Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-21_WORK SESSIONAGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY ROOM TUESDAY OCTOBER 21, 2014 5:30 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 11. ROLL CALL 5:35 P.M. III. BUSINESS MEETING 6:00 P.M. IV. TREE ORDINANCE 6:45 P.M. V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you_need assistance in the way of, hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927 -8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. ;SCHEDULE OF<UP .COMING - MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Oct 21 Business Meeting 5:30 P.M. Tree Ordinance 6:00 P.M. Tues Oct 21 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Mon Nov 3 Work Session — Future IQ Update/Donations And Sponsorships 5:30 P.M. Mon Nov. 3 Regular. Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Nov. 4 GENERAL ELECTION DAY — Polls Open 7 A.M. Through 8:00 P.M. Fri Nov 7 Canvass of General Election 5:00 P.M. Tues Nov 1 I VETERANS' DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Nov 18 Work Session — CIP 5:00 P.M. Human Services Task Force 6:15 P.M. Tues Nov 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thurs Nov 27 THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Fri Nov 28 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Dec 2 Work Session — Future iQ Update 5:00 P.M. Future iQ Update 6:00 RM. Tues Dec 2 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Dec 9 Special Meeting — .Public Improvements Hearing 6:00 P.M. Tues Dec 16 Work Session — Ethics 5:30 P.M. Tues Dec 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Wed Dec 24 CHRISTMAS EVE HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closes at noon Thur Dec 25 CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Wed Dec 31 NEW YEAR'S EVE HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closes at noon Thur Jan I NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Vies Jan 6 Work Session — TBD 5:30 P.M. es Jan 6 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. :in Jan 19 REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOLIDAY OBSERVED - City Hall Closed Tues Jan 20 Work Session — TBD 5:30 P.M. Tues Jan 20 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITYROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS C.d rn October 21, 2014 Y s �Y City Council Work Session i1 v Quarterly Council Business Meeting Financial Update Revenue • 2014 YTD collected = $19,221,428 vs. $17,769,045 in 2013 (8.2% . _ - eww.EdineMN.pov 10/21/2014 Y s �Y i1 v Q3 General Fund Summary Revenue • 2014 YTD collected = $19,221,428 vs. $17,769,045 in 2013 (8.2% increase) • 58% of budget, compared to 57% in 2013 • 2011 -2013 average rate is 57.3% Expenditure • 2014 YTD spent = $23,778,591 vs. $22,740,385 in 2013 (4.6% increase) • 70% of budget, compared to 71.5% in 2013 • 2011 -2013 average rate is 71% Key Metric: License & Permit Revenue • 2014 YTD collected = $3,439,748 vs. $2,860,736 in 2013 • 105% of budget, compared to 100% in 2013 • 2011 -2013 average rate is 94% vww,EdineMN.BOV 10/21/2014 MUtififies Fund Utilities Fund Operating Revenue �2014Adual -2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 096 Ol Q2 Q3 Q4 Key Metric: Water pumped out of City wells • 2014 YTD water pumped = 1.9MM gallons vs. 2MM gallons in 2013 • 2009 -2013 average pumping rate was 2.1 M gallons Jan -Sept vmw,EdlnaMNAav 10/21/2014 A►- 7Q3 General Fund Summary 2014 General Fund Budget Spent 75.0% ....... ...................... ............................... 0.0% aSOn N� 5 t ey t�p� F Fa Ne��oP PPbOC E��c &t¢a H pa �mtn mmP�� CP w .EdinaWgov MUtififies Fund Utilities Fund Operating Revenue �2014Adual -2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 096 Ol Q2 Q3 Q4 Key Metric: Water pumped out of City wells • 2014 YTD water pumped = 1.9MM gallons vs. 2MM gallons in 2013 • 2009 -2013 average pumping rate was 2.1 M gallons Jan -Sept vmw,EdlnaMNAav 10/21/2014 A►- WAquatic Center Fund �= Liquor Fund Liquor Fund Operating Revenue �2014ACtual -2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% • 2011 -2013 average sales were 3,156. Note that new POS system in 2012 may 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 096 Ol Q2 Q3 Q4 Key Metric: Customer counts nww.Etl+naMN.pov • 2014 YTD customers = 373,778 vs. 372,333 in 2013 • 2009 -2013 average count was 368,599 . vmw.EtlinaMN.DOv WAquatic Center Fund �= Aquatic Center Operating Revenue �2014ARual -2014Budget 60% 5096 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Key Metric: Season passes sold • 2014 YTD passes = 3,462 (10,617 people) vs. 3,308 (10,774 people) in 2013. • 2011 -2013 average sales were 3,156. Note that new POS system in 2012 may distort this comparison slightly. nww.Etl+naMN.pov 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 T 1KA.Af Golf Course Fund Golf Course Fund Operating Revenue �2014ACtual -2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Key Metric: Golf rounds played (Braemar, Executive & Fred Richards) • 2014 rounds = 81,469 vs. 72,862 in 2013 • 2009 -2013 average rounds were 87,599 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 wxw.Edim MN.04v T Arena Fund Y' Arena Operating Revenue �2014ACtual - 2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 30% 5% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 v/vw.EdmMN.g4r T MCenn iw1A.Af Im\1 GV� /a Art Fund uuV Art Center Operating Revenue r -J' �2014Adual - 2014eudget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15$ 10% 5% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 04 20% 15% 10% 5% 096 Ql 02 Q3 04 wr�w.EdineMN.gov 10/21 /2014 iw1A.Af Im\1 /ps Edinborough Park Fund r -J' Edinborough Operating Revenue �2014&tual - 20148udget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 096 Ql 02 Q3 04 wn+v.Edi.MN.gov 10/21 /2014 10/21/2014 Centennial Lakes Fund ' Centennial Lakes Operating Revenue g 2014ACtual —2014Budget 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 01 02 03 C4 — .Ed ;- .Y.N4;- i. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA 'j"4 Quarterly Financial Update September 20141 General Fund - Revenues General Fund revenues total $19,221,428 through September 30, 2014. This amount represents 58% of total budgeted revenues for all of 2014, which is higher than 57% a year ago at the same time. License and permit revenue increased $579,012 from last year due to increased permit activity. Through 9 months we have collected 105% of our annual licenses and permits budget. The City has experienced rapid growth in permit revenue since 2009 of 15 %, 13 %, 16 %, and 32% annually from 2010 through 2013. The pace so far in 2014 is another 20% increase. We have also received $397,278 of parkland dedication fees so far this year. General Fund — Expenditures Total General Fund expenditures are 70% of budget so far this year, which is lower than a 71`.5% rate a year ago. With a large percentage of our General Fund budget tied to salaries and benefits, it is common for our expenditures to be very consistent throughout the year, meaning that most years we use about 25% of our budget every quarter. A breakdown of expenditures by functional category is below. General government expenditures are 74% of budget so far this year, which is the same as last year. While the overall spending is similar to last year, there is a big increase in severance expenses, with vacation and sick time payouts of about $360,000 this year. Although, these expenditures are higher than budgeted, the excess is paid for by assigned fund balance.that we hold in the general fund for this purpose. Public safety expenditures are 68.5% of budget for 2014, which is lower than the 2013 rate of 72 %. Many of the retirements that cause severance expenses also reduce ongoing salary and benefits expenditures. Several of these retirements happened over the past year in the PD and FD, which were affected by pension rule changes effective July 1, 2014. Public works expenditures total 70% of budget for 2014, which is higher than the 2013 rate of 65% but still below the expected expenditure rate. The low expenditure rate is partially due to the Street Maintenance Division in the Public Works Department getting a late start on street maintenance because of the late spring we had this year, similar to last year. Parks and recreation expenditures are 69% of budget in 2014, which is a little lower than the 2013 rate of 70 %. The parks department can have a spending pattern that is somewhat seasonal, and it can vary from year to year and quarter to quarter. Other expenditures increased from the prior year due to timing differences in overall ,insurance payments: Finance distributes these insurance expenditures to other departments through our Central Services function at the end of the year as part of the annual audit process, and large variances during the year can be common. G:\P &L's \Quarterly Financial Update\2014 \Quarterly Update.docx 1 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA `': tt1 Quarterly Financial Update °" . September 2014 General Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the nine months ended September 30, 2014 2014 2013 Over/ Increase/ Budget Actual (Under) Actual (Decrease) Revenues:' Property taxes (1) $ 22,390,403 $ 11,019,679 $ (11,370,724) $ 10,787,547 $ 232,132 Franchise fees 770,000 1 402,087 . (367,913) 389,032 13,055 Licenses and permits (2) 3,277,865 3,439,748 161,883 2,860,736 579,012 Intergovernmental (3) 1,093,500 365,521 (727,979) 409,335 (43,814) Charges for service 4,132,766 2,619,005 (1,513,761) 2,164,516 454,489. Fines and forfeitures 950,000 639,627 (310,373) 677,876 (38,249) Other revenues 551,100 735;761 184,661 480,003 255,758 Total revenues 33,165,634 19;221,428 (13,944,206) 17,769,045 1,452,383 Expenditures: Administration 1,6801;069 1,151,765 (528,304) 1,046,345 105,420 Comm & tech services 998,357 783,024 (215,333) 670,694 112,330 Human resources 477,487 339,844 (137;643) 389,836 (49,992) Severance 200,000 359,346 159,346 251,655 107,691 Finance 884,509 590,921 (293,588) 540,775 50,146 Community development 1,595,031 1,082;255 (512,776) 1,034,216 48,039 Public works 8,266,220 5,810,674 (2,455,546) 5,182,266 628,408 Engineering 1,607,798 1,062,608 (545,190) 1,078,954 (16,346) Police 10,166,166 7,087,322 (3,078,844) 6,917,637 169,685 Fire 6,697;458 4,468,311 (2,229,147) 4,451,822 16,489 Parks & recreation 1,357,639 932,388 (425,251) 919,261 13,127. Other - 110,133 110,133 256,924 (146,791) Total expenditures 33,930,734 23,778,591 (10,152,143) 22,740,385 1,038,206 Revenues over (under) expenditures (765,100) (4,557,163) (3,792,063) (4,971,340) 414,177 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in (out) Liquor fund (4) 765,100 - (765,100) - - Other - (2,049,968) (2,049,968) (1,697,872) (352,096) Parkland dedication - 397,278 397,278 - 397,278 Total other financing sources 765,100 (1,652,690) (2,417,790) (1,697,872) 45,182 Net increase, (decrease) in fund balance $ - $ (6,209,853) $ (6,209,853) $ (6,669,212) $ 459,359 1 The City receives the first property tax payment from the County in June and the second payment in December. 2 The licenses and permits category includes building,permits. 3 The intergovernmental category includes,grants from Federal, state and county sources. Generally,, most of the;grants the.City, receives are reimbursement grants, which means that if grant revenue increases, expenditures must also increase by an equal or greater amount. 4 The annual liquor fund transfer is always made in,December. G:\P &L's \Quarterly Financial Update\2014 \Quarterly Update.docx 2 491N�.r oe En r` )0 2014-15 City of Edina Strategic Priorities The City of Edina's mission is to provide effective and valued services, maintain a sound public infrastructure, offer premier public facilities and guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improves the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. Our vision is to be the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business distinguished by: • A livable environment • Effective and valued city services • A sound public infrastructure • A balance of land uses, and • Innovation The City of Edina is known for excellent city services and sound fiscal management. Our ongoing work will contribute this tolradition. In addition to our core services, the Council has identified six priorities for the 2014 -15 biennial budget in support of our mission and vision: • Community Vision • Infrastructure • Commercial and.Mixed Use Redevelopment • Workforce • Communication and Engagement • Aviation Noise These themes will guide our organization as we identify projects and prioritize our work. 1 Community Vision A clear vision of a desired future will help focus our daily efforts and sustain a high quality of life. A vision for the community through the year 2040 that reflects the unique character, values and priorities of our citizens and stakeholders will be developed, Broad community participation will be central to our effort and critical to its ultimate success. • Future • Values • 2040- or date certain in the future • Priorities Goals Identify consulting partner by 3/1/14. (Admin) Complete visioning process by 12/1/14. (Admin) Approve community vision by 3/1/15. (Adm Other: No update. Key Performance Indicators • A Vision Plan will be in place prior to next Comprehensive Plan update. • 1200 citizens involved in a community process to create a vision. Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Completed. Council work session was held in January to clarify goals. Consultant RFI was issued in March. Future IQ selected as consultant in June. Held "think tank" workshop scheduled for September 9 and 11 with 110 participants. Will hold workshops with several community groups over the next two months including, LWV, Edina Chamber, Rotary, 501h and France Business Association, Edina Schools, St. Patrick's and Wooddale churches and several neighborhood associations. Three sessions for the general public are scheduled for November. No update. 2 W Infrastructure Description Key Performance Indicators The City is committed to preserving and expanding infrastructure • Construction Fund structural deficit eliminated by 3/1/20. systems to maintain reliability and quality, and to meet the • Centennial Lakes TIF spending plan adopted and demands of expansion and redevelopment. This will be implemented by 12/31/15. accomplished through a long -term financing plan that balances . Municipal facilities upgrade scope finalized by 12/31/15. prudence and community expectations. • 25,000 feet of bicycle improvements and 5,200 feet of • Financing sidewalks are completed each year. • Preservation • Expansion Goals Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Convert a half million in unreserved General Fund balance to The 2015 proposed budget includes significant increases in operating budget by tightening revenue and expenditure estimates general fund revenue estimates, license and permit revenue in and increasing construction fund line item over the two year particular. The proposed budget also allocates an additional period. (Finance) $625,000 of the property tax levy to fund equipment replacement in the construction fund. Meet with Utility companies once each year to assess future plans Engaging in on -going discussions with all utility companies to and to advocate for interests of Edina residents and businesses. continue assessing future plans. (Engineering) Complete physical evaluation of all City buildings and facilities in Completed. A physical evaluation of all City buildings and order to develop a comprehensive maintenance plan and facilities has been completed. In conjunction with the Energy and replacement schedule by 6/30/14. (Public Works) Environment Commission Building subcommittee, preparations are being made for a comprehensive maintenance and replacement plan that focuses on energy efficiency improvements. Complete Living Streets Plan by 12/31/14 Living Streets Plan chapters are in draft form. Street and related projects: (Engineering) types /network and design guidelines were shared with Council at France Ave pedestrian crossings by 12/31/14 July 1 work session, with the ETC in July and with the Planning 54th Street by 12/31/14 Commission in August. The Sidewalk Facilities Plan will be Tracy Avenue plan by 12/31/15 presented for amendment into the Comprehensive Plan at public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council on October 22 and November 3, respectively. The revised plan is to present the final Living Streets Plan to Council for approval by March, 2015. France Ave pedestrian crossings project is substantially complete. The majority of the landscaping has been installed and the contractor continues to install light bases and electrical facilities. The light poles are scheduled for installation in early December due to fabrication time. Tracy Avenue. Project from Benton to TH62 is scheduled for a feasibility study in 2015 and construction in 2016. Engineering met with residents on Septembers 29 to discuss our typical street reconstruction process. Complete drivingrange and cart path projects at Braemar Golf Driving Range architect was hired on April-1. Spring and Summer Course by 12/31/15. (Parks & Rec) rains delayed the watershed /Army Corps of Engineers permitting process. Summer and Fall 2015 construction is planned. Staff is working on permit approvals. Cart path design will be included in the master planning process which began in September, 2014.: Complete Parks Master Plan by 12/31/14 (Parks & Rec) Confluence was hired to complete the Strategic Plan. The Plan will be completed by late spring 2015. This project was delayed slightly due to other substantial departmental. projects. Adopt and implement Centennial Lakes TIF spending plate -by Included as part of proposed CIP. 12/31/15 (Admin) Finalize southeast Edina sanitary sewer capacity study by 4%1/14 Completed. Study has been�completed and will be used for CIP for inclusion.in the CIP. (Engineering) planning purposes. Complete construction of the sports dome by the end of 2014. Project is on schedule and projected to be on budget. A (Parks & Rec) December 5 Grand Opening is being tentatively planned. Pamela construction was delayed due to weather and watershed Permit approval. Pamela construction started in September. The shelter building will be constructed in Spring of 2015. Site work not completed this fall will be completed in the spring and early summer of 2015. Other :' No update: Commercial and Mixed Use Redevelopment Description Key Performance Indicators Development and renewal of commercial and residential areas is • Public parking capacity at 501h and France is increased by essential to the on -going health of the city. The City will focus on 20 %. The perception of parking availability at 501h and France the 50th & France and Grandview areas to create maximum is improved. Ground broken for redevelopment of parking positive impact. Tax increment financing and other tools will be facility by 12/31/14. used to provide incentives to develop in ways consistent with the . Grandview redevelopment plan executed with final public City's land use, transit, density and health goals. space plan by 12/31/15. • 50th & France • France Ave pedestrian plan improvements completed by • Grandview 12/31/14. • TIF • Redevelopment roadway improvements substantially • Transit /Land use /Density /Health completed for Hazelton by 12/31/14. Goals Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Complete plans to expand North Ramp and plan improvements at Construction related to parking ramp restoration, streetscape other ramps by 12/31/14. Complete ramp projects by 12/31/15. improvements and wayfinding systems began in June 2014. Work (Admin) is on schedule for substantial completion in October 2014. South ramp elevator scheduled for installation in Spring 2015. Expansion of North Ramp will be on hold until the needs are re- evaluated after the wayfinding and policy improvements. Implement ramp demand management system by 5/31/14. Changes to employee permit parking implemented in May; (Admin) adjustments, if necessary will be considered in Q4 2014. The wayfinding system is on schedule for substantial completion in October 2014. Complete small area plan for Wooddale and Valley View by WVV small area plan kickoff meeting was held on June 18. Small 12/31/14 and Cahill and 70th Street by 12/31/15. (Comm.Dev) area planning team members were appointed in July and Peter Musty LLC selected as the consultant in July. Two community workshops are scheduled for Oct 11 (Discover) and November 8 (Dream), as well as a community update on December 3. Completion of the plan is expected in early 2015. Approve redevelopment plan for former public works site by Request for Interest from Development Partner (RFI) was issued 7/1/14; complete project by 12/31/15. (Admin) in June 2014. Currently working with on an agreement with Frauenshauh, the developer selected by the Council, to facilitate the engagement process and create development scenarios for the site. Preferred partner selected in September based on ten responses to the June RFL Formal agreement anticipated in November with completion of redevelopment plan anticipated Summer 2015. Approve redevelopment agreement with the School District for the The City and SD273 approved joint agreement to work current School District bus barn site by both the City and the cooperatively in March 2014. Talks continue and agreement School by July 1, 2014. (Admin) anticipated in late 2014. Work with 50th and France property owners on redevelopment The owners of 3939 W. 50th building have delayed the fagade projects. (Admin) remodel until summer.2015. The fagade of the Edina Liquor store will also be updated at thattime. The vacant building at the SW corner of 49 -1/2 & France has sold and is being remodeled into offices by the new owner. The owners of Hooten Cleaners are working through a lease issue so that the property can be sold to the City. Purchase is still likely but delayed until tenant issue is resolved. Outline development goals-and incentives related to sustainability, Given the Planning Commission's heavy work load, this issue has health and transit/connectivity-by 12/31/15. (Community Dev) not been addressed in detail. Negotiations continue it as part of a PUD. This has been placed on the 2015 work plan again-to provide clear direction on what the city would like to achieve in these areas. Master redevelopment plan for Pentagon Park approved by Preliminary site plan approval and PUD zoning was granted in 12/31/14. (Comm D_ ev) March 2014. A full TIF redevelopment agreement was completed in May 2014. The developer continues to move ahead with redevelopment plans for each portion of the site. The south parcel will be cleared in late 2014, ahead of the original schedule. .Other: Staff continues to work on a number of redevelopment projects, primarily in the Greater Southdale area. These include: former Wicks /Borofkas Furniture on York Avenue which was approved for mixed -use apartment building in June 2014; 7200 France which is in early stages of design for a mixed -use apartment building; Beacon low- income youth housing which was given preliminary approvaf in Sept 2014; remodeling and addition to the Yorktown Continental apartments; possible expansion of Galleria shopping center, new medical office building at 66th and France and new restaurant at 7690 France. Staff also maintains ongoing communication with representatives of the Lincoln Corporate Center (Lincoln Ave & -Bren Road) which is bank -owned and vacant. Workforce Description Key Performance Indicators High quality service delivery requires skilled employees who are • Affordability of family insurance improves to meet average properly deployed. The City supports high performance staffing for comparison cities by end of 2016 -2017 budget cycle. approaches and the recruitment and retention of well - qualified • Customer service evaluation scores on 2015 Quality of Life employees. To support these efforts, the organization will provide Survey continue to be 90% or better positive ratings with competitive compensation and benefits packages. "excellent" ratings increasing to 30 %. • Staffing and resource allocation • An employee engagement baseline measurement is • Recruitment & retention established through an employee engagement survey • Compensation and benefits Goals Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Restructure employee benefit program by 9/1/2014. (HR) Complete. HR has worked with the Employee Advisory Committee to make significant changes for 2015 benefit to shift contribution dollars towards higher insurance costs (i.e. family /dependent coverage). The result is a significant increase in affordability of health insurance for all full -time employees. We have also ensured that all full -time employees will receive long -term disability coverage. We are on track to meet the goal of meeting the average for comparison cities by 2017. Allocate $150,000 in operating budget each benefit year towards Completed. our benefit plans. (Finance) Develop employee engagement survey and measure every two Completed. In the process of sharing results with City staff. years starting in 2014. (Admin) Develop and implement customer service standards and related The team is currently working on training content which is training organization -wide by 12/31/15. (Admin) scheduled to be piloted in December. Incorporate defined values into hiring process by 3/1/14 and Completed. Edina IQS hiring process was developed and performance management system by 3/1/15. (Admin /HR) reviewed with ELT. HR led a training session on values -based hiring for managers. The first group of employee volunteers was trained in September and now panels are now being incorporated into the hiring process. Develop standard onboarding and leadership training by 12/31/15. The training being developed by the customer service team will (Admin /HR) also be used for onboarding new employees starting in first quarter of 2015. Other: No update. Communication and Engagement Description Key Performance Indicators To clearly understand community needs, expectations and • At least 85% of residents will continue to respond positively opinions, the City will consistently seek the input of a broad range when asked if they felt they could have a say in local of stakeholders in meaningful and interactive communication. government in the 2015 Quality of Life Survey. Efforts to engage the community will utilize multiple platforms, be . Residents will continue to prefer a City communications tool informative, transparent, responsive, and will involve volunteers as their primary information source for City news in the 2015 and city commissions. Quality of Life survey. • Coordinated • The number of City Extra subscribers will increase by 25% • Multi - platform from 8/1/13 to 12/31/15. • Strategic • 90% of participants on boards, commissions, advisory groups • Transparent and task forces rate their overall experience positively. • Two -way, interactive, inviting • Ten neighborhood associations will be recognized by • Accessible 12/31/15. • Comprehensive, informative • Registered users of City of Edina websites or fans /followers • Timely will increase by 20% from 8/1/13 to 12/31/15. Goals Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Host and promote Speak Up Edina topic monthly. (CTS) Successful online discussions have been held since January 2014. Communications Coordinator Jordan Gilgenbach reports survey results and participation each month to the City Council. The monthly discussions have spawned other discussions, including ones on parking at 50`h & France, the Capital Improvement Program and repurposing of Fred Richards Executive Golf Course. Use "telephone town hall" meeting or live social media chat at State of the Community held in February and March 2014. least once per year. (CTS) Telephone town hall or live social media chat to be scheduled in second half of the year. Develop plan to promote City Extra by 3/1/14 and implement by The first e- version of Edina Liquor Uncorked was emailed using 6/1/14. (CTS) Mail Chimp earlier this month. Work has begun to make Friday Report an e- newsletter. Identify and train communication coordinators in each department An internal Communications Advisory Team (CAT) will be formed by 6/1/14. (CTS) in the latter half of 2014 to aid the Communications staff. Staff members from throughout the organization have been trained on Train key City staff on public engagement methods by 12/1/14 (Ad min) Prioritize needs for mobile apps and implement at least one mobile reporting app by 7/1/14. (CTS) Develop and implement survey for volunteer participants and exit surveys for board and commission members by 3/1/14. (Admin) the City's content management system. Those people represent the Human Resources Department, Parks & Recreation Department, Edina Art Center, Braemar Arena, Braemar Golf Course, Centennial Lakes Park, Edina Liquor and Edinborough Park. No update. The City launched its first mobile app, Edina To Go, in June. The requests for service reported through the app feed into the existing work order system in the Public Works Department. As of October 1, the app has been installed more than 800 times. Developed and implemented survey for departing board and commission members and shared results with Council. Will be using the same survey for Grandview CAT, Braemar Task Force and WVV Small Area Planning Team as these citizen advisory groups complete their service. held on May 17. Other: - Workshop for residents interested in organizing a neighborhood Note: The Key Performance Indicator for "Registered users of City of Edina websites or fans /followers will increase by 20% from 8/1/13 to 12/31/15" has largely been met. Growth is still needed for the City Facebook page. www.EdinaMN.gov Aug. 1, 2013_ July 1; 2014 Change 2,241 4,455 +98.8 SpeakUpEdina.org July 17, 2013 July 7, 2014 October 15, 2014 Change 267 -626 . 