The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.D. Woodland Management Ordinance-Ord. No. 656 /If. D, CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mars and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark J. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director Subject: Woodland Management Ordinance Date: March 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND At its February 18, 2003 meeting, the City Council tabled the amendment to the City Code Section 11, Zoning for additional information and changes. Those changes included: A. Building permit types be specified (exempting those not impacting trees), a. (See Definitions "Development means".) B. Language specify "for new development" only, a. (See Definitions "Development means".) C. The Appeal Process begin with the BOAA. a. (See Miscellaneous E. 3.) Council also asked staff to provide cost projections to administer this program and what fees would be charge. Staff prepared a cost analysis for reviewing and inspecting new development impacted by the Woodland Management Ordinance. The cost to review and inspect an 80-acre housing development with 50% or more of the site covered with woodlands is about: Tasks Bv Whom Hours $ per hr Total Staff Review of Application - Natural Resources .5 $32.53 $16.27 Woodlands Inventory & Dir. (NRD) Replacement Plan Staff Report for EAC Review NRD 1.5 $32.53 $48.80 Staff Report to Planning NRD .5 $32.53 $16.27 Commission on EAC Recommendation Staff Meeting with NRD 1 $32.53 $32.53 Developer/Builder Site Inspection - Pre-construction NRD 2 $32.53 $65.06 Site Inspection - GradinQ NRD .75 $32.53 $24.39 Site Inspection - Post grading NRD 1 $32.53 $32.53 Site Inspection - Housing NRD 2.75 $32.53 $89.46 Construction (tree replacement) Sub Total 10 $325.31 Supplies - Overhead - Mileage Citv $25.00 Total $351.31 Staff recommends amending the City's Fee Schedule to include the Woodland Management Regulations Fees as follows: $350.00 - Major Subdivision with woodland areas. $100.00 - Minor Subdivision in which a Lot, with woodlands, is split into three or more Lots. $ 50.00 - Minor Subdivision in which a Lot, with woodlands, is split into two Lots. CD Staff checked with the Natural Resources Director in the City of Savage to find out how much time that person spends reviewing and inspecting new plats for tree preservation. He reported that he spends about 10-12 hours per plat. On the average, or when development is "surging", Savage spends about $16,000-$20,00 a year and that includes the use of seasonal interns. The City of Savage recently changed their fee schedule from $50.00 per plat to $200 per plat. For informational purposes, I have attached an excerpt from a 1997 of Public Expenditures to Develop and Implement Tree Preservation Ordinance. The study was conducted by a graduate student at the University of Minnesota. ALTERNATIVES Adopt Ordinance No. 656, an ordinance amending City Code Sec. 11.60 Do not adopt Ordinance No. 656. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Resolution No. 656, A Resolution amending City Code Sec. 11.83 related to woodland management. ~/L Mark McQuillan Natural Resources Director Q) EXCUTIVE SUMMARY The amendments to Section I - Section 11.60, Subdivision 9 Tree and Preservation Ordinance include: 1. Categories that address City standards and expectations. The categories are: Definitions, Woodland Management Plan, Tree Replacement, Tree and Woodland Mitigation Standards and Miscellaneous. 2. A name change from Tree and Woodland Preservation to Woodland Management Ordinance. 3. The Ordinance will apply to any Development on any parcel of land containing a Woodland and for which a preliminary plat, minor subdivision, building permit, or grading permit is required. The new ordinance is not applicable to a situation where someone is simply taking out a building permit to add on to an existing structure or build a new structure unless the parcel ofland contains a woodland that is impacted. 4. The applicant is required to submit a Woodland Management Plan to the City and must demonstrate there are no feasible or prudent alternatives. A surveyor scaled drawing must show the topography, boundaries, woods, wetlands, roads, structures etc. The City will conduct site inspections insure compliance of the Woodland management Plan and before any permit is issued by the City. A tree inventory (submitted with Woodland Management Plan) is also required. The applicant inventories only the trees subject for removal. 5. Tree Replacement is based on the quality of the woodland or forest located on the parcel of land to be developed, as classified on the F orest/W oodlands Quality Map in the Natural Resources Inventory ("NRI"). lfthe Applicant's woodland is not in the NRI, the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System will be used to determine the quality of the woodland or forest. The Applicant may substitute tree replacement with other ecological alternatives equivalent to tree replacement. 