and person
installing landscape material) , scale date, north
I arrow (generally orient plan so that north is to
top of plan) , and zoning district.
d. Existing landscape material shall be shown on the
required plan and any material in satisfactory
condition may be used to satisfy this article in
whole or in part.
(2) Where landscaping is required, no building permit shall
be issued until the required landscaping plan has been
submitted and approved, and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until the landscaping is completed as certified by
an on-site inspection by the building inspector, unless a
I
I
I
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 5
performance bond, or irrevocable letter of credit from a
banking institution, has been paid
(3) If necessary, the city may require a letter of credit to
insure proper installation of landscape material as with
complete cost of all work certified by landscape contractor,
with the bond amount to include the actual cost plus ten (10)
percent. The bond shall be released upon satisfactory
completion of the work as determined by the city.
(4) Where unusual site conditions exist where strict ,
enforcement of the provisions of this article would cause a
hardship or practical difficulty, the planning commission and
city council may waive the requirements as part of the site
plan review process.
COMMENT: Plan submittal guidelines may need to be fleshed out
somewhat to give staff and the Planning Commission sufficient
material to review. Item #3 pertaining to a letter of credit
has been superseded by Section 20-119 approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council last year. '
Section 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure. '
(a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located
in any residential, commercial or industrial zone (except RR and
RSF zones) . Structures may be grouped together, however, screening
height requirements will be based upon the tallest of the
structures. I
(b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound
shall enclose any service structure on all sides unless such
structure must be frequently moved, in which case screening on all
but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening
material shall be one (1) foot more than the height of the enclosed
structure, but shall not be required to exceed eight (8) feet in
height. Whenever a service structure is located next to 'a building
wall, perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area
landscaping material, such walls or screening material may fulfill
the screening requirement for that side of the service structure if
that wall or screening material is of an average height sufficient
to meet the height requirement set out in this section. Whenever
service structures are screened by plant material, such material
may count towards the fulfillment of required interior or perimeter
landscaping. No interior landscaping shall be required within an
area screened for service structures.
1
i
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 6
' (c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash
disposal unit or waste collection unit which is emptied or removed
mechanically on a regularly occurring basis, a curb to contain the
' placement of the container shall be provided within the screening
material on those sides where there is such material. The curbing
shall be a least one (1) foot from the material and shall be
designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the
' container is emptied.
' COMMENT: This section is a good example of a highly detailed
' standard that is specifically designed to deal with one issue,
in this case, service structures. This type of standard
should also be developed for each of the goal statements
identified in the beginning of this report. fiowever, I note
' that from a design standpoint, there does not appear to be
much flexibility in terms of design creativity in this
section.
I
' Section 20-1179. Tree removal regulations.
(a) 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.
' (b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted
except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or
site plan application.
' (c) 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) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall
be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there
is no other feasible way to develop the site.
' (3) The city may require the replacement of removed
trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At
minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform
' to the planting requirement identified in division
4 of this article.
' (4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be
removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-
'
1
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 7
of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 1
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is
permissible. 1
(d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision, planned
unit development or site plan review shall not be allowed without
the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council. Tree
removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in
Section 20-1177 and identify reasons for tree removal The plan
shall be submitted three (3) weeks in advance of the city council
at which it is to be considered.
COMMENT: This section is very good from an intent standpoint
although it needs to be significantly improved and revamped to
become truly effective. Also note the exclusion granted to
single and two family lots of record. As the Planning
Commission is aware, staff is working with the DNR on an
experimental program relative to identification of elements of
the urban forest warranting protection as well as a
reforestation plan. This section should probably be revised
based upon the outcome of this program.
DIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Section 20-1191. Generally. '
(a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by
an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of- ,
way, there shall be provided landscaping between such area and such
right-of-way as follows:
(1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located 1 `
between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use
area which shall be landscaped to include an average of
one (1) tree for each forth (4 0) linear feet or fraction
thereof. Such trees shall be located between the
abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use areas.
(2) In addition, a hedge, wall, berm, or other opaque durable
landscape barrier of at least two (2) feet in height
shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular
use area. If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving
material, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the
street side of said barrier and be planted in such a
manner to break up the expanse of the wall. A two-foot
berm may be used; however, additional landscaping at
least one (1) foot in height at time of planting shall be
I Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 8
' installed. The remainder of the required landscape areas
shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other
landscape treatment.
' (b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping.
COMMENT: This section deals specifically with landscaping
around the perimeter of parking lots and from an intent
standpoint, this is an acceptable thing to do. However, the
standard of 1 tree per 40 linear feet is frankly, archaic and
' does a disservice to the design standards which already exist
in the city and which are likely to be improved as a result of
this analysis. In addition, the standard berm around the
parking lot does not lend a large amount of creativity. We do
note., however, that this standard has been modified somewhat
by newly adopted regulations using a performance standard to
' allow the property owner to achieve reductions in parking lot
setbacks.
One of the most noteworthy things about this and related
' sections is that there is a complete lack of minimum
landscaping standards for the site itself. In other words,
there is no minimum amount of planting that must be done on a
' given site which leaves staff in a position of using sections
such as this to in essence, coerce a legitimate landscaping
plan out of a developer. . Staff can think of several ways to
address this. One technique that I have used in the past is
' to establish a minimum landscaping budget that utilizes a
formula of linking project development costs to minimum
landscaping value. The table used in the Minnetonka Ordinance
is provided below as an appendix.
' PROJECT VALUE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE
VALUE
(Including building construction,
' site preparation, and site
improvements)
' Below $1,000,000 2%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% of
Project Value in
excess of
$1,000,000
' $2,000, 001 - $3, 000, 000 $30,000 + 0.75%
of Project
I
I
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 9
Value in excess
of $3,000,000
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25%
of Project
Value in excess
of $3,000,000
Over $4,000,000 1%
1
Section 20-1192, Required landscaping adjacent to interior property
lines, Section 20-1193, Combining with easements, and Section 20-
1194, Existing landscape material.
(a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used
primarily for residential or institutional purposes, that portion '
of such area not entirely screened visually by an located structure
or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property, there
shall be provided a landscaped buffer which should be maintained
and replaced as needed. Such landscaped buffer shall consist of
plant material, wall or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet
in height measured from the median elevation of the parking area
closest to the common lot line, and be located between the common
lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular use
area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed
according to the standards in Section 20-1018. ,
COMMENT: Again, I believe the intent is good but that better
minimum standards offering design flexibility are warranted. '
DIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS '
Section 20-1211. Generally.
(a) Any open vehicular use are (excluding loading, unloading,
and storage areas in IOP and BG Districts) containing more than six
thousand (6, 000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more '
vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in
accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter"
landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island
types. 1
(b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such
areas. 1
Section 20-1212. Landscape area.
I
' Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 10 •
(a) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction
thereof, of vehicular use area, five (5) square feet of landscaped
area shall be provided.
' (b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four
(64) square feet, with a four foot minimum dimension to all trees
' from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
(c) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be
properly dispersed, no required landscape area shall be larger than
' three hundred fifty (350) square feet in vehicular use areas under
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. In both cases, the least
dimension of any required area shall be four-foot minimum dimension
' to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the
additional areas are in excess of the required minimum.
' Section 20-1213. Minimum trees.
A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two
' hundred fifty (250) square feet or fraction thereof, of required
landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five
(5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be
' landscaped with shrubs, or ground cover, not to exceed two (2) feet
in height.
Section 20-1214. Vehicle overhang.
' Parked vehicles may hang over the interior landscape area no
more than two and one-half (21) feet, as long as a concrete curb is
provided to ensure no greater overhang or penetration of the
landscaped area.