98 161.4% Social, Media Site July 29, 2013* July 1, 2014 ctober 15, 2014 Change City Twitter 3,212 4,247 (July 7, 2014) ,539 +41.3% Scott Neaftwitter 127 (Oct. 25, 2013) 278 (July 7, 2014) 33- +162.2% City Facebook 5,453 5,816 ,026 +10.5% Braemar Arena, , 310 486 10 - +22.7% 9 Braemar Golf Course 442 597 43 +45.5% Braemar Field (started in 2014) n/a 9 n/a Centennial Lakes Park 1,577 2,100 ,284 +44.8% 1,036 Edina Art Center 552 702 60 +37.7% Edina Aquatic Center 759 938 +36.5% Edina. Liquor 200 237 323 +61.5% Edina Senior Center (started'in 2014) 14 18 n/a Edin borough: Park 2,817 3,672 3,865 +37.2% * Unless otherwise noted 10 Aviation Noise Description Key Performance Indicators Changes in flight patterns from the Minneapolis -Saint Paul • Achieve an outcome generally acceptable to the City. International Airport over the community negatively affect the • Relationships with neighbors are not negatively impacted quality of community life. We are committed to influencing the by efforts. outcome of decisions, mitigating the impacts to the community, • New positive relationships with MAC, FAA and the airlines and working with our neighboring communities to find the best are established. possible solutions. • Mitigating impact • Influencing outcome • Working with /partnering with the cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Goals Progress Report as of September 30, 2014 Average daily overflights of the City do not exceed their 2012 No update. levels. (Comm Dev) Average daily aviation noise levels in the City do not exceed 2012 The City obtained noise monitors to establish a benchmark levels. (Comm Dev) measurement and average daily noise levels. The hybrid RNAV solution endorsed by the MAC in 11/2012 is MAC completed a two week aviation noise testing procedure in implemented. (Comm Dev) two Edina locations in September. Staff expects to receive the results and analysis of the tests in November 2014. Other: City Council members and City staff traveled to Washington D.C. March 8 -12th to meet with Senator Klobuchar and staff liaisons for Representatives Paulson, Ellison, Franken, and Nolan, as well staff from the Majority Senate Aviation Subcommittee and Majority and Minority House Aviation Subcommittee, to discuss RNAV implementation, reauthorization of the FAA budget bill, potentially removing RNAV from the list of categorical exclusions (CATEX), requiring the FAA to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments prior to RNAV implementation, and building local community engagement into all NextGen projects. Edina joined the National Organization for a Sound Controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E) and members of the D.C. delegation participated in the 2014 N.O.I.S.E. Legislative Summit on May 9th, where legislative priorities were set for the current session. City Council Members and staff continue to work with neighboring communities and MAC to discuss noise mitigation strategies. City of Edina hosted the NOC cities meeting in August. 11 City Hall o Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: October 21, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Work Session - Tree Preservation Ordinance On May 6, 2014, the City Council tabled consideration of and Ordinance Amendment regarding tree preservation to a future Work Session to discuss further with the Planning Commission. In preparation for the work session attached are the following background materials: ®- CityrCouncil minutes from the May 6, 2014 discussion. . • The draft ordinance that was considered. i A revised ordinance based on the City Council discussion on May 6 •. The Original City Council packet including Planning Commission ..minutes. • City of Minnetonka's Ordinance. S A basic Edina vs. Minnetonka ordinance comparison. City of Edina 4801 W. 501h St. Edina, MN 55424 V, B. GRAND RESIDENTIAL SURVEY "FINAL REPORT, MORRIS AND PETER LEATHERMAN, MORRIS LSAT MAN COMPANY - RECEIVED Bill Morris, Morris Leather Company, presented Nights of the Grandview Residential Survey final report that involved 400 random ina househ with a non - response rate of less than 3%. The survey related to the development of the w area and values that residents held for public lands in general. Dr. Morris stated that the s ey ults indicated the public needs more information about the Grandview Redevelopment Fram ork, there i pport for mixed use with emphasis on the "public side of things" and "intense oppo ' ion" to apartments, a a referendum for a general obligation bond - funded community center wou of pass at this point in time. The Council re ' wed the survey results, asked questions of Mr. Mo?N6, and thanked Mr. Morris and Mr. Leathermaeor their work on this report. Vl. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD— Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -06 — AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE III OF THE CITY CODE, REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION — TABLED Planning Commission Working Group Presentation Planning Commissioner Platteter described the consideration of the Working Group and recommendation for an ordinance amendment addressing tree preservation and replacement for demolition permits, building additions, and building accessory structures. Planning Commissioner Platteter answered questions of the Council relating to the recommendation for a 2 -for -1 tree replacement requirement, caliper requirement for replacement of a significant tree, definition of replacement trees and protected trees, ability to enforce, methods of application, and option to define a basic removal area (i.e., within ten feet of the building pad). Planning Commissioner Platteter advised of input from builders in opposition to this amendment and suggested the City consider a boulevard (public space) strategy to maintain tree canopy. The Council agreed with the importance of finding balance points between property. rights and protection of the City.'s tree canopy. The option was raised to regulate by listing trees that were not allowed, instead of listing trees that were acceptable, in an effort to provide more flexibility for replacement tree species. Community Development Director Teague stated staff received a landscape plan associated with a building permit but generally, when a site was cleared for construction, the property owner replanted trees that were removed, though of a smaller caliper. He addressed the issue of staffing, noting the City Forester works 34 hours a week and had indicated enforcement of this ordinance amendment would require an additional part-time staff position. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Public Testimony Lori Grotz, 5513 Park Place, addressed the Council. Pam Starkey, 5331 Oaklawn Avenue, addressed the Council. Dianne Plunkett Latham, 7013 Comanche Court, addressed the Council. Frank Lorenz, 7151 York Avenue South, Unit 720, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /May 6, 2014 Forester Horvath addressed issues raised during public testimony relating to cost and timing to replant a large tree, potential City liability if regulating tree placement, and difficult predictability of tree impact. He recommended including the State of Minnesota list of invasive trees within the ordinance. Mr. Horwath stated his concern relating to the amount of time enforcement would require and indicated he had not found tree replacement to be a major concern as property owners were not often cutting down significant trees unnecessarily. The Council continued discussion of the amendment and asked questions of Mr. Teague and Mr. Neal. The Council discussed the merits of the Minnetonka tree preservation ordinance in terms of clarity of definitions, reasonable scope, and general tree protection standards in addition to preservation rules. The Council expressed support for the concept of a tree preservation ordinance and asked for additional staff input on the most logical method to preserve the City's tree canopy, whether home additions should be excluded, how to define a basic removal radius, whether lot size should be a factor in terms of replacement ratios, how to limit. the City's costs, and boulevard replanting strategy. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, tabling consideration of Ordinance No. 2014 -06, Amendment to Chapter 10, Article III of the City Code, Regarding Tree Preservation, to a future Work Session. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VI.B. . COMPREHENSI GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PUD REZONING, PR MINARY DEVELOPMENT P LENNAR CORPORATION, 6725 YORK AVENUE AND 6712, 67 , 6704, 6700, AND 6628 XERXES A UE — RESOLUTIONS NO. 2014-51 AND 2014 -52 — ADOPT Mayor Hovland recognized elect Richfield officials who were in attendance. Mr. Teague: presented the request of Le ar Corporation for /Comprehensi nsi Plan Amendment to change the building height from fo ur stories and 4 feet to six storie• oor area ratio from 1.0 to 1.27; and, . reguiding the Land Use Plan for the ive single - famrom Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. He reported on ncerns of Ridents on the east side of Xerxes Avenue with the proposed setbacks. It was note the traffcluded the existing roadways and parking could support this project and recommende reatin .into the site on York Avenue. Mr. Teague advised that the Planning Commission cmmended, on a split vote, approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and denial of the re li ary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan based on the layout of the project. Mr. Te ue indica d the proponent had revised the plans by reducing the size of the retail space; expandin a width of the oulevard along York Avenue, shifting the entire building ten feet to the west; and, cr ting additional setba s (eight feet) on the top floor corners of the building facing Xerxes Avenue Staff recommended ap oval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning, a Preliminary Development Plan er the findings and conditions as outlined in the draft resolutions. f approved, the developer would required to return for Final Rezoning to PUD; Final Develop ent Plan; and, Ordinance amendment crea ' g the new PUD District. In addition, a City Code amend nt would be needed to allow R -1 property to be nsidered for a.PUD. The Council addressed t indication of the Edina Housing Foundation that 20% affol� able housing was a trigger for federal mo ey and the Council had expressed interest in pursuing that type of project where funding could be m imized. Peter Ch ielewski described projects undertaken and managed by Lennar Corporation. Page 4 I Draft Draft ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: 5_ 04�. Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute I the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city t The purpose of the ordinance is to:i a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city b. Protect.and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree populatioh � c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visito and wildlife r e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater byt tabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effects f�Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducir compacted fill and excavation near tree roots (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, tcedar, elm; hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silve Imaple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. (Measured at 6' and over at Diameter at Breast Heieht (DBH) F Existing text = XXXX Stricken text —XYXX Added text — XXXX b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources .r (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventor plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, heal and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected rees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and si; I all replacement tree(s) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must replaced with two (2) trees, subject to the following conditions:[ a. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases orb_ infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in calipe for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous tre dd. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester befo implementation .[— e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must k placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Foresters (5) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new remodeled building] b. Within driveways and parking areas. tected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced wit (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and thee— ditions listed in subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 4 above F_ Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text - XXXX Added text — XXXX (6) Removable Trees five inches (5 ") or less in caliper may be removed for anyl development or building permit, without replacement. If a Removable Tree greater than five inches (5 ") is removed, it must be replaced with one tree, and subjec� t for the conditions is paragraph 4 above. If a Protected Tree is dead, diseased or hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal J:7)[D uringlthe demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not H leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury i u,a 1i - r� to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must. indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject, to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for all projects with( I Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are I established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during. construction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (CMP) (8) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy_set forth in paragraphs I(4) above. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First, Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text - XXXX Added text — XXXX DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2014- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION Ill. TREE PROTECTION 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance appli I o all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool., (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribut to the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city T� purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the istinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d.�improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visito and wildlife.[ e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing. oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater byy stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect r f__Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducin compacted fill and excavation near tree roots F (2) Definitions: . a.�Protected Tree: Any tree that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets one of the following: Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX U A a decidiuous tree that is at least 15 inches dbh, except box elders, e poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust, fruit tree species, and mul ii. a coniferous tree that is at least 20 feet in height. emovable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, o i +as defined a n invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural R, esources. 3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventor plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, heal and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected rees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and si; of all replacement tree(s) 4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (5), it must replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the following conditions:r a. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5') in calipe for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous tre Replacement tree plans are sub mplementation F to approval by the City. Forester If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester (5) Protected Trees may be removed without mitigation, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or,, remodeled building. b. Within a ten -foot (10') radius of driveways and parking areas. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 2 6) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall nc leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent inj I o the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subje to staff review and approval., (7)� If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitte ?t Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in pai 1(4) above. Section 2. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Subsection 32 -7. (Subdivisions.) Variances are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 32 -7. Variances. (a) Grant by Council. In connection with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision the Council may ;grant variances from the provisions of this Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual hardship exists as to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that: r.d h• is „ The h ee; (1) a s p a„�e�e -i tEe er�Tee haFds to the ALTTTre a physi•eaiSa gS, shape vT +.,r.9gFanhaeal r R di+ir.., r.f +hr. 1-. „,d. (3) The n.dition er conditions upen ..hieh the request fer °cd a - unique to the prep .'Fty being platted - -hdiyi,.I rv. r , (5) The variance ..ill result in an iwAnrr.ved plat °r r--hrlivirir.n; and (6) The yaFi- Ree - if ..FaRtr.rl will Ret- alt -per +hr. essential e-hayareter r.f +hr. I -,...d T°7�'c- varrarr , , ..ithir. the nl-.+ r. "h.di..i-;iAR r, r the r ghl .eFhr r rl Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Added text, after May 6 - XXXX 3 (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting th property such that the strict application of the provisions of this titl Would deprive the applicant reasonable use of their land. (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the publi health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territor in w ihich property is situated. (3) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extrem physical hardship such as topography, etc. A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. (b) Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and objectives of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions may be made a part of any Development Contract required by article IV of this chapter. ,(c) Variances from Section 36. When Variances are requested from Section 361 luirements for lot areas and dimensions, the Planning Commission and City uncil may consider the following criteria in addition to Section 36 -98: (1) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed I on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as I videnced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters:) a The suitability of the size and shape of the lots in the proposed pli or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in th `ghborhood; and b. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed 'development, on the environment. including but not limited to. Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXXX ' Added text — XXXX Added text after May - XXXX topography, .steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. (3) The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plan or subdivision, and r the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of : the Comprehensive Plan. (4) The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of chapter 36 including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the floodplain overlay district provisions of chapter 36. (5) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. (6) The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with anyI easements of record or on the ground. (7) The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets F— (S) The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the++ conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in urrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny) public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. (9) The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. (10) The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision Existing text — XXXX 5, . Stricken text —?r Added text — XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX 1 1 1 (11) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial; environmental damage., Section 4. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 32 -130. Considerations. The impaet the development, (I) ef ff9pesed plat eF subdivision, and PFOPesed en by, but net limited te, the fellewing FnatteFS: ndicated The suitability ef the size and shape ef the let--; on the PFepesed plat OF siavLd rry relative to the maize -a and shape e�-Ivis l nz+ the n a iShb e ie a d; and Existing text - XXXX 6 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX ( n „5) The : -..+ of the plat n UbdiViS:nn � nd nrnnncnd deVelepffi .nr en the T health, safety and geneFal Welfare- ief *-he pUblffie. _ 6) The Fe1a hip of f the sate, OF the : nn +r- sip o n and nd fl +l. P- niet of such d„ �^�°� n+. with aRy easements of r nrd nr nn the gFOUPA-. (1 -1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property, is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. ( -12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. j3) Comply with Section 10 -82. ( B) Wh th then .. nd plat n 'ubd::r:nn ,n OF the : nrn�in vn nntc�_r�r� posed to be � p! aced theFeen - ar'e li'reiy- t$Eause substantial n c nv'irrnvnrrrvrrncn n +�I d� - ccnva r n o� Existing text - XXXX 7 Stricken text - XXFX Added text -XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX �rww'�rKr�xn�wa�w�rr._ (1 -1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property, is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. ( -12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. j3) Comply with Section 10 -82. ( B) Wh th then .. nd plat n 'ubd::r:nn ,n OF the : nrn�in vn nntc�_r�r� posed to be � p! aced theFeen - ar'e li'reiy- t$Eause substantial n c nv'irrnvnrrrvrrncn n +�I d� - ccnva r n o� Existing text - XXXX 7 Stricken text - XXFX Added text -XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Added text after May 6 - XXXX i Minnetonka vs. Edina Tree Ordinance Comparison Ordinance Edina Propose Minnetonka Provision Application Applies to all building permits Applies to all building permits, subdivisions, variances, CUP, vacant properties Tree Plan Required Certified tree inventory Tree preservation plan Definition Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, Significant tree — a tree that is balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, structurally sound and health and that is elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, either a deciduous tree at least 8" dbh or locust, maple (except silver maple), coniferous tree at least 15' tall Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. (Measured at 6" and over at High priority tree = a tree that is not in a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). woodland preservation area but, is still important.to the „site and the Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as neighborhood! character that is a Protected Tree, or as defined as an structurally sound and healthy, and meets invasive species by the Minnesota. the following: deciduous 15” dbh except Department of Natural Resources: box elders, elm, poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust. Amur maple, fruit tree, mulberry and Norway maple. Coniferous 20' tall Replacement 1 for 1 in building area and, driveway; 2 1 for 1 outside of the building area Required for 1 outside building area nd driveway and driveway (size requirement varies, 2 inch for significant tree and to 1 -1/4 inch to 3 inch for high priority tree) Minimum Lot Size 9,000 s.f. (generally) 22,000 square feet Staff Review 200 -300 per year (80% time forester + 100 per year (full time 2+ staff) applications staff) Site Plan Layout No — tree location not required on survey Yes, requires site design, including requirements for single family homes building placement and size, to avoid high priority trees. City may specify site layout. Limits subdivision No Yes, limits number of lots based upon lots the existing tree removal .Required escrow No Yes deposit for mitigated trees. Specify time No Yes _ requirements when trees can be cut or trimmed Specify trees or No Yes groups of trees for reservation ,4n�, -��k°� T ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -24 `AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE §300.28,.SUBD.19 REGARDING TREE PROTECTION The City of Minnetonka Ordains: Section 1. , Existing city. code §300.28, subd. 19, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, is repealed, and a. new city rode §300,28, subd. 19 is -adopted to read as follows: 19. Tree Protection. . 1) prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compaction, filling or excavation. near tree roots; 2) prevent or reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and stormwater runoff, j 3) improve air Quality and reduce noise pollution: 4) enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading: 5) control the urban heat island effect: 6) increase and maintain property values: 7 maintain buffers between similar land uses and establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses, and 8) preserve as much as practical the diversity and extent of the trees and woodlands that are an integral part of this ci s identif y, while allowing reasonable development and allowing existing homeowners freedom to use their land. b Definitions. For the purpo§es of this subdivision certain terms and words are defined as follows: The stF!Gkee language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. J floodplain areas with severe flooding, the understory will be sparsely vegetated. Trees in the understory include saplings from the canopy species, green ash, black willow, slipperV elm, American elm, boxelder, and hackbemr; b. "lowland hardwood forest" - an area with a flat terrain populated by understory is typically dense and can include ironwood, pagoda dogwood, prickly ash, American hazelnut, gray dogwood, and speckled alder Well. Trees in the uriderttoCVJr clude saplings from the canopy species: butternut, blacK cherry, and ironwood. The large shrub or small tree layer of the understoryjd�domnosed of primarily tree seedlings and herbaceous plants: d. "m'eslc oak forest"— an area populated by tall, single.stemmed sensitive species such as basswood, preen ash, bitternut hickory, big- toothed aspen, butternut northern pin oak, black cherry, paper birch, American'elm, boxelder and red maple. The large shrub or small tree layer in the understory tends to be sparse with greater herbaceous plant diversity but can include ironwood, chokecherry, prickly ash, American iunebeny hazelnut, prickly gooseberry, /serviceberry. and pagoda dogwood'; red - berried. elder, nannvberm UUIU WIVKU'UMfIY, The P -I-*wee language is deleted; the underlined language is in-co.rted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 4 f. "tamarack swamp" — an area that is a forested wetland community trees in the understory include saplings from the canopy and the large shrub or small tree layer can include speckled alder and red osier dogwood: or in the understory include saplings from the canopy and the large. shrub or small tree laver can include several species of willow and dogwood. $10) "High priority tree " — a tree that.is not.in a woodland preservation area but is still important to the site and the neighborhood character, that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets at least one of the following standards: a. -a deciduous tree that is at least 15 inches dbh, except box elders, . elm species, poplar species, willow, silver maple, black locust, amur maple, fruit tree species, mulberry, and Norway maple. (_iiv niithnrity Tn nrQeprva;-nrnfiPrtP`` _rl tr s ,thA -rite mav- 1) require and enforce a tree preservation plan as described in paragraph (d) below: 2) specify trees or groups of trees for preservation: 3) spedify grading limits: mits; 4) require the clustering of buildings or the relocation of roads, drives, buildings utilities or storm water facilities when this would preserve protected trees: 5) grant variances: The P'NG ee language is deleted; the underlined language is ins-erted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page b 6) specify :time periods in which tree cutting, trimming or iniury may not occur in order to prevent the spread of disease: and permit site and building plan review, wetland /floodplain alteration:permit, or building mitigation is required under (e)(1) below. if the exception applies and if the proberty owner retains a contractor to do the work, the contractor must subtnit a plan showing the proposed construction limits on the property and must not remove any"trees outside the specified construction limits. A tree preservation plan must include: 1 } a tree inventory that meets the following criteria: a. The species, sizes, and locations of high priority trees, significant trees and trees in woodland preservation areas must be shown, regardless of health. Dead or structurally unsound trees should be noted as such in the inventory: woodland preservation areas must be inventoried if they are two inches dbh or larger. C. The size of high priority trees and significant trees must be Inventoried regardless of location. d. The size of coniferous trees must be recorded in dbh and approximate height. e Invasive species such as buckthorn and honeysuckle should not be inventoried. 2) a site plan that shows the dbh location and size of the critical root zone Preservation area the trees in that woodland preservation area may ne groupea together. e) Tree Removal and Preservation. Removal of protected trees is prohibited except as follows: The F�Ileken language is deleted; the underlined language is in.erted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 2 1) Basic Tree Removal Areau`- consists-o the foilowv for accordance with a city- approvea restoration plan. 2) "Canopy" -.The uppermost layer of a forest, formed by tree crowns. 3) "Critical root zone" —the minimum area around a tree that must remain undisturbed. The critical root radius is calculated by measuring the tree's diameter at 4) "Diameter breast height (dbh)" — the diameter of a tree measured at 4.5 R1 "Prntar_fad trap" — a trap that is in n wnodland nreservation •area. or is a 6) "Redevelopment" -- reconstruction of the principal structure if it includes the removal of the principal structure by more than 50% of the square footage of the building footprint or an increase of the square footage of the building footprint by more than 50 %. i • 7) "Sapling" - A young tree. AN "I Inrlarrfnr%P - Tha traps chn the and hprharpmj.q NAM,; that prow in the cano 9) "Woodland preservation area" - a remnant woodland ecosystem that is at least two acres in size regardless of property boundaries, is generally mapped in the city's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, and although it may be degraded it generally meets the criteria for one of the following types of ecosystems as reasonably determined by the city: a. "fioodpiain forest" — an area populated by deciduous tree species The r-+ language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Ordinance No. 200 8-24 Page 6 ,1) Existing Structures. owner complies with the required tree preservation and landscape plan for the property. 2L Existing Vacant Parcels of Land: Redevelopment, Site Improvements. b. All other. zones: On property not zoned R -1, for the construction of a principal structure on a vacant lot with no principal structure, for redevelopment of an with no mitigation only: 1. within the basic tree removal area: and C. The removal of protected trees under this subsection 2 must also comply with the general removal requirements under subsection 4 below. `"''Subdivisions. 8 1. within the basic tree removal area; and 2. within the width of reauired easements for public and private streets and utilities,_ Including areas required for surface water ponding. b. If more than 35% of the site's high priority trees or more.than 25 % . of a woodland preservation area on the site are to be removed for any construction in a The P{Aeke-Ft language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 7 1. for the basic tree removal area: and 2. for the width of required easements for public and private streets and utilities, except in areas of required surface water ponding. The removal 01 must be mitigated. 2. preserving the continuity of woodland preservation areas by developing at the edges of those areas rather than at the core: 3. exercising_ good faith stewardship of the land and ,the trees both before subdivision and after, including the use of conservation easements when aappror) ate: and 4.. minimizing the impact to the character of the existing landscape and neighborhood. d. The removal of protected trees under this subsection 3 must also comply with the general removal requirements under subsection 4 below. a Principal structures and associated facilities must be located to maximize tree preservation. The city may. specify the location of the principal structures and associated facilities in order to ensure .a reasonable amount of tree preservation. b. Any tree removed outside of the specified allowable tree removal areas must be mitigated as specified below. The ,-"riGken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 8 5) ureater rupnc vooa. i ne cny councu may_aiiow i PS contrary to the provisions in subnaraaranhs (1) — (4) if it d greater public good such as: a. providing reasonable use or access to the property: b. providing affordable housing_ C. allowing for the creation or rehabilitation of a public road or trail: e. ailowina for the creation or rehabilitation of a_ .public park: or f. enabling redevelopment in a designated redevelopment area. f) Tree Mitigation. 1) When tree mitigation is required, the applicant must submit a tree mitigation plan for staff review and approval. The plan must indicate the number of inches or feet of mitigation trees, the species and quantity of each species, and the caliper size or feet and location for each replacement tree. The Plan may not be 2 S ecific mitigation standards. 'Mitigation for tree removal of trees in following specific standards; a. Mitigation rate. 1. A tree or large shrub that is -in a woodland preservation area The F+rieken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 9 in height of a coniferous tree that was removed; and 2 I nifiE5fftree2mGst be�replaced with one'two- iFfftree:" b. Mitigation species. 1. Trees and large shrubs in woodland preservation areas must be replaced with species found in that eco -type as specified on the list of acceptable 2. High prionty trees must pe replacea with species of a type that are normally found wowing in similar conditions and that are included c list of acceptable replacerrient species on file with the city; spruce, as approved by, city staff; and C. Mitigation size. 1. Replacement sizes for woodland preservation areas'and igh; prior tY.trees?Are: . not less than 7 ciallon stock for understory or small .trees and not less than 3 gallon stock for shrubbery; and c) not less than six feet but not more than eight feet in height for balled and burlapped coniferous trees; and not less than eight feet but not more than 14 feet in height for spade -moved coniferous trees. of the city, 3 Replacement size for a significant tree is not less than a two - inches dbh. 3) General mitigation standards: The 9`skee language is deleted; the underlined language is in�Prted. i Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 10 not-be required. C. Replacement trees must be planted on the same property or development area from which the trees were removed. d. A tree will be considered removed if girdled, if 30 percent or more e. Development that is subiect to landscape requirements in sections replacement trees under this section, at the city's discretion fi. The required mitigation trees must be.replaced by the current h A tree or shrub that was required by the city to be saved but was removed must be replaced at a rate of 2:1 based on dbh for deciduous saecies and height for conifers The 'city may also impose a financial penalty equal to $500.00 for each inch of dbh or foot of height removed not to exceed X5000 for each tree or shrub. g) General tree protection standards. Before construction radin or land clearin be ins the c' -a roved tree protection fencing or other method must be installed and maintained at the critical The 04oken language is deleted, the underlined language is inserted. . J Ordinance No. 2008 -24 Page 1 I by city staff before site work begins. critical root zone areas of trees to be protected. 4) An area of new or compensatory water storage may not be located where ire woodland ureservation areas. high ariority trees or sianificant trees. unless Section 2. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the penalties and provisions of Chapter XI l of the city code. Section 3. This ordinance Is effective upon adoption. Adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on August 25, 2008. I &s A. Callison, Mayor ATTEST: David E. Maeda, City Clerk ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE: Date of introduction: April 21, 2008 Date of adoption: August 25, 2008 Motion for adoption: Schneider The 04GkoR language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. i Ordinance No. 2008-24 Page 12 Seconded by: Allendorf Voted in favor of: Allendorf, Callison, Ellingson, Schneider, Wagner, Wlersum Voted against: Hiller Abstained: Absent: Ordinance adopted. Date of publication:��"` CERTIFIED COPY: I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the city council of•the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota; at a meeting held on August 25, 2008. David E. Maeda, City Clerk The 04ken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.. 5 ' Exhibit A Repealed Section §300.28, subd. W. 19. Performance Standards Regulating Tree Removal. a) Standards governing the preservation, protection, and planting of trees are necessary to: 1) prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compaction, filling or excavation near tree roots; 2) prevent or reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and stormwater runoff, i 3) Improve air quality and reduce noise pollution; i 4) enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading; 5) control the urban heat island effect; 1 6) increase and maintain property values; 7) protect privacy by maintaining buffers between, similar land uses and !' establishing and maintaining buffers between conflicting land uses; and 8). preserve the variety and extent of trees which, exist in the city and which are an integral part of this cit)(s identity. i b) A certain amount of tree removal is an inevitable consequence of the Urban development process. Nevertheless, construction of streets, utilities, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities must be located in a manner to save as many l significant trees as possible. c) In enforcing this ordinance, the city may give preference to the preservation of higher quality significant trees over less desirable trees. A tree may be, considered of higher. quality based on .its species, size, location, or other relevant factors. The city forester will establish a list of species that are considered less desirable, and this list will be kept on file in the planning department. d) The city may require that a property be rezoned and developed as a planned unit development to utilize flexible development standards to preserve significant trees; the city may require the clustering of buildings where this would preserve significant trees. e) significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas: 1) within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities and J the required areas for surface water ponding; 2) within the areas improved for reasonably -sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements; and 3) within the footprints of:buildings and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings. If'a significant tree is removed in other areas, trees must be planted to meet the number of significant trees which existed in. those other areas before development, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (f) and (g) below. f) the provision of replacement trees is subject to the following. 1)' The applicant will not be required to raise the number of trees above'25 trees per acre. 2) If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate for some or all of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. 3) In calculating the number of replacement trees, only trees meeting the minimum sizes in,subparagraph (g) below may be counted. Notwithstanding the above, any development that is subject; #o section 300.27 must meet the minimum landscape requirements of that section. g) Any trees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarily species native to the area, may not include any species that are subject to disease epidemic or. -are on the list of less desirable trees established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. They must be at.least2% inches in diameter for deciduous trees and.6 feet tall for coniferous trees, except thatfor property located in the planned: 1-394 district they must beat least M inches iri diameter for deciduous trees and 10 feet.tall for coniferous trees. The required trees must be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they die within one year after installation. h) Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion control fencing, or similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees that are to be preserved or. that are located nearby on adjacent property. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees and when the risk to the,trees designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. 1) A significant tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting -the requirements of paragraph (g) above. 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 i been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. j) The area of any compensatory water storage may not be located where there are any significant trees, unless approved by the city. The compensatory storage area must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby wetland. k) Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall _, be exempt from this subdivision, except as stated In paragraph 0) above, unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. 1 aR►GiNA�- CoJucic. PRO(CT A. i� To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item iM VIA. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director .Action Discussion ❑ Date: a;ra Inforrrtation ❑ Subject: Public Hearing —Ordinance No 2014 -6; An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10, Article III of the City Code, regarding tree preservation. Action Requested: Grant first reading of the attached Ordinance No. 2014 -6. Information / Background: Over the past several months, the Planning Commission has been considering an Ordinance Amendment regarding tree preservation and replacement for demolition permits, building additions, and building accessory structures. Planning Commissioner Michael Platteter, who along with Commission Claudia Carr led the Planning Commission Working Group through the proms, will present the Ordinance and project background to the City Council on May 6th The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: D This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. D All such permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, health, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and s4e of all replacement tree(s). Y Try to be protected under this Ordinance include: birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory. ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. 5> Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a building pad, or a 10 foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced 'I to 1. City 61 Edina • 4801 W. 501h Sr. a Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed as,part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building.pad, within '10 feet.of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced -2 to 1. ➢ Protected Trees to remain must be protected .during construction. ➢ Staff.is required to monitor all construction projects with Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are: properly established for three years. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the certified tree inventory. This would be. done by the surveyor either on the main survey submitted with the building permit, or on a separate survey. In either case, the surveyor would be responsible for siting trees on the property and developing a plan for relocation and placement of new.trees, and showing them on the survey. Ordinance Enforcement Enforcement of the Ordinance would likely require additional staffing. The city forester is currently a part time position (34 hours per week on average). The forester has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes that an additional staff person (possibly part time) would be required to adequately enforce the Ordinance, and still maintain the level of service that they currently provide. The primary focus of the forester is on the city's 600 -800 acres of public land; although he does occasionally work with residents regarding tree issues -on private property. The new ordinance would require the following additional staff review: • Review of the "tree plan" as part of the building permit. This is the review of the survey showing existing trees, those that would be removed, and those proposed to be planted. Given the last couple years of permit activity, this could be between 150 -200 permits per year; this would include new home construction after a tear down and additions to existing homes. • Inspection of each of these construction sites. To ensure compliance with the proposed plans and protection of existing trees on site. • On -going monitoring. The code requires staff monitoring for three years. Potentially, that could mean that up to 600 sites would be actively monitored. This would ultimately be a decision of. the City Council in regard to staffing. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Ordinance • Planning Commission presentation ® Planning Commission Minutes: Jan. 8 & 22, Feb. 12 & 26,.and March 12, 2014. • Staff Memo dated March 12, summarizing the Draft Ordinance :& identifying issues • ' Correspondence ORDINANCE NO. 2014-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION Ill. TREE PROTECTION .&K.19 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance �pplie� jto all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form tan integral' partof the unique character and history of the city, and that eontribut� to the long-term, aesthetic, environmental,_ and economic well -being of the city, The purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city., b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population., c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character ofEdina's neighborhoods ,d. Improve the.quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents_, visitors ,and wildlife; ie. Protect the-environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils, reducing heat convection: decreasing wind speeds; reducing poise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. #. Protect and maintain healthy trees inthe development and building permit ,processes asset forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots:, {2), Definitions; a. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam) fir, black walnut, buckeyel .cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, fbcust, maple (except silver; maple), Norway pine, gall, spruce and white pine varietie_ s. Measured at 6" prid over at Diameter at Breast Height (DB:H)i Existing text — XXXX Stricken text -XM Added text 4,x* ib. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources] �3j_ Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory, ;plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health ;and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan .must also show il� ;any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location; species and Size of all replacement tree(s) 14) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be ,replaced with two (2) trees, subject to the following conditions a; Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species - - listed above in (2) Definitions; b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or `infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. c. Replacement trees must beat least two and one -half inches (2S ") in caliper, for deciduous trees and a minim urn of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees. 4. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation: - e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be ;placer` in a public area, subject to approval by the City Fb(ester. 115) Protected Trees may be removedi in the following areas: a. 1p ludirag, and Within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or Yremodeled building; . Within driveways and parking areas. ;Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b.. above must be replaced with ,one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the ;conditions listed in subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 4 abovel !