6. Tree Mitigation practices are common sense activities to protect woodlands and trees during construction. 7. The appeal process will be fITst to BOAA and then to the City Council, which is the process est.ablished in Section 11.90 of the Code. @ ORDINANCE NO. 656, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SECTION 11.83 SUBDIVISION 9 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TREE AND WOODLAND PRESERVATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - Section 11.60, Subdivision 9 of the Shakopee City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd.9. Tree aDd WoodlaDd PreservatioB Woodland Mana!!ement Ref!Ulations. The following requirements and standards shall apply to any Development on any parcel ofland containing a Woodland and for which a preliminary plat. minor subdivision. building permit. or grading permit is required. all residential development for 'llhich a building permit is issued after the effective date oftms Chapter. A Struetures, drive'yvays, and parking facilities shall be located in such a .L .... manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. No tree exceeding six (6) inches in diameter at a height of six (6) feet above ground shall be removed '.vithout permission from the City. ,A.. person seeking permission to ren1Qve any pr-otccted tree shall demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternati'lCs t-o the cutting of trees on the site and shall propose a refOrestation plan. Reforestation and landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic. Species planted shall be hardy under local conditions and compatible \vith the local landscape. B. 1\.11 development acti'yTities, including grading and contouring, shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of e-xisting trees shall not be affected and shall provide existing trees v,ith a \vatering area equal to a mIDimum of one half (1/2) the crown area. C. Notvlithstanding the above, the r-cmoval of diseased trees, or trees seriously damaged by storms or other acts of God, shall be permitted. A. DEFINITIONS Applicant means any person proposing a Development. ~ Development means: (1) the construction ofa new building or new structure on a vacant parcel of land containing a woodland: (2) the platting or subdivision of a parcel of land containing a woodland: or (3) any activity for which a grading permit is required on land containing a woodland. Diameter at Breast Height. or DBH. means the length of a straight line through the trunk of a tree (in inches) measured at 54 inches above the ground from the uphill side of the tree. Tree means a living specimen of a woody plant species that is either a deciduous tree whose diameter is 6-inches or greater at DBH. or a coniferous tree whose height is 12 feet or greater. Natural Resources Inventorv means information maintained by the City based on a study conducted by the City of Shakopee in 2002 that identifies and classifies the land cover of the City of Shakopee. Jackson Township and Louisville Township in a proiect area covering 32.551 acres. Minnesota Land Cover Classification Svstem (MLCCS) is a comprehensive classification system that identifies cultural and natural land covers types as well as providing a multitude of other land planning data. Woodland means the area within the contiguous dripline created by a grouping of woody plant species if the grouping contains at least one Tree. B. WOODLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Any Applicant who desires to remove any Tree on any parcel of land containing a Woodland must submit a Woodland Management Plan to the City and must demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to removing any Tree. 2. The Woodland Management Plan must consist of a surveyor scaled drawing showing the topography. boundaries. woodlands. fens. wetlands and individual trees or vegetation with an overlay of the proposed improvements including. but not limited to. streets. building pads. driveways. utilities. structures. and facilities. The drawing shall clearly illustrate the areas of Trees and Woodlands proposed for removal and the manner by which the Applicant intends to replace the removed Trees. 