' COMMENT: In general, I believe that this is a very good
section and deals with a scenario that many ordinances tend to
overlook. Large expanses of blacktop are not only unsightly,
they actually change weather conditions in the immediate
' vicinity. In addition, large unbroken expanses of pavement
create a more difficult drainage problem. This section not
only establishes the intent but also minimum standards in what
are generally effective ways.
' DIVISION 4. LANDSCAPING MATERIALS, ETC.
Section 20-1231, Generally.
' (a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
i
I
Landscaping Ordinance '
February 26, 1991
Page 11
(1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of
natural stone, brick or artificial materials.
Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link
fencing will be permitted only if covered with wood
strips or plant material.
(2) Earth mounds. Earth mounds shall be physical
barriers which block or screen the view similar to
a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be
constructed with proper and adequate plant material
to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation
between areas requiring screening does not
constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not
be considered as fulfilling any screening
equipment.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living
plants, artificial plants are prohibited and shall
meet the following requirements:
(a) Quality. Plant materials used in conformance '
with provision of this division shall conform
to the standards of the American Association
of Nurserymen and shall have passed any
inspections required under state regulations.
(b) Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an
average mature crown spread of greater than
fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which
can be maintained with over five (5) feet of
clear wood in areas which have visibility
requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight (8) foot clear
wood requirement will control. Trees having
an average mature spread of crown less than
fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by
grouping of the same so as to create the '
equivalent of a fifteen (15) foot crown
spread. A minimum of ten (10) •feet overall
height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter,
measured six (6) inches above ground for trees
up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two
and one-half (21) inches immediately after
planting shall be required. Trees of species
whose roots are known to cause damage to
public roadways or other public works shall
not be placed closer than fifteen (15) to such
public works, unless the tree root system is
completely contained within a barrier for
Mi
which the minimum interior containing
•
I Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 12
dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and
five (5) feet deep and for which the
construction requirements shall be four (4)
' inches thick, reinforced concrete.
(c) Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a
minimum of six (6) feet high with a minimum
caliper of one and one-half (11/2) inches when
planted.
(d) Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be
at least two (2) feet in average height when
planted, and shall conform to the opacity and
' other requirements within four (4) years after
planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least
two (2) feet in average height and two (2)
feet in diameter.
' (e) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12)
inches high at planting, and are generally
' used in conjunction with walls or fences.
(f) Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted
' in species normally grown as permanent lawns,
and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or
seeded; except in swales or other areas
subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion
reducing net, or suitable mulch shall be used,
.nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate
protection until complete coverage otherwise
' is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and
free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases.
Ground cover such as organic material shall be
' planted in such a manner as to present a
finished appearance and seventy-five (75)
percent of complete coverage after two (2)
complete growing seasons, with a maximum of
' fifteen (15) inches on center. In certain
cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks,
pebbles, sand and similar approved materials.
COMMENT: I will be honest to state that while this section
appears to be well thought out, that I do not claim to be a
landscape architect and quite possibly the standards should be
Ire-examined by an appropriate professional. The requirement
for having minimum 6 foot height of evergreen trees and 21
inch caliper for deciduous trees is standard and uniform
across the Twin Cities' communities.
i
I
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 13
Section 20-1232. Maintenance and installation. I
COMMENT: This section is fairly good but has been since
superseded by better language located under the site plan
section, Section 20-117.
1
Section 20-1233. Required opacity.
COMMENT: This is a perfect example of an ordinance that is
virtually impossible to understand, much less enforce. Not
only does it differentiate between 50% and 70% opacity at
different times of the year, but it also requires that one
project forward four years of growing time to undertake the
analysis.
Section 20-1234. Curbing. ,
COMMENT: This section is fine without change.
i
Section 20-1145. Landscaping and screening.
1
COMMENT: This section, which is located in the Parking
Standards, requires that all berths (loading areas) require
screening. As such, it is a good concept but is poorly
drafted. It should also deal with outdoor storage in a
similar manner.
Section 20-695, 20-715, 20-735, 20-755, 20-774 and 20-815, Parking
Setbacks and Buffer Yards.
COMMENT: These sections are new and we believe them to be
good from a conceptual point of view. Setbacks for parking
lots are established using a performance type of standard,
i.e. the better the buffering, the smaller the setback. In
addition, the creation of buffer yards around incompatible
land uses, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan, will be
a major long term benefit for the city.
1
I
Landscaping Ordinance
February 26, 1991
Page 14
Section 20-117. Maintenance of site and landscaping.
COMMENT: This was a section added by staff to the site plan
I ordinance last year that more specifically requires the
maintenance of all landscaping in accordance with site plan
approvals.
I
Section 20-118. Retaining walls.
COMMENT: This section provides a necessary tie in with the
building code to support the use of safe and effective
retaining walls.
Section 20-119. Landscaping financial guarantee required.
COMMENT: This section was instituted by staff last year to
more specifically require the deposit of a landscape guarantee
with each site plan. Prior to the drafting of this section,
no such requirement existed and enforcement was often
undertaken on a hit and miss basis.
I
' Section 18-61. Tree removal and conservation of vegetation.
COMMENT: This section is the only reference to tree removal
and landscaping contained within the Subdivision Ordinance.
As such, it is the only regulation that is applied to single
family development. Staff believes that this is highly
inadequate and needs to be addressed in a more significant
' manner.
SUMMARY
1 Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on how to
proceed with development of a revised landscaping ordinance. Your
comments on the material outlined above are essential if we are to
be able to prepare a code revision that adequately meets your
needs.
1
I
E
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
-f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner I
DATE: May 22, 1991
SUBJ: Landscaping Ordinance 1
On April 3, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the existing
landscaping ordinance to comment on what needed to be amended and
updated. Staff presented comments on the existing landscape
ordinance and proposed changes. The following ordinance reflects
staff's proposed amendments to the landscape regulations resulting
111
in a higher standard of development in the city. The proposed
changes include:
1. Additions to the intent statement on visual impacts, buffering 1
and tree preservation.
2. Changing the letter of credit from 120% to 110% to be
consistent with other letter of credit requirements.
3. Alternative landscape provisions.
4. Landscape budget.
5. Standards for screening of visual impacts. ,
6. Foundation and aesthetic plantings.
7. Subdivision regulations for landscaping single family lots and
subdivisions.
I
I
i
1
I
i ,
I CITYOF
1 CHILNHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
II -ik
(612) 937-1900 * FAX (612) 937-5739
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
IFROM: Kathy Aanenson, Planner II
DATE: July 31, 1991
ISUBJ: Landscaping Ordinance
1 On June 5, 1991 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to
amend the sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements. Pursuant
I to this Hearing staff has addressed the comments and proposed
changes. The recommended changes to the ordinance have been made
are shown in the attached ordinance. Additions are shown in bold
1 and underlined, deletions are shown with lines through it.
In Summary the major changes include:
II1. Spacing of trees along open area of a site located adjacent
to public right-of-way is now 30 feet instead of 40 feet.
1 2. The type of material acceptable for screen fences for outdoor
storage areas, has been changed to exclude wood.
I 3. Trees in the public right-of-way shall be trimmed or removed
to prevent blocking and diseased or damaged trees shall be
removed only if they can not be saved.
1 4. In the Subdivision Ordinance, 3 trees will be required with
each building lot, 2 deciduous and 1 evergreen. The
Commission stated a preference for having developers choose
1 from two lists of trees. One list would be for deciduous
trees and one for evergreen trees. Because the City is
currently working with the DNR to do a tree study and will be
1 receiving species recommendations from the study. Staff would
recommend defer listing, any specific species at this time
until the study is completed.
II A few other issues were raised during the hearing for staff to
follow up on. These issues included:
1
v.41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
1
Landscape Ordinance
July 31, 1991
Page 2
1. Staff was asked to talk to the City Attorney regarding the
city's ability to regulate the power company's authority to
clear cut on utility easements.
The City Attorney has stated the City has the ability to pass
an ordinance regulating the power company's ability to come in
and clear cut even in an easement area.
2. A question was raised regarding the relation of the i
Comprehensive Plan, buffer requirements and the proposed
ordinance.
In the Land Use Element of the Goals and Policies Section of
the Comprehensive Plan the following goals and policies state:
GOAL: Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a
high quality of life and reliable tax base.
POLICY: The City will seek opportunities to provide transition 1
between uses of different types, the more incompatible
the neighboring uses, the more important the transition
zone. For example, natural features may provide good
transitions between incompatible uses or uses of
moderate intensity and can provide transitions between
high intensity and low intensity uses. The Land Use Plan
also seeks the establishment of buffer yards where
appropriate. These buffer yards -represent areas of
increased setbacks where a developer will be required to
install landscaping and berming to offer improved
separation of incompatible uses.
3. There was some discussion as to the width of streets and their
effect the width has on the ability to get a canopy from the
streetscape.
We also note that pavement width required by suburban ,
communities varies widely and Chanhassen's requirements appear
to be at the high end of the range. Street width has a direct
and often adverse impact on environmental protection. If the
Planning Commission wishes to have this matter investigated
further, we would recommend you ask the City Engineer to
investigate the matter and report back to you. 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following 1
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Landscape
Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. "
1
1
I
I Landscape Ordinance
July 31, 1991
Page 3
IATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Landscape Ordinance.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I .
I
_ ) - ...„:
CITY OF .., ,_ ,
_ , ,
_ I
01 ,
,,, ,, CHANHASSEN 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Kathy Aanenson, Planner II
I
DATE: August 14, 1991
SUBJ: Landscaping Ordinance
I
This item- was tabled at the July 17, 1991, Planning Commission
meeting.
On June 5, 1991 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
amend the sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements. Pursuant
to this hearing, staff has addressed the comments and proposed
changes. The recommended changes to the ordinance have been made 1
and are shown in the attached ordinance. Additions are shown in
bold and deletions are shown with lines through it.
In summary the major changes include: 1
1. Spacing of trees along open area of a site located adjacent
to public right-of-way is now 30 feet instead of 40 feet. 1
2. The type of material acceptable for screen fences for outdoor
storage areas, has been changed to exclude wood. 1
3. Diseased or damaged trees shall be removed only if they cannot
be saved.
I
4. In the Subdivision Ordinance, 3 trees will be required with
each building lot, 2 deciduous and 1 evergreen. * The
Commission stated a preference for having developers choose 1
from two lists of trees. One list would be for deciduous
trees and one for evergreen trees. Because the City is
currently working with the DNR to do a tree study and will be
I
receiving species recommendations from the study. Staff would
recommend defer listing any specific species at this time
until the study is completed. In addition, the change 1
allowing the City to waive up to two (2) of the required trees
was made to this same section.
Is 1
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
Planning Commission
August 14, 1991
Page 2
A few other issues were raised during the hearing for staff to
follow up on. These issues included:
1. Staff was asked to talk to the City Attorney regarding the
city's ability to regulate the power company's authority to
clear cut on utility easements.
The City Attorney has stated the City has the ability to pass
an ordinance regulating the power company's ability to come in
and clear cut even in an easement area.
2.. A question was raised regarding the relation of the
Comprehensive Plan, buffer requirements and the proposed
ordinance.
In the Land Use Element of the Goals and Policies Section of
' the Comprehensive Plan the following goals and policies state:
GOAL: Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a
1 high quality of life and reliable tax base.
POLICY: The City will seek opportunities to provide transition
between uses of different types, the more incompatible
' the neighboring uses, the more important the transition
zone. For example, natural features may provide good
transitions between incompatible uses or uses of
1 moderate intensity and can provide transitions between
high intensity and low intensity uses. The Land Use Plan
also seeks the establishment of buffer yards where
appropriate. These buffer yards represent areas of
increased setbacks where a developer will be required to
install landscaping and berming to offer improved
separation of incompatible uses.
' 3 . There was some discussion as to the width of streets and their
effect the width has on the ability to get a canopy from the
' streetscape.
Staff also noted that pavement width required by suburban
communities varies widely and Chanhassen's requirements appear
to be at the high end of the range. Street width has a direct
and often adverse impact on environmental protection. If the
Planning Commission wishes to have this matter investigated
' further, we would recommend you ask the City Engineer to
investigate the matter and report back to you.
I
I
I
Planning Commission
August 14, 1991
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following I
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Landscape
Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Landscape Ordinance.
I
I
1
1
I
11
1
1
I
I ., C I TY 0 F .....,,,, _
..)1.-
I 1
I
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Planning Commission
IFROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: August 30, 1991
ISUBJ: Landscape Ordinance
I At the August 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, additional
changes were made to the proposed -Landscaping Ordinance. Staff has
made the changes as requested by the Commission. A summary of
Ithese changes include:
1. Protection of trees during construction [Section 20-1178 (c)
(6-8) ] .
I
2. Removal of alternative landscaping provisions [Section 20-1177
(4) ] .
1 3 . Changed the subdivision regulations - Section 18-61 d to be
consistent with the Tree Preservation Regulations C Section
I (c) (1-8) .
In addition, Halla Nursery and Alan Olson from the Forestry
Division of the DNR have been sent copies of a tree species list.
I Staff is waiting for comments and will then propose a new list of
appropriate trees.
IRECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
Imotion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Landscape
Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. "
IATTACHMENTS
I1. Proposed Landscape Ordinance.
I n
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 41
3. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this
report , as well as those raised at Planning Commission and City Council "
meetings, while working with staff on the plan development .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.
Chairman Emmings waived the staff report on this item. I
Emmings: There was just one thing I wanted to look at but otherwise it
looks like they 've taken everything into account. I
Conrad: It looked that way to me but I 'm surprised Dick Wing left .
Farmakes: I had one question on this whole thing. 1
Emmings: There was one issue that came up that we argued about quite a
bit .
Farmakes: I just wondered if when the ETA for the list of trees is.
Olsen: We did have the DNR forester look it over and he said it's fine . Hell
said it's got the typical trees that most other cities have. We also sent
a copy to the Halla Nursery. We haven't heard any response back from them . "
So right now we're not really going to be changing the list but maybe
organize them the way you were discussing with the hardwoods .
Farmakes: Did the DNR have any recommendations as to what would be
compatible with their study that they did or what 's presently in
Chanhassen?
Olsen: We haven 't gotten that far with that . That's more for like the I
reforestation . We 're not ready to. . . I think you were going to talk about
what we discussed and.
Emmings: There was one issue that came up where we were kind of split.
Olsen: That was whether or not, I think it's on page 4 . 1
Farmakes: 2 or 3 trees .
Emmings: No. '
Farmakes: Yeah it was conifer . Whether to have it conifer .
Emmings: Well that 's one of them.
Olsen: It was where you require the caliper inches to be replaced and if II
they removed trees that shouldn't have been removed, like were outside of
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 42
the construction area , should they have to replace those or not and it was
' not clear .
Emmings: As I remember it was the tree that had to be taken down or the
project couldn't go forward and the question was , do they have to put that
II
back caliper per caliper inch or can they just put back another tree or can
they just go with what's in the landscape plan . I think Tim and I were on
one side and Ladd and everybody else was on the other and how did that get
Iresolved in here?
Olsen: Well it 's in number 3 but I don't know if that does it.
IIErhart: I don 't think it does. I came up with some words that I think
reflect what Steve , I thought Steve and I were saying . If I can throw them
out and discuss them . It kind of goes like this . Number 2 it says you
IIhave to demonstrate .
Emmings: What page? I 'm on the wrong page . Give me a page.
IErhart : 4 . Top of page 4 .
' Emmings: Okay .
Erhart: It says that 6 inch trees shall be saved unless it can be
demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site . Now
III assume that means a street .
Olsen: That 's street , building pad .
IErhart: Or something . Okay , and then it goes onto 3 . The City will
require the replacement of 6 inch caliper or more . Trees or 6 inch caliper
or me-e if they are removed without approval period. In other words , they
have to get approval to remove trees that are 6 inch or bigger on areas
that are streets or building pads . If they go beyond that, it 's not a
matter of may anymore . The city will require they be replaced .
IOlsen: So when the site plan comes in and shows the building pad and the
driveway , we understand that we should have them show like a construction
limit . And so it would be understood what will be saved and what will not
be saved .
Emmings: Well 7 kind of addresses that though too because it says trees
I designated for preservation that are lost due to construction shall be
replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city .
IOlsen: We added that thinking that might get that .
Erhart: Are we just opening this for general?
IEmmings: Yeah sure . Nobody else is here .
Erhart: Okay . Well I didn't want to get in ahead of Ladd's turn . 6, 7
II and 8 . Obviously we're dealing with two pages here because the same text
is found on page 12 .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 43
Aanenson: Subdivision.
Erhart: I 'm a little concerned here that by adding 6, 7 and 8 that we're II
getting really hostile . It just , for example let me review this . You know
you 've got to keep in mind for example, let me go through. 6 your II requiring some kind of a device out there that delineates what's going to
be in the tree crown or all that and there's two issues there. One 's that
how much work , effort to put all these snow fences now or other means or
whatever it is and the other thing is, are we talking about one tree or if II
we're talking about a wooded area , where are you going to put this thing?
If you 're talking about a heavily wooded area , what does the tree 's crown
mean when you're talking about a bunch of trees all crowded together? And '
I 'm not trying to answer questions here . Let me get a general feeling of
this here first . The second thing is that I thought when we talked in the
last meeting about protecting trees we were talking about protecting trees
from driving equipment underneath them . '
Olsen: It 's any type of vehicle .
Erhart: Will any tree die if you drive heavy equipment over it 's roots '
system? I thought it was just oak .
Krauss: Oaks are most susceptible in terms but all the trees will suffer . I
Emmings: Birch is very susceptible to any kind of disturbance .
Erhart: Okay and again , I 'm trying to get a broad view of this first and II
then get specific . Then we go on 7 and say trees that are lost , boy you 're
going ` o pay if you lose a tree because of construction, whether accidental "
or o- _ rpose and I 'm going whoa . Do we really want to take that position
here- nd then 8 , at the City's discretion we can make conservation
ease-- .s over what I assume to be some of the existing wooded lots and
wooden areas and I 'm going , boy that's, we're taking a big slice here .
Remember that 's still is• the landowner and I think what bothers me about
this is the guy who owns this land can come in and before he applies for
the subdivision or for the , let 's see the first one is the applies for any II
subdivision or work . He can go in and cut all those trees down if he
doesn't like this document . You can't stop them .
Emmings: And then he'll just be subject to the landscape ordinance which II
we 've got to have a certain amount of confidence in that doing an adequate
job too I guess .
Erhart: Well , but compared to cutting down an existing mature, this
. landscape ordinance is peanuts. I guess maybe that's it . We 're getting to
the point here with these three items, are we going, it struck me that
we 're really getting very , very aggressive and I just am trying to ask
ourselves are we , I 'm starting to sound like Ladd here. Philosophical .
Conrad: Sounded pretty good to me . I
Erhart: It 's getting pretty tough and I think you're automatically putting
ourselves in an adversarial role and I 'm not sure we want to do that . 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 44
Krauss: When you say we 're getting more aggressive , yeah we are because we
' found that without that sense of aggressiveness we keep losing the battle .
Erhart: Other than the one up here and I guess I 'm trying to get a feel
for it .
IIKrauss: No , it 's very common. There 's so many times that you have a
developer who says , well where does it say I have to put snow fence up .
' I 'll just tell the Cat driver where he 's not supposed to go. Well gee ,
I went to lunch and the Cat driver just plowed down that forest . I mean it
happens all the time and the guys says well nobody ever told me . Or they
II parked their equipment dump on top of the root system. And these aren't
totally new. We 've been putting these conditions in one shape or form on
projects lately and in fact the most recent one , the Lundgren one was where
we actually when with the easements where we say, alright. If we buy the
I plan . If we buy your concept that in exchange for this PUD one of the
things we 're doing is salvaging tree cover , protect it .
Erhart : No problem to negotiate that with the developer at the PUD
discussion stage . But here we 're making it a potential mandate . That 's
when I , again that you can go in and that means whoever buys that , in the
case of a subdivision, that lot . I mean he all of a sudden, he can't
1 remove his own' trees .
Olsen: This is like protection during construction.
IIErhart: That 's not the way I read it . It 's not the conservation easement .
Okay , I 'm hearing you on number 6 , it does sound . Okay , I understand now.
' Maybe it does make good sense . You 've got a mature woods , to go and before
they start constructionto mark it off.
Emmings: I think we 've done that on several projects .
IIKrauss: Yeah , that 's not uncommon. We 've added it. It hasn 't been in the
ordinance . It 's been a condition of approval as have 7 in one way , shape
I or form but we 've never had it really laid out as to what the compensation
was .
Olsen: What you had to replace or if you had to replace .
IIKrauss: Exactly . Now on 8 the conservation easements , we've only done
this once and that 's on the Lundgren one where we didn't pick an individual
I basswood in the middle of the lot and say that 's where we 're going to
protect . The line was drawn around where the significant massings were and
there are a number of other trees on the property that are outside the
constrains of that easement and what the homeowner could choose to do what
the homeowner chooses to do with those but the trees that you bought as
part of the protection or part of the environmental package when you bought
the subdivision , the bulk of those trees , the significant stand, I
IIguess I 'm of the opinion that those should be protected.
Erhart: Well let 's just take one at a time . 7 . I 'm okay with 6 . I 'm not
I sure it reads clear but okay we 've got. . .shall be replaced by compatible
trees approved by the city . The city will require the developer to replace
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 45
these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commercially
available . . . as opposed to our previous rules that they have to replace
them on a caliper per claiper basis. Why the change?
Krauss: It 's a different orientation I guess and when you replace on II caliper per caliper you can replace a 30 inch oak tree with 15-2 1/2 inch
right and they 're pretty cheap. I think this is something that the
developer has pledged to save that they blew. They blew their commitment
to you and lost . I don't know, this was kind of Jo Ann and I kind of
thought this up . I don't know , I 've never seen this language before but itil
made sense to us to tell the guy you've got , if you wreck the maple , you 've
got to go out and buy the largest maple you can buy and have Halla come in II
with his tree spade and replace it.
Erhart: I mean that sounds good but as the tree gets bigger , the
probability of it lasting, living gets quite diminished.
• Krauss: Except we would accept professional advice . I mean we don't have
the tree spade and if they could have their landscaper tell us what they
felt and we would weigh that . But what we have seen is we have seen
ordinances that have punitive damages. They said for every inch of tree
you lose you owe us $100 .00 and we looked at that and said well that may
satisfy your need for vengence but what does it get you?