�6) Removable Trees five inches. (5") or less in caliper may be removed for any development or budding permit, without replacement. If a Removable Tree greater, Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — Added text- )(XKX' than five Inches (S ") Is removed, It must be replaced with one tree, and subject to ;the conditions is paragraph 4 above. If a Protected Tree is dead, disease_ d or !hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal, �7) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guords.or protections to prevent injury 'to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must ;indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected-during construction, subject, to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for all projects with 'affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to erasure that all such trees are' 'properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during construction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (.CMP) � !(8) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior. to the date the' ;development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these 'Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph '(4) above. - Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text —XXM Added text —lxxxx CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of . 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of .2014. City Clerk' Existing text —XXXX 4 Stricken text — Added text -XXX� Planning Commission Residential Working Group Update: Proposed Tree Ordinance October 22nd, 2014 Edina Planning Commission Otyof dlnaxom A brief refresher /history: Planning Commission Residential Working Group — work to date • Reviewed and assessed residential rebuild situation (Oct 2012 -Mar 2013). • Public input forums: two meetings and Speak Up Edina topic (Jan -Feb 2013). • Provided recommendations to City Council (Mar -July 2013). Planning Commission Residential Working Group - results • Updated Construction Management plan (Mar 2013). • Residential Redevelopment Coordinator position created (April 2013). • Code updates for residential heights, setbacks, stormwater and grading (July /Aug 2013). Item not addressed to date: Tree Ordinance Citybfed1n9,C6m i Tree Canopy: Issues Identified in Public Forums • Tree protection during construction • Concern on loss of tree canopy, quality of life issues • Environmental concerns for tree loss, including carbon sink loss, energy conservation shading effects, urban heat islands and erosion /stormwater control Tree Canopy: Approaches for Ordinance • Provide tree protection guidelines during construction • Provide tree ordinance for teardowns /lot subdivisions • Address discretionary tree removal • Require tree inventory and preservation plan • Require equivalency planting plan for trees removed CityofEdina.com Mature Tree Benefits in Edina • Provides social/health benefits to community and wildlife. • Stormwater: For 5% loss in tree cover, stormwater increases 2 %. A tree can absorb 100 gal /water per day. Filters and reduces site erosion. • Energy: Reduced "urban heat island" effect. Can reduce cooling by 30% and save 20 -50% in heating costs. • Carbon sequestration: Absorbs 48lbs CO2 /year, one ton for a 40 year old tree. Lifespan is 100 -150 years. • Air quality: Absorbs 10 lbs. of air pollutants /year • Oxygen: Produces oxygen for two people /year. • Property values: increased values between 4 -15 %. (information source: americanforests. org) CityofEdina.com What this means to Edina - Tree Loss 2008 -2014 • A robust tree canopy is a defining element of our neighborhoods; loss of tree canopy means loss of neighborhood character. • There have been 450 +/- residential Teardowns in Edina plus numerous major remodeling projects. At an estimated loss of two mature trees per teardown, and many have had more trees removed: ■ Over 900 mature trees removed from Edina in the past six years ■ Carbon increase of 43,200 lbs. CO2 /year ■ Added air pollution of 9,000 lbs. /year in lost absorption rates ■ Reduced oxygen production for 1,800 people (information source: americanforests. org) CityofEdina.com What this means to Edina — Stormwater 2008 -2014 • There have been 450 +/- residential teardowns in Edina plus numerous major remodeling projects. At an estimated loss of two mature trees per teardown, and many have had more trees removed: • Over 900 mature trees removed from Edina in the past six years • Stormwater increase of 90,000 gallons /day. For a 5% loss in tree cover stormwater increases 2 %. ■ At an average of 1/3 acre for each teardown, there have been over 150 acres redeveloped in Edina with no stormwater management, landscaping or impervious surface mitigation. ■ An equivalent land area is almost two Southdale mall parcels redeveloped with no stormwater control or management. (information source: americanforests. org) E -1 Mi CityofEdinaxom CITY OF EDINA PC :ot ;4k W- 11-1 Tree removal, residential lot �L CityofEdina.com ° e Tree removal, residential lot CityofEdina.com o Tree removal, residential lot CityofEdina.com a e 2008 Tree Canopy, Morningside & Grimes CityofEdina.com CITY OF EDINA .x Lk _ Yn 3 X MOtlbn9s,d0 Rd 17 T. kt _ tar - n -,,j �. �• r1�6 go . �' 11 Examples of trees remaining after nevi They can be accommodated G Y It CityofEdina.com Summary • Tree loss in Edina is a detriment to the community, and a large loss of trees has already occurred in our residential neighborhoods. • The City Council is asked to implement a Tree Ordinance. Thanks for your consideration leu > '1 CityofEdina.com C ITY �F � DINIiI. Draft 4-22 -2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Seetton 1.. - Chapter 10; Article III of the Edina City Code Is emended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 10 -92. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance appll ^s [o all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and bullding,permits for accessory. structures Including a garage, deck or a pool._ (1) Purpose: Edina Is fortunate to have a robust Inventory of mature trees that form en Integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long -term aesthetiq environmental, and economic well -being of the cItyr T� purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees Throughout the city! b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population! d. Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, Including city residents, vlsitoro. and wildlife. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater bi stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing 'nolse pollution and decreasing the urban heat Island eHecGf - f. Protect and maintain healthy trees In the development and building ­e—lt., processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducin® compacted fill and excavation near tree roots. (2) Def�nitIon -. e. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, 'cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, Ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver' maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. (Measured at 6 i and over at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)( AA Proposed Tree Ordinance wqs ,j� ,� may° uau,. b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an Invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources._ (3)n Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory, plan Indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health - and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected-- rees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show If any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement treew r (1),lf a Protected Tree Is removed, except as allowed for In paragraph (7), It must be replaced with two (2) trees, subJect to the following conditions e. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or Infestations. Disease or Infestation resistant species and cultivars are all. c. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") In caliper, for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees d. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before —1 plemeniation - . e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be — 'placed Ina public area, subject to approval by the City Forester!- . (5) Protected Trees may be removed, In the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (30') radius of, the building pad of a new or remodeled b. Within driveways and parking areas. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one(1) tree, subject to the species listed above In (2) Definitions and the one listed In subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 4 above._ Existing text- )1700( Existing text -X100( 2 Stricken text -401M Stricken text- Xi00i' Added tm -XXXX Added text - XXXX C8ITY 0T IRDUNA 4 Proposed 'free Ordinance 4 S l t o .(6 ) Removable Trees five inches (5 ") or less in caliper may be remov ed for arty aZ - development or build -mg pertnit, without replacement IFa Removable great . than five inches (V) is removed, it must be replaced With one tree, and subject to the conditions is paragraph 4 above. If a Protected Tree is dead, diseased of hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal! r� CERTIFICATE OP CM CUMK ttg 4 the undersigned duly appointed and K City Clerk for the City of Edina do heft ,(7) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shatl not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent inju y ceMfV that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must Council at its Regular Meeting of 2014, and as recorded In the indicate hrnv the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, sub [ . Minutes of said Regular Meeting. to staff review and approvaL City staff monitoring is required for an projects with-1 affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees MRT MS my hand and seal of said Qty this day of 2014; properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during conswction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (CMP)_� IL) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the ,development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement poGry set forth in paragraphs City Clerk (4} above_— - Section L This ardk>e m is effective immediately ediately dean tm passage and publication. Rrst Reading: Second Reading: Published ATTEST'. Debra A. Marlgert, Qty perk Please publish In the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina Qty Clerk F]liabingtma —)D= S"ftntext -4I= added tmtt —XXXX James IL Nwantd Mayor t_ NOTES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT FORUM SATURDAY, JANUARY K 2013 10 PM -12PNI EDINA-SENIOItC I RED TEXT DENOTES 'TREE COMMENTS an= Ken Pots and Arlene Forrest' — Residen5al Redevefopment "wowing group" Staff m Altendawnx— (:aiy Teagm. Kris AA Others In Attendantorr Council Member Swenson Council Member Barnett Nancy Loin S OberprIIter SSusan Vfthman Nkft SChombuM Lke Genorese Ryan Weber Scott Smith Jeri Collrurn Andrew Ramirez Chns and Barb Hayhoe Nora Davis John Peterson Bob Westland 121111 Rodgers Janey � Jeff ff a Johnson M e liner Kevin Staunton Pat Meyers Enact Berner Gene Persha Eduard Glickman Liz Gent rese. Mike PiattM, thanked evwyonetbr attendh9 the forum and trtboduoed Ken Pats and Avkm Fwher rnernbers of the Residential Redevetopnent Vlkuk Group l'talteter opened the forum wfh a powerpoint presentation hi&X ing the gods of the Nvatkktg group'. Plafteter said during this studyof resurEbrtial development and tedevelopmgrttheir group found that the Tissues' seemed to fall willih two areas construc ifon management and zoning (setbadts, mast}. Pb fikter bft rted everyone to keep kt m9nd llte fotlordng dates; January 31— 7-0 PM add 5anal residential redevelopment pdbtic forum at Ste Senior Centro — same agenda as today& pap1of7 Workshop Notes Jmwf3l"— FdnM III — 9mmrortsfeedbaek period Februaryle— PneseWfmdmgstolhePlam- Cornmission March 5"— PC and City Cmml of meet to d�swss nEd slaps wlh the nerd steps based upon Council oonvrtertts. Plsrurer Teague addressed the group and briefly e*la ed inning code issues, Attendee Camrnetts dmiptt Presentation The following convneM 0cmured during the presenb bon by Ptah and Teagree: • C w m was expressed on hKreasW �rr br hsem the havefiave not' that appears to be comirring as the;Zft of houses being bunit in pbw of smaller horses. • Mom trdamnabw from 6t'inneWAa an their seftdr and *Vw standards needs to be added (on handcart). • Horrified by the Pack oFmWM builders show to neighbors. • rr 0f t that a study be done on how the *new nM "M be — ft e maybe side setbacks creed to be readdressed. • A Fulton (Wmteapoft) resident informed the group their Stems association' established corshmfon guidelines; however. these guidelines are Trot er meabte. • Gonsbuction manargeneM issues: mwu* belt • tmpervars s boas — recaresider? Respect rre3ghbortrood drarad r. • Suggest considering a Hoar Area Ratio (FAR) perauerage In area; bbd? Pkstteter exdafitred the forum Ate' r ewafing the athmdees would break into small groups to ss defining wates and regroup to draw proposed solutions. Each smA graup would then report their issues and sdutiors to the attire group. Group One i , - - - M: _ . :i^• -.r,.. ..nK CZ& qrL. n MIZZINEYM Issue: ResW retaining waft h side yard setback. I�p2of7 CityofEdina.com Solution: H &.W SEudards, -D fewat=ni g requk mums fordif atgk eeighborhoods to rve setback. -bei ht:'maiure tees; etc: ' [Sgt.�FAR-tw-at t.zoni n reclur wr8r-thea drag mtnei neighborho� ---, if SaluGaik�fieientroningrequieernentsigrdd�nEneighboa9vsodstopn�erveI sediaek; heinht, mature trees, etc" Issue: Require that drainage and runoff be tetalned on the tat being mnmdeed SohrBon Zoning regkdafiaesfar unpertious surt3oes – ealtee t fines ff vtcates �Ca��es��r�Ote ttran i4 of tre�oa►t tbsse aFt��t� radon: Oftrentzoningrequi rementstordifferencneighborhoods to pies - setback. height mature pees; ettA ksrte: Rots back building height to a mm reasonable level soft is oerststent with the neWtorina structures Solution: zoning requ neig s to preserve setback height, mature trees. etc", Issue: RegMe w'here'staraga ar bulbuiktrtgs' can be placed an a tot so iheyarent so dose (T) to the ne%hbatrkg structures so as to block viers. Issue: New testri ftm tr hurt and setback on garages Q=P Tart Issue: General zw tng. Solullorc Design rc-ti wtlrste&umtes pr newootatt mum destgnand tatfit unto Ste etastiatg to�ghboehrmd. t- ]iminate use of asphait iP possllsle. Issm Affordable housrrg. SohtEfiom Pmsom mbed otoorne neighborhoods. NeWwhwd specft st m mstrictions based on averap sizes of hkmres 43mat to now tonst uWam For toot to exceed � of exisi+cg average aquae fttotage Issues Sam two stm on same voek (above wound square footage). Sokftr: SivesvAdmpomtkne. WillteepsorneneWhbadmodsvdih marl Ixtmes tiw'trr no dlim a ng isres: Design remw prom to evaluate ae ImISk slse and stmies based cn a4ment hornestneV whood. Soh* m: Stmtedr MtikeMinneapolissiteplanmvtew pap a[7 Workshop Notes kssum Better and stmgentwdoroement of violations to code and zoning. SohtHom Better own immiaate plow ftgx mend to neighbors Issues: Zonig based an n rfi od versa ane set of rules tar the whole City. Sandk Redo zoning districts lashes: Front loaded garage on 8Moot tat S Rout rr Lam to see them bared, tart at least prat kom oomWft mere than SM isue: We Setbacks. Is imasitrg setback as height incases wcrkirtA? Sotutiore It isn't Issue: Mo driveway to back takes mM side sefl)wL Sohftrr Great idea Issue: MassothomWetcoverage Sotutton Require that FAR be carmiMm wt h average of neigl botticod Issue: Pbmnwm of accessory shicru a (sheds) Solution: Requh larger setb3d and terlrrae neighborhood approval of dHtg storage or accessary struchne. ksue-. New Sok tt m Rd back by 54bet at least Issue:- .Taees. Solut ion; Requitethattargatteesbepreserved– mrr5a6entauWihclt3raaierefthe *fib: Issue: Mum does (drainage) go wkttt acre W coverage? Sohtttom Requre that drainage not be dhnbd to neVft ft lots. d building plans Solydfarc Require �d m4 Issue: Loss of prkm7 in sight lens kdo hornes. SofAmm Presence better, s�f6, eta Issue: Retainrg aaaJlsfegress auindows too cbse to tat ice Solugm Through setbacks p esme access to the back yards. Peed ail CityofEdina.com ksue: barraging neighborhood trees. Sotut rc Treec -wire permits tomr4w bees brgerthan 10 fndm diameter Issum l.osvng affrxd*b ft6er homes. Strhrtion? Issue- Could not get laminar for v9►y City required changes to plans. SokSom Vkftn OOin M requires 7RTbn response or City. ksum New shudure shading neightxxs bad yard — Ming gardens. Sokftre NeVibars should be shwm plans for rmw rmnstrud ib n at test am nw th pimto work staring. Issue; Sideyardseftftnotsuf tnt —bosm librsmalftatL Solution: Require mininamn 18' VW (Bo& s5ft combined) fir require minImArm 54W setback on one side. 8'-' an other Issue: Ndt enough room to aoaess tine back ysprR Sokftrr require access wMMxV � til ho se to bac rd �min 3 j Issue: [ an She of r�@w lame tiuteeer carrlred tr origki� home. Sclutiorr Add deli pi guidebws around hownewv home firs vAfh existing hwmrJa— See Pak Ridge, tl design guidefim& Issue: Ormk►mge — dees the C4 require dtaltsag@ puns? filar di ft?Cerl SoU Eon: %M ctrstin to pA : emltg@ (dhdy) or mahilsln on sit@. Camnifte qxwft R d,arikRedsoapma d Foram" uRY SP's tndiaung Bost m@Whg be Written trodlrltbral Comnerots: See below and aft shed to notes. 2antng` Workshop Notes ' ei�rnd blorix voe�s be l�ted so thsq aren't tom d ty • Smart ronhrg Oars are neighborhood specific • Bneaw ighborawn newcarstruckedm ' steeoteftng homes inthe . Ham mul4 to arming dstrirt teased an neighborhoods • Consider • RmMsiderh a design revs process • Reconsider egress wtrtan —se k-A • Drhvww rhos Strictertinft en buiding host Restrict the site of garages and their focation • On Wool: btshave5tootmd)a* w one sW*ardongreo@w sift 8or9W • ? - is increasing the setback by height featly norkng Requtr@ that the burden shotdd be required to brioog new phfrvftq ftrn the home tD the Stn'±&R amd not �p at Ili@ Seltrsak. • Contraatntsshouid4"9nestf1heydo not propertymwewth*subsand v@talocs L$. bbckifig streets Thes tbnxrnstrudoro needs to be MrSuated 7 AM Is too only City should "witor construction sitoys so residers drmit haveto keep caning the City al Edina vditn twWatnts • Street oonstamtiy bb*W by Vuft and dottier vehleies BeRer emfcroerrierit of vaotatioro, fDrairbio@`f�nfdntrerfmo B@tlir sham water maroagenrent on the site Restrict Might and where mukkq vans in are pt=W trr the stile yard setback • Ensure that drainage and wratt be a gained on the lot being developed or redeveloped • tncMe FAR • Respect architecture grater homes • Preswe sigli81ife5 OOmUetvoy VAft Taste topograft ft aocw • 011b rent more festrr*ve requirements for Mot properties, • PR)$x7 • Otfleremt height i sift on nafrow k ts. • Communtd review of proposed new Consfivction and remode ft . Now conshm5onshouldfill hobo existingtootpftnt • F_stablishprotective . FAR has to be consi tent fry the werge of the raWftihood • Rai bark building heights to be more ooraisftM with the neighboring properfies P�P5of7 Papf of7 CityofEdina.com . 'm .m. . omgnop.Notes GarVmoanIbe more there %of fttwtlbte at the mew shmtwe WW wide tats - it reed mn't take up more than W% wWcr garage must start bdv)ftd the habilable area ofthe bmm • Req*e attached game to be &n back if tens tm 75.fk4 in WO No dM garages Camerned abouthvewWe curving km and bufta prqwty—Rearing down the house and btnldinl; a huge ham that does notift Prato the neighborhood mW the price point is 2 to 3 ems that of the ne%hborhood §We of ham shcuW Sk vM the bmrAs an Mornings de tm big time LSSMS, Could fire be a period cff time that a ham can be an ft nmftt before an -mumW can buy tip ft pop" : I ham no tM in the My that they wiV do anyOeM voth ft redftft feedback a. Foram wasAounved at 12 NcwL Submitted by PW-% R Mter and Fbrmst are membem of the ETma Plmnl)ng Comffftm' Pk.-O 7 arl -'--Cifj6rfEeina.com KOTES FR= MF- RESIDDMAL REDEVFIOPMM FORUM THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2013 7PM -9pm 1�D1NFt�5>�+i1QR_4EP1 E RED TEXT DENOTES TREE COMMENTS Faollubtors: WFERer. Kw Palts Redevelmmarit "watflog gro Staff in AtkMd Hxw: Cary TOMpe. K—m haker . JwWe HoopnaMw Offers in Atbendanoe: EA:ary Dick Lora and Nancy Oberpri0er Liz Genorew Janet Ingram Arai Sharp Tun pain Andi Obress Sooit sulft Loriand Jun G uI Kevin Starmton Carol Engstran Cwmea 0.lanber Bermett BobThompson Susan ylahmaan danef Ingram Peter IGffitea PDM LMRenoe NfikePearsion Angela Deen John Peteson FEdt 61lferhVe3fher Wen Bur6oe hlt Platte4er welted everflneand urhodamd Kerr Podds and MenE Fammt members of floe Edna Plwm&q Cmmrissicn and Resident[al Iiedevelltpmertt ltcorking ploP' the Cade vm hn 1 d In ft tastt fw a kn� and charaga to Mr. Pods and hfa. Forest duetted Ow qmV in an exertlse of identlyfng ftmm and sd abcrm to those issues. The g atop broke down into smA groups to oorrtptete the exeroise. Exh group pneserded their findkW Resub are as fdllow GMWOM Issue: PedevinanAccess Sci tw. Erftee ant of pcim a on handmtt. Workshop Notes i. llne conlratlor shall keep the sde. at sbveh. all sklsv lks, bmAevard areas and a4acevd Properties clean ft m wasfa. maw or relise resrifmgft m los operat>oa on s?e. Egwpment not usable cn the wank s't2 sltaD be prompty renoved and the sib shall be makd atned in a nest and ardedyocnddaan at al times. All eugrty cans papEr. plaft eto. east is nod nwded for ccnshucttan shall be nenared and ctaaned fount he Y 0 t � leaving the aoashutfion s11e Vllhere wcak on a prajecWus nai w are.3s olf pedestrian awess Eatiic andtrvehioulart3 i ft Vqed area wl be deaned and snvept and alt amta''als related bo late pr*ttvn7 be stoapled in sppo cpciate areas. No materials Tnaybe deposited or steckpled en the p Aft streets, btwtZVards crtfdevvallra. At the end of eadh working by, the ConbzcicrtdW remove any sal tnat wired Qvw did on anylpublic siduwA or street and gall r@ffiove amp trash ordebris OcA nadved orvras dposrled an any public paperty> No dlrm portable tolets, to dit materbK eregdprnent maybe stet on a public skeet sdwmft or botdomd area. tmm. Damage to erssbirg prcpgty i nduding. tees, oraeks. streels, SeEAM: I. Pre-oorrstrrxtion soil tes€ang and excavalim per preapPoved by CRY. 2. Sd eQ esrsrrn►acoount egna-b % of Octal renxndet cost& Issue: Bevason of house. Sorela6ue Io nek"mfiood average. pub as is done orrereyfor k5w. Drainage: Soldan: Landscape archbd subs itr drainage prevent m Plan pror tb oaersh mtbn. Plan can kwIudebddess rirrrl Sis due to topogtaft. ksw. Anwi t of lot of w age for 9 4bW byte. No sdkNorn pressed. tswe: Egmssveinderus shordd rr� be aged at lot Ere. S*Aon: Addressed by seback req *mends of Gode. Ato egress agm — at Idt fine G"MTaro tnw. Pte arheods ovemtoatitned by construction in day to day t'nues. 5ohrtion: F and imprarve iorrshnrctrorr �nrtenanoe PJao. tsar: Buffdars (dbm) shoddnt be goading otrddckwm saman: RequirebAdersIoslaysn'trirCry( odes. Issue: F=t toadtrggarage saratmbig forte ne 'igbbwhwdWornmgsida� feet and�t3 -Erato r�� g�E �. Est;�a[sh s+de ymd sett of 5- CityofEdina.com Issue: VWw is vahiung ournesi*6crthoud carne t- ND solution expressed. hie: Loss. offteeS on: G mate reaanabfe tree prewmadon ordi'nanoe. Be responsible turf ne%06Ws *at are iocatedneariiteproperiyke. AN bees wihin3 .5- feetafffirepropeirlylime ot�fd harre; intprV2rnenled!Io praE�t'19veny. Issue: Access Solution: Sir seftaOks - cm site needs to be Parge for ahxeM 54eet an from egress st and r3feet an egress side Issue Skeets to match fire exerting gruel Ifo sdh e 4 end trouo Three: Issue: Setbacks an small bhL Solution: Stagger setbacks Meet an ache side &fed an the either side A31 amen n st oew within setback. Issue: Storm water noroff Solution: AA storm water rtmcff rust be dear@ wD on site or directed to Me stmt slue tee ordinance �kfttion: Owe incenli► resfur sawing. trees- tw break krnumberyears. Requiretree fee. Establish certain sine tree circumference tD be saved cr replaced. Pay_ 'on to trees and their drip line and require lo©tim of trem on surveys Ensure safety so- they areal t pushed. 