3. Site inspections to ensure compliance with the Woodland Management Regulations must occur prior to the issuance of any permit for the Development. The Applicant must survey and stake all platted property lines. streets. parks. open spaces. building pads and tree protection areas prior to site inspection. @ C. TREE REPLACEMENT 1. The measure of tree replacement will be based on the quality of the woodland or forest located on the parcel of land to be developed. as classified on the ForestlWoodlands Quality Map in the Natural Resources Inventory ("NRI"). If the Applicant's woodland is not in the NRI. the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System will be used to determine the quality of the woodland or forest. The Applicant shall replace removed trees according to the following schedule: High Quality Woodlands/Forests Replace one Tree for every Tree removed Medium ~uality Woodlands/Forests Replace one Tree for every two Trees removed Low Quality Woodlands/Forests Replace one Tree for every three trees removed 2. Reforestation and landscaping should utilize a variety of tree species. and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic without prior written approval from the City. 3. The species of Trees planted must be hardy under local conditions. must be compatible with the local landscape. and must not be less than one and a half (1-112") inches diameter at DBH. 4. The City's landscaping requirement for Trees will count towards the Tree replacement required by this Subdivision. 5. The City may accept other vegetative or environmental alternatives proposed by an Applicant if those alternatives are monetarily or ecologically equivalent to the value of the Tree replacement required by this Subdivision. D. TREE AND WOODLANDS MITGATION STANDARDS 1. All Development activities. including grading and contouring. must take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing Trees are not affected and must provide existing Trees with a watering area equal to a minimum of one-half (112) the crown area. 2. Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminate safety netting shall be placed at the drip line or at the perimeter of the critical root zone. whichever is greater. of Trees and Woodlands to be preserved. No grade @ change. construction activity. or storage of materials shall occur within the fenced area. 3. The Applicant and the Applicant's contractors shall take steps to prevent the change in soil chemistry due to concrete washout and leakage or spillage oftoxic materials. such as fuels or paints. Washout areas must be identified on site and signage of those areas should be provided in the construction area. 4. The Best Management Practices recognized by the City shall be followed. 5. Structures. driveways. and parking facilities shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of Trees should be preserved. E. MISCELLANEOUS 1. The removal of diseased Trees or Trees seriously damaged by storms or other acts of God is permitted. 2. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Applicant has installed proper protective fencing around the Trees being preserved or protected and shall be inspected by the City prior to approval. 3. If the Applicant disagrees with the City staff decision with respect to the interpretation or enforcement of this Subdivision. the Applicant may appeal that decision by following the procedure established in Section 11.90 of this Code. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of ,2003. Mayor of the City of Shako pee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2003. (2) 02/25/2003 16:39 FAX 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE -.----.. 141002/005 : , , Part Three Public Sector Expenditures - '. for the Preservation ot'the Peri-Urban Forest : I I r As. part of the tree preservation ordinance stUdy, the local government conta.cts . . """" asked 10 provide infurmaIion roprding the public ""I'emJitures involved in the ! development and ilnplementaUon of the CJIdjnoDces. The development costs provided by , : . . i the loco! govemn>ent c:ont- i_lYe the ""l'""""" associated -..ith the actual writing and -~ review of the ordiJJlu1CCI by pi....... aJUIIor~. as well as the legal"";'" by . '. ittomtys. Tb<: Un~ciit costs provided by the local government contacts Involve the expenses ....,o;iated with reviewiDg the site develop."eDt pIailS and sigDilicaDt !reO inventories, and inspecting the development sites to ~ compliance. Although the communities' respective public expenditures are presented together within the following two tables~ direct comparisons are not entirely dependable or . :\~ precise- with "",peel 10 the ~ oosts, some ClOlIllIIIU'itieS were restrioted to :' ~~~'. '. .~::~ producing coot estiJnaIe!I solely ftom the memories of those persons involved: Acc:uIlIte 1 '1 ~l" ....,..I. of time and expenses were simply not avai1ab1e. In additim>. present v$1ue ~~. , ,I' calcu1arlon. for the doI1ar figures were not performed. However. SllII1e of the infonnalion ptesented in the tables is extraPOlated in such a way as to provide loose cmnparillons. <, (. \ ,; . .. Whenever possible, pertinent details are provided in the fourth column of the tables, so as i ~. 1 .\ :\ ~. to ~ some degr:co of exp\aDalion rcgan\iPg the dollar.