120997 CC JointMtgNotice
....
,
Joint Meeting Notice
of the. City C()unciland
Park Commission Members
".
-*
.
't (
.....
.
Tuesday, December 9,1997 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council.Chambers
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN
The purpose of this joint meeting is to discuss procedures for
continuation of . review of the. City's trail. plan. This meeting will be
facilitated by Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
No official action. will be taken at this meeting.
James C. Hurm,
City Administrator/Clerk
(
To:
Mayor & City Council
Park Commission
af-. .11.... ..//1
~ , .'
! i. .
I-
" ;
{JV
..
From:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
December 3, 1997
Date:
Re:
Joint Meeting Tuesday, December 9
The joint meeting of December 9 is the regularly scheduled Park Commission meeting
night. Park Commission Chair Bill Colopoulos has decided to remove all other agenda
items for that night to concentrate all efforts on discussions with the City Council. The
meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m.
Park Planner Mark Koegler will facilitate the meeting. It is intended to be a round table
discussion of issues relating to the process the City will follow in reviewing the City's Trail
Plan. Mark says that no preparation is needed by the Councilor Park Commissioners.
cc: Mark Koegler
Brad Nielsen
II'"
Land Use
Goals and Objectives
4/94
Land Use Goals
The City shall establish a pattern of land uses which is
consistent with the residential and recreational functions of
the community.
The land use plan shall promote harmonious relationships
between various land uses (e.g. homes, commercial outlets,
churches, parks, schools, etc.) through proper development
and locational planning.
Through land use planning discourage land uses which are
inconsistent with the residential and natural character of the
community.
The City shall promote the development of safe, healthy and
affordable housing options.
Land Use Objectives
1.
A cohesive land use pattern which ensures
compatibility and functional relationships among
activities is to be formulated and implemented.
2.
Community planning and development is to consider
the surrounding neighbors, neighborhoods and
cities.
3.
Development which is not accompanied by a
sufficient level of supportive services and facilities
(utilities, parking, access, etc.) is to be prevented.
4.
Land uses and environmental quality are to be
maintained and where necessary upgraded.
5.
6.
Property values are to be preserved and protected.
Community development is to be compatible with
features of the natural environment and is to be
accommodated without destroying environmental
features and natural amenities.
7.
Individual neighborhoods are to be maintained and
where necessary, strengthened in character, while at
the same time improving and reinforcing community
identity.
LU-3
8. A creative approach (as opposed to "traditional" subdivision design) to the use ofland and
related residential development is to be encouraged.
9. Commercial development shall be safe, convenient, attractive, consistent with the
residential character of the community.
10. Establish a consistent approach to the development of fragmented land parcels which
encourages cooperation between landowners and provides for access and utility service
which complies with City standards.
11. Develop a senior housing program which:
4/94
a.
Allows seniors to remain in their single-family homes.
b.
Provides a range of housing types, including step-down housing, senior apartments
and assisted living housing, with initial emphasis being placed on step-down
housing.
Establishes regulations which permit the construction of affordable senior housing
while ensuring compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods.
c.
d.
Identifies suitable sites for senior housing.
e.
Establishes methods to ensure control over suitable senior housing sites.
f.
Assists financially in senior housing projects to ensure affordability and enhance
compatibility with existing developments.
Identifies and participates in support services for the elderly, e.g. transportation,
social and recreational facilities, home maintenance and repair.
g.
LU-4
Land Use
Issues
U ndeveloped/U nderdeveloped Land
A limited number of vacant parcels remain to be developed in
Shorewood. Despite land use patterns having been relatively
well established, issues will undoubtedly arise concerning
intensity, compatibility and environmental impact.
More challenging than developing the remaining large
parcels is coordinating the development of small parcels to
avoid the adverse effects of piece-meal subdivision.
Discrepancies Between Land Use Plan and
Existing Zoning
The Comprehensive Plan prepared in 1981 resulted in the
rezoning of several areas within the community, primarily to
make zoning consistent with existing development. Zoning
which allowed higher densities of residential development or
changes in land use to implement the City's land use plan
has been done on a case by case basis in conjunction with
specific development requests.
This approach to rezoning should be reexamined to
determine if the land use plan would be better implemented
through City-initiated zoning for certain properties.
Housing Variety / Affordability
Shorewood has served, over a long period of time, as a
residential community with the tradition of single-family
homes. While some variety of cost and lot sizes has been
achieved over the past several years, the lack of affordable
housing options presents an area of concern. The City needs
to explore ways to encourage development of affordable
housing.
Senior Housing
Like most communities Shorewood is faced with an
increasing elderly population. A Study of Senior Housing
Needs, prepared by the City in 1991 indicates a lack of
senior housing options (style and affordability) for those
who can not, or choose not to, stay in single-family homes.
This issue is compounded by the limited amount of suitable
land (i.e. size, zoning, availability of services, etc.)
remaining for development. What land does remain is
rapidly being absorbed by development.
4/94
LU-5
12. Wherever possible, changes in types of land use shall occur either at center, mid-block
points so that similar uses front on the same street, or at borders of areas separated by
major manmade or natural barriers.
13. The removal of land from the tax rolls shall be considered only when it can be clearly
demonstrated that such removal is in the public interest.
14. Programs and incentives for continuing privately initiated maintenance, improvements for
energy conservation, and redevelopment of existing land use development shall be created
and implemented. The City shall cooperate with already established private groups in
undertaking development and redevelopment efforts.
15. Renewal, replacement and redevelopment of substandard and grossly incompatible
development shall be accomplished through public action and private means.
16. Where practical, problems with conflicting and non-complementary uses shall be resolved
through removal and relocation.
17. Sufficient setback requirements for new development along major streets shall be
established to prevent future problems of street upgrading (e.g. widening).
18. To the maximum extent possible, development policies and regulations shall be applied
consistently and uniformly.
19. Shorewood's land planning and development shall be on a cooperative basis with
neighboring communities.
20. Shorewood's lakeshore shall be protected from overintensification of use and development.
Residential
1 . Residential neighborhoods shall be planned and developed according to established
planning district boundaries.
2. Low density residential neighborhoods shall be protected from encroachment or intrusion
of high use types and by adequate buffering and separation from other residential as well as
non-residential use categories.
3 . Residential neighborhoods shall be protected from penetration by through traffic.
4. Access to major streets shall be provided on the periphery of residential neighborhoods.
5 . Owner occupied housing is to be encouraged.
6. Residential development shall be protected from adverse environmental impacts, including
noise, air and visual pollution.
7 . A variety of housing is to be maintained.
8. Housing styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase energy
efficiency are to be encouraged.
4/94 LU-8
9. Lot sizes in the community shall take into account the cost of land and service
improvements, yet be adequate to maintain the suburban, natural characteristics of the
community.
10. Overall density shall be a primary consideration in planning for the community.
11. Density and lot size shall be the primary considerations in the review of development
requests.
12. All new housing shall adhere to the highest community design, planning and construction
standards.
13. Innovation in subdivision design and housing development shall be considered through the
use of devices such as the cluster and planned unit development concepts.
14. Residential development shall be prohibited on flood plains and other natural features that
perform important protection functions in their natural state.
15 . New residential development shall maintain the natural environmental character of
Shorewood.
16. Integration of housing types or styles within a development shall be allowed when
applicable as long as the total number of units conforms to the prescribed density for the
total development.
17. High density housing is to be concentrated and allowed in those portions of the community
where adequate supportive facilities (high capacity streets, utilities, etc.) are existing,
service needs are minimized, and activities in the form of work and leisure time are directly
accessible.
18. High density housing shall not be utilized specifically as a buffer or viewed as being
capable of absorbing negative impacts.
19. High density housing is to be developed only in relation to and support of major
commercial and service centers.
20. The City shall respond to the housing needs of the entire community.
21. Shorewood's housing planning and development shall be in cooperation with neighboring
south shore communities.
Commercial
1 . The City of Shorewood's commercial development shall be oriented towards
"convenience" type of shopping geared toward neighborhood or community scale markets.
2. Commercial and service centers shall be developed as cohesive, highly interrelated units
with adequate off-street parking.
3. Existing and proposed service and commercial uses shall be adequately and appropriately
landscaped according to community requirements as may be amended.
4. All existing and proposed service and commercial uses shall be adequately screened or
buffered from any adjacent residential development.
4/94 LU-9
Housing Variety / Affordability
Affordable housing strategy is beyond the scope of this plan. It is recommended that the City
prepare a separate housing plan to address this issue. The plan should include an inventory of
Shorewood's existing housing stock, including types and values and explore measures to
encourage the development of affordable housing.
Senior Housing
Affordable housing options for senior citizens are extremely limited in Shorewood. Once seniors
choose to or must leave their single-family homes, virtually no housing is available to them. The
City recognizes the importance of keeping these people in the community and has set a goal to
promote the development of safe, healthy and affordable housing options for seniors.
Over the past several years community leaders have identified various levels at which the City can
participate in the development of senior housing. Initially it was hoped that the private sector
would recognize that a market exists for senior housing in the south Lake Minnetonka area. This
market was demonstrated in a housing needs study prepared by the City in 1991.
In conjunction with that study Shorewood updated its zoning regulations to address senior
housing. It was determined that the impact of senior housing on streets, parks and utility services
was less than that of other types of residential development. Consequently, senior housing is now
allowed to be built at somewhat ,higher densities than otherwise provided by existing zoning. The
City also reduced the park dedication fees and sewer connection charges for senior housing in
order to minimize development costs.
The City has actively sought developers of senior housing to build in Shorewood. Response has
been limited, however, due to several factors: 1) limited funding resources; 2) relatively high land
costs in the area; 3) unavailability of city water; and 4) conflict with many residents' desire to retain
a very low density character throughout the City.
The City has undertaken an analysis of undeveloped and underdeveloped land within the
community to identify sites which are most suitable for senior housing. There is some question,
given land and development costs, as to the feasibility of developing senior housing on land zoned
for one-acre lots (R-IA zoning district). While higher densities allowed in the R-IC and higher
residential districts may provide opportunities for senior housing, those sites are limited due to lack
of city water.
The map on the following page illustrates land parcels three acres or larger in size. Out of 35
parcels, eight are considered to be suitable, in varying degrees, as senior housing sites. Only two
ofthose have city water immediately available to them (site 20 and 21). Four sites may be able to
obtain water from the City of Chanhassen and two are questionable without extending city water to
them. Following is a brief summary of the suitability of the eight sites:
W ater Available
#20 Approximately 5.71 acres of land zoned partly residential and partly commercial.
One of the two sites with water immediately available, this site is not well suited for
step-down housing due to wetlands and terrain. Could work for senior apartments.
Current zoning would allow up to 49 units.
#21 Zoned for single and two-family residential, this site contains approximately 6.85
acres. With grading, this property could accommodate twin homes, single-level
townhouses, apartments and possible cottage style units. Water is available to the
property. Current zoning would allow up to 59 units.
4/94 LU-32
Water Potentially Available
#17/18
While these two sites combine for 12 acres to make one of the larger sites available,
site 18 could be developed alone with 7.4 acres. Proximity to Freeman Park and
adequate space to buffer from Highway 7 make this one of the better sites, except
for water availability. Could possibly obtain water from Chanhassen or
Shorewood if the Boulder Bridge water system is upgraded. Current zoning would
allow up to 59 units on #18 or 99 units on both sites.
While this site may be suitable for senior housing, the existing zoning makes
feasibility questionable. The 7.4 acres supports only 29 units based upon current
zoning. City water may be available from Chanhassen.
Mentioned primarily for their size and proximity to Chanhassen water, senior
housing may not be feasible due to current R-lA zoning and high property values.
Up to 18 units could be built on #33, 13 units on #34. Site 34 may not be suitable
for step-down housing due to terrain.
#23
#33 and 34
Water Unavailable
If city water could be made available to this 6. I-acre site, its zoning would allow as
many as 53 units. Cottage style development could possibly be developed.
While proximity to the golf course enhances this location, its existing zoning and
lack of water make feasibility for senior housing questionable. The 9.3-acre site
could yield up to 40 units. Soils and drainage may pose problems.
The most significant conclusion which can be drawn from the City's site analysis is that the
number of sites suitable for senior housing is extremely limited in Shorewood. Even as the study
took place, large parcels have been acquired by developers for single-family housing.
#19
#22
Given the rate at which land is being absorbed for private development, the City may wish to take
actions to set aside land which is considered suitable for senior housing. It may be necessary to
purchase options on such property which would give the City an opportunity to acquire the land at
some time in the future. If a decision were made that the City would actually develop senior
housing itself, sites for such purpose could be preserved through the "official mapping" process.
If the City determines that a higher level of public participation is necessary, following are
additional steps which could be considered:
· Assist in providing utilities to senior housing sites
· Purchase land for resale to senior housing developer
· Write down land cost or donate land to senior housing developer
· Underwrite construction financing
· Act as developer, then sell completed project to a private entity
· Act as developer and owner, but contract for management
4/94 LU-33
Chapter Summary
4/94
The Land Use Chapter sets forth goals, objectives and
policies which serve as a guide for how land within the City
is to be developed and used. Shorewood has established
itself as a predominantly residential community. Any
nonresidential activities which are allowed should be located
and designed to support a quality living environment. The
City's land use goals are as follows:
The City shall establish a pattern of land uses
which is consistent with the residential and
recreational functions of the community.
The land use plan shall promote harmonious
relationships between various land uses (e.g.
homes, commercial outlets, churches, parks,
schools, etc.) through proper development and
locational planning.
Through land use planning discourage land uses
which are inconsistent with the residential and
natural character of the community.
The City shall promote the development of safe,
healthy and affordable housing options.
The following summary of recommendations is reflective of
the City's goals, objectives and policies:
1.
Establish planning districts based upon natural
divisions and physical barriers.
2.
Create and enhance focal points within each planning
district or neighborhood.
Commercial development should be consistent with
the residential character of the community and
concentrated to three primary locations: I) Country
Club Road/County Road 19; 2) Lake Linden!
Highway 7; and 3) Vine Hill Road/Highway 7.
3.
4.
Encourage residential clustering to preserve natural
features (e.g. wetlands and shoreland).
5.
Promote the use of sound planning and design
principles, particularly planned unit development.
Coordinate the development of small land parcels to
ensure that access and utility service comply with
City standards.
6.
LU-35
7. Adopt a Land Use Plan to illustrate the relationship of various densities of residential
development and nonresidential uses.
8. Update the City's land use controls (e.g. zoning and subdivision ordinances) to implement
the Land Use Plan.
9. Identify areas which are best suited for planned unit development.
10. Require formal platting procedures for the subdivision of land, allowing metes and bounds
divisions only in the simplest of cases.
11. Prepare a separate housing plan describing Shorewood's existing housing stock and
identify measures to encourage the development of affordable housing.
12. Take action to set aside land which is considered suitable for senior housing.
13. Determine to what level the City is willing to participate financially in the development of
senior housing.
14. Seek ways to bring the Howard's Point Marina and the Shorewood Yacht Club into
substantial compliance with the Lakeshore Recreational (L-R) zoning district.
15. Review and update the requirements of the Lakeshore Recreational zoning district.
16 . Work with the LMCD to identify suitable locations for public access to Lake Minnetonka.
4/94 LU-36
City at such time as they choose to connect to the system. Policies such as these run counter to
expanding the number of connections to the system.
It is recommended that the City develop a ten-year plan for expansion of the municipal water
system. The plan should be based on the following objectives:
Short Term Objectives
I . A water system analysis should be undertaken to accurately determine the limits and
capacities of the current independent systems.
2. Provide a reliable source of water for fIre suppression in areas where the municipal system
exists.
3 . Enhance the fInancial viability of the system on the west side of the City, and make that
system more reliable by providing elevated storage capacity.
4. In that provision of affordable senior housing is a priority goal of the City, municipal water
should be made available to make a senior housing project more viable.
5. Finance elevated storage on the west end by means of private development connection fees,
use of tax increment fInancing in conjunction with a senior housing project, and other
funding sources.
6. Coordinate municipal state aid and local road improvements with any water main
construction projects. Rebuild roads with water main extensions or with plans to
accommodate water main extension.
