Loading...
1994-12-29 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 29, 1994 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 29, 1994, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll, Friel, Betlej, Duggan, Lorberbaum and Tilsen. Chair Dwyer was excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved to approve the November 22, 1994, minutes with corrections. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1, KOLL CASE NO. 94-39: MANSFIELD - VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mansfield, of 1300 Wachtler Avenue, were present to discuss their request for a five foot side yard setback variance which would allow the construction of a dining room addition to the north of their home. Vice Chair Duggan stated that all signatures of consent have been received. He further explained that this property is also in the Critical Area Overlay District and that this application will have to receive Modified Site Plan review when it appears on the City Council's agenda. He stated that the Planner has informed the Commission that there appears to be no impact to the Critical Area standards because the addition is between two existing homes. Vice Chair Duggan reviewed the requirements necessary in receiving a variance and what constitutes a hardship. Mr. Mansfield explained that he would like to construct an addition which would serve the purpose of a dining room. He stated that the location of the addition is due to the location of the kitchen. He stated the exterior materials will match the existing materials of the house. He stated there are no plans to landscape. He stated his neighbor to the north had recently installed small trees. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 2 Duggan noted the Planner's concern for proper drainage. Mansfield stated his neighbor's garage is ten feet (10') from the edge of the property. He stated there is a three foot (3') drop in grade and that it runs from the east to west. He stated there is a swale and the he plans to continue maintaining it. Mansfield further explained there is a tree right on his property line and that the addition will be six feet (6') from the tree. Mansfield stated that due to the location of the power pole and tree, the addition will be constructed to the east. In response to a question from Commissioner Koll, Mr. Mansfield stated there will be no new windows on the north side at the addition. In response to a question regarding snow storage, Mr. Mansfield stated his neighbor only plows the snow to his own garage and that there is still some driveway left along the side of the garage. He stated that his neighbor does not store vehicles on the remaining driveway. He stated there should be no problem with storing extra snow in this area. Commissioner Koll stated that the neighbor's driveway was constructed too close to the property line. Commissioner Friel inquired if Mr. Mansfield considered alternatives which would eliminate a need for such a significant variance. Mr. Mansfield responded that there is no room to the east of the house to construct an addition. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Planner Uban stated he had general questions regarding the maintenance of the existing swale should the addition be constructed. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej regarding landscaping, Mr. Mansfield stated that his neighbor to the north of his property planted several trees earlier this year and that there is no more room to install additional trees. He stated there is existing landscaping in the front yard that will not be disturbed by this addition. Commissioner Betlej stated that the front of the addition may look better with additional landscaping and that it may help with the drainage. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated she had visited the site. She explained that she toured the interior and saw where the kitchen is located and how the addition will help keep the flow of traffic intact. She stated that by visiting the site, she understands why the Mansfield's are requesting a variance for their addition. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 3 Commissioner Tilsen stated the Mansfield's have made their problem clear, however a hardship needs to be presented. Mr. Mansfield's stated he has a very large family and that he needs more room to accommodate all of them. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Ordinance is in place to help protect the construction of buildings so close to lot lines. Vice Chair Duggan stated the scale on the plan is inaccurate. Mr. Mansfield stated that he has drawn the plan to scale. Vice Chair Duggan stated that the jog in the fence is not accurately shown on Mr. Mansfield's plan. He further inquired if there is a shed located on his property. Mr. Mansfield responded there is no other building his property. Vice Chair Duggan inquired if Mr. Mansfield's neighbor has had an opportunity to review his plans. Mr. Mansfield stated yes. Mr. Mansfield further stated that there has never been any drainage problems. He explained there are two retaining walls in the backyard and that he has never had any problem with water ponding due to a heavy rainfall. Commissioner Friel stated that the Mansfield's have not demonstrated a hardship in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Mansfield stated that their hardship is that there is not enough room within their home to accommodate a large gathering. She stated that it is not realistic for a house of this size to not have a dining room. Vice Chair Duggan responded that the ManSfield's bought this house knowing its limitations. He noted his concerns for precedent setting in granting this variance request. Commissioner Friel stated that this problem applies to most people in the community and by granting this variance makes the ordinance regulations meaningless. Vice Chair Duggan inquired if the Mansfield's would consider an alternate plan. Mrs. Mansfield responded that it has been suggested that the addition be brought out to the rear of the home. She stated that this is not possible because of the location of the swimming pool. Vice Chair Duggan stated that the Mansfield's own a large lot that is very long but not very wide and that they are trying to do too much width wise. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council deny the request for a variance. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, LORBERBAUM Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 4 CASE NO. 94-38: SKJERVEN - VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Skjerven, of 691 Cheyenne Lane, were present to discuss their request to build a 14 by 14 foot three season porch which would extend into the rear yard setback with only nineteen feet (19') remaining between the proposed addition and the rear lot line. Vice Chair Duggan explained that this home was built after the adoption of the Wetland Ordinance in 1974. He explained that no wetlands permits were required of this particular subdivision or home although it abuts Friendly Marsh Park to the north. He explained that City staff has determined upon reviewing the Official Wetland Map, that the wetlands to the north lie more than one hundred feet (100') from the proposed addition. Vice Chair Duggan stated that the Skjerven's have received all signatures of consent. Mr. Skjerven stated it has always been their intent to construct a porch. He explained that currently they are using their backyard a basic patio and that due to the marsh, there is a significant problem with bugs. He stated that he understands that the City is trying to conserve open space and that by constructing their porch, as proposed, it will not infringe on what the City is trying to accomplish. Vice Chair Duggan stated what if all other homes want to do the same as the Skjerven's. Vice Chair Duggan further stated that more accurate plans need to be drawn. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Skjerven's lot has some special considerations and that there will never be anything built on the marsh. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated there are a number of three season porches in this area. She further inquired about exterior building materials. Mr. Skjerven responded the materials will be the same as the house. Commissioner Betlej inquired about the hardship. Mr. Skjerven responded that the size of his lot is his hardship. Commissioner Koll pointed out that the home was built within three feet (3') of the rear yard setback. Planner Uban pointed out that without this variance, no addition to the rear portion of the home would be allowed. Uban pointed out that a screened gazebo could be constructed without a variance. He stated that a variance is needed if the addition Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 5 is connected to the house. He further stated the size of a gazebo would be limited to 144 square feet. Commissioner Koll stated that Mr. Skjerven is unable to use his backyard due to the mosquitos. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the City owns Friendly Hills Marsh. Commissioner Koll noted her concern for setting precedence in granting this variance. She inquired if Mr. Skjerven would consider a smaller addition thus reducing the size of the variance request. Mr. Skjerven stated that they had decided to construct a 14 by 14 screened porch but that a 16 by 12 porch addition would be an acceptable compromise. Commissioner Friel stated that should a free standing structure be built, it would have to be at least five feet (5') from the house. Friel stated that if the Commission insists on the Skjerven's complying with the ordinance and not granting a variance, the result might be to building a 12 by 12 free standing structure five feet (5°) from the house. A brief discussion ensued regarding whether or not the addition could be placed elsewhere. Commissioner Friel stated that the Skjerven's have presented a practical difficulty and that they have consented to minimize the variance request by making the addition 16 by 12. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the Planning Commission needs to be consistent in granting variances. She stated the Mansfield's request for a variance was denied because they were unable to present a hardship. She stated the Commission is considering the Skjerven's variance request based on the fact that they are unable to use their backyard because of mosquitos. Commissioner Friel stated that a detached structure could be built which would encroach the setback requirement and that this variance request does not seem inappropriate. Chair Duggan responded that the Planning Commission reviews requests each on their own merit and on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant an eleven foot (11') rear yard setback variance subject to the applicant reducing the size of the three season porch as it extends to the rear of the yard. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 6 Vice Chair Duggan directed the applicants to submit a revised and accurate plan. Vice Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, LORBERBAUM HEARING: CASE NO. 94-40: BJORKLUND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE Mr. Paul McGinley, of McLagan and Sons Surveying, was present representing Bjorklund Development Company who is proposing to develop a 6.5 acre parcel located at the southwest corner or Orchard Place and Lexington Avenue (formerly known as the Swanson Property) as single family homes sites. Mr. McGinley explained that the proposal shows seven platted lots including the original homestead with lots draining from 21,632 square feet to 38,428 square feet. He stated the average lot- size is 32,775 square feet, twice the minimum required lot size. He stated the Bjorklund's intent is to maintain minimal disturbance to the site in order to keep the value of the lots at a high level. He stated the lots will be sufficient in size and include many trees. McGinley explained that an option to place a cul-de-sac into Orchard Place from the north had been reviewed and dropped as many trees would be disturbed. McGinley explained that Lots 5 and 6 will require a variance to the front yard setback. He stated that the homes will be large and that they do not want to upset the flow of the homes with different front yard setback placement. McGinley explained that the Bjorklund's are currently discussing, with the Rolf's, about placement of the street. He stated that arrangements will need to made in sharing assessment costs. He stated that the Rolf's could use the Swanson access for future development of their property. McGinley reviewed three possible neighborhood circulation plans showing street design for accessing the surrounding properties. McGinley stated that a cul-de-sac serving the Swanson property does not forego other ideas. He stated there are several options to access the remaining properties. 1 Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 7 McGinley explained that they submitted a more extensive grading plan than necessary. He stated home sites will be customized for individual lots. McGinley stated that Planner Uban suggested that a ponding easement be designated at the northeast corner of the property. He stated that they would be willing to work with the Engineering Department. He further stated that a Slope Protection Easement was suggested by the Planner. He stated that this is unusual and that it is usually done with the site plan. He stated that he can draft an easement. Mr. McGinley stated they have a real interest in saving as many trees as possible. He stated that these lots will be large and expensive and that they will try to transplant as many trees as possible. He further stated that they intend on landscaping the entrance median. He further stated that future maintenance of this landscape median needs to be worked out between the Bjorklund's and the City. Mr. McGinley stated that utility easements for future utility extensions will be designed in cooperation with the City's Engineering Department. He further stated that they agree to redesign the sanitary sewer extension to serve the Rolf property. He explained that storm sewer will be constructed for the site are and that a retention pond will be constructed for Lots 2 and 3. He further stated that they will work with the City's Engineering Department regarding any watermain looping. Mr. McGinley briefly reviewed a misunderstanding between the Bjorklund's and the Swanson's regarding Mr. Swanson's garage. Mr. McGinley stated that Mr. Swanson submitted a letter requesting a variance which would allow his garage to remain in its existing location. He stated that Mr. Swanson's attorney has given formal written notice to withdraw this request. Mr. Dick Bjorklund, Jr., stated it is their intention to create a valuable development while retaining access options to property owners surrounding the development. In response to a question from the Commission, Planner Uban stated that the plant that allows for circulation throughout the adjacent properties in the area is preferable. Commissioner Friel stated that an easement needs to be established on the Swanson property and should be indicated on the original plat. He stated that the plan before the Commission indicates a perpendicular connection is needed. In Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 8 response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen regarding the platting of right-of-way, Planner Uban stated there are different alternatives. Mr. McGinley stated they would be willing to vacate an easement on Lot 7. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it makes sense to provide adequate sewer and water to properties to the south. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner Tilsen about adding hard surface in the area and how it will affect drainage, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the ponding area may need to be enlarged. Vice Chair Duggan inquired how many trees will be removed. He stated there are many valuable trees in this area. He stated he would like to see a more accurate tree inventory indicating the amount of trees that will be lost. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej regarding a lilac hedge located on Lot 4, Mr. McGinley stated they would be willing to show a landscape easement along Lot 4 protecting the hedge line along the east lot line. He further stated that they would be willing to provide drainage easements. Mr. McGinley stated they are obligated to design an appropriate drainage system so there will be no additional water runoff. Commissioner Friel stated that several revisions need to be submitted to the Commission prior to Council review, He stated that the plat should be revised to show additional right-of-way dedication on Lot 7. He suggested that the developer meet with the entire neighborhood and discuss plans for access to each davelopment. He stated sewer and water easements should be shown designating size for future developments. Friel stated ponding area clarification is needed. He stated a conservation easement document and slope protection easements should be provided for Planning Commission review. He further stated that additional information regarding how the entrance monument area will be landscaped. Commissioner Friel stated that home setbacks should be specifically called out for Lots 5 and 6. He further stated that full sixty foot (60') roadway and one hundred twenty foot (120') cul-de-sac right-of-way is required. Commissioner Friel stated the developer should determine if custom grading for each lot is acceptable. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 9 In response to a question from Vice Chair Duggan, Mr. Bjorklund stated their intentions are to be the only home builder in this development. Commissioner Betlej inquired about park dedication fees. Mr. McGinley stated the park dedication will be paid by cash. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen regarding decreasing lot size to increase more right-of-way, Mr. McGinley stated there is a monetary consideration in decreasing lot sizes and also more trees will be removed. Vice Chair Duggan opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Joan Olin, 1136 Orchard Place, stated that Plan B - cul- de-sac option, is not a feasible option for their future development plans. She further stated that Plan C cuts up their land. She inquired about the lot size for Lots 1 and 5. Mr. McGinley responded that the lots meet all minimum lot size requirements. Ms. Olin discussed street circulation options and indicated that she would prefer to see a "y" option instead of a "t" option. Mr. McGinley stated that the existing Rolf house would be too close to the right-of-way in the "y" option. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if there is a preferred access to the Rolf and Swanson properties. Ms. Olin stated that a preliminary access plan was completed several years ago. Ms. Olin stated she would like the Planning Commission to consider the future of all properties in the area. Vice Chair Duggan informed Ms. Olin that the Commission is trying to do so but that a property owner has a right to develop their own property. Ms. Olin stated they own fourteen acres and that they do not intend to develop soon. Commissioner Friel stated that the Commission is not trying to express any view about platting of properties other than what is presently requested. He stated the Commission can look into means to not impair future platting of property such as oversizing sewer/water utilities, streets, etc. Vice Chair Duggan further stated the Commission also needs to look at the character of the land and how it can be developed without impacting existing land owners, trees, etc. Ms. Olin stated that their concern is to have access to be able to develop their property. Ms. Marilyn Olin, 1140 Orchard Place, stated they want to make sure there will be proper access from the east to the Olin land. She further stated they do not want a long cul-de-sac. ) Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 10 She stated there are 1500 pine trees on their property. She further stated that Orchard Place cannot hold additional traffic. Mr. Joe Illetschko, 1881 Lexington Avenue, inquired how wide the streets will be. He further stated that Plan A - cul-de- sac option, destroys their property and that he is not in favor of that plan. He further stated that the grades seem to be too steep. He further stated that many trees will be lost. Mr. Illetschko stated that an agreement with the Rolf's concerning right-of-way should be considered. He stated that utilities should be made available. Mr. McGinley stated that this is a reasonable request. Mr. Illetschko stated they are not in favor of a through street and that they would like to see a cul-de-sac. He stated they want a more quiet atmosphere. Ms. Deborah Glass, 1124 Orchard Place, stated that this development affects all of the land in the area. She stated that she wants to preserve the trees and brush in the area. She further inquired about the ten day publication requirement. She also stated that this is a holiday week, making it difficult for people to attend the meeting. Vice Chair Duggan stated some trees will be removed. Ms. Glass stated she wants to see more information on what trees will be saved. Ms. Glass further noted her concern in preserving lot size. Vice Chair Duggan stated the City can require that no future subdivision may occur on each lot within this development. He further stated that the plan submitted tonight is just a rough plan and that lot lines can be changed. Commissioner Friel stated that there is not tree preservation ordinance in effect. He further stated the City is in the process of establishing such an ordinance. Mr. Fagen, 1089 Bwana Court, stated he is in favor of the development. He further noted concern for the deer population. He further stated the City needs to make the neighbors in the area happy. He further stated that access to Orchard should be eliminated. Mr. Greg Mandel, 1813 Lexington Avenue, inquired if there will curb and gutter improvements on Orchard due to this development. Public