Erhart: That's what I was thinking was I don't mind this . It just would
seem to me moving large trees , in the first place the language here is kind 11
of who's to say what the largest comparable trees that are commercially
available as mentioned here whereas if you used the terminology replace on
a cal per per caliper basis like we previously used, it just seems more
eas' o apply . I think a higher success with trees .
Farmakes: I 'm not a landscaper . I couldn 't give you a survivability rate . "
I know that they , I 've seen some awfully big trees put down in commercial
developments for office buildings and they're still there . I assume Halla
or somebody has information for us on that .
Krauss: The thing we found a lot of times too is you really have to depend "
on some advice that 's given by a landscape professional . A lot of times it
depends on what was the soil condition that the tree was grown in and what
are you transplanting it into. Are they comparable. Will the tree fit the III
space . The guys who do this work , the Halla's, the Beaver Bros . , Otten , I
mean I 've met them out on the site any number of times and they're pretty
good at telling you what they think is going to survive .
Erhart: Okay . Well maybe it gets down to. . .who's going to decide what the
largest comparable trees that are commercially available for
transportation? Are you going to get us into an argument with the guy?
Krauss: Well anything, it's always possible . I mean ultimately . 1
Erhart: We 're trying to make your life as easy as possible.
Krauss: Well that 's true and I appreciate that because ultimately it 's my
call whether I think they 're telling the truth or not or what I 'm willing
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 46
1 '
to accept . Now if I 'm arbitrary , they always have the right to appeal to
I the City Council saying that the Planning Director 's jerking me around. So
there 's always that fallback but it's a new approach Tim . I can 't tell
you , I can 't cite somebody else doing it this way but it seemed to make
more sense to us than the dollar cost .
IErhart: No , I agree with the dollar cost . I would just suggest that the
caliper per caliper , while it certainly isn't going to get you a 30 foot
tree , or 30 inch diameter tree, it's very easy to administer . If the
tree 's gone and it 's 30 inches and you put 15 2 inch trees or 7 1/2 3 inch
trees .
IIKrauss: It 's easier .
Erhart: So at that point it 's how you administer it . You have to do that .
I Hopefully with 6 that we would prevent that . Anybody else have any
comments on that?
Conrad: I like them .
Erhart: Just the way it is?
IIConrad: I like 6 and 8 . The only thing I picked up on 7 was exactly what
you 've been talking about . I didn 't know if that was the right way to go
and I guess Paul feels one way and you feel another .
IErhart: I hate to get into a situation where the staff gets in a position
where we just set up the ordinance where it 's going to lead to an argument .
II 'd like to try to avoid that .
Conrad: Well it sort of opens it up but isn't that arbitrary anyway . You
can have some lousy oak trees that are out there that are not necessarily
an asset . Sometimes we treat everything as perfect , of great value but
this seems to , well it 's not an absolute and obviously that puts more
pressure on staff and more disagreements , you 're right .
IErhart: What might be a lousy oak to someone might be a beautiful oak to
the next guy .
IIConrad: Yeah. The fact that it 's replaced is important to me .
Emmings: My oaks depend on the season . I like them in the spring and the
I fall I wish I could blow them up . They drop acorns on my deck and keep me
awake all night and I have to rake up the leaves but also at- my house they
put my foundation within 6 feet of a oak tree you can't get your arms
Iaround . It 's been there 9 years now .
Conrad: Boy, that 's unusual . I 've seen so many trees go.
' Emmings: And I 've got another one that's not very far away . Well yeah ,
I kind of expected it not to survive but it did.
Erhart: My understanding was that it was compression of the soil on the
roots .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 47
Emmings: Well they drove the Caterpillers all around the roots of all
those oak trees out there and it didn 't really seem to do any damage at all "
so it makes you wonder but you don't want to take that chance. I think 3
and 6 and 8 are fine . 7 is the one I had reservations on too. 6 I didn't
mind because we 've done it before. 8 we just tried out but I think it 's a
good idea or it 's appropriate . I
Erhart: Steve , on 3 again. Did I hear it the way it is or the way I read
it? I
Emmings: Okay now read it again to me .
Erhart: Well again I thought you and I , I thought we kind of had agreed
last time to state if they're putting a street and we approve the removal
of a tree because it 's on a house pad or a street , that we aren't going to
go back and make that guy replace those trees. ,
Emmings: Yeah , I think that's what you and I said . I guess here they
changed it so basically now they might do it on a caliper per caliper inch II
but at a minimum they 're going to have to replace it and I can live with
this . But I still , because I think more people felt the other way. That
they should have to do it on a caliper per caliper and I thought this was
kind of a compromise and it 's alright with me . But basically I don't see
any reason to make them replace trees they have to take down. I would hope
they 'd do the minimum . I suppose the other side to this though is if
you 've got a site witha lot of trees, it 's not so much of a problem . If
you 've got a site where the only trees they're taking down because they
have to , then you'll want to do more and maybe this gives them that
flexibility .
Erhart: Then the other one I had was, again maybe I misunderstood but I
thought , we were , if the guy had , if the developer .
Emmings: On which page?
Erhart: On page 10 . Section 18-61 where we 're talking about putting 3
trees in on lots . I thought we had concluded at the end of the meeting
that if the guy had 3 trees that met the specifications in terms of size ,
type and location , that he wouldn't have to put in 3 new ones . It comes
out now that he can do 2 but he 's still required to put in.
Krauss: We couldn 't figure out exactly what you wanted because some of the
comments were allow 2 of them to be waived but not the third. Some were
waive all 3 .
Olsen: You switched at the last minute. Then you , somebody brought up an 1
example where what if the trees were all 500 feet back or something and
then I don't know. So it was hard to tell so whatever you want. We
couldn't remember .
Emmings: I can 't remember either .
Conrad: I think we all said no . No, we probably didn't have consensus . I II
now what I said.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 48
Emmings: I don't think so . Well wait a minute , maybe that 's a different .
I 'm not sure .
Conrad: I 'm surprised we didn't do that . In my mind it was clear that all
three can be waived to the two .
IEmmings: As long as they 've got one in the front yard .
II Conrad: As long as they met the standards that we had set , yeah . Then all
three could be waived .
II Emmings: Well it makes sense. I don't remember what the issue was but it
sure sounds like it makes sense .
Conrad: Well it 's real consistent with what we 're trying to do.
IKrauss: We weren 't sure where you'd stick the tree . I mean if they had
trees all over the place .
IEmmings: But if existing trees met the .
Conrad: Then we don't care .
IIEmmings: If they 're 3 and 1 in the front yard is deciduous , why would we
make them plant more trees?
1 Olsen: Just say this requirement can be waived for all three trees? All
of tht required trees?
IIConrad: Yeah .
Emmings: So long as it meets the standards of the ordinance .
IIErhart: The other thing that we were going to clarify there and it was
suggested by Don Halle that when we say deciduous trees it must be at least
I 2 1/2 inches . I think don 't we have to state like we previously said at
some height?
IKrauss: Measured at 4 feet above the ground.
Emmings: It says and 4 feet above the ground. It should really say .
IErhart: But not in that paragraph it doesn 't.
Emmings : Yeah it does . It 's right down there . Third line from the
Ibottom . Third and second line from the bottom.
Erhart: Up on the fourth line from the top it says conifer trees must be
' at least 6 feet high and deciduous trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in
diameter at the time of the installation .