01y enforce your Hies. fssui!: anawmng— ugruaru space oonsroEraoons .arwhossoruees tin: The scale of new carstruebon needs to -be rnakimd to the scale of the Issue: Draararge issues — changes in topogghy and roof Ore and runeoff No solution opessed. Issue : Vbratnts during construction causing structural dannage to neg hbormg home. Solution: Corhstruction Management flaneadamernent— mspect homes a4anerdto clew oonstnucbm for mecnans2ds. cosmetic, before de ndi6on and consb uctian and dwbg construcbm and alter conch ftL Flaws bulderestablish esaawaccuuht or bond to camwdannages if danages ocar. Workshop Notes GMw Fh"m Gimp fm ouncuned with all issues and sulhbians. Please nob the foRaWlig wrdien and verbal conmwis by categorr. Zoning Ordinance Changes: . Suggestion to mange' the acdirmw for lots less than 59 -loot in vMh. Leave the rest ahm Can the ardaahce do sorne@dmg about yards burg dta kmed by tiese overty large homes (setback increase). (Eris could be buidmg too d as part of the permit application a shadow study is rewired) Access to doe rear yard needs to be provided on each lot Ordinance r) . Recarisiidw bul ft hengti/ how would one nwasu e a fiat roof? Are there requirements. regarding ecdbr (sheds) in ten. afsetback sip neWO Side setba ks are too sins➢ ibr s 3J k& ft erougth roam. Address egressevind m with setbacim Change amb aceforlots less than QOM she feet or lot width under M —feet + Need sefba &s for sheds— 2-stay sheds too dose to ne*btr blocs sunfighf_ • Seftacls — homes should tine nqh. Home across the street was allowed tb be bhu'Rf wUw back cn the bt Sha=t Looks befterwhen homes 6ne up as in the Country CM* not all owthe pbee_ g ex es. • Are comer tors treated dTPerentlythm lots in the middle of the bbrk Ale caner Fat seba*5 d i farm. Cider a limit cn height of fences installed an trip at rer *ft walls • Sefba ft fir egmw vkxbm far bts 50 feet of less —the wirtddwvnfi cannot uh>pede neighbor's access to Vw*cwn backyard (7) Need sedwit requirements g to addrs light and space impact cm adjacent ha • Suggest that a' FAR' be set at no mom than 24nes the wig house 'cotprinr excluding garage allowed an tie tot A FAR Re this would 6rmt the herd cf s¢ed houses. • 504odt lots need crffewt specs than large late. City shauM follow Hies in place lde dry and define neVftd cod dharaderfur each neighborhood. CityofEdina.com Instead ofchanging the erdinaeoe cvwderfhe'probiee ad ovely ta:ge hatmes Brit impact everyone in the Cby; rrot"thmingside (ke. tivaternmofri require that water mnc ff be daected to the sft". Require amid a1so'bdoM in flee buHding pemdt area ar � � tal a �=L*uc6m tmmag pha using road (This would . Yfer mmf from al sift mot gote e e street -this me be enflaued. + .citirrrrl worry drart� � ®ifW1:HnL�Gt �► emms6reg Orde6arca . Raresrater comes off the reighWs react and items kft my yarxl. Enfcatoewaaberrome requiraarcen�- cl�axttcerdllyarct�rfomed . A red cones for drarrrs® ge prdkRm -may to Smilh Hanna t Park vhm tots are 5133eet wide. Make sure w.ralarfre m new house drams iiaoofbe street 4cr5hvcft htmagenrent Rao: 4ibraticrrs Scan earsbudian maddhery - Is fire buiider responsMe far issues or dame to _ ng �'s- Car ho off amp be re- reuueajed, ShWd 5rem be stardwds regamftg vbzffan di ft constivatiow. • Geolhernolink Have bdders tyre sot saw to b F imp3d on a akftoring hrnnes (ttus oadd ffa! under bUU.Hv pet—OVereernrg Mien) • CreartedeErdtiu�e�c�renoES .Sorco�evicfabarrsiorbtnlders. Vk paid far eta mw streets abtd 4 -years age. ttitc Ift near constucBmr wades are destrung there, is there arry recanase? + Redoevt the exhaustfrom eersh xgAm egdpmwt Damage done to home next door aloe to r*w co stmefian arfrom dew can fheCftyre uke1hatthetmiiderplacemoniesboemmwforrep3 *toneighbor's Prop" prcof cff ihs;*ction (by bye W prior f9 ecrabur;bon. aRer demotttion and aaterconstruc6cm CungOy no consegwmees when detiFf ens violate codes • Regm pre. dtfa T and post omstranficn brsgred= Hire "Kn staff -tfo meaay 1 doeRtns for exrnaerrt stwto keep up vz& + There shmM be a paftg pt m for each men► hoarse buR l an oorrstanlRy asking pule to moue their velfrJes so I car get cut of my driuempy. If a home owner inqudres about consf rucl5a r issues- can City respond b vrnling to &e n. and riot just send wrrtn nc6ce to ccr* cforil err oMer acrd amw Workshop Notes Regft a dame d W sit from devetapem Re qdm sad tesTmg %w new cons3 ucBmL Aesdoetics: . Front boded gar�e'tralls that are greater than M of lheftffd tagade are too much for our m�bart . + No vakre to the context of the neighborfrood when bMmg new hames. • loss of trees –seems replaoerrent pIvOngs are alien jest shnrta and amamEnbil bees. Tme Doss from consbu on occeas and an lop of the fkdch elm acrd tee bss due M old age– ftirg"a€4ees•h3we iife,expectancy of 50 +ywmand marry were pbnW M a years ag m Buikkr promised to build: up ;M around aklhe bees and* Int and he ended up culta�p dam allbur trees ande -lot HepoceededtD build ahouseihar eompletefys'hades tfre sou& side of nyhouse- • Damage to neighbors trees. Seen abuse altrees %M a'ekftSbMk g duriV canslruc§an. MV ur-dfe a skm dealt Can Edina aeefiea tree adinanra In Swlh Kmiet Park bebwenfvdl� -Se tKeRagg and Oaklawnn trees have been bst because of teardowms. . Mot impact does major charpz in a neWorttood have an kmot tesfor ezistitg homeoerners to trflin6air tfteir �teardarm' hoarse? . How dome nonage fm dranabo scale cliffliKerums bebmn newand eAft heamsto pmsowethe dmritteralft neigtbodmod? rider arehl being p atedled, Oft hW w''fh ft My- Cfly seems to tam . Reaewiew the oonsfnrt#ian moire 6mils. Get professionals ufro work to tfre cwmnt home anneesbehanat the hAders • Need people vdw are s'kiAed in cordft resub ontracMMMs . ltlrbanr piatehrA desiEprers. • Snow sides o& the roof-of the new fumme Oft mystepsof my side door anmy PmP�Y- . Are spewfators buy%arg up properties before pmspecOve buyers, farce a chance to buy Iftan afoordablenerfbahood get explanation furvdry City required charipsto plarm . Issue of dif Erne in sme of new hone when compared to original creme. + Loft affordable stater horr,es b tacddpm CityofEdina.com '''' — ''�'1_ `'y'{ /J �� /C//�_�`\ a _. CCU � C� DIP IR WA - o f w • M i'stheMt ftsgp2m oota9eandBut5i2in @ ?. . A alher Side of the t7®Alse is passabLa In Ihe sxde yard vo a hwm mmr . New house mA dm that ezveeft Dot area ratio near died for a varbmw- Ott hones cmmqs inte5t is act imPcatarR 40e ity: 7 hey SeFm to omMe hinders and f"r' harm famft. m t mn mt ccmftmed Vml:buldirtq mspeMS a hatd bi&em to the Code. . Asking buMers to h* is ft pmbian is Re asking fbe txto guard fhe hen housB. " can buiurng nwtefi& for re wals be eegu1aW to pa e+ t pwnabjm . -Need teeth fma de viotalieas. . . Eduaatiandomeed- mrr4int ae het =mmor hmne *.Aw- Ptas`afr. irr oce new ems uctun v%ft ecmwWm,. • Does Edina support em sOng homaemwrgsv th bw cos& rarnoW 6ws Me St. . Louis Park dmmto wade e3ft&V 'fxae w-- . @dot Brant lmfts Cane Hare tD Efta Program icr first time hweamem( ?) Pilatteter, lPoft aml iForr+e!;a 8wked eu+aymne > their pe�r+ti as The dweetmg was armed at gr00 PM Submifted by (Previous) PC Residential Working Group Timeline Blog on "Speak Up Edina" for Blog Discussion Jan -Feb Resident Feedback `__ i Planning Commission — WG Jan 9th Initial Presentation -- - - -- — Public Input Forum — Senior Jan 26th Center 10 -Noon _____� _. Public Input Forum — Senior Jan 31st Center 7 -9 �.__ Summarize Feedback for St _ Jan 31 Feb 12th Preliminary Recommendations Planning Commission — Working Feb 13th Group Report Out : Planning Commission Discussion March with City Council -April Council Hearings July -Aug � CitydfEdina.com NEI CITY OF DIi\TA (Previous) PC topics for. City Council Work Session. Specific recommendations C Enhance Construction Management Plan More city staff :enforcement on j obsites • Penalties for construction violations • Implement 'free Ordinance Regulate soil import /export for projects • Improve storm water management standards — Surface & sub- surface water control — Infrastructure impact • No egress window& in side yard - setback • Rear yard access required via side ,yard Eliminate requirement for two car garage General recommendations • Review single Residential Zoning district • For lots under city minimums, explore buildable area definition revisions — Increase side yard setback dimension(s) — Decrease maximum building height and modify means of determining height — Make lot coverage limits more consistent within city code • Establish front - loaded. garage standards (position relative -to front -of- house) Residential Zoning Comparisons Less Restrictive � More Restrictive Height Richfield Hopkins Wayzata SLP Mpls Bloomington Edina Front Setback Wayzata MPIs MPIs Richfield Hopkins Bloomington Edina Side Setback MP's Richfield SLP Hopkins Bloomington Wayzata Edina Bldg. Coverage Bloomington Richfield SLP Hopkins Wayzata Edina Mpls* Impervious Area SLP Hopkins Edina MPIs Richfield Wayzata Bloomington Min Lot Size Mpls Richfield Hopkins SLP Edina Wayzata Bloomington Min Lot Width Mpls Richfield Hopkins SLP Wayzata Edina Bloomington * Minneapolis allows 50% lot coverage, but with a .5 FAR requirement CityofEdina.com . I a \ B. Tree Ordinance Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Commissioner's. Claudia Carr and Michael Platteter drafted an Ordinance regarding tree preservation. Teague said the draft was circulated to staff with staff raising the following concerns /questions: e Enforcement. General enforcement of the ordinance, including monitoring newly planted trees in the first three years of their life may require additional staffing. The city forester is a part time position. e Two for one replacement. This may be restrictive? e Requirement of native trees. The forester is concerned that a limitation to native species would take away options for property owners to make individual decisions. e Violation Penalties. The city attorney recommends that number (13) be eliminated. Violations are covered in another section of the code. Additionally, the city attorney does not believe that the city has statutory authority to impose this type of penalty. In practice, the city would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the violations have been corrected. ® Preservation Easement. The city attorney recommends number (8) is eliminated as it is only a recommendation. o Added cost for residents. With additional Information required on a survey, there will be an added cost. Commissioner Presentation Commissioner Platteter addressed the Commission and explained that he along with Commissioner Carr wanted to craft an Ordinance that "got our foot in -the door with regard to tree preservation. Platteter said: they chose to limit the scope of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance to tear downs /re- builds. Platteter explained that teardown and rebuilds appeared to be a good place to start because they have created holes in the City's tree canopy. Concluding, Platteter stated; again, this is only a start. Comments /Questions Commissioner Scherer asked Commissioner Platteter under (2) Definitions: Removable Tree how they arrived at the list of removable trees. Commissioner Platteter responded that they researched the subject and for the most part chose trees that.are typically thought of-as nuisance. Platteter said he also believes any tree Page 5 of 11 not listed or not found under Significant Mature Tree would be removable trees. Platteter commented that the wording "Significant Mature" could be changed to "Protected ". Chair Staunton asked;.Planner Teague. to comment on his findings. Planner Teague explained that staffing enforcement would fie a concern, adding it's possible that the Redevelopment Coordinator could fold some of these "duties" into her work load, cautioning much would depend on Ordinance wording. Teague also observed if the City .through Ordinance were to require trees to be depicted on 'the surveys that would be an additional cost to the homeowner. Chair Staunton said he understands the Commissioners approach with regard to teardown /rebuilds; however, he noted large additions could have the same impact on the tree canopy.. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Fischer said at least in his experience there is a lot of peer pressure in the community to retain and maintain the City's forest. Residents don't typically cut down a' tree unless necessary. Commissioner Grablel questioned how /who would enforce the two for one, or one for one replacement suggestion; and if violating that caveat of the Ordinance would be considered criminal. Grabiel said he wouldn't want to see the Ordinance go in that .direction. Commissioners discussed the issue of enforcement and wondered if tree replacement could be tied to the escrow funds. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion this is a good start Commissioner Scherer stated that she didn't recall finding a definition of, preservation easement, adding number 8 as mentioned by staff .is only a recommendation. Commissioner Grabiel commented that it may be easier to just require replacement of all trees removed. The discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that enforcement of tree replacement could become problematic; however, liked the idea of- enforcement linked to the escrow. Commissioner Scherer commented that she understands the "nuisance" concern for, buckthorn and other types of trees; however, thinks that more consideration should be placed on the size of the tree removed and not so much the variety. Scherer stated in her opinion it is good to have different species of trees especially because of the potential for disease. Also removing a large tree that is considered undesirable does have impact. Page 6.of•11 Commissioner Schroeder said he was pleased at this start pointing out maintaining the urban forest is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Continuing, Schroeder said he agrees with the observation shared by Commissioner Scherer on tree size. He pointed out Cottonwoods are large trees with a very large canopy and if they are permitted to be removed the impact is tremendous. Schroeder stated In his opinion trees that provide canopy need to be replaced and replacement at I -I may not be adequate. Schroeder also noted the preservation of the canopy isn't limited to a site; canopy is enjoyed by many. Concluding, Schroeder said in certain instances he doesn't believe a two for one replacement is onerous. Commissioner Forrest commented that she agrees with Schroeder and Scherer on their observations; however, smaller lots may not be able to support the two for one replacement suggested by Schroeder. Schroeder responded that the two for one doesn't necessarily need to be accomplished on the site. A tree could be planted in the City parks adding to the urban forest and canopy. Chair Staunton thanked Commissioners Platteter and Carr, adding the proposed draft was a great start and the Commission looks forward to more work on this topic. A discussion ensued on the timing of proceeding with discussions on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance with Commissioners agreeing that another draft is needed so the discussion could proceed. It was agreed that the Commission would address another draft at a future meeting. C. Subdivision Ordinance Planner Presentation Planner Teague introduced to the Commission a draft revision of the current Subdivision Ordinance and asked for Commissioners for their comments. Comments Commissioner Forrest said .at first glance she was interested in considering the plat vs. shrinking the neighborhood option; however, without a "clear" definition of plat that would be difficult. Pjanner Teague agree4that defining plat would be difficult. Commissioner Fischer'cominented that in his opinion the perceived problems with the Subdivision Ordinance comes in phases; questioning if amending the Subdivision Ordinance definition of" neighborhood" from 500 -feet to 250 -feet really solves the issue. Fischer said it may be best if the Commission used the common sense Approach and worked within the Ordinance as it is. Commissioner Grabiel said maybe It would be clearer to define "neighborhood" Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Carr stated she agrees the rezoning makes sense; ft's a good land use choice; however, she said she continues to be concerned with the two driveways. Carr said it's not only a safety issue for her but an aesthetic issue. She suggested revisiting this concept. Commissloner- Schroeder "asked Planner Teague how this area is guided in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Teague responded the Cojnp Plan guides this area as low density attached residential. Schroeder commented thatit appears the rezoning moves this.parcel more into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Continuing, Schroeder said he can support the rezoning; pointing out this parcel is alsof adjacent to an apartment building and other multiples. Schroeder also added he is concerned with guest parking and the common areas, adding that may need to be revisited. Mr. Mortensen said in this area gust parking is accommodated on the street or in the driveways. He also Noted the near public ramp parking and the adjacent apartment building has a guest lot. Commissioner Carr complemented Mr. 'Mortenson on his interest in developing a sustainable building. Commissioner Forrest stated she really likes the concept of the shared front door and the flexibility this design provides for residents to "age in place ". Commissioner Kilberg said he applauds the project; however v�rould like to see a more enhanced street view. Kilberg said in his opinion character needs to be added to the structure to give it a more residential feel. A landscaping should also be;developed. Chair Staunton commented that the proposed new home(s) sits on a hill and asked Mortenson if he knows how the height of the old and!new buildings compares. Mr. Mortenson responded that he believes the new structure would be higher than what exists today; possibly by six -feet. Chair Staunton said in summary he believes the request to rezone the subject site and build a double dwelling unit makes sense; however, there are concerns with drainage, building design, profile, garage access and building height that need to be- further addressed and clarified. Planner Teague informed Mr. Mortenson that the Sketch Plan will be forwarded to the City Council for their feedback before formal application is made. Chair Staunton suggested to Mr. Mortenson that he provide the City Council with a narrative explaining their intent and final goal. . C. Tree Preservation Ordinance Planner Presentation . . Planner Teague reminded the Commission that this was discussed at their previous meeting on January 8`�. Teague thanked Commissioners Platter and Carr for their work on the Tree Page 4 of 6 Ordinance and reported that at this time the City's attorney is reviewing the language, adding at first look the Attorney is: considering placing this Ordinance in 41.1 /Residential Reconstruction Comments /Discussion Chair Staunton observed that it may make sense to place it there; however, 411 only addresses tear down rebuilds. Commissioner Platteter said the revisions to the proposed Tree.Ordinance were to capture canopy width, protected tree removal one for one, trees not identified as a protected species removable and capture a more inclusive "tree family" protected list. Commissioner Carr said their research found that in general language referred to "family of trees" and questioned if omitting the "species" list adding "family of trees" would serve the Ordinance better. Chair Staunton said in reference to species or family of trees it has always been difficult to know if too inclusive or less is best in any Ordinance language. Commissioner Schroeder commented that in his opinion in this instance the City may want the advice of the City Forester in determining tree preservation. He said defining "family of trees" can be very complicated. Schroeder referred to the Ordinance part 2 6. B. disease resistant as another instance where Forester input would be valuable. He pointed out in #5 it indicates "if a protected tree is less than 5" in caliper, it must be moved to another location on the property, if impacted by areas in paragraph (7) below ".: Schroeder said: not all trees of that size are worth moving, and in his.opinion,the City should have.the forester review the tree before it's moved. Concluding, Schroeder said his focus and sensitivity is to the impact provided by .the existing canopy of all trees and if that. canopy is, lost regardless of the tree, protected or. Y not, that cano PY is Sorel missed and the Tree Ordinance should address this loss. Platteter said he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder about the importance of the tree canopy; however found it difficult to write an ordinance that would reflect that. - Commissioner Scherer stated that in her opinion the Ordinance should be clearer; she noted "demo permits" and "building permits" are also required for internal modifications, adding a tree inventory should not be required for internal modifications. Commissioners agreed. Scherer also noted she recently had a bathroom updated, adding that required multiple building permits; however, in no way impacted trees. Concluding, Scherer said the intent of the proposed Ordinance needs to be clearer; adding originally she thought that this Ordinance applied to only tear down rebuilt properties. Commissioner Platteter said the intent of the tree ordinance is to require a tree inventory for teardown rebuilds and any house modification that requires a building permit or demolition permit. Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Forrest said she likes the way the Ordinance is written; pointing out a permit is required for a new roof, adding roofers should be made aware of the trees on the site and keep their protection in mind during the roofing process. Commissioner Scherer reiterated in her opinion further clarification is needed; especially with #12. Chair Staunton commented that when considering the suggestion from the City Attorney to place the Tree Ordinance in 411 in his opinion that location may not work. He pointed out as previously mentioned 411 is drafted solely for teardowns and rebuilds. Commissioner Platteter acknowledged that point, reiterating the intent of this Ordinance applies to anything that modifies a house size plus tear downs rebuilds: Staunton agreed adding the Commission isn't interested In inserting ourselves unless there is structural modification going on. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Potts questioned if the trees would be required to be depicted on a survey or some type of tree inventory document. Commissioners Platteter and Carr commented their intent at this time was to require a tree Inventory; however there are options, the tree inventory can be depicted on the survey, but if not, a separate document Would be required. The discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement to move forward with the Tree Ordinance; however, tweak it as discussed for final draft review at the next Commission meeting on February 26. The final draft would be forwarded to the City Council for their comments and review. Vil. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials, Council Connection and Attendance. Vill. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS None. IX. STAFF COMMENTS None. X. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fischer moved meeting adjournment at 8:1 S PM. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Respectfully submitted Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Schroeder'told the Commission he likes the location of the drive - through and the way the mass of the building addresses the street/ highway: 5chroeder•suggested that the applicant find a way to work with MNDOT to the mutual benefit of both to provide better fencing and landscaping to help create a signature look for this building. Schroeder pointed oyt this building is very visible and a gateway into Edina off the freeway, Dovolis responded he would be happy'to work with MNDOT and asked if the City could help facilitate that-connection Chair Platteter echoed Commission comments and said he fully, supports working with the Temple on the cross easement arrangement. Piatteter also suggested that the subject site; adjacent property to the west, and the Temple talk with each other to create the best redevelopment of the two lots as possible. Platteter thanked the applicant for-his presentation:- I D. Tree Preservation Ordinance 1� Planner Presentation DI Planner Teague reminded the Commission they have been discussing the proposed tree ordinance for the past couple meetings adding changes were made to the previous draft that need to be discussed. Teague said included in the revisions was the following: Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a.pool. Sec. 10 -82 (4) added subject to review of the city forester. The caliper of Protected Trees shall be measured at four and one half feet (4.5') above the ground. b. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a, and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs 1. Through e. of paragraph 5 above; and finally; (8) The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction subject to staff review and approval. Teague also noted that the public hearing on the Tree Preservation Ordinance has been set for February 26, 2014. Discussion Commissioner Grabiel said he has one concern which has to do with the City Forester. He said in his opinion the Forester needs a standard rationale statement and/or policy as he .reviews trees. Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Schroeder stated he still is concerned about removing trees that aren't protected; noting they provide significant canopy and ecological aesthetics. Schroeder said he would prefer to see a I - I replacement requirement also for removable trees. Platteter said he agrees with that comment, adding this could be addressed and discussed at the public hearing level. Commissioners agreed the public hearing would be the place to get final feedback. Commissioners indicated the revisions are acceptable and indicated they look forward to the public hearing on March 4th. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Carr reported that.the Living Streets committee has been meeting and making progress. Carr said that the committee recently discussed watershed issues. Chair Platteter stated that he believes at the Commissions next meeting (26th) they will be saying goodbye to Commissioners Grabiel and Fischer. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the City Council heard the sketch plan review on the double proposed for West 49ah Street. Teague said the Council; like the Commission, supported the use; however believed the plan needed revisions. The applicant indicated he would be back with another plan, XI. ADOURNMENT Commissioner Scherer moved meeting adjournment at 10:05 PM. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. Respectfully submitted. Page 14 of 14 A discussion. ensued with Commissioners expressing their - hesitancy in approving preliminary rezoning and .development plan-that doesn't inclyde housing and without more detailed plans,, It was further noted that there is the option to vote,against the proposal as submitted. Commissioners reiterated their desire for housing and acknowledged that in the end becayse'of the.scope of this project the City will be entering into a long term relationship and partnership with theapplicant. Commissioners did suggest that a statement be added indicating where appropriate housing would be included; however it was acknowedged that statement may be too general. Commitsloners did state with a PUD rezoning the applicant needs to be aware that the City expects things In rFtdrn. Approval should not create missed opportunities to ensure that the site .has measurbable metrics during the process, Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend preliminary rezoning from MDD -b, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned'Uriit Development; and an Overall Development Plan subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Fischer seconded a motion. A discussion ensued on how the City can'' ensure that the condition'p for approval are met. Of concern were the recommendations of creating a hecreational system that prorhotes walking, health and wellness and the incorporation of public art_. It wa's noted that these measures could be completed through alignment with the proved TIF. Further' discussion also noted that, the City continues to reserve the right to "drift down ' plans at final approval, to achieve the goals outlined in the findings and conditions. Commissioner Schroeder offered an amendment recommending that a recreational system -that promotes walldng, health and wellness be implemented in alignment with the TIF Plan through a development agreement between the City and the Developer. Chair Grabiel and Commissioner Fischer accepted -that amendment. Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Fischer, Potts, Carr, Forrest; Grabiel, Staunton. Abstain, Platteter. Motion to approve carried. QC. Tree Preservation Ordinance xg (0 Presentation � Planner Teague reminded the Commission they tabled this issue at their last meeting requesting minor revisions to the Ordinance. Teague stated the revisions were made. He also noted that at the last meeting the Commission requested that additional information on staffing be supplied for the enforcement of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Scherer asked Planner Teague if he knows the cost of a certified tree inventory and who the enforcement officer would be. Planner Teague said at this time he doesn't know what the cost would be for a certified tree Inventory and discussions continue on who would enforce the ordinance. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Page 11 of 13 Public Testimon John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn Avenue said that while he understands the proposed ordinance he wonders if the City is requiring more trees than can be sustained on one lot. Crabtree also questioned how far the City Is willing to go if someone doesn't comply with the new ordinance. Concluding, Crabtree said one must always be careful of unintended consequences. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion A discussion ensued with Commissioners noting that the proposed ordinance could create difficulties in areas where trees need to be removed without penalty (i.e. utilities). Commissioner Platteter said the Commission could ask the City to work with the, utility companies on tree removal or preservation in utility easement areas. Commissioner Platteter explained that the proposed ordinance was to save trees, adding in his neighborhood specifically all trees were taken down on a tear down rebuild lot. Platteter said for a developer it may be easier to just cut the trees down and not save them. Concluding, Platteter said the way new houses are popping into certain areas of the City the tree canopy can be lost completely. Commissioner Schroeder said as he has mentioned many times that the tree canopy is important regardless of the tree species. The trees and their canopy both contribute to the character of the City. Schroeder suggested with non - protected trees that a variance process could be implemented to address non protected tree removal, adding buckthorn is undesirable; however, does provide cover. Continuing, Schroeder said In his opinion the City Forester should make the final judgment on all trees. Commissioner Forrest inquired who will do the monitoring of the trees and who will pick where the replacement trees go. She noted Buckthorn is an evasive species that can be removed without issue. Continuing, Forrest commented what happens if a resident wants to cut down trees to create garden area. She noted the issue is complex. Commissioner Grabiel said on this issue he has leaned one way than another. Grabiel said there are many valid points about when a tree can be removed without issue and when it requires replacement. Grabiel said in his opinion if any tree is taken down a permit should be required and possible replacement regardless of species. Chair Staunton said in his opinion putting tree replacement in construction context is a good start. Staunton further agreed there is a question with enforcement and how that will be calibrated. Commissioner Platteter said that the ordinance as proposed is a start; he noted that in some City's they even require permits to trim trees and other vegetation. Platteter said this ordinance hasn't gone that far but in the future that could be a possibility. The discussion continued with the Commission directing staff to look into the enforcement issues and cost and bring back those findings at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Page 12 of 13 Planner Teague said in response to comments that there would be additional fees for a resident to provide a certified tree survey, adding much would depend on who does the inventory. Teague said in his opinion a surveyor would probably do the inventory because the City is requiring a certified inventory. Teague said enforcement would be another issue and pointed out currently the forester is a part time position that focuses on the City's public land. Teague concluded that the Council would ultimately decide on the staffing issues. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to bring the Tree Preservation Ordinance back to the Commission at their next meeting providing some background on enforcement issues and make minor changes to tlhe ordinance. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of-packet materials. Vlll. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Chari Staunton reminded the Commission that on March 22^d at the Senior Center from 9 -11 am City Attorney Roger Knutson will present "a workshop. Staunton said if any,Commissioner has questions or ideas to send those questionsrdeas)to.,Planner Teague so�he<can forward them to Knutson. Chair Staunton said it is now time to say,another goodbye. to Commissioner Fischer who stepped in to fill out Commissioner Carpenter's term when he reared; Chair Staunton and the Commission thanked Commissioner Fisher for stepping in'to'.fill out Carpenters {en`n. Commissioner Fischer said in was an honor serving the City and working the Commission and Staff for all these years. i� 1 Commissioner Staunton said it is also; trine to say goodbye tot Commissioner Grabiel for his 9 -years of service on the Planning Commission: Staunton said Commissioner Grabiel would be sorely missed. Staunton concluded that he would de44 miss Commissioner Grabiel. Commissioner Grabiei thanked Chair Staunton for his words and said it was his honor and privilege to serve the City and to Work with the quality of people that- served on th6 Planning Commission and with City Staff. Grabiel said the City is blessed with talented residents and stated it was a pleasure 6,serve IX. ADIOURNMENT Commissioner Fischer' moved meeting adjournment at 11:35 PM. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. 1 of did a H-000►e ,01eker Respectfully submitted Page 13 of 13 Forrest,- Platteter. Carr, Lee, Potts, Olson, Staunton. Abstain, Schroeder. Motion carried. Commissioner Lee commented in being new to this process that she has a concern with the overall volume of the -subject structures. She noted the subject house has a hipped roof which reduces the mass by offering the feeling that the structure is moving away from the setback line. A straight up expansion without acknowledging the 'architectural, features of the existing home that reduce volume may not be wiser Volume should also be considered. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS n A. City Code Amendment — Tree Preservation � Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to give a brief overview on the Commissions progress on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission the Tree Preservation Ordinance adoption was continued to allow for suggested revisions to the Ordinance. Teague summarized the following revisions and requirements: • The ordinance applies to all demolition permits including those for accessory structures including a garage, deck or pool. • All permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan • Protected trees include birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden locust, maple (except silver maple) Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. • Healthy protected trees that are removed within a building pad, or a I 0 -foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced I to I. • Any protected healthy tree that is removed within I 0-feet of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to .I. • Protected trees much be protected during construction; and • Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with protected trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. Concluding, Teague also noted there would be staffing concerns; however, this would be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. Discussion Chair Staunton commented that the Ordinance only applies to tree removal one year prior to construction not after. He noted that trees could be removed after the final CO was issued. Commissioners agreed with that statement. A discussion ensued with Commissioners supporting the revisions as referenced. Page 4 of 7 Commissioners did express hesitation on #4 of the proposed Ordinance and compatibility between numbers 5 and 7. It was further discussed that a variance process should be considered if for any reason a property owner cannot comply with the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Further discussion focused on cost issues for the City (staffing) and property owners. It was further pointed out that "relocating" a tree may be more expensive than replacing a tree; and if a property owner could have an option. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the following revisions: • Delete paragraph #4 • #7 — Remove underlined text and replace it with like text found in #5. o Add a paragraph that establishes a variance process. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Platteter stated he is also waiting for comment from the Energy and Environment Commission on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Platteter said he hopes to have their response by the time the City Council hears the Ordinance. Platteter stated he anticipates that the City Council will review the proposed Tree Ordinance at their April 22, 2014, meeting. Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their effort during this process adding Tree Preservation can now be removed from the Commission's Work Plan. B. Wooddale and Valley View Road/Small Area Plan Chair Staunton told the Commission Commissioners Platteter and Forrest are working with City Staff on implementing a small,area plan for the Wooddale and Valley View area. Staunton noted that the small area plan for this area Is included in the Commission's 2014 Work Plan. Platteter reported that Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager is also a member of the City staff he and Forrest will be working with on this plan. Commissioner Platteter delivered a power point presentation outlining for the Commission a broad overview of the process. Platteter and Forrest stood for questions. Commissioner Carr suggested considering.adding an additional staff resource froth either the Transportation Commission or Living Streets Committee-,for additional input; especially as it relates to transportation and streets. Commissioner Forrest also noted that this neighborhood is a "true" neighborhood node that has the potential to be heavily utilized by neighbors. Page 5 of 7 City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com Date: March 12, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration —Tree Preservation MEMO N�..414 r o e 4b. The Planning Commission tabled this item at the February 26, 2014 meeting, and requested that some revisions be made to the proposed Ordinance. Additionally, the Commission requested additional information on staffing required for enforcement of the Ordinance. Revisions have been made to the Ordinance as recommended by the Commission; those changes are underlined on the attached Draft Ordinance. Information in regard to staffing concerns, are highlighted on page 2 of this memo. The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. q All such permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). Trees to be protected under this Ordinance include: birch, balsam fir. black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. D Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a building pad, or a 10 foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced 1, to I" City of Edina - 4801 W. 501b St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO En • �'t41S�tahs�• Any healthy protected tree that is removed as part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building pad, within 10 feet of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to 1. a Protected Trees to remain must be protected during construction. ➢ Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the certified tree inventory. This would be done by the surveyor either on the main survey submitted with the building permit, or on a separate survey. In either case, the surveyor would be responsible for siting trees on the property and developing a plan for relocation and placement of .new trees, and showing them on the survey. Ordinance Enforcement Enforcement of the Ordinance would likely require additional staffing. The city forester is currently a part time position (34 hours per week on average). The forester has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes that an additional staff person (possibly part time) would be required to adequately enforce the Ordinance, and still maintain the level of service that they currently provide. The primary focus of the forester is on the city's 600- 800 acres of public land; although he does occasionally work with residents regarding tree issues on private property. The new ordinance would require the following additional staff review: Review of the "tree plan" as part of the building permit. This is the review of the survey showing existing trees, those that would be removed, and those proposed to be planted. Given the last couple years of permit activity, this could be between 150 -200 permits per year; this would include new home construction after a tear down and additions to existing homes. Inspection of each of these construction sites. To ensure compliance with the proposed plans and protection of existing trees on site, On -going monitoring. The code requires staff monitoring for three years. Potentially, that could mean that up to 600 sites would be actively monitored. This would ultimately be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Draft 3 -12 -2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-- AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: ,DIVISION III. TREE PROTECT40N, $e-c. 10 82_ Preservation, protection an- d rep- lacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building perrrlits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form, ,pan integral part of the unique character and .history of the city, and that contribute: to the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city; The purpose of the ordinance is to a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city; b: Protect and enhance property values by, conserving and adding to the ;distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population! Protect acrd enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Impr-ave the quality of life for a-I I stakeholders, Ind liding city residents, visitors end wildlife: e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air andi soil pollutants, increasing pxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater by Fstabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing' aoise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit ,processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots;, Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —)=X (- _ - Added text 40- , (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye,, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silve' ;maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an invasive species as defined, by the _Minnesota Ueeartmentof Natural Resources; (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory ,plan indicating where Protected Trees are.located and;.their species, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show If any Protected Trees are proposed -to be removed and the location_, species and'size of fall replacement tree(s). (4) If a Protected Tree is less than five inches (5") in caliper it must be inoved to another location on the property, if impacted,by, areas in paragraph (7) below, subject to review of the city forester. The caliper of Protected Trees shall be, ,measured at four and one-half feet (4.5') above the ground' (5) If a, Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be )replaced with two (2) trees, subject to the following conditions: ,p. Replacement trees mast be varied by species and are limited to the species. listed above In (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or V nfestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed: c. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in caliper; for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven. feet (7') tall for coniferous trees; d. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by th'e City Forester before �mplernentation. e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, i6 must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City'Forester. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —. Added text-- ,9ci(XX 2 (6) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas -,a Including, and within a ten -foot (10'1 radius of, the building pad of a pew or iremodeted building, ,b -- y- - g Within driveways p arkin areas: Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the ,conditions listed In subparagraphs -a. through e. of paragraph 5 above! �7) Removable trees five inches (51 or less in caliper.may be removed for any ;development or building permit, without replacement. Removable trees greater 'than five inches 451 must be replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio. if a Protected. Tree-is dead; diseased or hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal; 'j8) During the demolition and building permit processes; the permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury, to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey mush 'Indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for all projects with, affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during ;construction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (CMP):r 49) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the; - development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these !Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above; - Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Existing text -XXXX Stricken text - X4U Added text - XXXX First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of. , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text —XXXX day of . 2014. City Cleric 4 To: Cary Teague From: Scott Busyn - Great Neighborhood Homes Subject Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance Date: February 19, 2014 Hi Cary, I wanted to pass on my feedback on the proposed tree protection ordinance from the perspective as a 25 year resident as well as a builder who has built over 40 infill homes in Edina over the past 7 years. Before I begin, I have to disclose that I like trees and as a builder dislike the large expense of removing them! In other words, I will do whatever I can to keep as many trees as I can when building a new home. 1. The tree ordinance seems to single out property owners who pull demo or building permits. If we are really concerned about tree protection, why are we only tasking this subgroup with tree protection? Seems discriminatory against those that are already investing in adding value to the community. Why not have it apply to all property owners? Based on the feedback for the Residential Development Coordinator, concerns about tree removal recorded a paltry 2% of all complaints. Is the Planning Commission once again trying to come up with a solution without a problem? In doing an informal drive around last week, it seems that most teardown /rebuilds keep most of the existing trees on the site. Trees are expensive to remove, and most builders try to work around the existing tree inventory on the site. 2. It seems odd that the Planning Commission is putting all this . energy into protecting trees on construction sites when nothing is being done to date regarding the larger city wide tree preservation issues in Edina. Dutch Elm and Emerald Ash Borer are a looming threat to our tree canopy, much greater of a threat than residential construction. Many stretches of France Avenue, 50th Street, Valley View, etc have huge stretches where there are no boulevard trees in the city easements. Other cities around us seem smarter about focusing their energy on the strategies that will have more impact than just the construction sites. Builders are easy targets since they need to pull a permit, but is this where we should be focusing our energies? 3. The proposed tree ordinance is just one more layer of regulation Edina is adding onto the many-layers of regulation on building and remodeling in Edina. In the past few years, we have added over $10,000 to the cost of a home for the increased cost of demo permits, surveys; stormwater management. plans, soil tests, residential development coordinators, etc. In addition, these added layers of bureaucracy have increased the time it takes to get a permit approved as well as the amount of.communication between builder and the new building bureaucracy in Edina. This has distracted good builders from being on the site and working with neighbors /clients on executing the project. Now you want to add another layer of regulation, fees, costs, etc for tree preservation and it sounds like you want to hire more regulators to make it more expensive and cumbersome. The net affect of all this regulation to good builders. like.us is mzero changes to how we run our business except the distraction and workload of paperwork which keeps us away from doing the best we canon . jobsites. With upcoming changes to building code including.. mandatory sprinklers I don't know how these, out of control costs will affect the demand for new housing in Edina. 4. The ordinance as written is overly complex and hard to execute. If you must have an ordinance it should be simplified and not require all the steps, documentation, and expense. For example, we already .provide tree inventories on existing conditions surveys for:demo permits. We don't need the added expense of a certified tree inventory plan. The added layers of inspection (up to three years out!) seem impractical.:. S. Tree protection during construction: This needs to be defined. I am sure an arborist-will want fencing at the dripline. As the dripline on many sites may cover the entire site, this is not feasible. Not only do we need access to the site, but worker safety needs to trump tree protection if we are not giving workers adequate room to work. Contractor should have final call on this as he is responsible for building the home and the safety of the workers. 6. Tree inventory plan: It is unrealistic that we will know what species replacement trees will be when we apply for a demo permit. You are asking us to alter our design process with clients. We don't typically do landscape plans until later in the project and the house is framed up. 7. Moving Trees: This is a very bad idea. Moving trees rips out 80% of the absorbing root system. Plus most small caliper trees are usually volunteer trees that were poorly planned allowed to grow in a random location. Plus moving a bad tree on a construction site that will have a lot of activity will further threaten its survival. Finally, to force a homeowner to keep a tree they may not like is just too much government control. 8. I don't like the added layers of inspections. You are requiring the City Forestor to approve replacement tree plans. This just adds more time and workload for the builder /homeowner, as well as requiring the obvious need to hire more city staff. 9. Other areas you need to allow protected trees to be removed: patios, utilities (gas, sewer, water, electrical). 10. Staff monitoring of trees for three years: Again, very cumbersome and requiring adding forestry staff. Not necessary. If a homeowner pays someone to install a new tree on their site, they expect that the tree survives. Plus, the installer typically provides a warranty on the tree. These are the market forces that will promote the health of our trees. We don't need a nanny state to watch over our trees. Again, this seems like a very complex ordinance, requiring a lot of staff and expense /workload for homeowners /builders. After driving around looking at jobsites this doesn't seem to be a problem needing a solution. I recommending scrapping this ordinance and shifting the Planning Commission's focus on more comprehensive tree programs for the city. This ordinance is extreme, punitive against property owners, and not in the interests of our citizens. Thanks, Scott Busyn 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Cary Teague From: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 201410:37 AM To: Cary Teague Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Cary, Thanks for your email. I zipped through the proposed ordinance quickly ... but here are my initial thoughts: 1. The extensive "purpose" cited indeed seems to be well intentioned. Therefore, if this Is such a high priority of the City then why is -it not for all property in the City (existing homes, new homes,. remodels, golf courses, commercial properties, etc...)? I know one,.of..the local golf courses took down 90 trees this winter. I; suggest if the City wants to "preserve the canopy" then let's take it seriously and include all trees, City wide. 2: Wouldn't this ordinance, as drafted, essentially create covenants that would be required to travel with properties as they are sold based on paragraph 8? What will this do to property values for this singled out homes that now have "covenants "? 3. How many properties a year would this affect? How much strain does it put on the City Forrester? How much does the City Forrester staff need to grow? How does this get paid for? 4. How much cost will this add to the permitting .homeowner to do a required certified tree Inventory? 5. Per paragraph #4, what if a homeowner "moves" a tree and it doesn't survive? Who Is going to police this? How will enforcement be paid for? 6. If I want to add a play -set in my backyard for my kids to improve the quality of their life and take a tree down can I? What about a shed? What about removing a tree for a vegetable garden? Or to allow sunlight to reach a vegetable garden? My quick two cents. Feel free to contact me If you need to. Thanks again for reaching out to me. Andy Porter REFINED Cell: 612.991.9301 Fax: 952.303.3170. Email: aporter @RefinedLLC.com www. Refi ned LLC. com Cary Teaaue From: aporter @ ref inedllc.corn Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:24 AM To: Cary Teague; Cary Teague Subject: Planning Commissioner correction Cary, I viewed the most recent Planning Commission meeting related to the possible tree preservation ordinance. I would like to point out one correction that needs to be made. Commissioner Platteter spoke about the newly constructed home next to his personal home. He mentioned that he thought the home was a "spec" home and that the builder had clear cut the yard of many mature trees (3:51:55 on the video). The home, in fact, was not a "spec" home. Our company built the home specifically for a homeowner. Our Client decided they wanted to have the largest open backyard possible for their kids to play and they decided to have the trees removed.....not unlike a homeowner of an existing home anywhere in Edina,. We also built the home next to that one specifically for a homeowner. On that project we spent a lot of money to re- nourish and protect the mature chestnut tree in the front yard per our Clients direction. The Planning Commission should understand that the majority of the new homes we, and others, build are at the direction of our Homeowners. Same goes for the protection, trimming, or removal of their trees. Please make sure to ask the planning commission to make a correction to the Commissioner's statement. Thank you, Andy Porter REFINED Cell: 612.991.9301 Fax: 952.303.3170 Email: apo -ter(&RefinedLLC.com www. Ref nedLLG.com I Cary Teague From: - Ross Bintner Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:39 AM To Cary Teague; Tom Horwath Subject: FW: EEC Postition on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance See below from EEC member Latham. ,;.•�' "<,.. Ross Bintner, PE, Environmental Engineer 952- 903 - 57,131 Fax 952 - 826 -0392 RBintner(&EdinaMN.aov I www.EdlnaMN.aov :For Living, Learning, Raising Families, & Doing Business From: Dianne.Latham [mallto:Dianne(&LathamPark -net] Sent.Friday, March 14, 2.014 4:15 PM To: Ross Bintner Cc: Bill Sierks; John Heer; Keith Kostuch; Rebecca Foster Subject: EEC Postition on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance 3 -14 -14 Ross, Please forward the following to the members of the Planning Commission, the members of the EEC, to Carry Teague and to Tom Horwath. At the 3 -13 -14 EEC meeting I was directed to draft EEC's response to the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's proposed, ordinance on Tree Preservation. The EEC response was to take the form of the findings of EEC's Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) report. The UFTF report was approved by the EEC, then was approved by Council at the June 18, 2013 EEC /Council Work Session to move forward to the Park Board. The following can be incorporated into the EEC minutes for the 3 -13 -14 discussion on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's proposed Tree Preservation ordinance: The EEC's Urban Forest Task Force had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the need and scope of a tree preservation ordinance, as well as with respect to the best use of the City Forester's time. The UFTF found as follows: "The UFTF found that generally, there was little wonton removal of trees on public or private property within Edina other than in isolated Instances. It is very costly to remove a mature tree and consequently trees are generally only removed in cases of disease or of relandscaping; such tree removals are not in need of regulation. When trees are removed In such circumstances they are generally replaced with new trees within a few years.:. Although teardowns occur throughout Edina, most complaints stem from those teardowns on lots less than 75 feet wide. Assuch the UFTF believed that it would not be prudent-to design an ordinance applying to the entire city to address the localized problem of small lot teardowns. Problems unique. to small lot teardowns should be addressed by the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force (RTF) and any enforcement accomplished by the proposed city teardown overseer. To more effectively control noxious weeds and address other environmental issues in the park system, the UFTF recommends hiring.a full- time.Natural Resource Manager, as opposed to apart-time Forester. More knowledge of ecology is required today given the arrival of niany,invasive plant, insect and aquatic species. A passive forestry program with a philosophy of 'Na tural Forest Succession' and one primarily focused on tree diseases such as oak.wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, is no longer adequate... With a full -time Natural Resource Manager the following can be accomplished: more grants can be applied for, more parks can be certified -as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries, more trees can be planted, more buckthorn and other noxious weeds can be controlled, more habitat can be restored, and more educational programs can be offered to,residents. In addition, full -time positions attract candidates with more extensive applicable natural resource education and more applicable experience as opposed to part -time positions." Dianne Plunkett Latham Commissioner, Edina Energy & Environment Commission Chair, EEC Urban Forest Task Force 7013 Comanche Ct. Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 Dianne @LathamPark.net 2 Cary Teague From: Dianne Latham <Dianne @LathamPark.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 201411:10 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Scott Neal; Brian Olson; Tom Horwath; Edina Mail; Cary Teague Subject: Please Oppose the Proposed Tree Ordinance 5 -1 -14 Honorable Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Tree Ordinance because the proposed ordinance: 1. Far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem 2. Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives 3. Over reaches private property rights 4. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time 5. Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects 6. Unreasonably restricts relandscaping options 7. Is impractical from a horticultural view point 8. Is vague in many places 9. Is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10. By forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance, constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property The proposed tree ordinance far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem The Energy and Environment Commission's (EEC) Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the need and scope of a tree preservation ordinance. The EEC's UFTF report states "The UFTF found that generally, there was little wonton removal of trees on public or private property within Edina other than in isolated instances. It is very costly to remove a mature tree and consequently trees are generally only removed in cases of disease or of relandscaping; such tree removals are not in need of regulation. When trees are removed in such circumstances they are generally replaced with new trees within a few years... Although teardowns occur throughout Edina, most complaints stem from those teardowns on lots less than 75 feet wide. As such the UFTF believed that it would not be prudent to design an ordinance applying to the entire city to address the localized problem of small lot teardowns. Problems unique to small lot teardowns should be addressed by the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force (RTF) and any enforcement accomplished by the proposed city teardown overseer." Michael Platteter of the Planning Commission indicated that at the Planning Commission's hearings on tear downs, 80% of those testifying did not mention tree removal as being a problem. Thus, the proposed tree ordinance far oversteps any possible need in instances of small lot tear downs, by applying not only to all tear downs, but also by applying to "all demolition permits; building permits applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool" Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives The ordinance requires: 1) Two for one replacement if any of 16 varieties of over story and large conifer Protected Trees of any size are :removed more than 10 ft from the building pad and outside of the driveway or parking area. 2) One for one replacement of any Removable of over 5 inches in diameter including invasive species. 3) One to one replacement of a Protected Tree of any size, or Removable tree over 5 inches in diameter including. invasive species within 10 ft of the building pad of a new or remodeled building or within driveways and parking areas. The replacement trees must be of one of the 16 specified varieties, all of which are very large at maturity. On small lots, one or two of these large trees in the front and back yard is about all that a lot could accommodate. On even a large lot . (1/2 acre or more) doubling the number of Protected Trees through the two for one requirement of over story trees would completely shade the lot, if the lot could even accommodate the number of required trees and still allow them to be healthy. Although the specified over story and large conifer replacement trees constitute a worthwhile environmental objective, residents should not be compelled to landscape their lots for the resulting shade. Many worthy environmental objectives require sunny lots. This includes vegetable gardens, pollinator gardens and wildlife ponds. By restricting choices to just 16 varieties of trees, lots will begin to look quite similar. Small stature trees (15ft— 3Oft) are eliminated because they are not on the list of specified replacement trees and there won't be room for them. Many of these small stature native.trees have beautiful spring flowers, fall color and berries for birds. This includes Pagoda Dogwood, Service Berry or Nanny Berry. Many beautiful small stature ornamental trees such as Magnolia or Japanese Tree Lilac are similarly eliminated by being squeezed out a proposed landscape plan by the required over story and large conifer replacement trees. Oftentimes a small stature tree serves a small lot far better than larger trees, which can be out of scale with the small lot and overlap their neighbor's yards. It is important to encourage residents to invest in solar panels. The best time to design a home for solar panels is when a home is rebuilt or remodeled. Large designate&replacement over story trees can prevent a homeowner or their neighbor from using solar panels, whereas smaller stature trees are compatible with them. The proposed tree ordinance prevents. residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives for which they should have the choice, and thus the ordinance far over reaches private property rights. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time The city forester is a part time 4/5 position whose time is presently fully engaged. Even if converted to a full time staff person the following requirements of the proposed ordinance could not be accomplished: 1 .-0.82 (6) Approve the removal of any Protected Tree if the owner proposes that it is "diseased or hazardous ". What constitutes diseased or hazardous? How diseased or hazardous does a tree need to be before it can be removed? The ordinance is vague. It is often extremely difficult to know if a tree is diseased to the extent that it must be removed. Homeowners could be left with trees that are not thriving. Conversely, a tree capable of recovery, with some horticultural assistance, could be taken down. These decisions should be left to homeowners. If the tree looks bad to the homeowner and they have the resources to remove it, they should have that option. To do otherwise oversteps private property rights. 10.82. (4) (d) "Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation" — Over 100 tear down permits have been issued for each of the.past two or more years. If all the "demolition permits; building permits Application's for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool" are added, the number would be much larger. And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with all these plans? No policy of guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague. 10.82 (4) (e)": If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester" The ordinance is vague — what is a public area? Is it, a city park? Boulevard? A large number of trees could be donated, which could over run the city's ability to find suitable locations, plant, mulch and water them. The EEC donated 16 small trees to Braemar Park and it was with some difficulty that enough places were found to plant them. The result was that the two large stature conifer seedlings were improperly planted in what was intended to be 2 a prairie, which was supposed to be kept sunny. In addition, two deciduous over story trees were planted in an open area with peat under laying it causing the trees to die. 10.82 (7) "The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during the construction, subject to staff review and approval." And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with the survey? No policy or guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague. 10.82 (7) "City staff monitoring is required for all projects with affected Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years." Multiply the number of annual demolition permits (tear down, remodeling, decks, garages, pools) times 3 and the City Forester will have a staggering number of trees to review annually. No one can guarantee that a newly planted tree will last for three years despite their best efforts. This is due to acts of God such as drought, insects, storms, etc. And what happens if the City Forester finds that a tree died? If it was not the homeowner's fault, should they have to replace it? How do you decide whose fault it is? The ordinance is vague. In 2002, both the Planning Commission and the City Council expressed concerns about the proposed 2002 tree ordinance proposal because the City Forester did not have enough time to comply with all the demands of the proposed ordinance. If anything, the demands of the proposed 2014 tree ordinance are greater than those of the 2002 proposed ordinance and most assuredly more impractical. To the extent that the City Forester has any surplus time, or to the extent that the City Forester position would be converted to a full time position, the EEC's Urban Forest Task Force had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the best use of the City Forester's time. The UFTF found as follows: "To more effectively control noxious weeds and address other environmental issues in the park system, the UFTF recommends hiring a full -time Natural Resource Manager, as opposed to a part-time Forester. More knowledge of ecology is required today given the arrival of many invasive plant, insect and aquatic species. A passive forestry program with a philosophy of `Natural Forest Succession' and one primarily focused on tree diseases such as oak wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, is no longer adequate... With a full -time Natural Resource Manager the following can be accomplished: more grants can be applied for, more parks can be certified as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries, more trees can be planted, more buckthorn and other noxious weeds can be controlled, more habitat can be restored, and.more educational programs can be offered to residents." Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects The City of Minnetonka Tree Protection ordinance at City Code 300.28, Subd. 19 states that: "R-1: For the construction of a principal structure on a vacant R -1 lot or for redevelopment of an existing R -1 lot, protected trees may be removed with no mitigation only within the "basic removal area". The "basic removal area" is defined as: a. Within the areas improved for reasonably -sized driveways, parking areas and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements; b. Within the footprints of, and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings; and c. In areas where trees are being removed for ecological restoration in accordance with a city- approved restoration plan. Edina's proposed ordinance at 10.82 (5) only allows removal of trees within "a ten -foot (10') radius of the building pad of a new or remodeled building" (as opposed to Lake Minnetonka's 20 ft) and "within driveways and parking areas" (whereas Minnetonka gives these a 10 ft radius). Removed protected trees in Minnetonka's above ordinance need not be replaced, while Edina's must be replaced one for one. Contractors need room to work and the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance provides that. Edina's proposed ordinance does not. Neighbors do not appreciate it when contractors leave construction materials on sidewalks, in streets or on their property as a result of having insufficient room in which to work. It would be very difficult to protect a tree, especially one in the front yard on a small lot less than 75 ft wide, which is filled with construction vehicles, equipment, tools and building materials. It would be more successful to remove the trees and relandscape, which probably needs to be redone anyway due to new sight lines and aging or overgrown trees. But here is the catch 22. The.only complaints about tree removal seem to be coming from the neighbors of tear downs on small lots less than 75 ft wide, which tend to exist predominately in Morningside. With 750 residences, Morningside constitutes 5% of the city's approximately 14,000 residences:- Demolition permits elsewhere in the city do not result in tree removal complaints and have no need of regulation.. If you give contractors the room they need to work as under. the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance, virtually no trees will be preserved in either the front yard or the side yard of tear downs on small lots less than 75 ft wide. Trees in the backyard would be protected, especially on deep lots, but few of those are being impacted in any event. I do not recommend even trying to preserve trees in the front or side yards on small lots less than 75 feet wide as it is grossly impractical given all the construction vehicles, equipment, tools and construction materials that must be amassed there. Furthermore, it is not good governance to design an ordinance that meets the needs of only 5 % of the city. A city wide ordinance,needs to be suitable for the vast majority of residents, and the proposed ordinance clearly is not. Unreasonably, restricts relandscaping options When housing is renewed by virtue of a remodeling or a tear.down project, so too must the landscaping be renewed. It is not possible for the city to micromanage this relandscaping process as too many personal choices must be made. With housing renewal, the sight lines change. If perfectly healthy mature tree what once made sense in its location, no longer does so, it must be removed. When we enlarged our deck and put in a. pond and gazebo we found that that we had to remove two mature locust trees and one standard apple tree so that we could seethe new landscape features from the new deck. We also found that the 5 mature pines along the back of the lot that screened us from the neighbor looked pretty threadbare after over 40 years of the utility company's repeated pinning to keep them off the power lines. We replaced them instead with four native Pagoda Dogwoods that would grow• but 15 ft high and would not.need any pruning by the utility company. They would furthermore provide flowers in the spring, fall color and berries for the birds. The service bent', planted near the pond does as well, plus being a small stature tree, it will never reach over to the pond and drop unwanted leaves into the pond. We also added an espalier of five honey crisp apples, one magnolia, one over story gingko tree seedling, two white pine seedlings, two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae and one 6 ft tall black hills spruce. In our remodeling and relandscaping project we removed a total of 7 mature trees, 6 of which would have been considered Protected Trees. We replaced them with 15 trees, only one of which would have been allowed fiom the list of required replacement trees and of the required. size. Under the proposed ordinance we could not have landscaped our yard as we did. Our yard has been on many garden tours, won awards and been featured in magazines and newspapers. The proposed ordinance would have instead required us to plant 13 over story or large conifer trees from the approved list of 16 trees. With the 13 required (2 for 1 of the 6 protected trees and one for one of the one non protected tree) over story or large conifer trees, a shady yard would have resulted and we would not have been able to have a vegetable garden, pollinator garden, wildlife pond, or the small stature pagoda dogwood trees fitting in under the power lines and providing berries for birds. It took us a year to plan our relandscaping project using a professional, landscape architect. There were multiple revisions of the plan. Surely the City Forester cannot be expected to become involved in such projects. The proposed ordinance far oversteps private property rights. If residents are forced to plant more over story and large conifers then they can use — where will they plant them so as to preserve their sunny yard? Most likely they will plant them on the property line where they will unreasonably shade their neighbor's yard and force their neighbor to rake their tree's leaves or trim those portions of the tree that overhang the neighbor's property. This will increase neighbor disputes. Vague Many instances where the ordinance is vague have been cited above. In addition, note the following: 10.82 (2) The list of Protected Trees needs to provide the scientific names, not common names: Birch can include paper birch, which is not suitable for zone 4. Maples can include Norway and Amur maple, which are on the DNR Do Not Plant list. Furthermore, the list is arbitrary and capricious and seeks to micromanage a resident's choice of trees. 10.82 (2) (b) Missing citation/URL for DNR list of invasive trees. Is it the intent to include trees from the DNR Do Not Plant list as well? If so, another citation/URL is needed. 10.82 (3) "Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory." Certified by whom? 10.82 (4) (a) "Replacement trees must be varied" By how much? Does each have to be different? What percent can be alike? 10.82 (4) (b) "Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations ". What is "known "? Is there a list of diseases or infestations? Known by whom? If a homeowner is not aware of it, is that sufficient? 10.82 (7) states "The permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree in connection with such construction." What constitutes "sufficient "? What constitutes "injury"? During our garage enlargement project new footings extended 45" deep and the trench extended 3 feet from the trunk of a mature honey locust tree, which constitutes a Protected Tree under the proposed ordinance. Three inch diameter roots were severed and hung over the trench. Does that constitute an injury? What, if anything, would be required to protect such a tree? We did nothing. Would we have been in violation of the ordinance? If so, what is the penalty? Does the City Forester actually have to look into each construction trench and render an opinion? Tom Horwath, the City of Edina Forester, estimates that about 75% of trees in such situations survive. In fact, our trench tree is still thriving 9 years later behind the garage. Trying to regulate something that you really can't do much about is folly. Impractical from a horticultural view point Many instances where the ordinance is impractical have been cited above. Furthermore, the ordinance is impractical from many horticultural perspectives. This is undoubtedly because the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force, which drafted the proposed tree ordinance, neglected to invite the City of Edina Forester to a single meeting. The Energy and Environment Commission's Urban Forest Task Force had the Forester participate at every meeting. Sidewalks and Driveways - The proposed ordinance does not allow tree removal when a tree is immediately adjacent to a sidewalk or driveway, though Lake Minnetonka does. In these situations tree roots will cause the pavement to heave and become a tripping hazard. And who wants to have a tree right next to a drive way when you are backing out at night, or are backing out on a slippery surface. Trees next to driveways are well positioned for accidents. Trees within 10 feet of sidewalks and driveways need to be removed as provided in the Lake Minnetonka tree ordinance. Swimming Pools - Having to replace Protected Trees two for one when a swimming pool is being added is utterly impractical. Pools cannot have trees in proximity or they become dirty with leaves and other tree debris. Wildlife Pond — We added a wildlife pond in our relandscaping project. For these you cannot use chemicals to kill the mosquito larvae or you will poison the wildlife that comes to the pond. To control mosquito larvae you must add fish to the pond, which will eat the mosquito larvae. When you have fish you must have cover or the small pond becomes too hot during the summer and the fish die due to lack of oxygen in the water. The best way to do this is to add water plants such as water lilies, lotus, etc., as we did. These aquatic plants need sun, thus you can't have the over story trees as required by the ordinance in proximity to a wildlife pond. Such trees also cause the water to become dirty with tree debris, which negatively impacts the fish. Saplings —10.82 (4) states "If a Protected Tree is removed... it must be replaced with two (2) trees" Tree seedlings in the list of 16 protected trees often come unbidden, carried in the air, by water, or by squirrels and other animals via their feces or through their food storage habits. No size is specified for a protected tree. Does this mean that every unbidden sapling/seedling must be replaced or allowed to grow? Conifers - 10.82 (4) (c) Requires replacement conifers to be at least 7 feet tall. Transplanting a large conifer over 6 feet tall is extremely expensive and difficult. The success rate of transplanting medium or large conifers is very poor. Our neighbor purchased a 6 ft pine and had it professionally planted. It died in less than a year and the landscaper would not honor the warranty as each pointed the finger at the other. As part of our relandscaping project we had a 6 ft black hills spruce professionally planted for $600. It lived but did not thrive. After ten years we had it removed. As part of the relandscaping project we also had two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae professionally planted. One died in less than a year and the landscaper replaced it. The two white pine seedlings that we planted as part of the relandscaping thrived and grew rapidly. Nine years later the seedlings are 6 ft tall. The smaller the tree the easier it is to transplant not only from a labor perspective but also from a success rate perspective. Requiring 7 ft conifers is expensive and more likely to fail. Overgrown Conifers — Turning overgrown conifers into Protected Trees discourages residents from removing them. Having overgrown conifers from in fi-ont of home doors and windows poses a security risk. Robbers often target homes with overgrown conifers obscuring entry ways: A former neighbor of mine was twice broken into by robbers who kicked in her front door. With overgrown conifers obscuring her font door the robbers could work with needed cover. Residents should not be penalized for removing'overgrown conifers, which often are out of scale with the home as well as being positioned so as to become a security risk. Buckthorn and other weed trees - 10.82 (2) (b) includes buckthorn as a removable tree because it is defined'by the MN DNR as an invasive species. 10.82 (6) states "If a removable Tree greater than five inches (5 ") is removed, it must be replaced with one tree." Drive through.Indian Hills or any areas where there are large lots. There you will see many buckthorn trees greater than 5" in diameter. Requiring residents to replace these on a one for one basis would only discourage a homeowner from removing their buckthorn. Buckthorn is a shade tolerant understory tree, which grows closely together. Replacing them from among the sun loving trees on the required list of 16 trees would necessitate . replacement trees being planted so closely together that the replacement trees could not thrive. This is highly'impractical. And do you really want to compel residents to replace other Removable Trees such as weedy trees like silver maple, box elder, Siberian elm, etc? The resident likely did not plant them. They were volunteers that arrived unbidden and no one got around to weeding them out. The ordinance is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10.82 (8) states "If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date that the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above." It takes considerable time to plan a remodeling project. All a homeowner needs to do is to remove any Protected Tree one year and a day prior to applying for the permit, then spend the year planning their remodeling project before applying for a demolition permit. In the alternative, the resident could wait until the remodeling is finished, then begin the tree removal and relandscaping. A savvy, developer will tell their prospective seller to do the tree removals prior to closing and then add the removal cost to the selling price of the home. The seller who removed the trees won't be applying for the permit, and by the time the developer /purchaser closes on the home and applies for the permit, the lot's Protected Tree survey will show a bare lot. In the alternative, a builder can simply donate trees to the city and raise the cost of an already high priced home. The bottom line is that if a property owner . does not want a tree, it will be removed sooner or later and there is little that a city can do about it other than to educate residents about the value of trees, or perhaps provide discount trees for residents like the City of Plymouth does. With all the loop holes, the ordinance isn't really about protecting trees. It's about hurling roadblocks in font of developers in a misguided effort to discourage tear downs. Constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property Forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property. This has been done primarily to discourage tear downs on small lots less than 75 feet wide and has overzealously been extended to remodels, additions and pools on lots of all sizes. Solutions I believe that tree removals are not really the problem here. Trees are a renewable, resource. No one builds a $500,000 - $1,000,000 home and then fails to relandscape with trees. Although they may not relandscape immediately, due to time and financial limitations, they will eventually relandscape. Developers are required to submit a landscape plan. That should be part of the meeting with the neighborhood. If the neighborhood meeting finds the landscape plan insufficient they should talk to the developer about it and work it out with the City tear down supervisor. If the tear down supervisor has some landscaping guidelines, the proposed ordinance is unnecessary. Residents can hardly complain about large trees being replaced with young trees because all their lots once had young trees when their homes were new. You need to constantly renew the urban. forest before trees age out. You don't want to wait until a tree falls on your home or on another structure. Some residents have complained to me about tear downs. But when they sold their own homes, they sold them to developers who they knew planned to tear them down. T46y.didl. so. because the developers paid them more money. Residents cannot have it both ways. Let's face it, tree removal complaints are a smoke screen' for the real,complaint — tear downs Council needs to solve the right problem, and it is NOT tree removals. Unless Council is willing to make Morningside or other affected small lot tear down areas a historic preservation district much like. Country Club, or at least designate some homes in these areas for historic preservation, tear downs will continue. And frankly, some of the homes have been poorly maintained and do warrant being torn down and replaced with homes that are energy efficient and better meet the needs of modem families. But for the vast majority, it is a loss of affordable starter homes. If that loss is not of concern to Council, the accompanying tree loss should not be of concern to council. Whereas the trees can and undoubtedly will be replaced, the starter homes cannot be replaced. Everyone needs to understand that as long as it is legal to renew a home by remodeling it or tearing it down, so too must it be legal to renew the landscape to fit the renewed homes' needs: Micromanaging residents landscaping is nothing but a sink hole for city staff time and does little to preserve trees in the long run. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Dianne Plunkett Latham 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 7 Cary Teague From: Dianne Latham <Dianne @ Latham Park. net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 201411:31 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Gc: Tom Horwath; Brian Olson; Cary Teague; Edina Mail; Scott Neal I Subject: Please Oppose Proposed Edina Tree Ordinance 5 -1 -14 Please include the following in the 5 -6 -14 City Council packet. Thank you. Dianne Plunkett Lathm a Edina Garden Council Chair, Conservation Committee 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 From: Twinoaks50 @aol.com [mailto:twinoaks50 @aol.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: dianne(c)lathampark.net Subject: Cutting down Trees Hi Dianne, Minnesota garden writer Don Engebretson (The Renegade Gardener) has some strong and humorous views on the right to cut down trees without replacing them. In light of the proposed tree ordinance, you may enjoy these columns. Elizabeth The 10 Tenets of Renegade Gardening Full version is required reading; bqp• / /www renep,adegardener .com/content/ttenets.htni 1. Gardening should be challenging, relaxing, and fun. I Renegade Gardeners are cautious and wise when perusing the plethora of products and plants sold by the commercial gardening industry. 3. Gardening involves commitment. 4. Renegade Gardeners learn'the Latin names of the plants they grow. 5. Gardening is not always easy. 6. Renegade Gardeners come to realize that lawns are essentially a dumb idea. 7. Gardening and rock music do not mix. 8. Renegade. Gardeners buy first from local growers. 9. There is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree ®n. your property. 10. Irreverence is essential. i "9. There is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree on your property. It's your tree, and just like any perennial, shrub, or concrete statue of a little boy with a f skiing pole, for that matter, if it's fallen into disfavor, it's perfectly all right for you to make it go away. People have extrapolated news of the deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest into .a belief that trees should no longer be cut down. Trees should no longer be cut down in the Brazilian rainforest because the loggers there are clear- cutting, lack any reforestation program, and ample substitutes are available for the hard woods being-harvested. This has nothing to do with that damn spruce planted by a previous owner seven feet off the corner of your house that has, had the audacity to attempt to grow twenty feet wide, or the white pine planted by the owner before that, that now sits half -dead under the sixty foot canopy of a red oak that, when planted, was the same height as the pine. If you want to plant a tree every time you curone down, great, but if you remove a tree from your property because it's planted in a dumb spot,``has been improperly pruned, succumbed to disease or storm damage, or 'simp'ly`impacts your albality to create the landscape you envision and you don'tplant a tree:afterwards, that's fine too. Never take any grief about it from the twelve year -old kids- on your block, or their socialist parents, either. " On Cutting Down a Tree, or Three http:/Avww.renegadegardener.com/content/81 cutdowntree.htm My neighbor Dave wandered into my yard the other day and we lied to each other about what we were planning to accomplish in our gardens by season's end. I mentioned one event definitely taking place on my humble half-acre during the winter: The removal of three excruciatingly mature trees (an oak, an elm, and, to be fair, a maple) from my front yard. Dave withered, slumped, his face grew white and his eyes started rolling back in their sockets. He recovered, gave a low whistle, looked at his shoes, shook his head. I knew what was coming. Since we were standing beside the maple, he started his cross- examination there. "You're going to take down this maple? This beautiful tree ?" he asked. The maple in question is forty-five feet tall will a crown width of around twenty -five feet. It's a Norway, Acer platanoides, referred to by many in these parts as a "black maple. I pointed out to David that the tree in question had been pruned, badly, as a youngster, so that the trunk now splits into two large trunks at a point about seven feet above the ground. The dual trunks immediately curve in parallel to the southwest, and exhibit all manner of lesions, cracks, and wounds: The crown is jagged, lop- .sided, and gives the impression the tree is. off balance. It has never provided any noteworthy .fall color display. Despite my pruning and the professional trimming I paid for a decade ago, it remains the ugliest maple in Deephaven, and that's saying something. The final strike against it is that whereas it sits in a good spot for a tree, it's the wrong tree for the spot. It's too close to my house for a large tree, it's out of scale, it looms over and clutters my driveway, and it shades an area in front of my house for five hours in the afternoon. Plus, as I've already stated, it's ugly. A proper gardening solution? Remove it. The best advice I can give new gardeners, particularly those who have just purchased a home and yard, is FIX YOUR TREE SITUATION FIRST. Had I taken the maple out fifteen years ago, and planted in its spot the tree that I'll be planting next spring (an Eastern Redbud), the redbud would be sixteen feet tall by now, nearing its max, and looking gorgeous. I'm always floored by people's reactions to the thought of having trees removed from their yards. Where I live, many of the trees in literally a thousand yards were not planned, were not planted as an element of landscape design. They just grew, maples especially. I refer to maples in ridiculous locations in a yard as a "Deephaven Maple," and every spring I remove over a hundred of them from my front, back and side yards. These trees are an inch or two tall and are sprouting up from the previous year's seed drop. Every spring, everyone in my neighborhood does the same. Fail to do it and ten years from now, one would have a thousand, twelve -foot maples growing on a half -acre lot. But that never bothers anyone, removing over a thousand maples from their yards in a decade, because they are young. But let a few grow until they cause problems, then cut one down, and you get anonymous letters in the mail. How many big trees were removed when my house was built in 1946? Ten? Twenty? Fourteen very large trees remained when I bought the. house, so I imagine at least ten were given the ultimate prune by the builder when he put in the foundation and driveway. No one ever thinks about that. People who live in their $550,000 wood homes and decry the loss of six trees when a builder finally wrestles away ownership of an undeveloped lot across the street from them don't ever think about the fifteen trees that were cut down when their house was built. Or the forty that were cut down to supply the lumber for it. Two of my original fourteen trees — classic Deephaven Maples — were in my back yard, too close together, right off my patio, blocking the view from my kitchen and dining room windows. They existed for no reason except they hadn't been pulled by a previous owner when they were a few inches high. I neglected them, and one died, gratefully, following the drought of the early 1980s. When I tools it out I took the other one out. Everyone hears about the deforestation of the various rain forests on the globe, particularly in South America, and many people curse logging (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly), but these situations don't equate to tree removal in residential landscapes. In fact, it's fair to say that the number of trees being planted (and new trees slowly working their way to one hundred - year -old status) in residential- America are up from previous decades:- - - Proof? Development of the southern, western, and norther, second -ring suburbs of Minneapolis — and probably your nearest city. These were farmlands, some as close as two miles from my current home. They were clear -cut by farmers one hundred and fifty years ago, and farmed for generations. Guess what? The U.S. doesn't need as much farmland as it once did; yield per acre is much higher than it was in the 1800s, or the 1950s, for that matter. All across Minnesota, treeless farmland is being turned into residential home developments, with, granted, ghastly street names. But my point is that trees are being planted, by the thousands across the Twin Cities, and by the millions across America. Builders are getting better at not dooming so many trees when they do build homes, and have learned not to change the soil level around trees they. want to save. New, disease resistant strains of trees, from crabapples to elms, are being developed and marketed, and nurseries can't keep up with demand from builders, landscapers and homeowners. Getting back to my trees, the maple, as discussed, is history. The elm is coming down (I explained to Dave) because its very old, parts of it have been lost in numerous storms, and if I leave it up it will certainly go down in a storm, possibly on my house, within the next five years. It's also in a really dumb spot, smack in front of my house, up way too close. Would you plant a tree there? The red oak, which sits eight feet from the elm, is a nice - looking tree but is also in a dumb spot, even closer to my house (twelve feet) than the elm. This oak is fifty feet tall and could well be one hundred years old. I've debated the oak, but decided finally to take it out because in my new fi•ont yard plan, I'd never put any type of tree where it stands. I'm having it removed in eight, ten and twelve -foot lengths, then calling up a friend of mine with a portable sawmill he tows behind his pickup. Come spring he'll saw it into 8" x 8 "s and 10" x 10 "s for use in an elaborate arbor structure I'm going to build off my home's new addition. I like that. I'm sure one reason the elm and the oak were left (they most certainly existed before the house was built, and were not planted as a part of any landscape plan) was to shade and cool the house. They sit directly south. Air conditioning was not available to the original owner in the 1940s, so these two trees provided shade to the roof and front of the house in summer, then lost their leaves and allowed the sun to shine on the house in the winter. Well, I put in central air conditioning four years ago. This opens up my options. So I'm taking three trees out. Big ones. Before you phone the Sierra Club and report me, may I also point out that I am planting three trees in my yard. I mentioned this to Dave and he was immediately back to liking me, so I didn't mention that my planting three trees was shear coincidence. You don't need to plant a tee every time you take one down (see Tenet 11). .. .... . ...... . ........... . .. ............... ..._ ........ _._ ...._... Some people find that hard to believe. I was doing a yard consultation last week with a young couple down the road, nice house and lot, many beautiful trees, and as we 'walked around a corner of their house we came upon the second ugliest maple in Deephaven. Twenty years old, perhaps. A previous owner had hit the tree, repeatedly, with the mower blade, so that the trunk actually grew in a brazen "s" as it struggled for sunlight under a full canopy of far more mature trees. It was too close to the house, all alone, fixing to die in one of the few areas on the entire one -acre lot in which I would never plant a tree. The couple asked me what I thought about "the little maple." It goes, I said. "That's what the neighbors all say, but we wanted an. expert opinion." I know when to bite my tongue. Then the wife asked, "So what type of tree should we plant there `after it's gone ?" The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article Ill of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION) Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance apples, ito all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form man integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute o the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city T� purpose of the ordinance is to, a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees `�th� roughout the city. b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the `distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visitors and wildlife e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing `oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater byy !stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effects f. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots. (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree that is structurally sound and healthy, and that Meets one of the following; . Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — X Added text —XXXX i. a decidiuous tree that is at least 15 inches dbh, except box elders, elm, poplar, willow, silver maple, black locust, fruit tree species, and mulberry r ii. a coniferous tree that is at least 20 feet in height. b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as Ian invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventor plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, heal and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected reel are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and si; I,of all replacement tree(s)- (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be 'replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the following conditions:. a. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases orL__ infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in caliperL for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester befo implementation e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must b placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester (5) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas. a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or remodeled building, b. Within driveways and parking areas. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX PAR (6) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent inju o the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must- indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject to staff review and approval. (7) If Protected Trees were removed within one�,(1) year prio' to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, thes( Protected Trees are also subject toi the replacement policy set forth in paragraph ,(4) above. Section 2. Subsection 32 -7. Variances are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 32 -7. Variances. (a) Grant by Council. In connection with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision. the Council may grant variances from the provisions of this Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual hardship exists as.to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that: (1) The ;ardsh;p is net e .ee vemeReej (2) The -ha; dsh;p is due to the physieal SUFFOURdiRgS, shape 9F paFtieulaF WOBORphical L--.n-Rd-4*-4A-R of the land; (3) The enRd+t-n -R n-r een otoens UpeR .,h°eh the FeaQestf ee-Fs hv,;cd ique to +�pivpc d subdivided and net �iu��e•cr9' � i�--�eTi�- (6). The . ee, ifgante (4) T-hehaFdSh*p as caused bythis Seetion by the and net applieantj (5) The varianee ;.A.; I I r- esult iFnpFePe R-r ", ivisio an at �a n; -and (6). The . ee, ifgante -Icd, P-'-;3eiitislT'reharaeteF the land- w"! net of ',(1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting tl property such that the strict application of the provisions of this tit I ould deprive the applicant reasonable use of their land. Existing text - XXXX 3 Stricken text - XXXX Added text -XXXX (That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated (3) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. (b) Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and objectives of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions may be made a part of any Development Contract required by article IV of this chapter. F--J (c) Variances from Section 36. When Variances are requested from Section 3 requirements for lot areas and dimensions, the Planning Commission and Ci Council may consider the following criteria in addition to Section 36 -98 1) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposes levelopment, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood a evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters, - a. The suitability of the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat "70r subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and ,b The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the :lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. '(2) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed :development, on the environment, including but not limited toy opography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds sand streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation,: susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. Existing text – XXXX 4 Stricken text –X r—� Added text –XXXX (3) The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and propose development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, an he proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals c the Comprehensive Plan. . F �(4) The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of (chapter 36 including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and thel fli oodplain overlay district provisions of chapter 36 5) The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and propose development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public F- 6) The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvement proposed and the conflict of such design .or improvements, with an easements of record or on the eround The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existi streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from su lots from and to existing streets The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the (conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny I public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots r (9) The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots an existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitar sewer systems. '(10) The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance an other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be develope I the proposed plat or subdivision 11) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements ,proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX Section 3. Chapter 32. Article III. Evaluation of Plats and Subdivisions is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 32 -130. Considerations. T#e C-emr, iss +en-in rig- iseens on dote revievvi PFepesed Couneil, and the Come" disapffOve ef any plat eF subdNismen,,- FT'sa� 6ensidar plats and subdi deteffRiAing,wheth 9 and .g ;e 9 %e Fn-,+Trctterr,zth,e fellew;ngi (1) The impaet the- develepReA�T -ef PFGpesred plat the eh-,raet.,: and s . tFy „f the GF subdivismen, eyed n - in.dicate.d h.. ghbOFh.,.,.d evidenced and a. The suitabil of the size and shape of the let-S, an the PFOpesed plat eF styf +v+s +effete the size - and shape ef lots in the- ne+ghbeF"eed. and -h. The compatibility of the size, shape;;VCatio ITT -O'I d aff 77 gemen of the lots in the n ...d plat ., ..h.di..i. -i.,n ...i +h the n ...d .density and inten use of the ske and the density and use of lets in the neighbeFheed. WINNOW (6) The relatienship of the design of the site, the- impFa4ements ffepesed a the nfIir+ .,F . -..r-6, .1 evements, with, any easements .,f . eF d G the gFOUR4-. Existing text - XXXX 6 Stricken text -X Added text —XXXX IN "WIMIM721MV: I III WIN WINNOW (6) The relatienship of the design of the site, the- impFa4ements ffepesed a the nfIir+ .,F . -..r-6, .1 evements, with, any easements .,f . eF d G the gFOUR4-. Existing text - XXXX 6 Stricken text -X Added text —XXXX (8) The -ad eq u aey efs#Feets in the =P t r (7) The Felati..nship of existing StFeets. lets in the proposed plat O SUbdivisien + existing + + d (8) The -ad eq u aey efs#Feets in the =P t r Fepe�ea= pay - e Subdivision, and thezeRfer,;,tA.' with A S#meets- and OR StFeetg in -highways SUFFOURding a Feas. inadequate the pfepesed- plat -et- subdivision shall.-be deemed if designed feEated- se-ate event erdeny te- eF publie stFeet aeeess ad;eining '„f being the pelic the City to -, ei,d I-.n dl.,..ke d + a + pa I neir 1 + (1 -1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. ( -12) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. .�3) Comply with Section 10 -82. (13) \All,., +heF the p ed plat O ubdivisie . the + pr-apesed to 6 placed t Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Existing text - XXXX Stricken text -X r—, Added text —XXXX 7 Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City.Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly, adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 20141 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text - XXXX Added text —XXXX