Loading...
2015-09-28 EC Agenda Packet AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regutar Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room, Monday, September 28, 2015 7:00 PM 1. Cail to Order 2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes —August 24, 2015 3. Composting and Organics Recycling 4. Natural Resources Education/Communication plan 5. Updating Tree and Landscape Plan requirements 6. Program/Project Updates (Staffl 7. Commission Member Council Reports (Commissioners) 8. Other Business 9. Adjourn `This dacume�t is a�railabl�_�n alt�rnate f�rmats t�p�n a 72-h�aur�eques�. Pl�ase c�ll 7b�-59�-800�;(T"4"1�: 7f3-5�3-39�i8}tc�m�ke a rec��e�t. Exa�mples �f alterna�e farmats ' may in�lutle large pri�tt,el�ctrt�nic,Br�ille,a�tli�c�ss�tte,��c. GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 24, 2015 Present: Commissioners: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson (left meeting at 8:45pm), and Jim Stremel; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist; and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant Absent: Commissioners Lynn Gitelis Qoined meeting via phone at 7:50pm) & Debra Yahle, and Council Member Larry Fonnest Call to Order Dawn Hill, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Reqular Commission Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2015 MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2015 regular meeting. Compostinq and Orqanics Recvclinq Bokashi Compostinq Barbara Ego with Bokashi Works, LLC and President of the Golden Valley Garden Club, gave a presentation on Bokashi Composting. This method uses microbes which ferments food waste instead of allowing it to rot. After two weeks in an air tight bucket, the food waste can be buried in the yard or garden for another two weeks and then it can be used for planting. This method aids in killing or discouraging the growth of most E-Coli and Salmonella bacteria by lowering the PH levels in the soil. The cost to get started with a 2 gallon bucket & 5oz bag of microbe mix is $16. A one pound bag of microbe mix is $8 and estimated to last a one person household approximately 9 months. Review Orqanics Recvclinq Report Eric Eckman presented a composting/organics recycling options report which gave existing options available to residents as well as some potential options to consider. Other items discussed to include in the report to the Council were: listing examples of what other cities are doing in regards to recycling; listing success rates for organized and unorganized cities who are offering organic recycling; reference State Statute requirements on recycling; and providing pros and cons for each potential option. Staff will discuss the potential options with the City Attorney before forwarding to the Council. Commissioners will email any other ideas to Eckman within the next couple of weeks before the report is finalized. Pollinator Article Eckman presented a recent email sent by staff in response to a concern about the decline in pollinator numbers. The City Council has directed the Environmental Commission to develop educational information about pollinator species and their habitats to inform and encourage residents to explore ways to increase their populations. One member offered to invite a resident named "Organic Bob" to present to the Commission on ways to use fewer chemicals in Minutes of the Environmental Commission August 24, 2015 Page2of2 our gardens and yards. It was also suggested to place natural resource topics on the website or in a newsletter to educate the residents of Golden Valley about their environment and to provide them with ways that they can help sustain a native wildlife habitat. Proqram/Proiect Updates The complete program/project summary is on file. Eckman provided additional updates on the DeCola Ponds flooding issues and the evaluations done regarding the effects of lowering the water level of the ponds. Also, he gave an update on the Liberty Crossing project and the possibility of creating additional flood storage in that area. Commission Member Council Reports None Other Business CenterPoint Energy is constructing a new office/warehouse near the intersection of Golden Valley Rd and Douglas Dr. which will house 50 to 60 of their employees. Part of their stormwater management plan includes two ponds with native plantings. City Council tasked the Environmental Commission with reviewing the proposed revisions to the Tree Preservation Code. This will be looked at in September or October. Adjourn MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:57pm. Claire Huisman Administrative Assistant city of r� olden MEMt� R �► � DUM � . Vt�.' . �'� Physical Development Department 763-593-8430/763-593 3988(faxj Date: September 23, 2015 To: Environmental Commission From: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Composting and Organics Recycling At its July 2015 meeting,the Environmental Commission began looking at composting and organics recycling options available to Golden Valley residents. MPCA and Hennepin County staff attended the July meeting and presented the Commission with an overview of the organics recycling industry and a brief summary of what other cities are doing. Presenters included Tim Farnan from the MPCA, and John Jaimez and Ben Knudson from Hennepin County's Environment and Energy Department. Much of this information is summarized in the luly meeting minutes. Hennepin County staff mentioned that the long