Olsen: That kind of slipped. We should have the 4 feet above the ground.
i
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 4 , 1991 - Page 49
Erhart: Yeah, right up here on line 6 or 7 . ,
Emmings: Do you measure a 6 foot tree 4 feet above the ground? You can't
do that? I
Krauss: What you're talking about is a deciduous tree .
Olsen: That 's switched around. 1
Krauss: We're talking about a deciduous tree. The coniferous is just
above the root ball . '
Emmings: Okay . So 2 1/2 inches in diameter measured at 4 feet high.
Erhart: I think that 's all I had. Just let me ask . We're saying then
that under the subdivision ordinance that we as a city can go in and at our
discretion and demand conservation easements to protect designated tree
preservation areas . Therefore , when the guy buys that lot and builds a
house and moves on it , 'he can't go in and what?
Krauss: He 's going to know what the buildable area on that lot truly is
and we hopefully will avoid the situation where somebody comes to us and
says I 'll save every tree I don't have to cut down to put this house that
I decided I wanted on this property . The easement will force whoever buys
the property to design the house appropriate for the lot .
Emmings: I think Tim's asking the next question . Now I 'm the owner and
I live on that lot . Can I cut down a tree in there for firewood? Can I
plant a tree in there? Can I mow in there? What does the conservation
easement mean?
Krauss: That 's a good point. I guess we don't have boilerplate language I
for that easement yet as to what . I guess I can only say what I 'm going
to, what I think is that we never intended it to restrain a property owner
from normal decisions or maintenance of their property in the future . But
I would have a problem with clearcutting that stand of trees and that 's why
that easement stands there. I mean if somebody wanted to do maintenance ,
you know tree removal for healthy trees. 1
Emmings: What if I wanted a tennis court and that 's where I want it .
Krauss: No. '
Emmings: Well that 's going too far as far as I 'm concerned.
Conrad: That 's going too far?
Emmings: Yeah . That 's going further than I 'm willing to go. I
Erhart: Yeah , let me try to explain where I think Steve and I are coming
from . I don 't care if the developer and the city get together and say, we
both want to do this and you create a conservation easement . The problem I II
have with it is when we have the arbitrary ability on a , when a developer
comes in and says I 'm developing lots and we go in and say we're going to
i
Planning Commission Meeting
•
IISeptember 4 , 1991 - Page 50
I put a conservation easement there . And as a result the guy who buys that
lot now has restricted what he can do with his trees . I 'm not sure we want
to do that .
IIKrauss: In that respect though is it any different than what we do with
wetlands? We take drainage easements over them .
' Emmings: I don't think it 's the same kind of resource . To me it isn't . A
wetland , I can't fill in a wetland . Filling in a wetland seems like
something that 's much more significant than cutting down a tree . I can cut
I down a tree and plant another tree somewhere else and it will grow . I feel
comfortable with that and I don't think that people are, I don't think that
individual owners are going to clear cut their own property just for the
I joy of it or anything else . I think most people like trees . I don't think
it 's going to be that problem. Developers don't like trees but I think
homeowners do .
I Dick Wing: One comment from a phone call today from Bluff Creek . . .
ordinances that prevented their neighbor from clear cutting their lot and
selling off the oak trees? She said they had beautiful stands of oak
I trees . . .neighbors by their right sold the timber . Came in with a
bulldozer , stripped out all these 100 year old oak trees, piles them up in
cords and hauled them away . . .
' Emmings: Not where they 've got their homes though. Do they have their
home there? I don 't know . But if I own a bunch of trees , I don 't see that
anyh•c - should be telling me I can 't cut them and sell them for wood.
I Tha; taking away something that , more trees can be planted there and more
tree will grow . It does take 100 years but that's a blink . That doesn't
real ;' bother me . This has gone on a whole lot further because I 've got
' right now I live on a lot where I can't grow a damn flower because I 've got
so much shade . You 're going to tell me I can't cut down a tree on my lot
to make a sunny garden so I can grow vegetables?
' Krauss: No but .
Emmings: But that 's what I worry about . Or that I can't take down 5 big
trees to put in a tennis court if I 've got the room for it and I want one .
Krauss: Where that comes into play and the only time we've done it so far
' is on the Lundgren proposal and that does mean if you buy Lot 12 , that your
house is going to have to be on the southern 2/3 of the property because
the northern 2/3 is covered by a conservation easement .
I Emmings: Right but that 's a little different because there you've got it
bordering a wetland . There's another rationale for having that be a
conservation easement I think and there 's other parts of the property but
I if you just say no trees on this guy's property, he can't cut down his
trees on his property.
Krauss: No , no . The idea is to, these areas would only be designated
II where there is significant stands of trees that , depending on how the
development is laid out , makes sense to protect . As I pointed out earlier ,
the Lundgren property has dozens and dozens and dozens of trees that are
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 51
not protected by these conservation easements and it 's up to the individual !'
to elect to do whatever they want to do with those .
Emmings: Right . But I want to be careful that , you know I think we can
easily go nuts here . I mean I 've got those old oak trees , old ash trees
and old maple trees and I just really, I cut down three to build my house .
I didn 't cut down any more than I had to and I risked that oak that was II close and all that but still I sure as hell don't want the City telling me
that if I want to take down a tree there , that I can 't and I think you
might call that a significant stand of trees . I don't know. They're huge.
Erhart: And I see this as a difference between the Lundgren thing is that I
we negotiated with the developer . I mean he could have basically said no
way . I 'll negotiate something else but that, no way. And what we're
saying here is that we don't give that option to the developer anymore here "
by putting number 8 in .
Conrad: I don 't see that at all . That 's just a tool . And it comes to us II
and we decide whether we want that . 'It 's not Paul making up something .
This Planning Commission, City Council has the , we don't need it . It's
just a way to protect a stand of trees that we think is important for the II
subdivision.
Emmings: From the developer for sure and maybe ultimately from homeowners. '
Conrad: Probably from the homeowners too.
Krauss: But what are you buying? You know we 've just had too many
instances where you manuever a road , you move things around to save trees . II
You massage everything. There 's added costs . There's added design
constraints . You think you know what you 're buying and then blam-o ,
somebody wants to put a hog house on the thing and because they want a 3
car garage and they insist that it be on this side of the house, everything
goes .
Olsen: Yeah and that happens, specifically with Vineland where we went to
extra . The Planning Commission and the Council added extra conditions to
preserve some significant trees and they 're gone because they weren't , they II
moved the street and now they were just on a lot and that 's exactly what
Paul just said . They 're gone now.
Emmings: It 's a tough issue but I think we 're getting real close to
infringing on some very personal rights here . I buy the lot. I buy the
trees . They 're my trees . The chances are I 'm not going to touch them
because they add value and aesthetics to my lot but if I think a tennis
court is better , don't tell me I can 't have one . That doesn't seem right
to me . It doesn't seem fair to me . I don't know. It 's hard. I don't
know where you 'd draw the line . I 'm real concerned about protecting the II trees from developers because I know they view them as just a problem but
I 'm not so concerned about protecting them from homeowners . We require 3
trees here . I propose another way to look at it . Here we require 3 trees
and we 're building in a cornfield and the developer puts in 3 trees and
some guys comes in and buys it and says I don't like trees and just cuts
those 3 trees down .
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 52
1 Krauss: They 're within their rights to do that . That 's not protected by
the easement . Most trees on a person's lot wouldn 't normally be protected .
Emmings: Right . And I don't like that .
Erhart: This conservation wouldn 't easement wouldn t prohibit the lot owner from
cutting trees in that easement maybe?
IKrauss: In the easement it would but having gone through the Lundgren
thing , I mean you look at where these easements are appropriate.
IIOlsen: It 's such a unique situation.