Long Range Objectives
1 . All municipal water systems should be interconnected, forming one system to provide
multiple sources of water.
2. Examine ways to realize a multiple jurisdiction water utility district for effIciency purposes.
3 . Establish a depreciation fund to provide for system replacement.
4. Provide water service to as many residents as is feasible.
It must be realized that providing water service to the entire city is unrealistic. For example, it is
extremely unlikely that water service would ever be provided to Shady and Enchanted Islands.
Similarly there may be other portions of the city which are so expensive to serve that extensions
would not be made to those areas until well into the future, if ever.
Following is an outline of how a 10-year plan for expansion of the city water system might be
phased.
First Phase (Approximately Three Years)
· Formally adopt a policy that all extensions shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Water Study, dated July 1990, and the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi
Board of State Public Health and Environment Managers ("Ten States Standards").
CF-19
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WORK SESSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 5, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.rn.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councihnembers Stover, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator
Hurm; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; Engineer Larry Brown; Finance Director AI
Rolek.
Planning Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon.
Absent:
Councilmember McCarty.
Review Agenda
B.
The agenda was approved as presented.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
Land Use Section - Including Senior Housing
Mayor Dahlberg inquired relative to the amount of land which remains undeveloped in Shorewood.
Planning Director Nielsen estimated approximately 10 percent of the land is undeveloped at this
time. Mayor Dahlberg requested a summary of the developments currently being completed.
Nielsen listed them to be Brynmaur, Heritage, Marsh Pointe, Watten Ponds, Smithtown
Meadows, and Smithtown Woods. He listed Manitou Woods, Gideon Woods and Spruce Court
as the smaller developments to be completed. Mayor Dahlberg requested an Executive Summary
of the land which remains undeveloped.
Page LV-I, No.3. Councihnember O'Neill stated he is in favor of affordable housing in
Shorewood, however, he felt the wording of this section is slanted more toward developers and he
would not be in favor of increased density.
Councilmember Stover stated there was an attempt by the previous Council to provide multiple
choice housing, however, they also wanted many price ranges. She explained the point of the
development cost was to vary the costs of available housing in Shorewood.
Mayor Dahlberg felt this section should be prefaced with the preservation of existing affordable
housing. He was in favor of increasing the low cost housing without violating the existing zoning.
Councilmember O'Neill felt this provision encourages smaller lots to accommodate costs and allow
for variety which could result in developers requesting smaller lot sizes based on the wording
contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 - PAGE 2
Mayor Dahlberg stated the goal is to preserve the affordable housing which exists as well as
increasing it without increasing density. He noted his agreement with Councilmember O'Neill and
felt there needs to be some clarification made to this section. Mayor Dahlberg suggested having
reviewed this section that any Councilmember or Commissioner wishing to do so should submit
proposed wording which can be reviewed at a future work session.
Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern the diversity, variety and affordability of housing be
preserved.
Nielsen inquired whether this section should address affordability as opposed to development
costs. Councilmember Stover noted her agreement as did Councilmember O'Neill. Nielsen did
feel, however, it would be a legitimate goal for a City to have an awareness of development costs.
Page L U -3. Councilmember O'Neill requested a statement of opinion from the City Attorney
relative to where the Comprehensive Plan stands relative to land use. Commissioner Borkon felt it
should be reviewed and clarified.
Page LU-4, No. 11. Councilmember O'Neill felt this section would require a work session of
its own. He stated he supports senior housing, however, he did not feel the land costs were
conduCive to this type of housing. He felt this would need to be a high density project in order to
be made affordable.
Councilmember Garfunkel inquired whether or not the City would participate financially in order to
make the senior housing affordable. Councilmember Stover explained double density had been
discussed in the past. In addition, developers would be encouraged to participate with this type of
project. Tax Increment Financing had also been suggested. Nielsen felt there to be some urgency
to this section in that a development proposal may be forthcoming. Nielsen was unsure whether
this proposal would include a request for fmancial assistance by the City.
Councilmember Stover noted one way in which the City does assist with financing is to forgive the
park dedication fee.
Mayor Dahlberg suggested the Councilmembers and Commissioners review this section and
submit their written thoughts on this matter. Councilmember O'Neill noted he is in favor of senior
housing, however, he does not think it is practical for Shorewood given the high land costs.
Mayor Dahlberg would like to ensure high density is not the only type of housing considered when
looking at senior housing.
Councilmember Stover did not feel affordable and senior housing necessarily refers to the age of
the people residing in the home or the amount of money that particular family has. She explained
senior housing was a specific housing design which was intended to have very low maintenance,
accessibility and preferably one level. She noted there are homes where seniors reside which
would not necessarily be considered senior housing. She further explained in zoning where the
density is doubled, the housing would have to conform to that plan.
Planning Director Nielsen suggested that senior housing replace the agenda item which is currently
scheduled for the next work session given the fact a development proposal may be forthcoming.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 - PAGE 3
Commissioner Turgeon felt the current plan covers a variety of housing types such as step-down
housing and assisted living.. She noted there could be a combination of types of senior housing.
She remarked the Planning Commission has reviewed this issue numerous times and she requested
this matter not be presented for their further consideration until the Council has made a clear and
concise decision relative to Tax Increment Financing, buying land or rights of fIrst refusal, so that
the Planning Commission has a clear direction in which to proceed.
Administrator Hurm suggested emphasizing cluster planning and the possibility Shorewood could
work with another community relative to some cluster planning which is a concept of the
Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Stover remarked that if a proposal comes before the Council at this time, the
current Comprehensive Plan indicates the Council will be receptive to the idea.
Page LU-5, Paragraph 2. Mayor Dahlberg inquired as to the adverse effects of piece-meal
subdivision. Councilmember O'Neill felt it would be necessary to have a map outlining the land
which could be subdivided prior to addressing this section.
Page LU-5, Paragraph 4. Councilmember Stover commented either the land owner or the
City can initiate a zoning change. She commented she did not feel anyone would be in favor of a
zoning change since most people prefer not to have change. Mayor Dahlberg stated it would not be
his intention to initiate rezoning.
Nielsen reviewed the 15 areas which are being suggested for rezoning. Commissioner Kolstad felt
it important that the changes being recommended be addressed as quickly as possible so they are
complete before developer requests arise. Commissioner Turgeon expressed her agreement.
Mayor Dahlberg proposed the Council discuss alternative methods with which to address the
Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Councilmembers review the items which have been
discussed and submit proposed language to be reviewed and considered. Councilmember
Garfunkel felt a broader view should be utilized.
Councilmember O'Neill pointed out it is the responsibility of the Council to give direction and
debate would occur at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Borkon felt if the Council
:-vere to give the Commission clear and concise direction, the Commission could then address these
Issues.
Councilmember Stover felt It to be the duty of the Council to decide on policy and then leave the
language to be determined by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Dahlberg suggested summarizing the policies which have been discussed for each section.
The Council could then revisit the issue to discuss and fInalize the summaries.
Commissioner Borkon felt senior housing to be an important issue to be addressed. She suggested
the Council discuss the relative issues with staff and then allow staff to summarize the directives of
the Council. It was decided the bullet point items would be submitted to the Planning Commission
who will then work on the language for the applicable sections.
It was agreed Planning Director Nielsen would provide a summary of the sections which were
addressed in this session and he will provide this information to the Planning Commission for. their
consideration.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MA Y 5, 1997 - PAGE 4
Mayor Dahlberg requested the Council review this summary before it is forwarded on to the
Planning Commission for their review. The Council will then have an opportunity to comment on
the summary prior to its submission.
Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 9: 19 p.m. and reconvened at 9:29 p.m.
Transportation Section
This issue was not addressed.
Community Facilities Section - Including Water System Policies
The Council reviewed a Memorandum submitted by Brad Nielsen relative to the Community
Facilities - Municipal Water dated April 29, 1997.
Page CF-3, No. S. It was agreed this provision would be deleted from the Comprehensive
Plan.