term trend in recycling funding is to provide increasingly more grant money to help fund organics programs like those in St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Bloomington. Staff was not certain whether traditional recycling funding would be impacted long term as organics recycling funding increases, but the two generally share the same funding source which extends through 2016 (called SCORE funds). County staff also mentioned that with increased competition between cities with organics programs,the share of organic grant funds per household will likely decrease from around $25 to $7 in the near future. All of Minneapolis is slated to come online in 2016 and Bloomington shortly thereafter. Hennepin County will assist cities with education and outreach as they start an organics program. Following the discussion,the Commission asked staff to help prepare a report to forward on to City Council.The report will summarize the existing and potential composting/organics recycling options available to residents, including the pros and cons of each option. The draft report is attached for review at the September Commission meeting. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\composting-organics recycling_0915.docx Existing and Potential Composting/Organics Recycling Options available to Golden Valley residents Existing options available to residents 1. Backyard composting (available to residential properties having up to 4 dwelling units, and meeting conditions set forth in city code) Pros—inexpensive; simple; fairly convenient Cons—requires time, labor, physical space, a c� ��ued need for compost/soil; a� \�: potential for nuisance conditions (odor, aest���' animals) ����,,, , 2. Drop off organics/food waste at Hennepin Co ; ��, -off facility (Brooklyn Park) �� \ ��o� Pros—no nuisance conditions (compQstl� ;. roc ccurs offsite); less expensive �, �� than collection (there is no charge ��,,�F �� \\�� Cons—inconvenient (only open�'���fay-Friday); dista ���to drop facility (requires time, money for fuel) � ,,. ������ � ��� 3. Contact trash hauler to see if they offer����anics co��tion �� Pros—convenient; sa � nuisance co � ���garbage bin, n ��'sance � �... � ;� conditions resulting � �����kyard com � �g � � � Cons—expense (additi � � � 115 per limited availability in Golden Valley (only 1 licensed ha ��r re�� offering��� service) ��,�� �\ � � �� � ������ � ����,�. �y ���� Potential options to c�t��� �\ ��`�:. �,��\` ,��� `'\: ..� �� ��, ,��� �� � ��. ����\�� ��� ��a�`� � `� �. Based on resea���a d the i���rmation . �,ided by the organics recycling professionals, cities are using thr � ���-o�X �����els for �� nics recycling collection. � �. ��� � � ����y"�����0 ��`` ��,.� �� \�� � `� \ \ ������urce Se d Or �s (Provi � arate cart for organics ) ��.. � , � ;�;: � ��;�.. Example: � � apo ���� �. � ,�� ��� • sourc � � ��arat��� anics in a green cart ��` � `��.,, ��� resident �'scribes"��-service with the city ��\�, . � �_,ity bills r��� ��ent additional $40-48 per year for organics recycling • \'� entl � o participation of all properties with curbside collection • ci � -s cart, BPI-certified compostable large bags, and education Pros- highe ticipation rate, lower risk of contamination Cons -one more cart to manage, additional truck traffic in neighborhood 2. Co-collection a. Co-collection Trash (Provide a compostable bag to place organics within your trash cart) Examples: Bloomington$2 increase in current rates, Wayzata$96/year for recycling Pros—could be removed weekly or biweekly with trash; less carts overall; if bag breaks open it doesn't contaminate other recycling materials; does not increase truck traffic in neighborhood Cons-takes up space in trash cart, bag may break open (ends up in landfill) b. Co-collection Yard Waste (Provide a bag to place organics within your yard waste cart) Example:St. Louis Park • co-collected bags of organics in a yard waste cart (receive an insert for the cart if no yard waste service) � city bills additional $40 per year,i���usehold subscribes for organics \� ,,,, recycling � , • 11% participation of all p�-��rtfi���ith curbside collection ,..,. • city provides yard wa ,, c��t, kitch�i�ucket, BPI-certified �`\� compostable bags �ducation �, �� ������>� , , � Pros—yard waste is no ', rated all year, less`����overall; does not increase truck traffic in n ��� orhood �� ��,� � Cons-takes up space in yarc�����,ste c ��� ring certain��\ �s, bag may �� �, �� ��� �� break open (r����t�in contami � � ot able to comm : le); pick up every two wee ' �� �� � ot be a via � ontract option in future due to ermittin and r�„���t� facilities\� ads p g � �� � �` ` � �� � � �� ���ti���a � � �` � 3. Commingled ���,y�raste is p�'���d loos ���ard e cart without bags) ����\������' � � �� � ������ . ;. ��, ��� mn �� � Depart � t����ric ��F���urrently designates Hennepin �;�.� , � ����Y � . ��;� ' � �' ' �y as a ��rantine z��`�nd requires pre-grinding before the co � gle ure can b`��ransferred from the county site to a compost � � ��,�. �� site o �� ,����, This���significant impediment to this type of ����\�a ����. ��. ��� ���. \\�\��� '' �ctio . � Ez �,<.. ��' � : O � by 3 hau s in B/oomington, Edina, Minnetonka, Orono, � ���` \� � and S � _ � o0 �o ' �'' ���;, • gene a low ��'ost alternative ��r���, : ����\ • the o is generally not offered through city contracts ���``� � � priva ulers may offer this as a way to avoid added costs of ��� ��_ �:� � �� n carts and sorting s��.. , , • p .:�cipation rate in these cities is about 1-3% The options for setting up these three types of programs include a mandatory citywide program or a subscription (opt-in) program. City wide programs generally result in lower costs for the resident (additional $2-3 per year in the case of Minneapolis and Bloomington). Opt-in programs generally result in higher costs for the resident (additional $40-90 per year). Open systems where haulers provide organics service directly to residents are probably the highest cost to resident (additional $75-115 per year). The costs for the options described above depend largely on whether a City has organized solid waste, yard waste or recycling collection systems or open systems. Additional options to consider In addition to the program models described above, there may be additional options for the City to consider: 1. New or Amended Recycling contract-Add organi����� terial to the existing recycling ,�� � contract (either cart or bag). Organics material �����sidered recyclable material under ��� ��„ State Statute and it also fits within Hennepir��� �,���s funding policy (exceeds County's minimum recycling standards) Ac������org�y��to an existing recycling �� � contract has not been attempted by a:�����nd therefo` �`� is not known whether ���i there would be an objection or chal���. However, couri��aff has suggested that it �,��� �, may be possible for cities like Gold���lley with existing recy���g contracts to add ��`�� `��� organics collection to our contracts R'���ling fee����aY increas���this service. It is not known whether week �ervice woul� b;��'�����d or could be������ded. Staff y � ���;� °� -� �� consulted with the Cit A and the reti�r��endation is to talk with our recycling ��,z�,�, . provider. � ���,�� No examples of amen�co�° ��� s ���� `��`�\�� � � Examp�;�'��w contra ��City o� � ran ha����ew recycling contract with ���� �� ���� a, O��s ��� Ra ; ������fers a ba � r o � , ; � � an the�recycling cart. Cost is � � � ��� ,. \° `�`� $ �,, /year p ��sidentia � all rec �� services. Percent participation ������::,, �������� in or s is not�k�aown at t�'�' �me. ��.� ��� � \� �S\�Y\ \ \ �����\��� � ���p. C� �� � � ��,�,,,y� ��� � ma�� ��o p�� � � n so �,way with other cities if it is allowable and ��� kes sen � �rren `� cling co � as negotiated jointly with Minnetonka and ���> ���. �,;. �Jymouth, but �'� �t a o� � �,owers the three cities have se arate contracts �� � ,� J � p )• outh staff h icate ���;erest in working together on the organics effort if both ���,. ����\ Co �s decide to . � e forw��`with a program. �r� � �� � rent recyc �' . contract information: � � ��;,;.:� � Contr . � xpires in 2018 \� ��\� i � ��9 ���_� tified dwelling units iii. , Golden Valley resident is about$48/year iv. Every other week service v. Contract may be discussed with recycling provider and amended 2. Modify trash hauler licensing- Modify existing trash hauler licensing in city code to require licensed haulers to provide organics collection (cart or bag) as an optional service to residents. (Currently only one hauler provides this service in Golden Valley). The service may also include educational "tagging" if contamination is an issue. This collection service may or may not include a financial mechanism to reimburse haulers for collection of recyclable materials (paid by an increased recycling fee to residents). Staff has consulted with the City Attorney and the recommendation is to talk with all licensed haulers about these ideas before proceeding. Lessons learned from discussions with other cities • Convenience to the household— Provide small, latched, green cart with liners, kitchen buckets, compostable bags (all free), and reminders and whatever makes it easy for people to know what to do. � :�o��� • Cost—To encourage organics recycling, it should be chea�� r more convenient than trash � �\\�\ service. Minneapolis increased the rebate for reduc service. ,,����� • Education—A significant presence of volunteers, ��; ',��� :-�:�motions, incentives and ��� �� continual marketing greatly affects the partici����n, sustaine���rticipation and initial participation in the program. �a � �����;� � • Frequency- Require weekly collection of o���nics and recycling, an� ���ry other week for ���,�\\ trash. Trash set-outs may decline even when`°' o uency de�reases to e �other week. 0�����\: �� , :.: ��t • Ordinances—Some cities requir�� ulers to colle ;�r�����for recycling,s����r to a yard ����� �;\, \,\��� � waste or other requirement. ����,�� �� ��; � o,�y � • Program Success—Depends upon t u�������f house�`I't��that subscribe to the service, ��� how close together the�r are on a rou� r d�e�� ���� �nd mo�����d, engaged citizenry. ,� �,� : .��������` �� � ;�: �, � � ����`�� �� \��������. � �,��s ��� � � :: � ��.�� �� ,��\\\, �\ �\\ , '���� ����,\ �\� � � ��' � ��Y� �� ,:��� ��� �������:,\ ��\���� � � � �� � ��� \�\�\\ . � ����' �� � \ � � � ����� `�:a�. �\>�� � �� �� �. `�� �e.::< e _ \��, �� �� � �. � .'��� city of � Olt�eYt MEMt� RANDUM � . �a. e� Physical Development Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: September 23, 2015 To: Environmental Commission From: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Natural Resources Education/Communication Plan The recently adopted Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) includes the goal of supporting and providing public outreach and education. This goal contains a set of policies that are meant to help to achieve the desired objectives. Goal 6:Support and Provide Public Outreach and Education Rationale:Building public support through outreach measures and education is essential to implementing a successful natural resource management plan. Raising awareness of nature areas, and the importance of wildlife within a community,is crucial to developing a strong sense of stewardship among residents.A community that is well-informed on natural resource issues will be more likely to support decisions to protect,preserve,restore,and enhance natural resources within the City. Objectives • Protect the City's natural resources through public outreach and education. • Instill in property owners the desire and knowledge of restoring and maintaining natural resources on their property. • Increase awareness about similarities and differences between nature areas and active recreation parks. Policies • The City should employ a range of social media(website,newsletters, Facebook,Twitter,ect.)tools to inform and educate the public about the City's natural resources, nature areas and stewardship and volunteer opportunities within the City. • The City should develop volunteer programs that will encourage community members to care for their naturals resources while providing them additional hands-on experience. • The City should provide educational opportunities and information on how to protect,restore, enhance,and maintain natural resources on their property using a range of outreach tools. The Environmental Commission's 2015 work plan priorities include tasks that assist in the implementation of the Natural Resources Management Plan, specifically: G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\NRMP communications plan.docx • Establish naturai resource based educational topics • Develop a natural resources communications plan (including schedule)to better inform residents about natura� resources in Golden Valley. Based on the issues, needs, and other information in the NRMP, staff will help lead the Commission in a discussion and brainstorming session to assist in the completion of these tasks. The resulting information will be forwarded to Communications staff for further development of the communication plan. It is anticipated these tasks will take the Commission and staff approximately 2-3 months to complete. ��tyaf � olden �tEMo � ,� Nau �t g . �t�, ,. �v Physical Development Department � 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: September 23, 2015 To: Environmental Commission From: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Updating Tree and Landscape Requirements The Physical Development Department is working on updates to the Tree Preservation section of City Code. The updates seek to simplify and improve the existing policies and provisions, incorporate minimum landscape requirements, and address community concerns. The attached memorandum summarizes the effort.The Environmental Commission will be asked to review the proposed code revisions after City Council's initial review in October. Staff is providing the existing code for reference and will discuss this in more detail at the September commission meeting. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos\Update Tree Ordinance.docx CZt� Of� oZden MEMt� RANDUM � . �T,a, �,'� Physical Development Department 763-593•8095 J 763 593 8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Vailey Council/Manager Meeting September 8, 2015 Agenda Item Goals and Work Plan for Updating Tree and Landscape Requirements Prepared By AI Lundstrom, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Staff is seeking feedback from Council regarding the set of Policy Goals established for staff as they modify the Tree Preservation section of City Code. Community Concerns The following points summarize the feedback received at public hearings, community meetings, and other conversations with Golden Valley residents: • The current tree preservation regulations do not result in the desired level of tree preservation; a higher percentage of existing trees should be maintained than is currently required. • New residential development has caused the removal of many overstory trees and understory brush. • The City of Golden Valley has historically taken a strong position on preserving and planting trees.This should be a guiding principle in the new strategy. • Developers should be responsible for removing Buckthorn and other invasive species. Summary of Subdivision Study Results The goal of the Subdivision Study was to utilize the expertise of an outside consultant to conduct community listening sessions, explore potential solutions, and provide recommendations for possible modifications to the City's Subdivision and Zoning Code Chapters. As part of the study, HKGi was asked to look at options for preserving additional tree canopy and green space in the city. At the completion of the study in the spring of 2015, HKGi recommended that follow-up work be conducted by the City that integrated their recommendations with the newly established site landscaping standards (which are not currently codified). The key policy recommendations included: • Adjust percentage of trees removed during initial site development (grading, utilities) • Adjust percentage of trees removed during the building of the structure • Add minimum landscape standards Guiding Principles Staff wants to ensure that all policy changes abide by the following principles: 1. Policies are consistent 2. Policies are fairly applied 3. Policies are easy to interpret 4. Policies are easy to administer Policy Goals Based on feedback received from community members, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, staff in the Planning, Engineering, and Public Works divisions has been meeting regularly and focusing the code changes on the following goals: 1. Identify what is working well in the Code and in the permitting process 2. Simplify Section 4.32 of the Code to be easier to interpret and administer 3. Improve the worksheet used by Tree Preservation Permit applicants 4. Require the preservation of high quality trees to the largest practical extent possible 5. Explore the option to require the preservation or replacement of understory brush 6. Address the removal of invasive species in Code and provide educational handouts 7. Establish minimum landscape standards for all Zoning Districts Work Plan Staff plans to bring a set of proposed changes to the next Council/Manager meeting on October 13. The changes would likely be scheduled for a City Council agenda in November, depending on the time needed to incorporate feedback received. Beyond changes to the City Code, staff will also create educational handouts that could potentially be provided by the City. Action Requested Staff is seeking feedback from Council regarding the set of Policy Goals established for staff as they modify the Tree Preservation section of City Code. More detail on the Policy Goals will be provided prior to the discussion. § 4.32 � Section 4.32: Tree Preservation Subdivision 1. Findings and Purpose Statement The City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development, redevelopment and alteration of trees or wooded areas. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City has established the comprehensive tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: A. Protection and preservation of the environment and natural beauty of the city; B. Assurance of orderly development and redevelopment within trees or wooded areas to minimize tree and habitat loss; C. Prevention or reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation and storm water ru n off; D. Evaluation of the impacts to trees and wooded areas resulting from development; E. Establishment of minimal standards for tree preservation and the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from tree removal; F. Provision of incentives for creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and clearcutting during development; and G. Enforcement of tree preservation standards to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Subdivision 2. Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined as stated: A. Administrator: For purposes of this section, the Administrator shall be the Environmental Technician or his/her designee. B. Applicant: Any person or entity that is required to submit and implement an approved tree preservation plan under this section. C. Construction Area: Any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography, soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change in the existing character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading, building construction or any other construction activity. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 9 § 4.32 D. Critical Root Zone (CRZ): An imaginary circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one foot per one inch of tree diameter, e.g., a twenty (20) inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of twenty (20) feet. E. Developer: Any person or entity other than a builder who undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon. F. Development or Redevelopment: Individual lot single-family or two-family residential development, single-phase development and two-phase development, as those terms are defined herein. G. Diameter Inch: The diameter, in inches, of a tree measured at diameter breast height (four and a half (4.5) feet from the uphill side of the existing ground level). H. Drip Line: The farthest distance away from the trunk that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. I. Individual Lot: Single-family or Two-family Residential Development. J. Landscape Architect: A person licensed by the state as a landscape architect. K. Significant Woodland: A grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees with contiguous crown cover, occupying five hundred (500) or more square feet of property, which are comprised primarily of deciduous trees between four (4) inches and twelve (12) inches in diameter or coniferous trees between four (4) feet and twelve (12) feet in height. L. Single-phase Development: The process where improvement of the entire site occurs in one continuing process. Activities which can occur during single-phase development include initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets; construction and grading of drainageways; filling of any areas; grading of the pad area; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways, storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the construction area. M. Tree: Any of the following type of trees, as each is defined herein: 1. Coniferous Evergreen Tree: A woody plant which, at maturity, is at least twelve (12) feet or more in height, having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. 2. Deciduous Tree: A woody plant which, at maturity, is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds leaves annually. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 9 § 4.32 3. Hardwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to ironwood, catalpa, oak, maple (hard), walnut, ash, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. 4. Significant Tree: A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous trees, defined herein, or a minimum of twelve (12) inches in diameter for softwood deciduous trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height for coniferous/evergreen trees. 5. Softwood Deciduous Tree: Includes, but is not limited to cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow, silver maple and elm. 6. Specimen Tree: A healthy hardwood deciduous tree measuring equal to or greater than thirty (30) inches diameter and/or a coniferous tree measuring fifty (50) feet or greater in height. N. Two-phase development: the process where improvement of the entire site occurs in at least two (2) distinct phases. Generally the first phase includes initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets; construction, grading of drainageways; and filling of any areas. The second phase generally includes grading of specific pad areas; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways, storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the specific construction zone. Subdivision 3. Tree Preservation Plan A. Scope of application. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City and implemented in connection with any of the following: 1. New development or redevelopment in any zoning district; 2. Expansion of the footprint of any existing building by ten percent (10%) or greater square feet, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the City. B. Exemptions. Within single-family and two-family zoning districts, the provisions of this section shall not apply to trees removed as a result of additions to existing structures or construction of new accessory structures. C. Submission requirements. 1. The tree preservation plan required hereunder shall be submitted or incorporated with a grading, drainage and erosion control plan. All tree Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 9 § 4.32 preservation plans must be certified by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect retained by the applicant. 2. The tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the City at least five working days prior to the issuance of the grading, drainage and erosion control permit to ensure compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. 3. Building permit applicants for new single-family or two-family homes, which are not part of a larger development, shall prepare an individual lot tree preservation plan when significant trees, specimen trees, and/or significant woodlands exist on site as determined by the Administrator. Individual lot tree preservation plans for single-family or two-family residential buildings are not required to be prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape architect. D. Plan requirements. The tree preservation plan, a narrative and map or series of maps, shall include the following information: 1. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(es) of applicants, property owners, developers and/or builders; 2. A Certificate of Survey, prepared in accordance with City specifications; 3. Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance; 4. Size, species, and location of all existing significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands located within the project limits. These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; 5. Identification of all significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands proposed to be removed within the construction area. These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; 6. Measures to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands; 7. Size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; and 8. Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan. E. Required protective measures. The tree preservation plan shall identify and require the following measures to be utilized during construction to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands: Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 9 � 4.32 1. Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminate safety netting placed at the drip line or at the critical root zone (CRZ), whichever is greater, of significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands to be preserved. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this fenced area. 2. Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning between April 15 and July 1. Any oak trees so pruned shall be required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound sealant at the moment of trimming. 3. Prevention of change in soil chemistry due to concrete washout and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or paints. F. Additional protective measures. The following tree protection measures are suggested to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands that are intended to be preserved according to the submitted tree preservation plan and may be required by the City: 1. Installation of retaining walls or tree wells to preserve trees. 2. Placement of utilities in common trenches outside of the drip line of significant trees, or use of tunneled installation. 3. Use of tree root aeration, fertilization, and/or irrigation systems. 4. Transplanting of significant trees into a protected area for later moving into permanent sites within the construction area. 5. Therapeutic pruning of diseased tree branches or damaged and exposed root systems. 6. Installation of root severing protection barriers along Critical Root Zones. 7. Designation of areas for soil and equipment storage to prevent soil compaction in Critical Root Zones. G. Performance guarantee. Any applicant for any building or grading permit within a development covered by this section shall provide the required performance guarantee following preliminary approval of the tree preservation plan and prior to any construction and/or grading. The amount of the performance guarantee to be submitted shall be calculated for each tree preservation plan as follows: 1. One hundred percent (100%) of the cost of completing tree replacement mitigation as determined by the City unless the applicant provides tree mitigation in the form of cash dedication, or; Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 9 § 4.32 2. An amount to guarantee preservation of all trees to be preserved in the tree preservation plan which lie within fifteen (15) feet of the construction zone (measured from the construction zone to the nearest side of the tree trunk). The amount shall be based on the total diameter inches of significant trees and specimen trees to be preserved within this fifteen (15) foot zone at the rate of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per diameter inch and the total square feet of significant woodlands to be preserved within the fifteen (15) foot zone by the rate of one dollar and twenty cents ($1.20) per square foot. 3. Performance guarantee shall be in addition to any other landscaping bond required by the City. 4. Following written request by the applicant for acceptance, the performance guarantee will be released upon verification by the City that the tree preservation plan was followed and that the tree replacement schedule was complied with where necessary, but in no event shall the performance guarantee be released earlier than two growing seasons after the date of the approval of final inspection. H. Removal of diseased trees required. Prior to any grading, all diseased, hazardous, and nuisance trees on the subject property shall be identified by the City in accordance with the tree disease control and prevention regulations of the City Code. Any and all diseased or hazardous trees as identified in other sections of this code shall be removed from the property at the expense of the property owner, at the time of grading, if so directed. I. Removal or destruction of protected trees or woodlands. Any significant or specimen tree or significant woodland that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two years before any application for a grading, drainage and erosion control permit or building permit or other zoning or related application for development must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of Category A, Subdivision S.A. herein. The replacement trees will be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. J. Compliance with plan. 1. The applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is made to and approved by the Administrator. 2. No significant trees, specimen trees, or significant woadlands shall be removed until a tree preservation plan is approved and such removals shall be in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan. If a Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 9 § 4.32 significant tree(s), specimen tree(s) or any significant woodland that was intended to be preserved is removed without specific permission of the Administrator or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within two (2) years from date of project closure, a cash mitigation, calculated per diameter inch of the removed/destroyed tree or per total square foot of significant woodlands, in the amount set forth in the City fee schedule, shall be remitted to the City. 3. The City shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The City shall determine whether the tree preservation plan has been complied with. Subdivision 4. Allowable Tree Removal A. Tree removal allowance. Specimen tree, significant tree, and significant woodland removal shall be in accordance with the City-approved tree preservation plan. Mitigation shall be required if the total number trees removed exceed the following percentages: 1. Single-lot development. a. Single-family or two-family residential, twenty percent (20%). b. Commercial and multiunit residential, thirty percent (30%). 2. Multi-lot development. a. Single-phase development process. 1.) Single-family or two family residential, forty percent (40%). 2.) Commercial and multiunit residential, forty-seven and one-half percent (47.5%). b. Two-phase development. 1.) Initial site development, twenty-five percent (25%). 2.) Individual lot development. a) Single-family or two family residential, twenty percent (20%) b) Commercial or multi-unit residential, thirty percent (30%). B. Exception. When practical difficulties result from strict compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the Administrator may permit significant tree, specimen tree, and significant woodland removal in excess of allowable limits Golden Valley City Code Page 7 of 9 § 4.32 in the Plan. In the event such exception is granted, a reforestation plan or cash mitigation will be required. The City shall determine which form of mitigation shall be utilized. Subdivision 5. Tree replacement requirements A. Size of replacement trees: Category A trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than four (4) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than twelve (12) feet in height. Category B trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than two and a half (21/2) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than six (6) feet in height. Category C trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than one and one half (l�/2) inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than four (4) feet in height. B. Significant and specimen tree replacement. Number of Replacement Trees Category A or Category B or Category C Significant Tree(s) Damaged or Removed Coniferous, 12 to 24 feet high 1 2 4 Coniferous, 24 feet or higher 2 4 8 Hardwood deciduous, 6 to 20 inches diameter 1 2 4 Hardwood deciduous, 21 to 30 inches diameter 2 4 8 Softwood deciduous, 12 to 24 inches diameter 1 2 4 Softwood deciduous, greater than 24 inches diameter 2 4 8 Specimen Tree(s) 3 6 12 C. Significant woodland replacement. Where replacement of a significant woodland is required, the applicant shall be responsible for furnishing and installing one (1) category A replacement tree or two (2) category B replacement trees or four (4) category C replacement trees for every one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of significant woodland damaged or destroyed, or any increment thereof. Golden Valley City Code Page S of 9 § 4.32 D. Species requirement. Where ten (10) or more replacement trees are required, not more than fifty percent (50%) of the replacement trees shall be of the same species of tree without the approvai of the Administrator or his designee. E. Warranty requirement. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the City, or which subsequently dies due to construction activity within two (2) growing seasons after the date of project closure shall be removed by the applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements within eight (8) months of removal. F. Mitigation 1. In any development that the tree/woodland allowable removal limits are exceeded, the applicant shall mitigate the tree loss by either reforestation (tree replacement) of appropriate areas within the development area, in accordance with the tree replacement schedule, or payment to the City of the sum per diameter inch calculated from the total amount of diameter inches of the required replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. The fee per diameter inch shall be set forth in the City fee schedule, and the payment thereon shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree mitigation. 2. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicant shall be determined by the Administrator. 3. The planting of trees for mitigation shall be in addition to any other landscape requirements or minimum standards of the City. 4. Significant tree replacements will be calculated by replacing the largest diameter tree first, proceeding to the smallest diameter significant tree. Source: Ordinance No. 199, 2"d Series Effective Date: 5-13-99 Golden Valley City Code Page 9 of 9 PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES–SEPTEMBER 2015 NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN Bees/pollinators article City staff is drafting an article on pollinators (including bees) and pollinator habitat. The article will provide education about the important role of pollinators, and the reduction in the use of chemicals that may be harmful to these insects and wildlife. The article will also highlight examples of gardens and habitat created in Golden Valley. RECYCLING A recent article pointed out that recycling revenues have been decreasing in recent years due to the decreasing amount and weight of recyclable material and in response to changes in the global markets and the market value of recycled materials. FORESTRY Emerald Ash Borer Management The City of Plymouth recently discovered EAB and issued a press release.The press release and a map showing EAB locations in the metro area are attached to this report. Tree and Landscape Requirements City Code text amendment. Simplify and improve the current tree preservation language and include minimum landscape requirements. Discussed at Council/Manager on September 8. Scheduled for additional discussion at Council/Manager on October 13. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS Current Applications Peaceful Valley Montessori Academy(6500 Olson Memorial Highway)—Conditional Use Permit. Relocate existing day care to new site (former TruStone Financial Credit Union building). Scheduled for Planning Commission on September 28. Boone Avenue Convenience Center(600 Boone Avenue N)—Minor PUD Amendment. Installation of seven parking spaces within the front yard setback. Scheduled for City Council on October 20. 7200 Harold Avenue—Subdivision. Split one lot into two in a Moderate Density Residential (R- 2) zoning district. Scheduled for Planning Commission on October 26. 7218 Harold Avenue—Subdivision. Split one lot into two in a Moderate Density Residential (R- 2) zoning district. Scheduled for Planning Commission on October 26. The Three•Nine•Four Apartments—Construction of 303 market rate apartment units and 107 senior living units. Final Plat, PUD Permit, and Development Agreement will be scheduled for City Council in October or November.