' Krauss: It 's relatively unique situations. Unique stands of trees
situated in different areas . I don 't have numbers for you but a very
signficant percentage of the trees in the Lundgren property aren't in those
easements because they didn 't warrant being in there . I suppose if we were
II to carry it to absurd lengths we would have drawn little circles around
individual trees on individual lots which would have made them unbuildable .
IEmmings: Yeah . No, I think what we did there was just fine . I have no
problem with what was done on the Lundgren proposal . It seems perfectly
appropriate .
Olsen: That 's just all we 're proposing to do is take it one step further
and to preserve them .
II Emmings: I guess the one that scares me is where the conservation eaesment
covers the entire lot .
IKrauss: We can't do that . I mean you 're not creating a buildable lot .
Emmings: Right .
IConrad: I just don 't see it as a problem to tell you the truth. I
understand what you 're doing and I don 't want anybody telling me what I do
with my trees and I 've got quite a few. If I want to take them down, I 'm
I going to . But in this particular case we 're talking about the exception .
We 're talking about a significant stand of trees. We're talking about
somebody who hasn't bought the property yet . Period. They haven 't bought
' it . They 're buying it knowing there 's an easement on it and they can't
touch it .
Emmings: That 's a difference.
IConrad: Yes . You know we made a decision here that those are significant
trees , just like a wetland is. I guess I differ a little bit with you
ISteve but I think a 100 year old oak , that doesn 't grow up . It takes 100
years to grow back up and there 's a good chance it 's not going to make it .
The thing 's been around here twice as long as we have and there 's some
I value to that . Some of you younger people . But again , I just think this
is a tool that we probably aren't going to use very often and that . . .we do
have total control over it and I don 't know . I think it 's probably a valid
tool .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 53
Emmings: I 'm not opposed to it . I agree and I 'm not arguing against 9 P 9 9 g g it .
I 'm arguing against it going too far . This thing could .
Conrad: That 's where Tim is too and I guess .
Erhart: I could see it being applied where everything outside the building II
what do you call it?
Emmings: Footprint .
Erhart: Footprint is put into a conservation easement . Paul might not do
that but his successor might .
Olsen: But you have the final say.
Emmings: Yeah . ,
Conrad: You 're going to be here for a long time .
Erhart: Hopefully not more than 5 or 10 minutes . ,
Emmings: Dick , have you got any more comments on this? This is your baby
in a lot of ways . Anything you want to say or , we 've made a lot of changes '
to the planting . You 've got your 3 trees in there . We 've got 2 deciduous
and 1 oniferous .
Dick Wing: My comments would be my own personal opinions at the Council I
level as far as I sort of establish how . . .I don't want to interfere with
your meeting . I don 't think it 's appropriate .
Emmings: Okay , you don 't want to tell us.
Dick Wing: Oh I 'd be happy to. I guess on page 2 it talks about wanting
to create a boulevard effect . . .I want to carry that over to page 10. So my ,
comments to Council would be that I don't like pine trees. I like shade
trees so I would have 3 trees . 2 of the trees shall be shade trees and
then I would change the wording 1 may be a pine tree so you 've got an
option . Then irrespective of the number of trees , my idea were to
primarily protect the non-wooded lot . The wooded lot I don't think it
pertain to front and back yard. This doesn 't bother me . . .but I do want to II
follow through . . .back part of the lot is wooded. I still want to require
two trees so my wording would be , three trees , one may be a pine tree and
one may be waived if there 's. . .trees on the lot but I still want to require
2 trees in the front yard so irrespective we have this boulevard effect . . .
Emmings: There was some question about whether you can get the boulevard II effect . If you 're planting off the city easement , wasn't there? Was the
City Engineer going to look at this for us? Didn't we talk about that
somewhere?
Conrad: Yeah. ,
1
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 54
1 Emmings: We had some discussion about the fact that it used to be , or at
least where I grew up where we had real sidewalks and then everybody
II planted trees on the boulevard , between the sidewalk and the street and
everybody had elms and you had this real nice canopy effect but now I think
they 're going to be planting these trees, the city wants them back beyond
the street. easement .
IIDick Wing: That 's true Steve. Any neighborhood in the city and just the
fact that the trees are . . .corners or up by the house , you're still creating
I a wooded effect on that street . So you can have a mile long street with no
trees in the front , . . .like the Sunrise Hills Addition . . . So I like the 3
trees and I 'm glad there 's support . I choose not to . . .and I 'm still in
favor of the 2 trees in the front yard . . . Now the other thing , if it 's a
IIwooded lot like your house or my house . . .
Emmings: Okay . We 're not too far apart .
IFarmakes: Isn't there a reason that they may want a pine tree? Didn't we
talk about that? Didn 't they say pine trees were beneficial . . .
IIEmmings: I think it was primarily because of winter .
Erhart: We 've kind of gone through all this discussion. I hate to start
II this all over again .
Emmings: Let 's let the City Council do it .
IErhart: If Dick had something that we had missed then obviously we would
have liked to have covered that .
I Conrad: It 's probably worthwhile . Dick 's the advocate and he 's going to
be steering the bulk of that meeting and the reason we went with a pine
tree or an evergreen , seriously you get 6 months here Dick where we ain't
got any leaves .
Emmings: I suggested we had 2 shade trees and then one, the third one be
Ieither an evergreen or an ornamental to give people like you a choice .
Erhart: I still like your idea where we had two classes of hardwood trees
and then one of them had to be.
Emmings: That was originally your idea I think .
IErhart: You were the guy pushing it the last time . Did we abandon that
idea?
' Emmings: I think the list are still being developed.
Olsen: Yeah we haven 't split it down into catagories but I think we got
the impression that it wasn't going to be split in to hardwood , softwood .
IIDid you still want that?
Emmings: Oh yeah .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 55
Erhart: The idea was on the two required hardwood trees , that one of them II
would have to be from the expensive list .
Olsen: The hardwood and then a softwood? 1
Erhart: Well the softwood , they 're all the same .
Olsen: Right . t
Aanenson: We went the whole gammet . We had medium, hard and soft and then 1
we decided to go to just the hard and just the soft woods .
Erhart: Let me rephrase it . Evergreen trees, no matter what species they
are, they 're the same price for the same size tree , plus or minus 10% .
Hardwoods though are significantly different depending on whether it 's for
example an ash or a red oak . Significantly different . It's significantly
different what you get in the end and the idea was that on true hardwoods
that one of them would have to be , so we get some valuable trees and yet we
have diversity , one of them would have to be from the more desireable list
which would be red oak , sugar maple . I tell you that list wouldn't be more '
than 3 or 4 .
Olsen: But isn't an ash a soft or medium? We'll look into that .
Erhart: The issue is value I think . Whether it 's hard or soft . I
Olsen: I think that that really splits the value though too .
Emmings: Will those lists come back to us?
Olsen: Yeah. '
Emmings: Okay , let 's do that another time then .
Erhart: We 're going to get this back again? ,
Emmings: No , but the lists.
Erhart: In order to implement the two value trees, that has to be written
into this ordinance .
Emmings: Yeah it does .
Olsen: You don 't need to do value . i
Erhart: No , you have to pick from two lists. We 'll have to sit down with
the list and see which goes into which . . .and I 'll be honest with you , I
think the list for the high value trees should only include essentially red '
oak and sugar maple .
Emmings: How about a walnut or hackberry? 1
Conrad: A white oak isn't a valuable tree?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IISeptember 4 , 1991 - Page 56
I Erhart: It 's a valuable tree . It 's not a tree you 'd want to plant . Trust
me .
Conrad: Why not?
