My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03-13-2023 City Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2023
>
Searchable Packets
>
03-13-2023 City Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2023 3:53:30 PM
Creation date
3/14/2023 3:49:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
03/13/2023
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 4 <br />landscape methods as there is an education component along with it. He shared that grants are 132 <br />available for native gardens and tree plantings. 133 <br /> 134 <br />Councilmember Cavegn noted that many residents in Lino Lakes are fertilizing their lawns and 135 <br />likely choking out any pollinator species. 136 <br /> 137 <br />The Environmental Board recommended considering No Mow May back in 2022. 138 <br /> 139 <br />The consensus of the Council was to not move forward with No May May at this time. 140 <br /> 141 <br />Item 4 — Boulevard Tree Policy — Environmental Coordinator Nelson gave a summary of his 142 <br />written report and shared that currently every new residential house gets a boulevard tree as part 143 <br />of the developer agreement. The City maintains and prunes those trees, and if a tree dies the City 144 <br />will remove the tree and restore the area to turf grass. The City has been replacing those trees as 145 <br />they die from the forestry budget. He asked whether the City would like to continue requiring 146 <br />boulevard tree planting. 147 <br /> 148 <br />The Councilmembers were in favor of the requirement for boulevard trees at the developer’s 149 <br />expense. 150 <br /> 151 <br />Mr. Nelson asked if the City should continue the practice of replacing boulevard trees that have 152 <br />been removed at cost of about $500 per tree at an estimated 60 trees per year; he clarified it 153 <br />would probably be about 30 trees per year when Emerald Ash Borer is under control. 154 <br /> 155 <br />The Councilmembers discussed and were in favor of continuing the replacement program. 156 <br /> 157 <br />Mr. Nelson asked whether a resident should have the choice to opt-out of replacement of the 158 <br />boulevard tree associated with their property if it is removed. 159 <br /> 160 <br />Councilmember Cavegn noted if the City requires it to begin with, it is part of the aesthetic of 161 <br />trees within the City. 162 <br /> 163 <br />The Councilmembers discussed an were not in favor of allowing residents to opt-out of a 164 <br />replacement tree. 165 <br /> 166 <br />Councilmember Lyden stated if someone wanted a more expensive tree they may be able to pay 167 <br />the difference. Mr. Grochala noted the City is very careful about tree selection in the boulevard 168 <br />so they do not run into situations like Emerald Ash Borer. They want to be sure the replacement 169 <br />is a good, hardy tree. 170 <br /> 171 <br />Councilmember Stoesz asked if someone puts a tree in that isn’t the City standard, does the City 172 <br />make the resident remove the tree? Mr. Nelson noted it is on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Grochala 173 <br />clarified the City does have the ability to remove the tree and charge the resident for it. 174 <br /> 175 <br />Item 5 — Park and Trail Improvement Fund Projects — Public Services Director DeGardner 176 <br />gave a summary of his written report based on Park Board discussion with an updated list of 177
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.