Works Director Danielson stated there are no plans to do improvements. He further explained the City's street rehabilitation process. Mandel stated that property owners develop the land and make a profit and that the burden of improvements should be a part of the developer's costs. Danielson responded no benefit will be received by the Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 11 Bjorklund development should there be street improvements to Orchard. Mr. Mike Povolny, 1901 South Lexington, noted his concerns for long term developments. He further stated that he is in favor of Plan A and that he does not want a lot of traffic. He further noted his concern for the overall protection of the City. In response to a question from Vice Chair Duggan, Public Works Director Danielson stated he has a copy of the proposed Olin concept. Mr. Povolny stated the Commission needs to look at the overall possibilities in developing this area. Ms. Olin explained that they hired a surveyor to prepare a preliminary plan for this area. Vice Chair Duggan called a recess at 10:05 o'clock P.M. Vice Chair Duggan reconvened the meeting at 10:15 o'clock P.M. Public Works Director Danielson reviewed a plan submitted by Dr. James Olin. He informed the Commission that Dr. Olin's plan shows a long cul-de-sac serving his lots. Danielson stated that the Olin's had worked with the Swanson's and Rolf's and that the plan helps serve all properties using a 'y" road access option. Danielson stated that this plan maximizes the development of the land which also gives maximum impact to the land (i.e. all trees will be removed). Vice Chair Duggan directed the Public Works Director Danielson to review the Olin property in relation to the Bjorklund request. Commissioner Friel moved to continue the public hearing to January 24 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. in order to allow time for the developer to complete the following actions: 1. Revise plat to show additional right-of-way dedication on Lot 7. Commissioner Friel suggested that the developer meet with the entire neighborhood and discuss plans for access to each development. 2. Sewer/water easements be shown designating size for future developments. 3. Ponding area clarification - show easement on topos. 4. Submit a conservation easement document protecting woods for Planning Commission review. ) Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 12 5. Submit a slope protection easement for Planning Commission review. 6. Determine if custom grading for each lot is acceptable. 7. Full sixty foot (60') roadway and one hundred twenty foot (120') cul-de-sac right-of-way is required. 8. Submit evidence of an agreement with the Rolf's concerning right-of-way from their property. A Letter of Intent would be acceptable evidence. 9. Submit a tree preservation plan that shows only trees needed for road construction being removed and describe how remaining trees will be protected. 10. Show landscape easement along Lot 4 protecting the hedge line along the east lot line. 11. Have specific home setbacks called out for Lots 5 and 6. Vice Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 94-41: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (DETACH GARAGES IN R-1) CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Vice Chair Duggan explained that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review ordinance changes regarding Detached Garages in the R-1 Zoning District and the Critical Area Overlay District. Commissioner Friel stated that the Planning Commission is trying to achieve consistency throughout the ordinance by requiring a conditional use permit for detached garages. Mr. Mike Povolny, 1901 South Lexington Avenue, inquired why the City is restricting people from constructing additional garage space. He stated by doing this, the City is forcing residents to park more vehicles outside. Mr. Povolny stated he would rather see more garages than vehicles. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 13 Commissioner Friel stated that consistency within the ordinance is needed and that detached garages are considered accessory structures. He further stated that there is a tendency to have in home businesses when there is such a large accessory structure. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the following ordinance amendments: 7.2(10) Detach, private garages with a minimum floor area of four hundred forty (440) square feet and a maximum floor area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. Only one private garage is allowed for each principal residential structure. 7.3(1) One private garage, either attached, or part of the principal structure, and parking space. 4.5(3) In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. However, a detached accessory structure which is a private garage shall be subject to the size and permit requirements described in Section 7.2(10). Vice Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Vice Chair Duggan explained that at their November meeting, the Commission considered additional language to Section 2.3- C, Modifications of the Critical Area Ordinance. He explained that staff had suggested that Modified Site Plans could still be allowed to proceed to City Council when the Site Plan conforms to the standards of the CAO Ordinance with some exceptions: 1. Movement of earth, by grading, which results in a cut or fill in excess of five (5) feet at any point on the subject property. 