06/09/2010 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • ATTACHMENT 1 Memorandum Bonestroo To: Michael Grochala, AICP, Community Development Director, City of Lino Lakes From: Ciara Schlichting, AICP Date: May 26, 2010 Re: Draft Ordinance Language The purpose of this memo is to transmit revised draft ordinance language for the Environmental Board to review at their meeting on June 2, 2010 and for the Planning and Zoning Board to review at their meeting on June 9, 2010. The proposed revisions are intended to address comments received from the Environmental Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and city staff. No public comments were received during the public hearing held May 12, 2010 (the public hearing is still open). The attachments to this memo include the following: Attachment 1: Site Layout Performance Standards The Site Layout Performance Standards include four minor revisions. Since the revisions are minor only a "tracked changes" version of the proposed language is being transmitted. The revisions are intended to address the following comments: 1. The need to clarify that surface water management needs to be based on predevelopment conditions. 2. Remove reference to tree preservation levels (e.g., Level T -1, T -2) since labeling the requirements as "levels" was removed from the tree preservation standards. Attachment 2: Landscaping and Tree Preservation Standards The Landscaping and Tree Preservation Standards contain numerous minor revisions; therefore, both a "tracked changes" and "clean" version of the draft ordinance language is being transmitted. The revisions are intended to address the following comments: 1. Overall, the text was reorganized to make the language more "user friendly" and to simplify administration of the standards. Most of these revisions did not result in substantive changes to the standards. For example, the concept of "levels" was removed; however, the general intent of the standards remain although the numbers (e.g., planting requirements) may vary slightly from the previous version. 2. Require one canopy coverage percent (e.g., 40 %) for all uses rather than have two levels. 3. Increase the incentive (e.g., assigned canopy coverage value) to have more than two trees in an interior parking lot island. 4. Increase minimum soil volume requirements for trees in a single or shared bed. 5. Clarify that existing lots with existing buildings can remove trees without triggering mitigation requirements. 6. Clarify that the non - compliance measures also apply to tree preservation plans.