Erhart: First of all you can't tree spade the burr oak or white oak . And
they 're slow growing and they 're not as nice a tree as the red oak .
IEmmings: Is the red oak more susceptible to oak wilt?
II Erhart: A little bit . Little bit but you can move it with a tree spade
and you . . .you can 't do that with a burr oak . You can't do it with a white
oak . They 've got real big tap roots and you just cannot move it . Well
anyway, it 's stretching out . I thought it was a good idea . In order to
implement it it has to be written into the ordinance .
Emmings: Well then what are we saying? Either we table it or we revise
IIthat section when we get the list .
Conrad: Gee , I trust staff to implement that without us seeing it again .
IEmmings: Then we don 't have to say it in here?
II Aanenson: You don 't feel comfortable that the City will provide a list of
species covering that?
Olsen: Even if it says the list would have to be , on page 10 it 'd say it
I have to be from one column or another . Maybe we should bring that back
with a list and revise that .
11 Emmings: Let 's get it onto the City Council . I think we ought to and then
if we feel we have to change something , we can change it at some point .
Erhart: Okay , do we want them to add the two classes of trees between now
IIand the time it gets to the City Council?
Conrad: Yeah .
1 Emmings: Well tell us specifically what it would say.
I Erhart: It would say of the two required deciduous trees , at least one of
those would have to be from the , let's call it Class A list attached to
this ordinance or a part of this ordinance . That 's it . And then we've got
to develop the two lists .
IEmmings: Alright .
I Erhart: Does that seem reasonable to you Dick? Because I 'll tell you
what 's going to happen? They'll plant all kinds of green ash , silver
maple .
II Emmings: So give them one short list and they can basically pick the other
tree they want .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 57
Erhart: Right . That way you 'll get a variety plus we 'll get some of the II
trees we want .
Emmings: And the only thing that will be off the list are things like, we
won't have box elders and stuff like that . Chinese elm . Okay , is there a
motion? Sure there is .
Erhart: Okay yes. I 'll move , what page is the motion? I 'll move that '
the Planning Commission recommends adoption, recommends approval of the
Landscape Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1 as the ordinance with two
changes . One change regarding filling of the requirement for the three
trees in the subdivision ordinance that was discussed here . And number two
is that we 'll add verbage that will require that one of the decidious trees
to be from a premium list that 's developed and included with this
ordinance .
Conrad: I second the motion. '
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Landscape Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1 with the
following changes
1 . The filling of the requirement of the three trees in the subdivision
ordinance . I
2 . Adding verbage stating that of the two required deciduous trees , at
least one of those would have to be from a premium list that 's
developed and attached to the ordinance .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: We didn 't close the public hearing .
Erhart: I 'll move to close the public hearing . I
Conrad: We didn't open the public hearing.
Krauss: I think you held the public hearing a long time ago . 1
Emmings: Okay. Lucky we 've got a referee out here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission-meeting dated
August 21 , 1991 were so noted.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1
Emmings: We 've got Tim thanking us for some toys . Report from the
Director . It was stimulating as always . Is there anything in particular
you 'd like to talk to us about? We 've all read it and studied it .
Krauss: No . I
Emmings: Anybody want to talk about anything on there? I thank you for
it . We 'd yell if it wasn 't there .
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 58
II Conrad: Just a quick comment . It doesn't seem like the $750.00 is very
much . If the intent is to cover staff time . There 's no way you can do it
for $750 .00 so I guess being competitive is what the issue is. Is that the •
Iissue?
Krauss: There 's a desire to defray more of the cost but not all of it .
Traditionally communities have basically eaten the cost . I mean you
process a 300 lot subdivision and charge the guy $150 .00 when it took a
month and a half of staff time . Some communities try and defray all of the
costs , particularly those that use consultant with escrow accounts and it
1 gets kind of cumbersome . Most communities we 've found are trying to make
the developer bare a larger burden of the cost but not all of it and that 's
the approach that we took . We 're going to get a lot more fees out of Ryan
I as they proceed with this . They're going to come back in when they come
back in for their permanent approval , they're going to come in with a
subdivision . That is $500 .00 plus a per lot charge. Each site that they
bring in is going to have a site plan approval and that's a fixed fee plus
I a dollar amount per square foot . So we should be generating significantly
more fees than we have in the past . No , it 's not going to cover all our
expenses but more than it did.
IIEmmings: I thought it was kind of interesting on this Halla thing . The
problems we 're having with them out there and we 're also asking them to
' help us develop our list of trees . It 's kind of fun .
Farmakes: It doesn 't hurt their line of work at all .
1 Emmings: Well no . Exactly . Especially if we 're going with high end trees
because they 're about as expensive I think as . Moon Valley. Next time
Paul you said there 's not a lot for our next agenda .
IIKrauss: We have no applications for the next agenda . We 've been talking
to a few people . We may have some the following one .
IEmmings: How about the non-conforming beachlot thing?
Krauss: We 're putting that onto the Council for discussion purposes on
IMonday just to see if they 'll buy into the strategy that was laid out.
Before going through to bringing it formally back to you though , we wanted
to go and sit down with the homeowners associations on one on one basis so
I we can lay out what we 're probably going to be doing or what you're
probably going to be doing and we can start the discussion on what we think
is grandfathered and what they think is grandfathered . That was the
process that we laid out . That we were going to meet with them first and
II then bring it back to you . Kathy is working on , she 's going to be doing a
quick review of what's out there today and we 'll be starting those meetings
what? Probably in the next 2 to 3 weeks I would guess .
IIAanenson: What we 're going to try to do is answer a lot of their questions
outside of this arena so they understand the process .
1 Emmings: Okay , as part of this I 'd request that we get this business of
mooring boats straightened out from Chapter 6 of the ordinance at the same
time .
1
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 59
Krauss: I wrote up a memo to the Council on this matter . Councilman Wing
asked that it be brought to them anyway . In there I did mention that
that 's been an issue that 's been raised .
Emmings: Because I think it 's not as complicated as when we were talking '
earlier . There is a provision that says no watercraft shall be moored,
docked or stored overnight on any lakeshore site and then unless the
watercraft is either , and then number 1 says , it's currently registered i
the name of the owner of a lakeshore site. All you have to do is change
that , the lakeshore site in front of which it's moored because the
lakeshore site is defined as the land there . Or we could put it , it 's got
to be within the dock setback zone in front of the property of the person
who owns the boat . I don 't think it will be as hard . There 's at least toll
ways you can go there to get that defined . The problem that came up is
somebody 's got a boat moored in front of somebody else 's house and we 've
got no restriction against that right now. It doesn't quite address it sc'
if that can get cleared up .
Conrad: Moored in front of somebody else 's house? '
Emmings: It 's moored in front of somebody else 's house .
Conrad: Without their permission? '
Emmings: Yeah . And apparently it 's not , it 's close to be wrong . It's
clearly wrong if you read the intent but we don't have a specific provisi
against it and we 've got to because that 's the kind of thing that can sta
a war .
Conrad: Boy , I 'd sink the boat.
Emmings: Right . All I ask is that you please call me to help you . Well
then it doesn't look like we 'll have a meeting next time? Or does that
remain to be seen . Nothing you can get ready for us?
Krauss: I don 't think so but why don 't I touch base with my staff tomorril
and Friday . I 'll give you a call and then we'll get notice out .
Emmings: And then let 's get an attendance record distributed with the nell
packet .
Erhart: Before you got here we passed a rule that if you 're not here by
7:30, you don 't count . Your attendance doesn't count .
Emmings: Yeah , mark Ladd down for a late .
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor "
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss 1
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim '
I