Page C F - 5 . Mayor Dahlberg would like this section to reflect the policy will be to make the
system voluntary. Councilmember O'Neill stated when watermain is installed in front of a home,
the property owner will eventually be forced to pay whether by the bank upon a sale of the
property or as an assessment when it is initially installed. He noted he would resist this as much as
possible.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired how much responsibility the City should assume and whether the City
should consider itself responsible for the bank's policies. Councilmember O'Neill expressed
concern for the fmancial hardship this could potentially put upon a property owner.
Mayor Dahlberg felt there was some consensus in an instance where watermain is a considerable
distance from a neighborhood in which a majority of the property owners are desiring municipal
water, they would be advised of the cost to bring in the service and informed it may not be
fmancially feasible.
Councilmember O'Neill asked which systems are at or close to saturation point. Nielsen stated the
Woodhaven system has some limited capacity. Amesbury would need to be connected with the
Waterford system. Beyond that, the addition of the water tower and the interconnection of the two
systems has accomplished a significant portion of the existing plan.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he would prefer new developments not hook into the municipal
water system. He felt at some point, 60 percent of the city would be hooked into the municipal
water system and eventually, everyone would be required to hook up since the majority of the City
is hooked up.
Councilmember Stover inquired relative to the work to be completed on Strawberry Lane. She
suggested this may be an opportunity to inquire of the home owners how many would be in favor
of hooking up to municipal water.
Councilmember O'Neill stated water quality, repairs, and issues relative to the fact that Strawberry
Lane is being reconstructed are all things which need to be considered aside from the fact that
people do not want municipal water. Mayor Dahlberg commented the policy is not to expand the
municipal water system except when a neighborhood on a feasible basis demands it. He felt the
Council should adhere to that policy.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 - PAGE 5
Councilmember Stover felt the financial implications also need to be considered. Councilmember
Stover felt a developer still has a choice. He can choose not to develop in a particular area if he
does not want to pay for municipal water. She stated a person who already owns the property and
then has water forced upon them. has no choice. Councilmember Stover commented in order to
make the system as financially profitable as possible and due to the fact the majority of the City is
already developed. she felt the developer in that situation should be required to hook up to the
municipal system.
Councilmember Garfunkel commented on watennain which would need to be run by homes where
the property owner does not want municipal water. but would be assessed for the cost because it
runs by their home.
Nielsen stated under the current policy it is suggested that new development will be serviced with
city water where it is available. Mayor Dahlberg suggested taking the mandatory provision out of
the policy and making it voluntary on the part of the developer. Councilmember O'Neill asked. if
made voluntary. what would happen to the $10.000 assessment. Nielsen stated those fees would
still be applicable to property owners requesting access to municipal water.
Mayor Dahlberg stated if municipal water is available. the developer could choose whether or not
to hook his development up to that system.
Councilmember O'Neill raised the scenario of a neighborhood in which nine property owners
would be requesting municipal water and three property owners do not support the request. He
stated he would not be in favor of the three property owners being subjected to the costs and
assessments associated with connection to municipal water.
Mayor Dahlberg was not in favor of allowing three property owners to veto the ability of the nine
property owners to have access to municipal water. however. he did not want those. three property
owners involuntarily connected to and charged for municipal water.
Commissioner Turgeon questioned Councilmember O'Neill on whether or not he believes
municipal water increases the value of a property. He stated he felt it would increase the value
between $1.000 and $2.000.
Councilmember O'Neill stated if water is made available to a particular street. then. every property
owner on that street must be assessed. Brown commented when a subdivision puts in water. the
later hook up would then need to be charged an equivalent amount.
Councilmember Stover felt it was more reasonable to use the policy in which every property owner
is assessed an equal amount for municipal water. She noted the current plan provides that a
property owner is assessed a portion of the cost of their particular project. She felt anyone
hooking onto municipal water should be charged the same amount rather than an amount based
upon the cost of a particular project. She felt it unreasonable to buy a service at a different price
based on their physical location. Mayor Dahlberg felt user fees and cost based pricing to be very
just.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he is in favor of requiring 100 percent of a neighborhood to request
water in order to have the ability to hook up. otherwise he would not be in favor of municipal
water being forced on someone who does not want it.
Councilmember Stover suggested that if there are several homeowners who do not want to hook
up. they could be assessed at some point in the future if or when they would decide to hook up to
municipal water.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 - PAGE 6
Mayor Dahlberg felt it would be a concession to the democratic structure of life in the City to agree
to municipal water at the request of others in the neighborhood knowing he would be forced to pay
the assessment at the time of a sale of the home. He stated he is very sensitive to the fact there may
be others within the City who do not feel the same.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt there would need to be a clear realization by the property owners
that at the time of a sale or refmancing of the property, the assessment would need to be paid.
Brown gave an example of the person requesting city water who would have their rights infringed
upon by those property owners vetoing access to municipal water. Councilmember O'Neill
commented the property owners who are not in favor of municipal water would be subjected to
unwanted expenses.
Commissioner Turgeon felt possibly a new survey should be conducted to determine where
property owners stand on this issue. Councilmember O'Neill stated the intent of the Council to
complete a random telephone survey.
Councilmember O'Neill stated if more than 50 percent of the residents of Shorewood want water,
then he would vote in favor of it.
Mayor Dahlberg remarked a combination of feasibility and the voluntary nature of the system to be
the issues for consideration. The 100 percent policy would result in several property owners
holding up the system in that neighborhood, or that several property owners will concede
regardless of the cost which would be imposed by the bank upon a sale of the property or even if
not forced to hook up.
Councilmember Garfunkel commented the market should decide. Councilmember Stover
commented on a development where water is not available and existing residents are not being
affected by an involuntary assessment. She pointed out the water tower must be financed.
Councilmember Garfunkel noted the water tower which was built improved the service to the
property owners on that system. He questioned whether those property owners paid for any part
of the water tower. Commissioner Turgeon felt this would be double assessing those property
owners. Nielsen noted an additional mile of trunk main was installed which benefitted others as
well.
Councilmember Garfunkel noted the current policy provides that a development is required to hook
up to municipal water. Mayor Dahlberg felt it was the consensus of the Council that new
developments not be required to hook up. Councilmember Garfunkel felt it should be a market
driven approach. The developer can determine whether or not there is a market for homes on
municipal water as opposed to private wells.
Mayor Dahlberg was in agreement with Councilmember Garfunkel's market driven approach in
that the developer, given his profit margin goals in addition to the assessment market, can calculate
which is the better alternative.
Nielsen summarized the direction of the Council the plan should be voluntary and 100 percent
petition would be required. If there is less than 100 percent petition, fmancial feasibility and
consent of those not wanting water would be required. If one property owner does not agree,
there would need to be a decision made relative to how this would be handled.
Brown felt there could be some problem with pitting neighbor against neighbor. He noted his
understanding the project would have to always be 100 percent feasible.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 - PAGE 7
Councilmember Stover commented at oqe point, the Council had considered a plan in which it
would required a super majority of the Council to override the veto of a single property owner.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he would be in favor of this type of resolution.
Mayor Dahlberg clarified a petition for water would required [mandal feasibility and the second
requirement would be a 100 percent sign off by the neighborhood where objectors do not have to
hook up.
Nielsen commented there is a plan for putting water throughout the city as well as an engineering
plan indicating the size of pipe to be used. He felt it important to retain that provision of the plan.
Councilmember Stover commented when a neighborhood requests municipal water, once a
feasibility study comes back and the cost is excessive, the property owners would be allowed to
withdraw their petition, however, they w'ould be responsible for the cost of the feasibility study.
Councilmember O'Neill requested infonnation relative to the Amesbury neighborhood. Brown
inquired of the Council relative to Strawberry Lane. Councilmember Stover felt the neighborhood
should be given the opportunity to voice their feelings relative to the installation of municipal water
given the upcoming work on that roadway. Councilmember O'Neill requested the financial
information surrounding this issue be made available so the residents can make an informed
decision relative to this.
Councilmember Stover suggested as soon as anything is known relative to work on Strawberry
Lane, the neighborhood should be informed. Mayor Dahlberg felt the notification would need to
be clear they will not be forced to hook up to water. Councilmember Stover suggested simply
asking for neighborhood input relative to water. Brown will draft a notice and send it to Council
for their review.
Councilmember Stover would like to be careful of the phrasing used so that residents do not feel
water is going to be forced upon them. She stated she simply wants the residents informed of the
roadway work which will be occurring. They should then be allowed to voice their opinion
relative to water.
Hurm stated the Council will need to discuss the funding to be used for street reconstruction.
Councilmember O'Neill requested information relative to the assessment of roadway reconstruction
on Strawberry Lane. Brown noted this matter will come before Council on May 12th for approval
of plans, specifications and the advertisement for bids.
Mayor Dahlberg felt a budget and a levy should be developed which would be adequate to cover
the expense involved in roadway reconstruction. Councilmember Stover referenced an instance
where property owners would be taxed for roads they never used or where they had paid for their
new roadways at the time they purchased their new home and she inquired whether or not it would
be fair to tax property owners for a service they will not benefit from in their life time.
Councilmember O'Neill felt it was common practice to be assessed for a street to be rebuilt. Mayor
Dahlberg noted he is neutral on this issue.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 5, 1997 . PAGE 8
Brown summarized the direction he received to be to draft a letter that watermains are voluntary,
however those hooked up will still be required to pay. He felt Rolek had raised a good point in
that since the City is going to adopt a roadway policy, should it be done on the Strawbeny Lane
project with more of a public process of adopting the assessment policy.
Mayor Dahlberg stated he does not want to be in a rush to adopt a new policy without the time to
carefully reflect upon it.
Brown remarked normally although the roadways are reconstructed approximately every 40 years,
in a reclaim, there would be about 10 to 12 years.
3. ADJOURNMENT
O'Neill moved, Garfunkel seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session
Meeting at 11:17 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl WalIat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ATTEST:
I
-
~1
:il
_I
.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MA Y 19, 1997 - Page 7
Councilmember McCarty pointed out four of the Councilmembers are expressing a desire to review
an assessment policy. She felt the way in which the Council performs due diligence for the City is
to establish a policy prior to the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane. Mayor Dahlberg stated he
could not vote on a policy without a plan for road reconstruction which can be compared to the
annual budget relative to that plan. He commented that information may suggest there is cash flow
adequate for the project and then a determination would need to be made relative to distributing it to
various projects.
Councilmember Stover felt the Council could budget a certain distance of roadway to be addressed
every year. Brown stated a reconstruct is not always the answer. There are other options such as
sealcoats and overlays on newer roadways which will strengthen and prolong the life of the
roadway. The dollar spent on preventative maintenance is worth twice the dollar of reconstructing.
Councilmember O'Neill suggested getting an written response from the Watershed District relative
to the time frame in which Strawberry Lane can be addressed.
Brown noted a plan could be submitted and approved prior to the Council making a decision
relative to payment of the project
Senior Housing
Councilmember Stover inquired whether or not there is an existing proposal for senior housing.
Nielsen noted he has a meeting scheduled on Friday relative to such a proposal.
Councilmember Stover noted there to be a number of reasons seniors want to move out of their
homes into another home of a certain style in the area.
Councilmember O'Neill inquired relative to fees which are imposed on this type of project.
Nielsen noted local sanitary sewer access charges and park dedications fees are reduced for
development of senior housing. He further commented the has been some consideration given to a
reduction in the water assessment fees.
Councilmember O'Neill felt density would be an issue he would like to address relative to senior
housing. He inquired as to the proposal which will be submitted later in the week. Nielsen stated
he has viewed a sketch of the proposed development, however, the developer is working on the
number of units which will be necessary to proceed with this plan.
Councilmember O'Neill questioned whether senior housing could happen in Shorewood given the
costs of land. Councilmember Stover felt it could be possible. With respect to density, she felt
the size of affordable housing would be one story and small in size such as cottage style homes.
Councilmember O'Neill and Mayor Dahlberg felt density to be the main concern to the residents.
Councilmember Stover felt it necessary to have background information relative to the developer
regarding such things as other projects they have completed, financial background and where the
funds will be obtained for their project to ensure their follow through on the project.
Hurm suggested offering assistance to the developer in obtaining TIP with the provision the City
would retain title to a portion of the development and once specific requirements are met, the
developer would receive the title.
1. The total area of signage, including the wall sign, shall not exceed
five percent (5%) of the building silhouette as viewed from the
street.
11. The wall sign may be indirectly illuminated."
Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, this
26th day of October, 1997.
J s C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
ATTEST:
-2-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. 324
AN ORDINAl'TCE ALVIENDING
SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1100
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA,
ORDAINS that the City Code of the City of Shorewood is amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 1103 is added to Chapter 1100 as follows:
Subd. 1 - PUl:pose. It is the policy of the City to recognize and preserve existing natural resources
of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character of the area, the City
finds that trees provide numerous benefits, including: stabilization of the soil by the
prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of stormwater runoff, improvement
of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection
and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through
natural insulation providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and conservation and
enhancement of the City's physical and aesthetic environment The purpose of these
regulations is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due
to land disturbances associated with the process of development or constrUction would
adversely effect the City' sexisting natural resources. The regulations also recognize
that despite the best efforts of the City and developers and property owners, trees will
occasionally be lost in the development and construction process. In such instances,
these regulations will require replacement of trees.
Subd. 2 - Re~lations. In furtherance of the purpose of this section, the City Council shall, by
resolution adopt and may, from time-co-time, amend resolutions providing for tree
preservation and replacement in situations involving development or construction.
Subd. 3 - Penalty. Enforcement. Failure to comply with the provisions of such regulations shall
constitute a violation of this Code; and the City shall proceed to enforcement either in
accordance with Section 104.02.
Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, NIinnesota this
27th day of October, 1997.
.q~ !L~
J s C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
,!
TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
1. Purpose. It is the policy of the City of Shorewood to recognize and preserve
existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character
of the area, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to:
stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm
water runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban
heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy
conservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and
conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic environment.
The purpose of this policy is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees
whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or
construction would adversely affect the character of neighborhoods, subdivisions, public
or semipublic projects and commercial developments. This policy also recognizes that,
despite the best efforts of the City and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in
the development or construction process. In those cases tree replacement or reforestation
shall be required.
II. Applicabilitv. This policy shall apply to any person or entity that would
disturb land areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in neighborhoods,
subdivisions, commercial building developments, public and semipublic projects such as
streets, utilities and parks whether disturbed by a public agency or private developer; except
when the City Council may waive these requirements where there would be greater public
need for the project than to meet the requirements of this policy. The terms and provisions
of this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No._,
shall apply to all activity which requires the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.
III. Definitions. All words in this Policy have their customary dictionary
definition except as specifically defined herein. The word "shall" is mandatory and the
words "should" and "may" are permissive. Technical terms used in this Policy are defined
in Appendix A.
Buildable Area: The portion of a lot which is not located within any minimum required
yard, landscape strip/area, or buffer, that portion of a lot wherein a building may be
located, as prescribed by the Shorewood Zoning Code.
DBH (Diarneter-at-Breast-Height): A standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk
diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one-half feet (4 112') above ground.
If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (4 112'), then the trunk is
measured at its most narrow point beneath the split.
Dripline: A vertical line extending from the outer surface of a tree's branch tips down to the
ground.
Land Disturbance Permit: An official authorization issued by the Zoning Administrator,
allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction.
Protection Zone: All lands that fall outside the buildable area of a parcel.
9/95
'".
Significant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inches
(8") DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12")
DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (8') or more in height.
Box-elder, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees.
Specimen Tree or Stand: Any tree or grouping of trees which has been determined to be of
a high value by the Zoning Administrator because of its species, size, age, or other
professional criteria.
Structure: Anything which is built, constructed or erected; an edifice or building of any
kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some
defmite manner whether temporary or permanent in character.
Tree: Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a single woody trunk, and a
potential DBH of two inches (2") or more.
Tree Preservation Plan: A plan established in Section N(B) of this Policy. See
Appendices B and C.
Zoning Administrator: The agent of the City of Shorewood having the primary
responsibilities of administration and enforcement of this Policy.
