Loading...
071497 CC WS Min . . . J COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997 Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 10:45 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Stover, McCarty, and O'Neill; Administrator Hurm; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; Engineer Larry Brown B. Review Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 2. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT MONITORING AND TREE PRESERV A TION POLICY Attorney Dean pointed out the Tree Preservation Policy is not enforceable in cases where there is no PUD agreement or some other type of contract with the developer. Councilmember Stover recalled the Tree Preservation Policy was never intended to affect a private person's property either before or after a home is constructed, however, the policy was to address major, large scale developments. Nielsen stated the way the current policy is written, any new home would be subject to this policy, but it is not intended to prevent a property owner from subdividing their property. Councilmember Stover stated she would not want to tell a new resident where he can or cannot have the trees on his own property. She felt this to be a different issue from a developer who would come in and clear cut land. Mayor Dahlberg stated the practical issue has to do with developers who clear cut for the purpose of efficiency. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he would not want to make the policy too restrictive. He felt that an individual person who comes in, buys a single lot and clear cuts it is as damaging as the person who comes in and buys ten lots. Mayor Dahlberg raised the question of whether or not a property owner would be allowed to cut all of the trees on their personal lot. Councilmember Garfunkel stated the policy covers the period of construction, but that once a home is built on the property, the property owner would be free to remove the trees if he so desired. Mayor Dahlberg stated his understanding the Council would not want to consider a policy which exercises control over the resident's property. For the purposes of this policy, a developer or a construction business would be defined and the policy might apply to them. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Councilmember Stover was concerned the policy takes away a person's right to do what they want on their own property. Councilmember Garfunkel questioned why the rights of a developer would be different than the rights of the private homeowner. Councilmember Stover stated developers are in the business for profit and negotiations can be done during the development agreement. Administrator Hurm noted that this policy applies to every person who takes out a building permit for a new home. Engineer Brown suggested there needs to be modification to the plan relative to construction and determination of which trees can and cannot be saved. He felt the Council should defme a policy which is flexible. Mayor Dahlberg stated he could envision a tree preservation policy which would allow staff and inspectors on an ongoing basis to be on the site marking specific trees that are going to be saved and marking other trees where there is no hope they can be saved. Councilmember O'Neill remarked there needs to be a provision in the policy to incorporate categories of trees. Mayor Dahlberg suggested categories such as trees that will be saved, trees that will attempt to be saved and trees which will definitely be removed. Nielsen stated this can be addressed in the current policy more properly through the plan approval process where these trees would be identified. Mayor Dahlberg suggested it would be an effective policy if the process were altered to allow the . tree preservation plan to be completed after some work is done on the development area and then designations could be made and individual trees could be marked and preserved at that time. Hurm felt this could be accomplished with the use of a forester to make those determinations. Councilmember Stover questioned whether this would be an additional staff person or a contract forester. Hurm stated it would be a contract forester. . Nielsen was in agreement with Mayor Dahlberg's suggestion and commented once the initial road work is cut in, a fmal plan could be completed at that time. Mayor Dahlberg remarked there needs to be clear accountability and the policy needs to mark individual trees and specifically state where there is no guarantee that something that is labeled as attempted to be saved will actually be saved. This would be left to the goodwill of the developer and the City. Hurm pointed out the policy provides that some or all of the cost of a forester may be charged back to developers. The forester would inspect individual home building sites as well as developments. He explained Attorney Dean has advised that a charge for forestry inspections cannot be charged on the building permit. Hurm pointed out that through a development agreement, a developer could be subject to a charge which would pay for the forester, however, the forester charge could not be applied to someone building an individual home and the City would have to pay that charge. Brown pointed out Watten Ponds is still viewed as a development, however, individual property owners are applying for building permits. Councilmember Stover felt a person who wants to live there, should be able to do what they wish with their own lot. Councilmember O'Neill raised the issue of a developer who buys a lot and builds a home which will be sold upon complete. Councilmember Stover felt this would be a different situation. Mayor Dahlberg believed a forester would be a good idea in a particular situation and the Council could decide this on a case by case basis. He stated the Council would have to rely on staff to ensure there is a tree preservation plan is in place. . . . . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1997 - PAGE 3 Councilmember McCarty suggested a tree dedication fund similar to the park dedication fund. Attorney Dean advised the City cannot collect a fee in connection with a building permit process. It would be proper to impose a surcharge to developers to help finance the work of a forester beyond the work they might provide for those kinds of activities. He noted many of the individual lots require Conditional Use Permits and variances and other approvals by the City which would give rise to fees and charges which could be used to defray some of the costs. Attorney Dean stated if the only approval a person needs from the City is a building permit, the mechanisms and standards and procedures for issuing a building permit are entirely controlled by state law and the City could not impose an additional fee. The fees currently in place are the result of a regulatory requirement which is placed on a property owner. Councilmember Garfunkel inquired what it would cost to have a forester perform an inspection. Nielsen estimated approximately $30 to $35 per hour to be on site inspecting trees. He also estimated it would take several hours of inspection time on the site depending on the size of the lot and the number of trees. Mayor Dahlberg stated there is an enforcement issue relative to whether a forester can enforce the Tree Preservation Policy. He commented this issue will need to be addressed. Mayor Dahlberg clarified there needs to be defined categories in the policy at the time of the site plan so neighbors are well aware of which trees will be saved and which ones will be removed. There will also need to be a determination as to whether a forester is to be used and if the City has sufficient staff to cover enforcement. Councilmember McCarty asked at what point the City could determine whether a tree survives or not since it could take up to five years for this to become known. Nielsen felt this to be an issue where the City would need to look to the advice of a forester. Brown stated there is a replacement provision in which a developer would have to replace any tree which was to be saved and was then removed. Councilmember McCarty commented a forester can only give an opinion and would not be able to make a guarantee whether a tree is going to live or die. Hurm stated the City would have to be reasonable in that a developer cannot be held accountable for a period of five years. He also cautioned the City could be responsible for spending thousands of dollars removing dead trees from the boulevards if it is attempted to save every tree. With respect to changing the policy to include an administrative monetary penalty for taking down trees which were supposed to be saved, Attorney Dean provided a draft of a policy for purposes of discussion and explained the policy in detail. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern that after a few years, residents may complain they are being judged by an unelected municipal authority if the City Administrator were to serve as the hearing officer. He suggested enhancing this provision to indicate the resident may have his matter heard in District Court. Mayor Dahlberg would like to proceed with incorporating the idea that the Tree Preservation Policy cannot necessarily be completed in advance of the developer beginning his work if we want tree by tree accountability. Trees would also be categorized as those which will be attempted to be saved, those which must be saved and those which will not be saved. . . . . " " . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JUL Y 14, 1997 - PAGE 4 Hurm suggested the Council's ideas be drafted and brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration and review. Councilmember Stover stated nothing in the policy should prevent building on an existing lot of record provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. 4. ADJOURNMENT Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session Meeting at 11:45 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl WalIat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: V1N'\ TY ADMINISTRATOR