-unts s!Jowll. The table of . ( " :-. Ii .. development costs is presented first on the following page. .11 ,~"i :'.' . .j. ,j t, \1 !I' . . ~ "'j' "\~ ,;\~ 1 f. '} . I '::~ I :I~i - 1\ ,. ., I " ,. I 29 --, ~-,~~W~~;'Z~~:~;::;:;:;~~i<~:::::~~'::~=~~~.:~. ~._..~:: ...~. .'. '. .' eD UU2:>~2UU3 16:40 FAX 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE l4J 0031005 , ,~ . .~ \ . ~ ~ r .~. Public Expenditures to Develop Tree Preservation Ordinances Community · Year of SSS Important Notes: 1 Development Estimated .~ Blaine 1993 $2,600 Clerical staff time -30 hours or ~ $400; ,~ ~ ,t Other staff time -80 hours or 'j, 51,800; ~~ Attomey fees @$200lhour ~ $400 ! ..~ j Victoria 1996 $6.482 Billing records ofBiU Tmbault and '! r ~ Associates for approximately I year ' ,.- :}~ :'..: ~ of services to deveIoD ordinance f .. . - ",", Eagan 1993 $7,500 -$5,500 in salary and benefrts for ];~ ~ (ordinance time spent by planner and forester ., } passed in 1996) in research and writing; J.,... :<:.~:~ Attorney fees @ -$100 per hour @ t . . -20 hours]' r . Eden Prairie 1990 $8,185 Forester-160 hours@-$18 per ' > ~ ~ hour; t~ Senior Planner -160 hours @ -$18 '~''':; )"..,.. per hour; .ir Planning Director -25 hours @ -$22 per hour; 't ~, Attorney fees -25 hours @ -$75 i' Der hour ~ ~ White Bear 1992 $3,600 Staff hours were multiplied by the l' Lake avera~e wa~e ~ Savage 1995 $5,000 Forestertime-80 hours @ -$25 J per hour; n~ ' i" ,~ Other staff time for -53.000 " :..",":" Cottage Grove 1997 $2,440 Eight month drafting and review ," process; I Involvement of Community 'I. " Development Department and " I~' volunteer citizen task force " ii · Col\1Jtlumnes are presented in order acconiing to their teSpeCtive counties. I' I' I 1.1 ,; 'I 1'1 " " - I ;1 .\ I ; ; I i 1 \ , i ! , ./ I 'i' 30 . '", :1 [:cv 02125/2003 16:39 FAX 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE 14l 0021005 ~~. , . > Part Three Public Sector Expenditures ' for the Preservation of the Peri-Urban Forest As part of the tree preservation ordinance stUdy. the local government contacts were asked to provide information regarding the public expenditures involved in the .. ...-' development and iInplementaUon of the ordinances. the d~elopment costs provided by ~. . . , i' ;.'~~; the local government contactS involve the expenses asso~ciated with the actUal writing and -.; ,. "... . ."' .- I' ~:. .- review of~ ordinances by planner.s and/or foresterS, as well as the legal review by '\. ~:~4~ attorneys. The itnplementation costS provided by the local government contaets involve 1 11 ;...... ~:r:~\: the expenses associated with reviewing the site development plans and significant 'tree inventories, and inspecting the d~lopment sites to affirm compliance. Although the communities> respective public expenditureS are presented together within the following two tablc5, direct comparisons are not entirely dependable or ,~ : precise. Wi~ respect to the development costs. some communities were restricted to ~:'-'. producing cost estimates solely from the memories ofthosc persons involved: Accurate , .i~:~ '1 f records of time and expenses were simply not available. In addition, present value , - '. ~~ calculations for the dollar figures were not performed. However, some of the information ,.I f ':'1 ~..~: presented in the tables is extrapolated in such a way as to provide loose comparisons- ':\ ::,; Whenever possible, pertinent details are provided in the fourth column of the tables, so as lh :\ ~. to offer some degree of explanation regarding the do~ar amounts shown. The table of ' ~~ '1.-. development costs is presented first on tbe following page. "':1.1.~~ " ~ . i ~~, "t '\ .' . . . ." . .; ~ .\ ~ . :;\~. II 'ii' 'tj 1 '::~: ! :I~~ - .':I , \. ., , \~ \ 29 ~-,,~~,~~~~~.;i~~~:~;:Z~~-=~~::=~~':~~~:~~.~~~. .:..~::..c ~~_ . cD U~/~~/~JUJ lij:4U YAK 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE 141004/005 ., I, ., , l' f , ~ .. i Public Expenditures to ImpJement Tree Preservation Ordinances x .). ~ . . ~ J. Community * Year of $$$ Explanation .~ . .~: Implementation Estimated I ~ Blaine 1997 $10,000 -$240 per plat review~ ~ ,t -12 wooded plats reviewed; v t -$33 per lot inspection; I ~ .1 -100 wooded lots inspected; , .- l -20 propertie~ each requiring i t .' ~..I. . -10 hours of reviewJor :r",;,::', ordinance compliance @ I ' . . .' - ...S22/hour staff time 1 , 1991 $1,600 No large development project 'I Vittoria :r J: . , was reviewed in 1997; :t ;: '..:". '. -$40 per hour:for staff time; J . . -40 hows dedicated to '. . I ordinance enforcement over ., .t I entire year \ .. Eagan 1997 $8,875 Computer records produced the ';1 . t ....; .... r.... .: total based on 26 site plan I' '. ,I reviews, and employee hours ii listed as tree-related activities Ii " I~ Eden Prairie 1997 $9,150 -$130 per site plan review and II' inspection; i! . -15 site plans reviewed and :! .' . ':" inspected over year 11 I White Bear 1991 $800 From 1993 to 1998, -$4, I 90 J . '... ; Lake was spent on ordinance ,I' ., .... , .1.... ", . . implementation or -$800 per I \. .." ..... 1 ',.' '. year; j' I $4,190,=; average review time . . -: . p~ per acre multiplied by average , I I saiary 'I : Savage ~ IlffS $16-18,000 -700 hours of seasonal interns , ;; for inspection work; .' Forester at:full time for one year [ ;1 Cottage Grove 1997 $290 One site plan reviewed; " ; , Staffwages multiplied by time ..' .' I * Commwlities are presented in order aceotdiDgto theix' ~ve counties.. , ,! . '. '1 , , : I , . i .. ': ., I , . 31 ,.. " :\: (@ I .. J iU:41 r'AX 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE I4J 005100~ " \ '. ~ ~ , I , ; ~ ~I The public expendiun-es for the implementation oithe tree preservation ~I' :L ~ ordinances ~eal that communities employing a city forester will tend to allocate more " :1 .. ~i funding for site plan review and development inspections. The table below lists the :1 i communities with their respective local govemmeDt contacts and their general positions t "l as I1111tIicipal employees. I ~ , ; ! I \ Community Local Government General Position .~ , Contact -- , City of Blaine Katherine Gove Forester/Code Compliance ,! 'j ,. _. City of Victoria William Goff Planner ';\ .~.'- City ofEa2an Gre22 Hove Forester II " 1 City ofEdeu Prairie Stuart Fox Forester ;i City of White Bear Lake Sacha Peterson Planner L ~, City ofSavae:e Jon AIlen Forester \ ' '- i City of Cottae-e Grove Kim LindQUist Planner I ! \ I As previously illustrated, the communities of Blaine. Eagan, Eden Prairie. and I ,1 Savage expended more funding on average in 1997 than did the communities ofVictona, 'I..,. ..;. I ...... , ., :j White Bear Lake, and Cottage Grove_ The tree preservation ordinance study was not ;1 " ~, designed to gather extensive infonnation in the field regarding positive results directly l f. attributable to ordinances. However. it is not unreasonable to assume that those I j ,I communities allocating more money towards the development and implementation of a 1 " tree preservation ordixlance, will see greater results than other communities, in terms of a I I I healthy urban forest and aesthetically-pleasing neighborhoods. By ensuring that a I "~' .,' I " forester is available to verify the tree inwntories and inspect the development sites for 'i'~"" , ;1 tree protection measures, a community is more likely to receive honest cooperation and ,~ ,I I , compliance from developers. , , How many communities on the perimeter of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 11 " 1 1 are willing to allocate the funding necessary to protect their peri-urban forests? ,.I ':.I According to a recent survey conducted by an independent polling firm, 85 percent of "r '! .; those residents swveyed in Washington and Chisago counties agreed that more open space needs to be protected. The survey also revealed that the majority. of residents supported new fees and taxes to fund the protection of water, woodland, and wildlife , I ., , 32 1 i ,/ r: ': .......-:'~~- __., -0 '" -- -.-.. -~ - @ U~f~~f~UUJ 1~:4U tAX 9528822656 CITY OF SAVAGE I4J 004/005 i: ., , P' , I ! ~ i Public Expenditures to ImpJement Tree Preservation Ordinances I '. . , 5 Community * Year of S$S Explanation f.:, Implementation Estimated \ l Blaine 1997 $10,000 -$240 per plat review; ~ ,~ -12 wooded plats reviewed; . ~ , t -$33 per lot inspection; ii .1 -100 wooded lots inspected; , ~- ! -20 properties, each requiring , ~ " >'" . -10 hours of review. for .,- .,/ ' ''/ '. ordinance compliance @ ~ . ,~ . -S22/hour staff time or- 1 Victoria 1997 $1,600 No large development project " :[ ~: . 0 was reviewed in 1997; J ;;,..:.,. -$40 per hour for statftime; 1 ' -40 hours dedicated to '., ordinance enforcement over ( " .1 L entire vear I ., Eagan 1991 $8,875 Computer records produced the ~ F" ;" total based on 26 site plan (:~.'~ .. ,I reviews, and employee hoW'! jj listed as tree-related activities I, I " Edell Prairie 1997 59,750 -$130 per site plan review and f' Ii ~ inspection; 'I -75 site plans reviewed and I, :1 " ~ .,.. inspected over year II I White Bear 1997 $800 From 1993 to 1998, -$4,190 i 'I ' , Lake was spent on ordinance ",.' ..'. , -,'.. ',', implementation or -$800 per I I~.';~:~~:" year; I I $4,190'= average review time p per acre multiplied by average ; I , salary 'I : Savage ~ If'lS $16-18,000 -700 hours of seasonal interns :j for inspection work; " Forester at fWl time for one year : ;1 Cottage Grove 1997 $290 One site plan reviewed; .1 " , Staffwa~es multiolied bv time ..' ~, I * Communities are presented in order aa:ordiDg to their respective counties.. I ,I ~ I, 'I I , , : .1 , i .. ': :1 31 I' ,~. " : [: @)