IV. Procedures
A. Development Standards. Developments shall be designed to preserve large
trees where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or
welfare. The City may prohibit removal of all or part of a stand of trees. In
addition, nothing in this policy shall prevent building on an existing lot of
record, provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees
as possible. This decision shall be based on, but not limited to, the
following criteria:
1. Size of trees.
2. Species, health and attractiveness of the trees including:
a. Sensitivity to disease
b. Life span
c. Nuisance characteristics
d. Sensitivity to grading
3 . Potential for transplanting.
4. Need for thinning a stand of trees.
5 . Effect on the functioning of a development.
B. Land Disturbance Permit.
1 . . A tree survey, prepared by a registered land surveyor or landscape
architect, shall be submitted showing size, species and location of
significant trees.
2. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted with the following:
9/95
')
a. Preliminary plat for the subdivision of property.
b. Other permit drawings as a part of the building permit
process for the construction of new principal buildings.
c. Nonresidential site plans. either as a separate drawing or as
part of the landscape plan.
3. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be certified by a forester or
registered landscape architect and shall include the following
information:
a. Identification of spatial limits:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Limits of land disturbance. clearing. grading and
trenching
Tree protection zones
Specimen trees or stands of trees
Location of significant trees which will be saved
Location of significant trees which will be removed
Location of trees to be transplanted
Location of replacement trees
b. Detail drawings of tree protection measures as provided for
in Section VI. of this Policy (where applicable):
(1) Protective tree fencing
(2) Tree protection signs
c. Drawings indicating location of applicable utilities:
(1) City water or well
(2) City sewer
(3) Electricity
(4) Gas
(5) Cable TV
(6) Telephone
4. These plans shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for
conformance with this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood
Tree Preservation Ordinance No. _, and will either be
approved. or returned for revisions. Reasons for denial shall be
noted on the Tree Preservation Plan, or otherwise stated in writing.
5 . Issuance of the Land Disturbance Permit is contingent upon
approval of preliminary plats. or metes and bounds subdivision
approval for the subdivision of property, or approval of the Tree
Preservation Plan for other building permit processes or
nonresidential site plans.
6. A fee as provided in Chapter 1302 of the City Code shall be charged
for review of Tree Preservation Plans. Any costs incurred by the
City in reviewing plans for plats and nonresidential site plans shall
be charged to the developer. The Zoning Administrator may submit
the plan to a consulting forester for a recommendation, the costs of
which shall be paid by the developer or builder.
9/95
...,
:l
7 . Al~ tr~e protection measures shall be installed prior to beginning
building construction and inspected by the Zoning Administrator or
his agent.
8. The Zoning Administrator or his agent will conduct follow-up site
inspections for enforcement of this Policy, in conjunction with the
Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No.
9. If any significant tree in a development or on a building site is cut,
damaged, or the area within the tree's dripline has been encroached
upon by grading equipment, without City authorization, the City
shall require replacement pursuant to 10. below. In addition, if the
City determines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it
shall be removed by the developer or builder.
I O. All significant trees removed or damaged during the process of land
development or construction activities shall be replaced on site. The
removal of trees on public right-of-way, conducted by or on behalf
of a governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or
functions, shall be exempt from this replacement.
a. Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in species,
shall maximize the use of species native to the area, shall not
include any species under disease epidemic, and shall be
hardy under local conditions.
b. Tree Replacement Ratio.
(I) Significant deciduous trees eight inches (8") DBH or
greater shall be replaced by two (2), two and a half
inch (2.5") DBH or greater deciduous trees or two,
six-foot (6') high coniferous trees.
(2) Significant deciduous trees twelve inches (12") DBH
or greater shall be replaced by three (3), two and a
half inch (2.5") DBH or greater deciduous trees or
three (3), six-foot (6') high coniferous trees.
(3) Significant coniferous trees six feet (6') high or
greater shall be replaced by one (1) six-foot (6') high
or greater coniferous tree.
(4) Significant coniferous trees twelve feet (12') high or
greater shall be replaced by two (2) six-foot (6') high
or greater coniferous trees.
(5) In no case will the total number of replacement trees
exceed eight (8) trees per acre.
c. Before any construction takes place, tree protection measures
as set forth in VLB. of this Policy shall be placed around
tree protection zones and around the drip lines of significant
trees to be preserved. Signs shall be placed along fence lines
prohibiting grading beyond the fence line.
9/95
-+
d. Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they die
or appear to be dying within two (2) full growing seasons of
planting by the person responsible for the planting.
e. Replacement trees shall be of a similar species to the trees
which are lost or removed and shall include those species
shown on the following list:
Deciduous Trees
Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Mountain Ash - Sorbus spp.
River Birch - Betula nigra
Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus
Amur Corktree - Phellodendron amurense
Flowering Crabapple - Malus spp.
Ginkgo (male only) - Ginkgo biloba
Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis
Hawthorn - Crataegus spp.
Shagbark Hickory - Carya ovata
Honeylocust - Gleditsia Hatriacanthos
Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana
Japanese Tree Lilac - Syringa amurensis
japonica
American Linden - Tilia americana
Littleleaf Linden - TUia cordata
Redmond Linden - Tilia americana
'Redmond'
Conifers
American Arborvitae - Thuja occidentalis
Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea
Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii
White Fir - Abies concolor
Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis
European Larch - Larix decidua
Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra
Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa
Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia
Amur Maple - acer ginna/a
NOIway Maple - Acer p/atanoides
Red Maple - Acer rubnun
Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer
saccharinum 'Silver Queen'
Sugar Maple - acer saccharum
Northern Catalpa - Catalpa speciosi
Bur Oak - Quercus macrocarpa
Pin Oak - Quereus palustris
Red Oak - Quercus rubra
Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor
White Oak - Quercus alba
Ohio Buckeye - Aesculus g/abra
Russian Olive - Eleagnus angustifolia
Black Walnut - Jug/ans nigra
Red Pine - Pinus resinosa
Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris
White Pine - Pinus strobus
Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca densata
Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens
Norway Spruce - Picea abies
White Spruce - Picea glauca
Tamarack - Uiri:c laricina
11. Financial Guarantee - Subdividers.
a. Subdividers shall provide a fmancial guarantee as part of the
development contract to ensure replacement of significant
trees lost in the development process. The amount of the
financial guarantee shall be determined by the Zoning
Administrator, based upon estimates made by the
subdivider's registered landscape architect or actual bids
prepared by a certified nurseryman. This shall be a separate
line item in the development contract and shall be the basis
for a development contract where the lack of public
improvements would otherwise not require a contract.
9/95
5
This financial guarantee shall be held for at least two (2) full
growing seasons beyond the date of installation of the last
replacement tree or beyond the last date of site activity that
may impact tree survival.
b. In addition to a. above subdividers shall provide a financial
guarantee as part of the development contract to ensure
protection of all significant trees to be saved. For each mass
graded lot with at least one (1) significant tree to be saved
and each custom graded lot with at least one (1) significant
tree, the subdivider shall pay a fee as established in Chapter
1302 of the Shorewood City Code.
This fmancial guarantee will be released upon 1) certification
in writing by the subdivider's forester or landscape architect
indicating that tree protection measures were installed on
mass graded lots and tree replacement is completed, if
necessary and/or 2) the builders have posted security for the
custom graded lots.
12. Financial Guarantee - Builders.
a. Homebuilders shall provide a financial guarantee as part of
the building permit application to ensure protection of all
significant trees to be saved. For all lots with at least one (1)
significant tree to be saved the builder shall provide a letter
of credit or cash escrow as established by Chapter 1302 of
the City Code.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or release
of the tree protection guarantee, the builder's forester or
landscape architect shall certify to the City in writing that all
the tree protection measures identified on the tree
preservation plan were installed from the start of
construction to the end of construction and tree replacement,
is completed, if necessary.
c. The Building Official will monitor the tree protection
measures at the time of routine inspections.
d. Builders are liable for subcontractors which destroy or
damage significant trees which were indicated to be saved on
the individual lot tree preservation plan.
V. Tree & Site Related Disturbances.
9/95
A. Tree protection zones, specimen trees or stands of trees designated to be
saved must be protected from the following damages which may occur
during all phases of land disturbance and construction processes. Methods
of tree protection and disturbance prevention are provided in Section VI.
I . Direct physical root damage
2. Indirect root damage
3.
Trunk and crown disturbance
6
B . Direct physical root damage most frequently occurs during site clearing and
grading operations, where transport or feeder roots are cut, tom, or
removed.
1 . Transport and feeder roots tend to tangle and fuse among the roots
of adjacent trees. The removal of trees with heavy machinery along
the outer periphery of a tree save area causes root damage.
2. The most substantial form of root damage for all root types occurs in
the form of cut roots. Roots are cut in grade reduction, or from
trenching for underground utilities, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer
lines.
3 . A more subtle type of root damage is the loss of feeder roots.
Feeder roots normally occur within the organic layer, and the
surface four inches (4") of top soil, subsequently, these roots can be
easily damaged by the track action from a single bulldozer pass.
The stripping of top soil within a tree's critical root zone can totally
eliminate its feeder root system.
C. Indirect root damage through site modification can result from positive
grade changes, temporary storage of fill material, the sedimentation of
erosion materials, soil compaction, and soil chemical changes.
1 . Positive grade changes from fill and sedimentation causes a decrease
in soil oxygen levels. An increase in soil carbon dioxide and other
toxic gases can also occur, leading to large areas of anaerobic
conditions. Anaerobic soil conditions cause a decrease in the root
respiration process which is essential for the uptake and transport of
minerals and nutrients.
2. Anaerobic soil conditions are also produced by soil compaction, the
increase in soil bulk density with a decrease in soil spore space.
Compacted soil is also impervious to root penetration, and thus
inhibits root development. Soil compaction is generally caused by
the weight and vibrations of heavy machinery, vehicle parking, and
the storage of fill andlor construction materials within the critical
root zones of trees.
3. Changes in soil chemistry will adversely affect tree survival. The
most frequent occurrence is the change (decrease) in soil acidity by
concrete washout. The leakage or spillage of toxic materials such as
fuels or paints can be fatal for trees.
D. Trunk and crown disturbances are generally mechanical in nature and are
either caused directly by clearing and grading machinery, or indirectly by
debris being cleared and falling into trees marked for protection.
1 . Common forms of damage include stripped bark and cambium, split
trunks, and broken limbs.
2. Damage also occurs from the posting of signs such as building
permits, or survey markers on trees.
9/95
7
3. Indirect damage can be caused by the placement of burn holes or
debris fIres too close to trees. The possible range of damages
include scorched trunks with some cambial die back, the loss of
foliage due to evaporative heat stress (leaf desiccation), and
completely burned trunks and crowns.
VI. Methods of Tree Protection.
A. Planning and considerations. Tree space is the most critical factor in tree
protection throughout the development process. The root system of trees
can easily extend beyond the dripline of the tree canopy (Figure 1). The
root system within the dripline region is generally considered to be the
protected root zone. Disturbance within this zone can directly affect a tree's
chances of survival. With reference to root zones, the following standards
shall apply:
1 . The use of tree save islands and stands is encouraged rather than the
protection of individual (nonspecimen) trees scattered throughout a
site. This will facilitate ease in overall site organization as related to
tree protection.
2. The protective zone of specimen trees or stands of trees or otherwise
designated tree save areas shall include no less than the total area
beneath the tree(s) canopy as defmed by the farthest canopy dripline
of the tree(s). In some instances, the Zoning Administrator may
require a protective zone in excess of the area defIned by the tree's
dripline.
3 . Layout of the project site utility and grading plans shall
accommodate the required tree protective zones. Utilities must be
placed along corridors between tree protective zones.
4. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage,
concrete washout, hole placement, etc., shall be arranged so as to
prevent disturbances within tree protective zones.
5 . Alterations to the protective zone of the specimen trees or stands of
trees must be approved by the Zoning Administrator.
B. Protective Barriers.
1. Active protective tree fencing shall be installed along the outer edge
of and completely surrounding the critical root zones of all specimen
trees or stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree protective
zones, prior to any building construction.
2. These fences will be a minimum four feet (4') high. Four-feet (4')
high orange polyethylene laminar safety fencing is acceptable
(Figure 2).
3. Passive forms of tree protection may be utilized to delineate tree save
areas which are remote from areas of land disturbance. These areas
must be completely surrounded with continuous rope or flagging
9/95
8
(heavy mi1- minimum four inches (4") wide). All passive tree
protection must be accompanied by "Keep Out" or ''Tree Save"
signage (Figure 3).
4. All tree protection zones should be designated as such with ''Tree
Save Area" signs posted visibly on all sides of the fenced area.
These signs are intended to inform subcontractors of the tree
protection process. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and
compliance with tree protection standards are recommended for site
entrances.
5 . All tree fencing barriers must be installed prior to and maintained
throughout building construction and should not be removed until
completion of construction and until landscaping is installed.
C. Encroachment. Most trees can tolerate only a small percentage of critical
root zone loss. If encroachment is anticipated within the critical root zones
of specimen trees, stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree protective
zones, the following preventive measures shall be employed:
1 . Clearing Activities: Roots often fuse and tangle amongst trees. The
removal of trees adjacent to tree save areas can cause inadvertent
damage to the protected trees. Wherever possible, it is advisable to
cut minimum two foot (2') trenches (e.g., with a "ditch-witch")
along the limits of land disturbances, so as to cut, rather than tear,
roots. Directionally felling trees outward into disturbance areas and
grinding stumps is also acceptable.
2. It is very strongly suggested that all clearing in oak stands be done
before May 1st and after July 1st of each season. This will help to
prevent the inadvertent wounding of trees with the consequential
spread of oak wilt. If clearing has to be done at this time, all stumps
and wounded trees shall have the wound areas painted thoroughly
with a tree paint. To be effective, the painting shall be performed
within the same day of cutting. Should oak wilt get started as a
result of construction during the months of May and June, then the
developer /builder shall pay for all additional on-site oak wilt control
measures needed to control the disease.
3 . Where the Zoning Administrator has determined that irreparable
damage has occurred to trees within tree protective zones, they must
be removed and replaced by the developer /builder as provided in
Section N(B)9.
D. Reclamation of the Growing Site. A tree's ability for adequate root
development, and ultimately its chances for survival, are improved with
reclamation of the growing site. Whenever possible, the soil should be
brought back to its natural grade. Unnecessary fill, erosion sedimentation,
concrete washout, and construction debris should be removed. When
machinery is required for site improvement, it is recommended that a
"rubber-tired skid steer loader" or similar light weight rubber tire vehicle be
used so as to minimize soil compaction.
9/95
9
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPENDIX A
Technical Terms:
Cambium: The tissue within the woody portion of trees and shrubs which gives rise to the woody
water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees.
Cambial dieback: The irreparable radial of vertical interruption of a tree's cambium, usually caused
by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat.
Coniferous: Belonging to the group of cone-bearing evergreen trees or shrubs.
Deciduous: Not persistent; the shedding of leaves annually.
Feeder roots: A complex system of small annual roots growing outward and predominantly
upward from the system of "transport roots". These roots branch four or more times to form fans
or mats of thousands of fine, short, non-woody tips. Many of these small roots and their multiple
tips are 0.2 to lmm or less in diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the
major fraction of a tree's root system surface area, and are the primary sites of absorption of water
and nutrients.
Major Woody Roots: First order tree roots originating at the "root collar" and growing horizontally
in the soil to a distance of between 3 and 15 feet from the tree's trunk. These roots branch and
decrease in diameter to give rise to "rope roots". The primary function of major woody roots
include anchorage, structural support, the storage of food reserves, and the transport of minerals
and nutrients.
Protected Root Zone: The rooting area of a tree established to limit root disturbances. This zone is
generally defmed as a circle with a radius extending from a tree's trunk to a point no less than the
furthest crown dripline. Disturbances within this zone will directly affect a tree's chance for
survival.
Root Collar: The point of attachment of major woody roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the
groundline and associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk.
Root Respiration: An active process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and
involving the consumption of oxygen and sugars with the release of energy and carbon-dioxide.
Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients essential for tree
survival.
Rope Roots: An extensive network of woody second order roots arising from major woody roots,
occurring within the surface 12 to 18 inches of local soils, and with an average size ranging from
.25 to 1 inch in diameter. The primary function of rope roots is the transport of water and
nutrients, and the storage of food reserves.
Soil Compaction: A change in soil physical properties which includes an increase in soil weight
per unit volume, and a decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated
vibrations, frequent traffic and weight. As related to tree roots, compacted soil can cause physical
root damage, a decrease in soil oxygen levels with an increase in toxic gases, and can be
impervious to new root development.
Transport Roots: The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roots.
9/95
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPENDIX B
Checklist for Tree Protection Plan:
1. Tree Protection Plans.
a. Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be, at minimum, in
conformance with the requirements of the City of Shorewood Tree
Preservation Policy in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation
Ordinance No.
b. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either as part of a landscape
plan, preliminary plat, or as a separate drawing, to include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
All tree protection zones
Approximate location of all specimen trees or stands of trees
Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preservation
is questionable, or might result in a change of the site design
Identification of specimen trees to be removed. (Removal of
specimen trees is subject to Zoning Administrator approval.)
Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as grading, trenching,
etc. where these disturbances may affect tree protection zones.
Proposed location of underground utilities.
Methods of tree protection shall be indicated for all tree protection
zones, aeration systems, staking, signage, etc.
The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, material storage,
concrete washout, and burial holes where these areas might affect
tree protection.
c. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans and
grading plans in large 'letters: .
(1) Contact the City Planning Department at 474-3236 to arrange a
pre construction conference with the City Zoning Admini~trator prior
to any land disturbance.
(2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building
construction.
(3) Contact the City of Shorewood Planning Department at 474-3236
for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation.
9/95
KEY
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE DRIVE
Ul1UTf AI l r::'f
r- . I
IV QQ 46'1.li:...-_ .
R.O. G~OUP ~- e: j 1- n-~:~1 ~ RIV~W A ~ r - - - :
, \. .. ?:: I I.! I
.,..,.. 10.1 I! . , ~il i
.1. Y ~ 11 24.0 S1 i! I
e ::' I Si: I
!. -J . 1 U Ii _ GARAGE ~ II 1
,. _ ! . 1 j 1,.0 24.35 [i I
.. . . I ,. I
I .: 1 1:S.0 20 i
,e I~! I J.O I < t ~ >- !
~ ~!+- )t 8r'0., II I
I ..\! t ,J [ I
110.0\1 i PROPOSED I F.ol
; ~ :i~;.1 31.35 HOUSE 24.0.11 i
... . . : I
i e ~ I 40.0 : ~
;.;1 .~. I
1 I
,... : 1 1
.. i
c..~.
~e:
CH - CHERRY
R.O. - RED OAK
W.O. - WHITE OAK
A - ASH
~
)I(
15 FOOT WORKING ENVELOPE
F:NCING & WARNING SIGNAGE
STOCKPILE PERIMt: 1 ::R
TREE TO 8E REMOVED
II
, .--...-...........--..--..-.-.-.--...-. .--.-.....
I~Y 10.0 _ _ _ _ _
}....o'.-________________
I
I
I
I
: 'Canopy Drip-line
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Critical Root Radius
Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-line
..
Actual Feeder Root System Extends Well Beyond the Drip-line
.
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL CRITICAL ROOT ZONE
TREE FENCING SHALL CONSIST OF
4.0' HIGH MINIMUM ORANGE POLYETHYLENE
LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING.
I::: '.
II
,}
)
FENCE SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY
STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED 6.0 FEET ON
CENTER.
,.",
, ."-
.. /-;' .. '; -
.. .. - /'~...
~~ . ,;
"- -' .
'-
"
"..." .- .... ;.. ...:
- ,
.... ~..I..
';:- .
I., ~
.'
1- ....-
FIGURE 2
ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING
TREE PROTECTION AREA
CAUTION DO NOT ENTER
c
.
TREE
SAVE
Passive Protection with Rope and Signage
FIGURE 3
PASSIVE PROTECTION DETAIL
f..
,....
JUL 08 '97 09: 2E KENNEDY & GRAVEN
P.3
104.04 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
"....IIIIAJIY-
, fOR
~ICN ONLY
Suoo. 1. Definitions.
.An administrative offense is a violation of any section of this code when one performs
an act prohibited. or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited.. and is subject to
the charges set forth in Chapter 1:301 of this code.
Any person violating a section of this code shall be subject to the scheduled penalty.
Subd. 2. Notice..
Any person employed by the City with authority to enforce this code s~ upon
determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or person responsible for
the violation, or in the case of a vehicular violation by attaching to said vehicle notice of
the violation, said notice setting forth the nature, date, time of the violation, the name of
the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled initial penalty, and where
applicable, any charges relating ,thereto.
Subd. 3. PaYment.
Once such notice is given, the person responsible for the violation sbal4 within seven (7)
days of the time of i.ssuan<:e of the notice, pay full satisfaction of the stated. violation
schedule to the City T reasuret'. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail and
payment shall be ~tfmi<:sion of the violation. A late charge shall be imposed for each
seven. (7) days the penalty remains unpaid after the first seven (7) day period.
Subd. 4. Hearing: Officer.
The Administrator, or designee, is authorized to hear or determine a cause or controversy
under this section. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer but is a public officer as
defined by Minnesota Statute 609.415 and is subject to Minnesota Statt..~ relating to
public officers.
Subd. 5. Hearinfl.
Any person aggrieved by this chapter may request within seven (7) days of the time of
issuance of the notice to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear and dc+..emrine the
g..":ievance~ The hearing officer shall bave the authority to di~iss the violation for caus~
reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as can be agreed upon by the
parties. however, reasons for such dispositions shall be stated in writing by said he3ring
offic::r. If the 'Violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator sball pay
satisfaction of the charge or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and
conditions as set forth by the hearing officer.
J3C!:ZS94&
Sll::l30~1
-,
.)
.TIJL 08 '97 09: 21 KENNEDY 8. GRAVEN
P.4
Subd. 6. Failure to Pav.
.ORAM
FOA
DCSCUSSION ONLY
If a violator fails to pay the charge imposed by this section, or as agreed upon following
hearing before the hearing officer. the failure to pay the cbarge or the underlying
violation. or both may be processed as a c:)de violation or as a debt owed. or both through
the judicial system.
SuM 7. Chart(es.
All charges collected shall be paid over to the Treasurer for deposit in the General Fund
of the City.
Subd. 8. Sc..lteduled Penalties.
Cbarges shall be imposed for violation. of the scb.eduled administrative offenses according
to a schedule duly established and adopted. from time to time. by the City Council and
con;ili1ed in Chapter 1301 of the code.
Jl!II:l1~'48
SiU30-~
2
AME'iDMENT TO CODE SEC. 1100
SuM 1103.01.
Tree Preservation and Reulacemenr
SuM 1. Puroose. It is the policy of the City to recognize and preserve existing
namral re:;ources of the community. In its effort to !IlaiDt~i" the wooded character of the area,
the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits,. including: stabilization of the soil by the
prevention of erosion and sedimentation.,. reduction of srorm......ater ronoff: improvement of air
quality, reduction of noise pollution. control of urban heaIisland effect, protection and increase
of property values, protection of privacy. energy conservation through n.atu.ral insplation,
providing habitat for birds and other wildlite and conservation and enhancement of the City's
physical and aesthetic c:nviromnent. The purpose of these regu1ations.is to preserve and protec:
significant trees or stands of tre:s whose loss due to land disturbances associated willi the process
of development or constrttc::ion wonId adversely effect the City's existing Datural resources. The
regulations also recognize that despite the best effortS of the City and developers and property
ov.ners, trees will occasionally be lost in the development and CODStrUCtion process. In such
~..ances. these regulations will require replacement of such trees.
Subd. 2. Re2ulations. In furtherance of the purpose of this section. the City
Council sball, by re:;olution,. adopt and may. from time-ta-time. amend regulations providing for
tree preservation and replacement in situations involving development or consrruction.
SuM 3. PoaItv. Enforcement. Failure to comply with the prOvisiOIlS of such
regulations shall constitute a violation of this Code; and the City sba1l proc.."'ed to enforcement
either in accordance with Section 1 04.02 or Section 1 04.04.
'.~I='l:saa7
s::..uJO..2