Arbor Committee

MAPLE GROVE ARBOR COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 2020 7:00 PM REMOTE ONLINE MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY13, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 3. OLD BUSINESS A. PARKING LOT SUBCOMMITTEE B. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UPDATE 4. NEW BUSINESS A. FALL TREE FESTIVAL DISCUSSION B. PLANNED ASH TREE REMOVALS 5. AREA REPORTS 6. ADJOURNMENT  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 2 A and B Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: Approval of Agenda and Minutes Approval of Agenda and Minutes Agenda Item: Recommended Committee Action: Call by Chairperson __________________ for any additions or revisions to the agenda. Motion by Committee member ________________, seconded by Committee member __________________ to approve as proposed or approve as amended the agenda for the June 11, 2020 regular meeting. Motion by Committee member __________________, seconded by Committee member ______________ to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2020 regular meeting as presented or as amended. Discussion: Committee Comments:  MAPLE GROVE ARBOR COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 2020 MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM 7:00 PM Call to Order The regular meeting of the Arbor Committee was called to order by Chairperson Parenteau at 7:00 p.m. Members Present Mary Parenteau, Frank Kampel, Sarah Piket, Steve Courtney, Julie Gamber, Marilyn Arnlund, Bob Henke, Don Varney, Cody Lensing, Ed Reichow Members Absent Dan Sanford Also Present Judy Hanson, Council Liaison Jesse Corrow, Staff Liaison Peter Vickerman, Planning Manager Approval of Agenda Chairperson Parenteau asked if there were any additions and Minutes or revisions to the agenda. Staff Liaison Corrow offered the following late additions: 3E – Elm Road Project, 4B – Shake Shack Landscape Plan, 4C – ProMed Landscape Plan, 4D – KinderCare Landscape Plan. Hearing no further additions or revisions, Committee Member Gamber made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Courtney and passed unanimously on a voice vote. Chairperson Parenteau asked if there were any revisions to the January 9, 2020 minutes. Committee Member Kampel noted that the voice vote on the election of officers should be added. Committee Member Kampel also noted some grammatical errors. Hearing no further revisions, Committee Member Kampel made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2020 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Varney and passed unanimously on a voice vote. Old Business Parking Lot Subcommittee continued review of the B3 State of MN Subcommittee sustainability guidelines. Subcommittee will also review the Hennepin County guidelines. Arbor Committee Meeting Minutes February 13, 2020 Page 2 Peter Vickerman presented the ordinance changes that Tree Preservation were discussed at the January 9, 2020 meeting and the Ordinance Committee reviewed the ordinance for a final time. • Fees – Committee Member Kampel made a motion to support use of the conservation fee/$131 vs. the appraised value method. Committee member Gamber seconded. The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote. The Committee felt this would simplify situations over using the appraised value method which involves bringing in an assessor after the tree is already removed, etc. • Replacement Standards – Committee Member Kampel made a motion to support use of the higher replacement method proposed by the Arbor Committee instead of the staff proposed progressive replacement, Committee Member Arnlund seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. • Sec 36-722 – Committee Member Varney made a motion to support changing the word “may” to “shall” in subdivision (2) and (3) and adding “or other charge as determined by the City Council” for subdivision (3). Seconded by Committee Member Courtney. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Arbor Day Event Discussion and planning for the upcoming Arbor Day Event continued. Committee members discussed the status of their assignments and recommended additional tasks. Buckthorn Removal The Committee discussed the follow-up information Event that Staff Liaison Corrow received from the Maple Grove Police Department. Committee Member Arnlund suggested that the event is advertised to the public as a way to learn how to identify and eradicate buckthorn. Chairperson Parenteau asked Corrow to speak with his Police contact regarding possibly Arbor Committee Meeting Minutes February 13, 2020 Page 3 restricting times that the Capable Partners group can hunt and/or posting signs when they are hunting. Elm Road Staff Liaison Corrow presented an updated tree inventory of the site which included periphery trees that would likely be impacted during grading work. When including the periphery trees, removal numbers exceeded 51%. Committee members decided that as long as the conservation easement was a condition of approval, along with the 300 new trees that will be added by the developer, the proposal was sufficient. The Committee requested the ability to review any future changes that would impact the tree removal numbers. New Business The Markets of Rush Committee Members noted that the Landscape Creek - Outlot L Ordinance requires that plan have a full complement of understory trees and this plan has none. It was noted that there is a driveway south of the building by a sanitary sewer where they should consider planting understory trees. The Committee recommends approval subject to the addition of additional understory trees. Shake Shack The Committee recommends that the developer use structural soil for the trees in the small islands and possibly reduce the number of trees in the islands from two to one. Another recommendation is to make the new islands larger. This is to increase the survivability of the trees. The Committee feels a performance agreement should be included on this project, although one is not required. ProMed The developer must ensure that no more than 20% of the total number of trees on the site may be of the same genus, existing trees shall be included in the ratio. The current plan included too many Kentucky Coffee trees. The Committee recommends that the developer use structural soil for the trees in the small islands and make the islands larger and consider adding more islands in the parking lot on the east side of the building to break Arbor Committee Meeting Minutes February 13, 2020 Page 4 up the expanse. Adding additional trees or moving required trees from other parts of the development to the islands is suggested. Kindercare The Committee recommends that the developer find space on the lot to plant all required trees (25). Columnar trees that need less horizontal space should be considered. Area Reports There were no updates to provide from the January 9, 2020 meeting. Committee Member Kampel reported that the leaning trees on Maple Grove Parkway near the hospital have been removed. Adjournment Committee Member Arnlund made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 P.M. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Piket and passed unanimously on a voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Jesse Corrow, Staff Representative City of Maple Grove Arbor Committee  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 3A Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: Old Business Agenda Item: Parking Lot Subcommittee Update Recommended Committee Action: None. Discussion: The Parking Lot Subcommittee continues to meet and discuss ways to increase the survival rates of trees in parking lots. Members of the subcommittee (Arnlund, Piket, Varney) will provide an update since the last Arbor Committee meeting in January. Committee Comments:  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 3B Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: Old Business Agenda Item: Tree Preservation Ordinance Update Recommended Committee Action: None Discussion: The updated T-zone language will be going to the Planning Commission on Monday, June 8th. Staff wanted to make the Arbor Committee aware of a couple of adjustments since it was last reviewed. The first is with regard to the Density Bonus language. Staff found that the original language would have granted significant density bonus for relatively little additional tree preservation, especially on sites where it all was T-zone. That was not the intent so it was retooled and retested in different scenarios to get to where it is at now. These changes work much better in providing a strong incentive for tree preservation. The second adjustment is with regard to single family neighborhoods where there are no density bonuses granted. This would include all past projects and any future ones. It clarifies that the 32 inches per acre of T- zone, per year would apply once a certificate of occupancy was granted for a house. There was some conflicting language previously regarding this that was cleaned up. Attached is a comparison of the Density Bonus Language. Committee Comments: Language from the last Arbor Committee review of this in January. (4) Density Bonus and Transfer for Residential Development As an incentive to retain trees, density bonuses can be considered for preservation. Density bonuses are based on the percentage of trees retained over 50% but will be calculated based on the acreage of trees preserved. Density Bonuses for T-zone preservation can be in addition to any density bonuses in the PUD section. a. A 1% increase in Density Bonus can be considered for each percentage of trees retained over 50%, rounding to the nearest whole number. b. Example Table Percentage of DBH Inches Retained Density Bonus 60% 10% 70% 20% 80% 30% 90% 40% 100% 50% c. The Density Bonus shall be applied to the acreage of the remaining T-zone area to be preserved and this density can be transferred to the remainder of the site or an alternative site subject to City approval. The Density Bonus shall be applied after any additional density bonuses in the PUD Section for Open Space Preservation. d. For sites within a T-zone, density bonuses, including Open Space Preservation bonuses will only be allowable if more than 50% of the DBH inches are preserved. Current proposed language (4) Density Bonus and Transfer for Residential Development As an incentive to retain trees, density bonuses can be considered for preservation. Density bonuses are based on the percentage of trees retained over 50% and apply to the area of a project that is in a T-zone. Density Bonuses for T-zone preservation can be in addition to any density bonuses in the PUD section. a. A 2% increase in Density Bonus can be considered for each percentage of trees retained over 50%, rounding to the nearest whole number. At least 55% of the inches must be retained before the density bonus shall apply. Commented [PV1]: Staff recommends that at least 55% of the inches must be retained before the density bonus b. Example Table goes into effect. The actual bonus however would be based Percentage of DBH Inches Retained Density Bonus on the percentage over 50%. 60% 20% 70% 40% 80% 60% 90% 80% 100% 100% c. The Density Bonus shall be applied only to the acreage of the T-zone area of the property and this density can be transferred to the remainder of the site or an alternative site subject to City approval. d. The base density on which the density bonus shall be applied is the maximum density in the particular land use category in the Comprehensive Plan. e. The City may consider flexibility with regard to unit types and lot sizes to accommodate the greater amount of open space that would occur with greater tree preservation. For example, smaller lot single family or more attached housing in the Low-Medium Residential areas could be considered. Commented [PV2]: This is to clarify that if there is f. For sites that have both T-zone areas and non T-zone areas, density bonuses shall be additional preservation, the city should offer more flexibility with regard to design standards and unit types. calculated independently from each other. Open Space Preservation bonuses would only gained if open space was created in the non T-zone area above what is required by code. g. For sites within a T-zone, density bonuses, including Open Space Preservation bonuses will only be allowable if more than 50% of the DBH inches are preserved. Commented [PV3]: These provisions (d. & e.) are necessary as for sites that have both T-zone and non T-zone areas, density bonuses could be granted for preserving well under the 50% limit of removal in a T-zone which is contrary to the intent of the ordinance.  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 4A Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: New Business Agenda Item: Fall Tree Festival Discussion Recommended Committee Action: Discuss whether or not the Arbor Committee wishes to host a Fall Tree Festival in 2020. Discussion: Since the Arbor Day Event was cancelled earlier in the year, we wanted to get the input of the Arbor Committee on how they feel about hosting a Fall Tree Festival this year. The Arbor Day Foundation has waived the requirement to hold an Arbor Day observance in order to maintain “Tree City USA” recognition, so holding the festival is not a requirement. Committee Comments:  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 4B Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: New Business Agenda Item: Ash Tree Removal Recommended Committee Action: None Discussion: The attached article was published in the City of Maple Grove summer newsletter and discusses an area of EAB infested ash trees located to the north of Rice Lake. City staff plans to begin removing all of the ash trees in the area shown on the map beginning in late fall, 2020. Chairperson Parenteau requested that the article be brought to the attention of the Arbor Committee to discuss. Committee Comments:  REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE ACTION Item Number: 5 Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Agenda Heading: Area Reports Agenda Item: Area Reports Recommended Committee Action: None. Discussion: The Area Reports section of the agenda provides an opportunity for any Committee member to report any item in the City that needs staff attention. Arbor related items will be forwarded to the appropriate staff member with a response provided at the next meeting. Committee Comments: