HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/2000 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
Lino Lakes City Hall
November 29, 2000
6:30 PM
Agenda
1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Citizen Comments
Project Review
A. Dellwood LLC/NE Quadrant of 35W & Lake Dr.
6. Environmental Board Business
A. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface Project / Peggy Sand
B. Lino Lakes Population / Amy Donlin
C. Development Concerns/Birch St. and Centerville Rd.
D. Property North of Lino Lakes Elementary
7. Program/Project Updates
A. Environmental/Grant Update
B. Forestry Updates
C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates
9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE : October 25, 2000
TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 9:24 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Rod Kukonen, Dave Mach,
and Mike Trehus.
MEMBERS ABSENT : Chair Scott Lanyon and Theresa O'Connell.
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Davidson called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 30, 2000 - Kukonen requested a correcti
meeting minutes, Page 2, tenth paragraph, to i
Sawtooth Golf Course.
the ap ed August 30, 2000
aw 11 Golf Course" rather than
A. September 27, 2000 — The following correi re requested:
Page 3, eighth paragraph: "Dav' . ; . d recommend the following items be
addressed: retention of as m t. waer ..."
Page 6, fifth paragraph: vidso moved to recommend the following items be
addressed: providing a visu er between ..."
Page 7, seventh paragraph: "Trehus asked about the trees on the site. Mr. Fairbrother
stated they would ..."
Trehus moved to approve the September 27, 2000 meeting minutes as amended above.
Mach seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the meeting agenda:
• Discuss Development at the Intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road
• Discuss Lino Lakes Population
• Discuss Property North of School and Potential as a City Park
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
The agenda was approved as amended above.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
No other comments were made.
PROJECT REVIEW
A. Highland Meadows West/Second Addition — Asleson noted that the Environmental
Board reviewed subdivision proposals for Highland Meadows and Bluebill Ponds in
September of 1999. The area to the north of Highland Meadows was reviewed as future
expansion. At this time, the developer has submitted a plan to develop the second
addition of Highland Meadows West. The area includes a proposal to build two lots
around three existing lots and road expansion to access these lots. According to staff
inventory, there are no significant vegetation types in this area. Surface water issues have
not yet been addressed with the watershed. However, staff has some concerns with the
greenway issues in the area. Asleson presented a map of site and suggested the Board
address the issue that this should not be phased in for elopment without a
comprehensive plan for the entire area.
Vice Chair Davidson asked how this fits with 1 'il Pofids development. Asleson
stated Bluebill Ponds is located to the west.
Asleson advised of the concern of Parks ab
wetland mitigation was done on
greenway corridor was discuss
into the plans.
Kukonen moved to rec
not support continued road e
area to the north is completed.
voting against.
1 and greenway areas. He noted the
of Main Street and, at that time, a lineal
ted on how that greenway could be worked
dance of piecemeal development as the Board does
on or development until a comprehensive plan for the
onlin seconded the motion. Motion carried with Trehus
B. Saddle Club — Asleson explained the Saddle Club project was reviewed at the September
27, 2000 meeting. The developer has submitted a new sketch plan. He noted the colored
map provided by the developer indicating the total site area, total upland, wetland, trees to
remain, and those to be removed. He stated he reviewed this information in comparison
to the GIS map and the developer has determined the number of lots he needs to make it
work. Asleson reviewed the greenway alignment and mentioned the types of soils and
vegetation found on this site. He stated this is a good area to consider for conservation
development.
Asleson pointed out the areas of wetland delineation and wetland vegetation. He also
noted the areas of historic oak savanna and potential for trail locations. He advised this
property is just outside the identified greenway expansion area, however, those
2
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
characteristics are present on this site. Asieson explained this site is half in MUSA and
half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the
DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources,
and conservation development so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project.
Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asieson stated he
believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also,
it would create the desired buffers.
Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts
small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He
stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr.
Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and tree stands to strike a
balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He
stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands.
Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, upl ds, and areas to be developed
for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of are o be developed and those to be
conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the arts o servation. He pointed out
areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and c ss poi' a Mr. Fairbrother
addressed their intent to soften the hard surfac sta d all areas not platted for
housing would be deeded for a conservation ease
Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the r•' ` . ` d be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road
width is negotiable, depending on the • y wants.
Mach stated this plan is well
habituate, suffers with th
be continued, diversity
wildlife is present.
he has found upland, which provides
stated if a conservation easement program is to
ypes needs to be considered to assure a diversity of
Asieson explained the blue areas depicted on the map do not identify areas of open water.
Mach stated he would be willing to see some trees removed if it would save some upland
and provide diverse nesting habituate and animals. Asieson stated the GIS data for this
site would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations.
Asieson asked about the number of lots and how it relates to the project. Mr. Fairbrother
stated it would be a more appropriate to ask John Hill to address whether it is
economically feasible.
Ken Adolph, representing the applicant, explained that John Hill was unable to attend the
meeting tonight. He stated they feel that 64 lots are needed to make this project
financially feasible and if the lot number were to be reduced, they may return with a
request for higher density, such as townhomes.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
Trehus stated he is disappointed in this proposal and it being represented as a
conservation development. He stated he believes a conservation development results in
tradeoffs with a lower density. He noted that 25 acres of upland would equal about 50
homes and he would not support more than 50 homes on this site. Trehus commented on
the amount of impervious surface and stated he believes the entire concept of
conservation development is being shifted, which he does not support.
Kukonen asked about Option A for 49 lots. Mr. Fairbrother stated that is the large lot
option which they proposed at an earlier meeting. However, that is now off the table at
this point based on the comments made at the last meeting indicating a desire for smaller
sized lots.
Kukonen asked when the property will all be included in the MUSA. Asleson stated he is
not aware of when MUSA will be expanded.
Mr. Adolph stated at the last meeting, it was discussed th. _. the MUSA was arbitrarily
drawn through the middle of this property. He advised at Heritage Development has
indicated they will develop the property in two phas - an quest the MUSA line be
redrawn, possibly with tradeoffs in other areas.
Mr. Adolph stated the single family area uses mor ' the upland area and the intent of
the conservation development is to cluster velo ent with smaller lots. However,
in the economic analysis, one larger sized 1 t equate to a smaller sized cluster
lot.
Asleson inquired regarding c ge .f these homes. Mr. Adolph stated $160,000
to $180,000 is the base p 'a'e plu- •ti.3' which could increase the price to $200,000.
Trehus asked how a conside '. R. of townhomes was raised. Mr. Adolph stated more of
the upland acreage could be re . ned and placed in the conservation easement with a
higher density such as townhomes. He reviewed the applicant's conversation from the
last meeting indicating they did not want the conservation easement line to run through
private homes which this revised site plan addresses.
Trehus noted the number of lots also increased from 49 to 63. Mr. Adolph stated that is
correct because one large lot does not equal one small lot.
Mr. Fairbrother stated they propose 50 -foot buffers from all wetlands.
Trehus asked if they are aware of the typical road right -of -way width in Lino Lakes. Mr.
Adolph stated they are proposing a 50 -foot right -of -way. Trehus stated the requirement is
for 60 feet and asked what the impact would be. Mr. Fairbrother noted this is a PUD so
there would be some consideration for flexibility about road width and lot sizes.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
Mr. Adolph explained that providing a 60 -foot right -of -way would push the homes closer
to the roadway. He suggested that a 50 -foot right -of -way is adequate for streets in this
development.
Donlin stated she does not necessarily agree that smaller sized cluster lots with a
conservation easement are of less value than a larger sized lot. She suggested less value
would result in placing an additional 15 homes in this area due to added congestion.
Donlin stated the quality of life would be better and the desired value could still be
achieved if those additional 15 homes were removed.
Mr. Adolph stated in this case, they are not considering a small sized lot to be of equal
value to a larger sized lot.
Donlin stated she realizes this is a PUD so consideration of higher density, etc. is given
but she is not sure this high number of homes is a necessity.
Mr. Adolph stated with this development, there will be a meowners association to
address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would prod the benefits of townhomes
without having a partywall.
Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be 1 hich'meets a market demand and
need for those who are downsizing or empty neste
Vice Chair Davidson agreed with Donlin re i e desirability for smaller lots if it
contains the same amenities, view . _` and
Asleson asked if lots of that
se in the marketplace. Mr. Adolph stated Mr.
Hill would be able to ans tha ° b e :'n.
Donlin stated she appreciate e , etter viewsheds with this plan but she does not think it
is fair to then add 15 units whi creates more congestion.
Mr. Fairbrother asked when the point of economics of the development and the
conservation issues balance out.
Vice Chair Davidson noted that Option C was discussed at the last meeting, not Option
A. She asked if there is an option somewhere between Option A and Option C, to create
fewer lots and more open spaces.
Mach stated the role of the Board is to address the environmental aspects and while he
agrees not much has been gained environmentally, he is sensitive to the economic issues.
Asleson stated they bought the land to develop into houses and the question being asked
is how few homes can be built and the project still work. He noted the developer has
addressed issues of buffering and greenway. Asleson stated the developer will have to
5
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
address the density and financial economics. He explained that 2.5 -acre lots are not part
of a conservation development, as they can be subdivided in the future.
Vice Chair Davidson agreed and noted that large lots are also not conducive to wildlife
corridors or contiguous areas.
Trehus noted that with this plan the number of lots has been increased and the road right -
of -way reduced, which is a win -win situation for the developer but not the City. He
suggested there should be some tradeoffs for the City to benefit and asked if a formal
application has been made.
Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made.
Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive to older couples and empty
nesters so there would be a lower population.
To increase viewsheds, Donlin suggested Lots 7, 34, 35, 4 51, and 52 be removed.
Trehus stated he would like to see the calculations o m r „r + ious surfaces.
Mach asked if it is up to the association to ad tr- " rese ation. Asleson reviewed
several tree preservation/protection options used b her communities and commented
on the importance of assuring City input i se is' s.
The Environmental Board indicat sire r a fewer number of lots and more upland
preservation.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD S
A. Landscape Ordinance Rev '' Asleson presented the draft Landscape Ordinance and
requested Board comment.
During discussion, the following revisions were made:
II. DEFINITIONS
Page 2: "Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein,
who undertakes to improve change a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing
utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon."
Page 3: "Native vegetation means vegetation, composed of native plants, that has been
ecies- are indigenous to the area."
III. APPLICABILITY
6
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
• Page 4, B2: "Upon submittal, the City environmental staff and/or Environmental Board
will review ..."
Page 4, B3: "For any project that requires a Landscape /Screening plan, the City
environmental staff and/or Environmental Board will make ..."
Page 4, C: "The requirements of this Section are separate from the City's Street Shade
Tree Ordinance ..."
IV. LANDSCAPE/SCREENING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Page 5, 8: "Table summarizing new plants by scientific and common name, size, root
condition type, and quantity."
Page 5, B, 1, a): "... including non -plant elements. In the event of any disagreement, the
City will use
equiv-alent a regionally -based wholesale nursery catalog ..."
V. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIRE
Page 6, A, 2: "The City encourages the planting of
When using native vegetation species, an effort s
S
ecies to the extent feasible.
,,
Page 7, B, 3, a): "... streets or abutting properties : designated for different zoning
des land use."
Page 7, 4: "Screens shall consist etati
walls, and fences may be used •
plan materials are preferred."
and other landscape elements. Berms,
ith plant materials. Screens incorporating
Page 7, C: Board determined not address outdoor displays.
Page 7, C, 1, a): "All off -street parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall be
screened from public streets and abutting properties designated for singles
rem a different land uses."
Page 7, C, 1, b): Board asked if the 3 feet in height size can be higher.
Page 7, C, 1, c): Board asked consultant to decide.
Page 7, C, 1, f): "Unless otherwise approved by the City in situations where infiltration is
desired, islands within parking lots shall be edgeds with continuous curbing. However.
the City encourages infiltration in these islands where ever possible."
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
Page 8, C, 2, a): Board asks if the term "mixed use" should be used rather than "special
zoning districts."
Page 8, C, 2, b), ADD: "All loading and outdoor storage area plans shall be subject to
review by CPTED officer."
Page 8, C, 3, a): "... shall be screened from abutting and surrounding public streets or
property designated for single-family-residential different land uses."
Page 8, C, 4, a): ". screened from all public streets and abutting property designated
for si gle family residential different land uses with a fence, wall, or other enclosure six
(6) feet in height."
Page 8, C, 4, b): "... existing or future public street or property designated for resit
different land uses."
VI. DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Page 9, A: Board asked that separate paragraph be a
plant species and age.
Page 9, A, 2, ADD: Board asked language to
d to address more diversity in
to allow use of seeds.
Page 10, A, 5, a): "... plantings should m bord ; d with a strip of mowed grass..."
Page 10, A, 5, d): "... tilled into
to ten (10) inches ..."
Page 10, A, 5, d): Asleso
subsection.
e to a minimum depth of seven (7) eight (8)
ould work with the consultant on this
Page 10, A, 6, a): ". pavem =``t, etc.) so as to present a-neat-and an aesthetically ..."
Page 11, 6, ADD: Board asked language to be added as a separate subsection to address
not watering impervious surfaces.
Page 11, 6: ADD: Board asked language to be added as a separate subsection to address
maintenance of native prairie grasses and diversity of plant edges.
Page 11, B, 2, c): Board requested clarification as to earth berms being a maximum
height of three feet and to assure the berms will support vegetation.
Page 12, B, 4, b): "... All posts or supporting structures shall be on the inside of the
screening structure unless the posts or supporting structures are part of the fence line
itself."
Page 12, B, 4, d): Board requested a clarification.
8
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
Page 12, B, 6, a): "... present a neat, an aesthetically pleasing ..."
Vice Chair Davidson inquired how this ordinance, if adopted, can be enforced with the
current level of City staff. Donlin agreed that inspection and enforcement will be a major
component and this Board has previously expressed concern that the current staff level
needs to be increased.
DNR Project/Updates — This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000 meeting.
C. Other Business - None.
PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES
A. Environmental Education — This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000 meeting.
B. Forestry Updates — This item was tabled to the Novemb -,. 29, 2000 meeting.
C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was t ed�, e November 29, 2000
meeting.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Discuss Development at the Intersection !' r ' " treet and Centerville Road
Donlin stated the trees have been ► zed •E the intersection of Birch Street and
Centerville Road and asked if a • ' � n submitted. Asleson noted the Tree
Preservation Ordinance doe - e t private property owners from removing trees
from their own property. not aware of any project application for this site
B. Discuss Lino Lakes Popula This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000
meeting.
C. Discuss Property North of School and Potential as a City Park - This item was tabled
to the November 29, 2000 meeting.
CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on November 29, 2000.
There being no further business, Donlin moved to adjourn at 9:24 p.m. Davidson seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
9
•
Lino Lakes
Environmental
Memo
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/22/00
Re: Project Review /NE Quadrant Lake Dr and 35W
Please find attached the minutes from the previous review of this quadrant. I have
also started a project track report for NE Quad as follows:
CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT #: 2000 -1...
Ill PROJECT: NE /Quad /DelwoodLLC
DATE OF ORIGIN: 11/21/00
TO: Environmental Board Members
City of Lino Lakes
FROM: Marty Asleson
Environmental Coordinator
OVERVIEW STATEMENTS:
• Discussions of this area started in May of 1998. Records attached.
• Site Proposal includes large retail and several smaller retail stores.
• There have been several meetings with the project representatives.
• General overview to be given by Brian Wessel
STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
• Surface water treatment imperative
III • Information from the Environmental Inventory, specific site inventory and
recommendations from AES, Tree Inventory from previous development
• Page 1
• proposal, as well as specific modals on surface water treatment, and
information on structural soil use has been given to the developers.
•
•
• Streetscape design and alternative transportation access need to be effective.
• Very expensive commercial property
• Developer has hired a reputable environmental consultant as part of their
team.
• Attraction of "Green Industry"
• Greenway design
Environmental Issues: The following identifies potential impacts to Environment.
• large impervious surface /Lake water quality impact concerns.
• oak woodland to south and miscellanius recentlydeveloped tree areas to north.
• Several prairie and savanna areas previously identified by AES on freeway
side.
• Greenway consideration.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: Refer to the following references for
information that may affect discussions related to this issue.
Section 2 - Assessment of Needs
• Completed by Brauer AES and presently being studied by consultants.
Section 3 - Governing Polices
• Creating a sustainable landscape
requires a broader view that starts with
the big picture or vision and moves into
a physical plan and set of action steps
to achieve that vision.
The 20/20 Vision Plan established the philosophical vision for the community that
was the starting point for this study. Public response to the study clearly
reiterates the ideals defined in the 20/20 plan, which are as follows:
"Sustenance of the natural environment of Lino Lakes through the
protection and management of the wildlife, habitats, and other natural
resources, and to pass on to future residents a community rich in these
sources. Future developrrm6
gnomic development and emir
include ec
rental pro
a/ consideration,
• Page 2
•
Section 5 - Administration
• Adopt a conservation development approach to planning as the working model for
community development. Example was established with the construction of the Civic
Complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the
comments made by the Board:
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following
consensus was reached by the Board:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY):
•.... pending ....
III DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE:.... pending ....
COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY):
•.... pending ....
•
COUNCIL ACTION DATE:.... pending ....
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations
related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during
implementation, general observations, and project outcome.
•.... pending ....
PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE:.... pending ....
111 ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date
• Page 3
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson
DATE: 5/22/98
TOPIC: Lino Lakes Commercial Development
BACKGROUND:
Please find attached information that is available on the Lino Lakes Commercial
Development. Interstate 35W, Lake Drive and 77 Th Street bound this
commercial development.
At this time we are looking for general comments from the Environmental Board
concerning environmental preservation, and restoration. The forested and
wetland areas are indicated on the enclosed map.
The zoning ordinance requirement is 25% for un- surfaced areas.
No preliminary restoration and /or landscape plan exists at this time.
No surface water management plan has been developed yet.
OPTIONS:
1. Implement tree preservation practices including moving trees from site that
may be saved by tree spading, stockpiling, and moving back on to site.
2. Promote infiltration as much as possible.
3. Use native materials from upland to wetland, and landscaping consistent
with Village Town Center design (More informal and integrated where
necessary.)
4. Other
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Tree preservation plan should be developed with the grading plan.
2. Incorporate infiltration methodology as similar to civic center.
3. Incorporate similar landscaping and restoration practices.
4. Other recommendations generated by the Environmental Board
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson
DATE: 17 September 1998
TOPIC: McDonalds /Lino Lakes Commercial Development Review
BACKGROUND: The Lino Lakes Commercial Development, located on Main Street and
Interstate 35W, was reviewed at a previous Environmental Board Meeting. Please refer to the
previous greensheet and follow up Memo. I have included the most recent rendering and
environmental inventory of the McDonalds site as well as a sketch drawing by Dennis Grebner,
design team consultant. I have requested the wetland data sheets from MFRA. At this time this
project is open for your review and comments. Dennis and I have walked the site. Some of the
changes proposed if possible, include increasing the green space and tree /natural areas by joint -
parking and protection measures. Please note that the entrance road on the south side of the
project has been eliminated and a cul -de -sac placed at the end.
There was a proposed ponding area east of the road traveling to the north on the east side of the
building that may be eliminated. The area is heavily wooded with some nice oaks. The area
could be designed to infiltrate surface water from the west.
There is also a proposed dry pond on the NE side of the building. Piping is indicated from the
parking lot to the proposed larger pond. The feasibility of pipe elimination should be looked at.
If multiple site design changes can be made in terms of drainage, dry-pond, and infiltration
potential through the woodland to the east, we may be able to eliminate the loss of a woodland,
and be able to downsize pond storage size for peak storm events.
Brian Wessel will be at the meeting, and possibly John Powell to answer questions. I will be out
on the site at 5:30 pm. Wednesday for anyone that would like to visualize. Please come if you
can.
OPTIONS:
1. Allow consideration for greenspace options such as joint - parking.
2. Require a tree preservation plan
3. Explore options to increase infiltration particularly to the south and east.
4. Other recommendations as proposed by the Environmental Board.
RECOMMENDATION: All of above.
•
Memorandum
To: Brian Wessel
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/20/00
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations for the McDonald's Site
The staff green -sheet recommendations presented to the Environmental Board at the
meeting held on September 24, 1998 were approved with the following additions and
specifics:
1. That the plan concepts sketched by consultant Dennis Grebner should be considered
in this plan.
That specifically, consideration is given to eliminating the removal of the woodland
o the east for ponding.
That consideration is given for using this woodland for surface water infiltration.
4. That consideration is given for the establishment of berms between the woodland to
the east and the road for the purpose of slowing water runoff and increasing
infiltration.
5. That woodland areas circled on attached map be considered for preservation
purposes.
6. That consideration is given to the over -all grade plan and the possibility of
eliminating the storm pipe from the bituminous area on the west side of the building,
and that consideration be given to surface draining water from the site through
berm/woodland area.
7. That consideration be given to minimizing advertising, sign light spillage and that
options be explored for low impact to areas outside the business district.
8. That a surface water management plan be developed for the entire business district
to maximize infiltration capabilities on the site.
1
November 20, 2000
•
9. That native vegetation is used in areas determined by the design committee to be
appropriate.
10. That soil disturbed in construction areas be rebuilt and modified to support
landscape materials and surface water infiltration.
11. That joint - parking areas be given consideration as a possible way to increase
greenspace (including tree -save areas).
12. That a tree preservation plan be submitted with the grading plan.
13. That consideration is given to maintaining some area to the extreme south as a
natural area.
•
2
•
•
•
Lino Lakes
Environmental
Memo
To: Jeff Smyser
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/20/00
Re: McDonald's Site Plan /Building Permit Issuance
Pete Klugal has asked me for a review of the McDonalds site plan before the
issuance of a building permit. My comments are as follows:
• The only reference to tree preservation plan that I see is item 8 in the planting
notes section of MFRA corporate drawing no. 022 — 0342. We need to have the
save trees and the removal trees from the tree inventory located on the site -
grading plan. We need to have the tree protection fences located on this plan.
We need to have all planned ground disturbances defined ( such as utility
corridors) if they are in proximity to protection areas. We need to have indicated
on the plan an established staging, and building - materials storage area(away
from protection areas). We need to have an excavation and tree waste storage
area located on the plan. We need the name of the project supervisor with a
telephone number located on the tree preservation plan. We need to have a
definition of how diseases such as oak wilt will be prevented on the site. We
need to have a description of tree removal methods I.e. trees will be directionally
felled away from save trees.
• City approval for the Planned Development Overlay Landscape Design
Standards included a one -for one tree replacement for phase I ( McDonald's and
Outlots A and C ), and each of the 275 trees identified on the site(excluding Elm
and Boxelder) removed be replaced. We would need a schedule for these
replacement trees before removal. Replacement trees will consist of overstory
trees with a minimum of 3 inches in diameter, or evergreen trees with a minimum
height of 8 feet.
• The Black Hills Spruce located on the SE comer will pose a visibility problem for
traffic in the future. Replace these with red/white oaks.
• Page 1
•
• Quaking Aspen in islands would be very short lived. A better selection would be
green ash in the NW islands and Swamp White Oaks in the prairie area to the
South.
• Since we have been selecting native materials for flowers as well, I would
suggest replacing the daylilies with Black -Eyed Susan, or Purple Coneflower.
• The comer of the Lake Drive (NW comer)sodded areas should be rounded off
and planted with a low growing wild seed mix out to 6 feet. The same should be
done for the native area on the NE side. The low flower mix should be used here
with Junegrass and Blue gramma.
• One additional white oak should be planted on the SW corner and three white
oaks (white or burr) should be planted on the NE corner. Thirty feet of clear zone
should be maintained from any trees and the intersection comers. An additional
grove type planting should not deter from view corridors on the NW corner.
• Although an irrigation schedule is mentioned in the Landscape Plan, I see no
irrigation drawn onto the plan. All sodded areas should indicate this and be
designed so that overspray does not go into the native areas.
• The following list of native seed should be used for the native planting areas:
II/ Seed
Pond Area Grasses:
1. From normal high water to highest 1 -year water elevation
38% Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
15% Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis)
10% Switch grass ( Panicum vergatum)
7% Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans)
All above PLS.
13% Blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis)
2% Wild rye (Elymus virginicus)
1% Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens)
3% Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus)
1% Giant bur -reed (Sparganium eurycarpum)
10 % Cord grass ( Spartina pectinata)
• Page 2
•
•
All above by bulk weight.
Pond Area Forbes:
2. From normal pond water elevation to top of 1 year high water elevation-- -
4% Sweet flag (Acorus calamus)
1% Fragrant giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum)
4% Water plaintain (Alisma subcordatum)
4% Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata)
4% Panicled aster ( Aster lanceolatus)
8% New England aster (Aster novae - angliae)
1% Red stalked aster (Aster punceus)
3% Canada tick trefoil (Desmonium canadense)
8% Joe -pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum)
6% Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
2% Grass - leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia)
1% Sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale)
2% Giant sunflower (Helianthus giganteus)
4% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis helianthoides)
2% Great StJohn's wort (Hypericum pyramidatum)
11% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya)
2% Wild bergamot ( Monarda fistulosa)
1% White prairie clover ( Petalostemum candidum)
2% Purple prairie clover ( Petalostemum purpureum)
2% Mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum)
6% Black -eyed susan ( Rudbechia hirta)
3% Stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida)
2% Tall meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum)
• Page 3
•
•
6% Blue vervain (Verbena hastata)
.5% Ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata)
4% Culver's root
2% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea)
All above by bulk wt.
3. Grass Blend for area between 1 -year highest water level to top of pond:
35% Bigbluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
7.5% Side oats grama ( Bouteloua curtipendula)
2% Canada wild rye (Elymus hystrix)
3% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum)
25% Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium)
25% Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans)
All above by PLS wts.
2% Kalm's brome (Bromus kalmii)
.5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis)
All above by bulk rate
4. Forbs blend from top of 1 -year high water to top of pond:
1% Yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
2% Fragrant giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum)
6% Leadplant (Amorpha canescens)
2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa)
2% Smooth aster (Aster laevis)
4% Asure aster (Aster oolentangiensis)
2% Canada tick trefoil (Desmodium canadense)
3% Stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigidus)
9% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis rigidus)
3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata)
• Page 4
• 8% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya)
•
•
6% Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa)
4% White prairie clover ( Petalostemum candidum)
14% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum)
14% Black -eyed susan (Rudbechia hirta)
2% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis)
1% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptarmicoides)
3% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida)
3% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa)
7% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta)
4% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea)
All above by bulk rates.
5. Upland Areas surrounding pond and other restoration areas:
Grass Blend:
30% Side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula)
25% Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
42.5% Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium)
All above by PLS wts.
1% Kalk's brome (Bromus kalmii)
1% June grass (Koeleria macrantha)
.5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis)
All Above by bulk wts.
6. Forb seed blend for top of pond and other upland areas:
1% Yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
16% Lead plant (Amorpha canescens)
2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa)
• Page 5
•
•
•
3% Heath aster (Aster ericoides)
3% Azure aster (Aster oolentangiensis)
1°/0 Golden aster (Heterothca villosa)
3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata)
1.5% Showy penstemen ( Penstemengrandiflorus)
4% White prairie clover ( Petalostemum candidum)
18% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum)
.5% Prairie rose (Rosa arkansana)
18% Black -eyd susan (Rudbechia hirta)
8% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis)
2% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptarmicoides)
1% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida)
5% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa)
12% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta)
1% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea)
All above by bulk wts.
Seeding Rates
Grass Seed (Broadcast) 15 -16 lbs. PLS /acre
8oz. PLS /1000 sq. ft.
Grass Seed (Drilled) 8 -10 lbs. PLS /acre
Wild Flower Seed (Broadcast) 1 -5 lbs. Acre
2 -4 oz/1000 sq. ft.
Recommended Seeding Dates
Optimum May 20th to June 20
Range Spring Thaw To August 10
September 20 to Freeze Up
• Page 6
•
•
All transitional areas ( sod to native or native to street) should be seeded with blue gramma and June
grass with a low seed mix appropriate to the site.
• Page 7
•
Memorandum
To: Brian Wessel
From: Marty Asleson
Date: 11/21/00
Re: Lino Lakes Commercial Development / JADT Dev. Group / EB. Review
The Environmental Board met on 5/27/98 and reviewed the Concept Plan for the
JADT Development Group site. Please find the staff recommendations on the
attached green sheet. In addition the following specific comments / and questions
were made:
Could green parking / or some other pervious type of parking surface be used for
overflow needs. Please find attached a copy of "Green Parking Lots ", with
demand ratios for selected land uses and activities. As indicated in this paper,
there would only be a need for about 750 parking stalls in this development
based on gross - leaseable square footages. Could any additional parking needs
be addressed in terms of a pervious surface to allow for infiltration. References
in the attached paper include the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and Parking
Standards from the American Planning Association.
What can be done to increase infiltration capacity in the ponding area. It appears
from the soil description that the pond would be constructed in a muck soil type
with low infiltration capacity. Bio- retention would seem to work well in this
area.
• Could the site be made more pedestrian / alternative transportation friendly in
design, allowing for some trails to possibly eliminate the need for additional
hard surface parking, allowing for more green space or green parking. It was
pointed out that a future proposed bridge would empty into a parking lot.
• What can be done to create the same design standards set forth in the Village
Town Center. This is an aesthetic question.
1
11/14/00 16:09 FAX 612 332 6180 PARSONS TRANSP
PERMITTING PROCESS
Lino Lakes
Ci ty Center
_..
Lake Drive & 1-35W
f J 002/002
Meeting with City Council —Work Session Wed 11/22/00
City Council Meeting Mon 12/11/00
- Order Lake & Apollo Drive Improvement Feasibility Study
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Start EAW Documentation Preparation
p- Complete EAW Documentation Preparation
Indirect Source Permit
- Start ISP Documentation Preparation
- Complete ISP Documentation Preparation
- Submit ISP to MPCA
Wetland Mitigation
- Start Plan Preparation Thu 11/23/00
- Assume Offsite Bank available and no Corp of Engineers Involvement
Neighborhood Meeting — No. 1 Tue 12/12100
Mon 12/19/00
.....Wed 12/27/00
Wed 01/02/01
Wed 01/04/01
Wed 01/10/01
Wed, 01/22/01
Thu 11/23/00
Mon 01/26/01 '5 '
Thu 11/23/00
Mon 01/26/01
Mon 01/26/01
Rezoning and Site Plan Application Submittal to City
City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 1
City Park Board Meeting - No. 1
City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 1
City Planning Commission Meeting — Rezoning Recom.
City Council Meeting — Rezoning Approval
City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 2 --) . - Wed' 01/31/01
City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 2 l � � Wed 02/01/01
Fri -02/02/01
Wed 02/05/01
Wed 02/14/01
Mon 02/26/01
CPR Meeting — Ryan /PTG Team @ Target
City Park Board Meeting — No. 2
City Planning Commission Meeting — No. 2
City Council Meeting
Jr - Accept EAW and Authorize Publication
- Order Lake & Apollo Drive Improvement Feasibility Study �?
-- -- Autlerize taff te- sendRezoning
MPCA EAW Deadline for Submission Mon
First Printing in EQB — Monitor — Start 30 Day Comment Mon
Rice Creek Watershed District — Submittal Wed
30 Day EAW Comment Period Ends Wed
Prepare and Submit response to EAW Comments
City Environmental Board Meeting * Special Mtg? Wed
- EAW Negative Declaration Recommendation
City Council Meeting * Special Mtg?
- EAW Negative Declaration
- Developer Agreement Approved
Submit Plans to State Health Dept. — Sewer & Water Ext.
Rice Creek Watershed District Meeting
MPCA Approves ISP
Submit Grading Plans for Building Permit
Install Silt Fence
Prepare and Submit NPDES Permit Application
Begin Grading Activities
* Special Meetings for EB & CC would improves Schedule 30+ Days
Mon
Mon
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Mon
Wed
03/12/01
03/19/01
04/16/01
04/18/01
04/25101
04/30/01
04/30/01
05/09/01
05/17/01
05/18/01
05/21 /01
05/21/01
05/23/01
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE : September 27, 2000
TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 9:08 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach,
Teresa O'Connell (arrived at 6:43 p.m.), and Mike Trehus.
MEMBERS ABSENT : Rod Kukonen.
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and City Planner Jeff Smyser
(part).
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 30, 2000
Davidson moved to approve the August 0, 200$ eeting minutes as presented. Donlin
seconded the motion. Motion carr
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Lanyon announced that
is not completed at that poi
meeting.
have to leave the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and if the agenda
Chair Davidson would preside over the rest of the
The following items w the meeting agenda:
• Open Space Design r
• Plant Community Groupings
• Landscape Firm - Premier Services
The agenda was approved as amended above.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
No comments were made.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
• PROJECT REVIEW
•
•
A. North American Composites / Apollo Drive — Asleson introduced City Planner Smyser
and indicated he would present the details of this project.
Smyser presented a map depicting the subject site and reviewed the uses surrounding this
site. The application is for a minor subdivision and site plan review. North American
Composites wants to construct a distribution facility for their products of polyester resins,
fiberglass, and related products to the composites industry as well as some repackaging
into different sized containers. However, it is not a manufacturing facility. Smyser
presented the site plan identifying the building footprint, points of access, and exterior
elevations. The structure will be constructed of precast concrete and brick with those
details discussed when the project is presented to the P &Z Board.
O'Connell arrived at 6:43 p.m.
Smyser noted the requirement for shoebox fixtures to a re ow fighting. He
presented the proposed landscape plan and stated st ; = vie and the ponding
areas in more detail. Smyser stated he received a lis f se° or the site for some
natural plantings around the pond area.
Davidson asked if outdoor storage is bei re . ted. Smyser stated it is not.
Donlin inquired regarding the perc
impervious and the City allowa
to hear of the lighting propos
type poles.
ious surface. Smyser stated it is 60%
ial areas is 90 %. Donlin stated she is glad
e lighting was not on the higher "giraffe"
Donlin stated she d. ee native plant species being proposed for use. Asleson
stated the landscapin
is commercial area has evolved into using native plantings in
ponding and d He explained the business people prefer more formal
landscape in th= s with native elements incorporated into flower gardens or
infiltration pond 'eas.'Asleson suggested working with the commercial community to do
as much as possi . with native plantings. He stated the important issues to address are
to control peak flow rates and increase to volume runoff.
Donlin stated she finds this landscape plan to be standard for the industry and she does
not see where native species are being incorporated. Asleson stated staff will review the
landscape plan with those comments in mind. Donlin stated that use of some native plant
species around the perimeter is encouraging and asked if there is a commitment to follow
it. Asleson stated it would be included in the development agreement.
Chair Lanyon stated the City will need to work with the industry to determine the types of
plantings that work well in front commercial areas. He stated there is clearly concern
there is too much impervious surface not to address runoff and how it will be managed.
2
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
Chair Lanyon stated that a formal lighting plan has not been submitted but the Board can
pass on their concern for downcast, shoebox light fixtures.
Smyser clarified the impervious surface is actually 54 %, not 60% as previously stated.
Trehus stated in looking at the site plan, it appears that there is impervious surface of
75% or more. Smyser explained the site plan being reviewed is not to scale and reviewed
the setback distances.
Donlin stated the trees being proposed for use are heavy water users which suggests they
will need to irrigate frequently. However, the Board is trying to encourage lower water
usage. Chair Lanyon suggested the use of more native species to reduce the irrigation
requirement.
In response to questions related to drainage and on site tre
location of the drainage easement and suggested it coul
than impacted soils would provide. Smyser stated s
the applicant.
n reviewed the
r better infiltration
these concerns with
Trehus suggested the incorporation of vegetated s o address infiltration and on -site
treatment.
Chair Lanyon agreed the water tre d water quality issue needs to be
addressed as well as the landsc
Davidson moved to reco
application subject to t
as possible, include
revisited after water
that require • • al in
motion. Motio
of the Northern American Composites
dres s ng retention of as much storm water runoff on site
soils in the drainage easement, landscaping plan
ion p fr. n is in place, increased use of native grasses and trees
n, and the City's standard for lighting. Donlin seconded the
animously.
B. Mueller -Bies Fu al Home — Smyser presented a map depicting the location of the
subject site and a site plan identifying the building footprint, parking, and storm water
ponding. The request is for a minor subdivision. Smyser stated staff needs more
information on the utilities and alignment of the utilities as well as the drainage areas. He
explained the setback is problematic since part of the area has been filled so it is difficult
to determine the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark.
Chair Lanyon asked about trees on the site. Asleson stated there are some grade C3 trees,
meaning a degraded, invasive tree species.
• Chair Lanyon asked about the lighting plan. Smyser stated there are a few lighting
contours that seem to go over the property line that will need to be addressed. He stated
3
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
the Ordinance indicates 0.4 foot - candles at the property line if abutting residential
property. He noted the area to the south is residential property and the air base is also
zoned residential.
Asleson presented a computer graphic identifying the site and surrounding uses. Smyser
reviewed how the DNR determines the OHW if there is land at a higher elevation than the
OHW. He noted this site is a long distance from the water and there is high land between
the site and lake so the setback will probably not be an issue.
Russell Karasch, applicant, pointed out the location of the proposed building and pond.
He stated they have delineated the wetland which is not within their building pad and
would not be impacted.
Asleson noted the location of a wetland within the subject parce
National Wetlands Inventory. Mr. Karasch stated Metro Su
on this project. Asleson suggested staff verify the locatio
sometimes, the National Wetlands Inventory is not con
ding to the
ivil engineering
d since,
Chair Lanyon asked how this wetland relates to the . site e on pond. Mr. Karasch
stated none of the drainage will leave the site. ex . , fined ow the drainage will be
directed into the ditch line, through a culvert to the °'_ land, and then enter the holding
pond itself. He stated they had showed mg ale, not a culvert, but he is unsure what
the watershed district will require as p proval. Asleson stated it appears the
site has been designed for zero vol los r Mr. Karasch stated that is correct.
Mr. Karasch stated there sho
candles would be lower t
noting there is no abutt
and had thought the
parcel.
ow of the parking lot lighting and the foot -
uirement. He reviewed the surrounding uses,
y residential. Smyser stated he stands corrected,
s on the southern parcel rather than the northern
Mr. Karasch re °`r parking stall arrangement and landscape treatments. Trehus
asked if they wi se 1 dscape plantings to screen the parking areas from the street. Mr.
Karasch explainer ey are using the swale area along the street for drainage.
Asleson reviewed the recommendation of the Watershed District and requirements related
to ponding. Mr. Karasch stated they have received that information and revised the plans
to address each requirement.
Chair Lanyon questioned whether the Watershed District has found this site can handle
100% infiltration of all on -site drainage.
Donlin addressed the issue raised by Trehus related to screening from Lake Drive. She
explained that screening is an important issue to the Board in an effort to assure
aesthetically pleasing developments. Donlin stated it is important to screen this use from
4
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
the road to screen the view of vast parking lots and large buildings. Mr. Karasch stated
the parking lot is 15 feet from the property line. He stated they will be giving a 20 -foot
easement so they can widen Lake Drive.
Donlin asked if the swale and landscape can both be accommodated. Mr. Karasch stated
it could be accommodated now but when the road is widened, it may need to be removed.
Mach asked about the current landscaping. Mr. Karasch stated there are only a few scrub -
type trees.
Trehus explained the City is drafting a landscape ordinance. Mr. Karasch stated he is
aware of that activity and they attempted to mesh the City's requirements with this
landscape plan.
Trehus noted that the ordinance will require the screening of
over six stalls. He stated it is a concern of the City to scre
especially main thoroughfares like Lake Drive.
parking lots if
from streets,
Asleson stated this is a business situation and the eh ater concerns can be
integrated into natural urban plans. He stated p ant . sires a manicured landscape
treatment in the front areas. Mr. Karasch stated t rrect.
Davidson asked if the swale can acco • date b • = the drainage and landscape screening.
Asleson stated he thinks it can be r the .per areas used for landscaping.
Chair Lanyon stated it is im • .' ainage plans to address water treatment. Mr.
Karasch stated that will b reviewed the site plan to explain the number of
parking stalls. He note s 3 no o er on- street parking in this area so they need to
assure adequate pare '' 1 - nerals.
O'Connell as fi- s if it is g ;'ble to remove the two trees in the parking lot islands so
parking can be . location. Mr. Karasch stated that would result in the loss of
more parking st x th would be gained.
Chair Lanyon stated the major issue is to assure water quality and if there is a way to add
additional landscape screening of the parking lot, that would make it a better project. He
suggested the applicant work with staff to address those issues.
Donlin noted there will be an illuminated sign, which is a concern to her. She stated there
was discussion to eliminate all illuminated signs, which can be over lit and offensive.
Donlin stated she thinks they can also be quite dangerous. Mr. Karasch stated he
understands that concern and noted their intention for a country -theme development. He
stated they will assure the illuminated sign provides a softer, non - glaring, effect.
5
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
Chair Lanyon stated the Board supports a country feel for this project and, wherever
possible, to use native plantings.
Another representative of the applicant noted the speed is 55 mph so if the sign is not
illuminated, drivers will not even be able to see the sign as they pass by.
Asleson stated it was discussed to eliminate the landscape islands and use that area for
infiltration, or the islands could be lowered to provide infiltration.
Donlin asked about the setback from the lake and stated she would like that setback
distance verified to assure the setbacks do not deviate from the guidelines.
Davidson moved to recommend approval of the Mueller -Bies Funeral Home subject to
providing a visual buffer between the parking lot and Lake Driv
drainage ditch, finding a resolution to the on -site wetland ide
Wetland Inventory Map, that the OHW question be resolv
consideration, including the standard recommendation
minimize the light emanating from the illuminated s
Motion carried unanimously.
ut jeopardizing the
e National
cil
g, and to
seconded the motion.
C. Saddle Club — Smyser reviewed the preservation pment process which Lino Lakes
• project is being trying to use in an urbanized area. He °` p . the p j g discussed with the
citizen boards and staff continues to dis ;';ss con ~ •ts with the applicant. Smyser
presented a map depicting the sub' 40 e sits and reviewed the surrounding uses. He
s% x
explained the Saddle Club does '• e dire access to the public road so they have an
easement in order to obtain . s rch Street. Smyser stated staff has
recommended this one p be ` KK, by a zoning district line. He noted the forested
and large wetland area v¢ r stat- • staff visited the site and discovered an historic
oak savanna in the • the parcel.
Smyser prese •severe .• cepts for street and lot layout. He used a map to point out
the location of _ ilities and explained this is why they have acquired land to the
east, to align an • H onn ~ ct the road to Killdeer Drive. Smyser stated a conservation
easement would eeded for the wetland areas plus a wetland management plan.
Chair Lanyon stated he does not remember this project being previously presented to the
Environmental Board.
Asleson used a computer program to display the GIS information on this site. He
explained the original concerns related to vegetation as he reviewed the various areas
within the site. Asleson stated that due to the soils present on this site, the potential exists
that it could be a habitat for some endangered species.
• Smyser reviewed the area where the flood plain cuts through the site and stated it may
actually follow the creek and flood plain area, which would impact the northeast corner of
6
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
• the proposed plat and would have to be addressed. Asleson reviewed the direction of the
•
drainage on the site
Chair Lanyon stated it appears the areas of concern are to mesh this project with the
greenway trail system and the habitats of interest and concern which need to be protected
during design and implementation of the project.
Asleson reviewed the types of soils expected to be contained within this site.
In response to Donlin, Ross Fairbrother stated they propose 66 housing units on the 17
acres of upland, or 3 units per acre. He explained they are proposing a small lot
residential development with lots being 50 feet wide and 110 feet to 135 feet long, similar
to detached townhomes.
Mach stated it appears this proposal would use most of the u nd are: Mr. Fairbrother
stated that is correct.
Chair Lanyon excused himself from the meeting at ed Vice Chair
Davidson to chair the remainder of the meeting.
Trehus asked about the trees on the site and who
Fairbrother stated they would have a co
conservation easement is typically over
noted this plan is at a conceptual 1
John Hill stated they looked
for townhomes so they co
protect those areas outs
those areas outside
Mr. Hill expl
shortening the
of the lots.
e responsible for removal. Mr.
easement. Smyser stated a
etland and open space areas. He
tain the wetland areas and requested a PUD
e a home owners association to maintain and
lots. The conservation easement would be place on
pt being displayed was created before they addressed
lots with a conservation easement being on the areas outside
Donlin stated this is being deemed as a conservation development but she is not
comfortable with that because all know that you cannot develop wetlands and they are
already federally and locally protected. The danger of encroachment is usually at the
edge where residents dump grass clippings, etc. Donlin stated the likelihood of being
able to police that type of activity is difficult, however, it may be possible that the
homeowners association can hold each other accountable.
Donlin stated she is interested in conversation planning with the new urbanism and asked
what makes this a conservation development since all of the upland area is being divided
into "cookie cutter" lots.
7
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
Trehus noted the area is zoned R -1 with the southern part being rural but the proposal for
townhomes is at a higher density than single family homes. He stated it appears they are
trying to increase the density to townhomes by calling it a conservation development.
Smyser stated he told the applicant they would need to justify that question. He noted the
proposal is for detached townhomes which is really smaller sized single family homes on
individual lots.
Trehus asked about the distance between the walls of the houses. Mr. Fairbrother
estimated ten feet from the building wall to the property line, or 20 feet between the
houses.
Mr. Hill stated the homes are 1,400 to 1,500 square feet and will sell for about $150,000
with empty nesters and first -time home buyers being their mark
Asleson asked if the applicant also owns the southern part 1 consider
developing the southern part when MUSA expands. ih. tats s is the full 40
acres and they may consider development in several o � e ` op the lots within
MUSA first.
Smyser advised that staff believes the zonin• distr on the draft plan should be
moved so this entire parcel is within one oni istrict.
Vice Chair Davidson stated the tra! •f ,, .re vation development is that not all of
the upland is developed, howev aspec is missing from this project. Donlin
concurred and commented o aspects that need to be included in a
preservation developmen
Asleson noted the B
of how it will be dev
corridor and a .; s ained
provide connec
features.
ddress what is important beyond this 40 acres in terms
in t e future. He reviewed the alignment of the greenway
ch a corridor is to be a green area with buffering and
eople, wildlife, and ecosystems while preserving natural
Smyser stated more buffer beyond the back yards is desired. The Board agreed.
Donlin reviewed the conservation development charrette that had been presented and
desire for open and visual viewsheds. She stated the proposed site plan does not provide
for that aspect since it only provides a view into another home due to the smaller sized
lots and higher density.
Trehus concurred and stated a trailway plan will also be needed. He reviewed another
project that involved the creation of viewsheds and trails. Trehus asked what incentive
the City has to consider higher density townhomes. Smyser stated this proposal would
require a PUD since it does not fit any of the actual zoning district criteria. He stated the
8
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
• developer will need to answer the question about what the City would receive as
•
•
incentive for considering this higher density proposal.
Mach stated he believes the increased upland would be the incentive if views can be
provided.
Trehus suggested they consider 45 lots which provides better views and would command
a higher price for the lots.
Trehus asked if the current draft includes impervious calculations. Mr. Hill stated they
have not. Smyser stated there is a per lot impervious percentage limitation.
Asleson stated it is not always true that the most important area to retain is upland, it
could be other areas as well.
Donlin asked who addresses the flood plain. Smyser state d he s ek Watershed
District addresses the flood plains.
Mr. Fairbrother explained it deals with contours and at i : ton and a full set of
plans is submitted to the Watershed District fo it nsid , .tion.
The Board stated the issues they would F
providing more conserved upland, view
issues, and if a special habitat exis
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BU
ssed are the creation of a buffer,
ion, greenway retention, stormwater
o be verified by Asleson.
A. Landscape Ordinances 'e — S ser stated the consultant is requesting direction
before she can proc
Vice Chair D son st.� , he time is late, and she would like the ability to fully discuss
the ordinance : � ons of the members. Asleson stated there would be time to
consider this dis ssi. ° at the next meeting.
Trehus asked staf to notify the Board if the timeline changes and a decision is needed
before the next meeting.
Consensus was reached to table discussion to the October 25, 2000 meeting.
B. Litter Ordinance — Asleson stated he spoke with the Police Chief about this ordinance
and the ordinance language was included in last month's meeting information. He
reviewed the tonnage of waste that is picked up and the determination that there is a litter
problem.
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
Police Sergeant Rausch explained that they have found some garbage and litter flies off
the garbage truck so they have talked with the garbage haulers about keeping their load
down. He stated they have also looked at how to deal with residents who do not clean up
their garbage if it is dumped over before it is picked up by the hauler. Another generator
of trash is along Main Street to and from Waterworks during certain days following
events. Sergeant Rausch stated they will look into how people put out their trash and
what they can do to address littering.
Asleson asked if there are any successful, low cost anti - littering programs that can be
considered. Sergeant Rausch stated that if a citation is issued, community service can be
required.
Vice Chair Davidson reviewed an article about a program that provides the ability to turn
in a person littering via a web site and then a letter is sent to the ;; stated that she
thinks a telephone call from the Police Department would m an im ct.
Asleson stated some of the businesses who sell the ite
with this issue. Sergeant Rausch advised that the pe
$1,000 fine.
tered could help
g is 90 days and a
Mach stated if a license plate can be called into th e Department, then a call can be
made to the offender.
Vice Chair Davidson agreed and s - st cle be placed in the newsletter to alert
residents. She noted that the . s • ld a encourage businesses to place signs in
their business to discourage
C. DNR Project / Updat
Expansion meeting
2000. He stated he
Conservation '�' trict u
on p sented copies of the Rice Creek Corridor
vised of the upcoming DNR meeting on October 3,
Consulting Engineer Wedel to provide a DNR and Anoka
D. Other Business o
PROGRAM / PROJEC UPDATES
A. Restoration Updates — Noting new to report.
B. Forestry Updates — Asleson advised of the extensive hours spent addressing oak wilt.
C. Solid Waste / Recycling Updates — Asleson noted the upcoming Clean Up Day
scheduled for October 7, 2000. He stated the vendors are set up and the event will be
advertised in the newspaper.
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000
D. Open Space Design Tour - Asleson asked if anyone is interested in attending this tour
which is scheduled for Saturday, September 30, 2000. O'Connell stated she would like to
attend and will provide a report at the next meeting.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Plant Community Groupings - Mach reviewed his conversation with several DNR staff
members about the option of developing groupings of trees that would have evolved
together naturally. He suggested this could be an alternative to native prairie plantings.
He stated he had provided that information to staff and suggested it be considered in
future projects rather than singly planted trees.
B. Landscaping Firm — Premier Services - Donlin stated she is associated with the
Pheasants Forever organization and Jim Helseth of Premier Se ho does prairie
restoration work. She provided staff with that information.
CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING D,
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Bo wi October 25, 2000.
There being no further business, Donlin moved to a 'ourn 8 p.m. O'Connell seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
11