2. When development of the property will result in the substantial alteration or removal of natural vegetation, trees, shrubs, rock outcropping, water course, or scenic amenities. Commissioner Friel stated that within the Planner's Report a line is missing and that it is unclear on what the definition of Substantial Alteration is. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 14 A brief discussion ensued regarding how to differentiate compacted or not compacted fill. Public Works Director Danielson stated it is easier for the City to calculate in place fill. Vice Chair Duggan moved to continue the public hearing to January 24 at 8:30 o'clock P.M. to allow the planner and staff to clarify the Substantial Alteration definition and to change "materials" to "fill". Vice Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 With regards to Section 4.12, Land Reclamation, Commissioner Friel stated a more specific definition should be identified for removing and adding fill. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that subsoil corrections be included in the definition of volume of fill. Commissioner Friel stated the City should be concerned with the quantity of soil added or removed. DISCUSSION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND ATHLETIC STADIUMS The Planning Commission reviewed information provided by Planner Uban regarding athletic stadiums in residential districts. In regards to how far from existing residential areas a stadium should be, Commissioner Friel stated that the City should not undertake a standard location but provide a more realistic setback requirement. Planner Uban recommends that athletic stadiums be located no closer than 350-500 feet from a residential area. Regarding lighting, Planner Uban stated it is very difficult to control athletic stadium lighting off-site. He stated it may be useful to require a "lighting license" so that the City may have some control over the location, number of events and intensity of the lighting used. Vice Chair Duggan stated the City may be interested in receiving information from lighting companies to help identify how light is measured. Planner Uban stated it may be necessary to include noise under the "licensure". Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired if the City could place regulations on seating requirements related to materials and spacing. Planner Uban responded that this may be handled through the building permit process. Commissioner Friel Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 15 stated safety standards should be regulated by the State. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the City consider requiring evacuation plans for conditions such as inclement weather. Commissioner Friel noted his concern for involving this requirement within the City's Ordinances. He stated that this should be regulated by state and fire codes. TREE PRESERVATION Planner Uban stated that due to a the horizon, such as the Garron School and Swanson Subdivision, top of their priority list a Preservation Ordinance. number of future projects on site, Friendly Hills Middle the City Council has at the review of the City's Tree Commissioner Friel inquired if the City will need a forester to enforce the ordinance. Planner Uban stated that administering of the ordinance is an issue. Friel stated that the City needs to establish an effective way in protecting existing developments and new developments. Planner Uban stated the City needs to establish how a tree preservation ordinance should be applied. He stated that an Overlay District can apply provisions to the entire City, regardless of underlying zoning district, and ensures conformity throughout the City. Uban further stated that an ordinance could be included within the Subdivision Ordinance as it applies to new plats, gets developers thinking and doing something about tree preservation early in the development process. He further stated that general provisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance can be considered through provisions to selected zoning districts. Planner Uban suggested that the Planning Commission consider a workshop which could consist of a tour of the City's tree inventory and then also review other communities who have standards for trees. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted concerns for impact on the City's budget in enforcing the ordinance. In response to a question from Vice Chair Duggan, Planner Uban stated he would get a copy of the City of Burnsville's Woodland Preservation Technical Pamphlet. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it was a real tragedy to lose the trees on the Garron site. He stated there needs to be language restricting cutting of trees on forty percent (40) or more of property. Planning Commission December 29, 1994 Page 16 Commissioner Friel stated that more background information should be obtained regarding tree preservation. He stated the Planner should review other city ordinances and apply them to the Swanson Subdivision. He further stated the City should consider amending the City's Subdivision Ordinance to better cataloging of trees. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to conduct a tree preservation workshop on January 19, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. It was further noted that the Planning Commission may conduct a tour of the City on an upcoming Saturday morning. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting to January 19, 1995 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. This meeting was adjourned at 11:50 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary