Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2002 Env Bd Packet• • • City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting August 28, 2002 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Non — televised AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2002 and July 31, 2002 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Ray Benkler, Lake Drive, CUP and Site Plan Review, Car Wash 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Development Regulations Task Force Update B. Goals / Council Meeting C. Rich Biske, Anoka County Conservation District, Greenway Planning Update 7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Forestry B. Solid Waste Recycling 8. ADJOURN • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES DRAFT MINUTES DATE : June 26, 2002 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P. M. TIME ENDED : 8:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Patrice Halen, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O'Connell, and Mary Jo O'Dea MEMBERS ABSENT : Nikki Schneider STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 24, 2002 Page 2, eighth paragraph: "Grundhofe site, and considering the number of per bulb." alled for 40 lights on be equivalent to 900 watts Page 4, fourth paragraph: "Grundhofer but she could not find any ation on landscaping feather reed grass, Page 6, t, paragraph: 'Cb Kukonen responded that he spoke with the consult Brixius to it cate that R -1XC did not provide enough open space." Page 6, fifth paragraph "Chair Kukonen noted he received an E -Mail from O'Dea on lighting ordinances." The April 24, 2002 and May 29, 2002 meeting minutes were approved with the above corrections. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved unanimously. 1 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 • 4. OPEN MIKE • • Kristine Marier representing the HERON (Homes, Environment, Roads and Our Neighborhoods) group, came to the meeting to find out if anything had been accomplished on the EAW. The group opposed a church being located on 92 acres across from the heron rookery. The site plan consisted of ten acres of impervious parking and an 80,000 square foot building. Donlin stated that the herons left the colony for a third time. The Environmental Board had not technically been brought into the loop. Ms. Marier indicated the group could be contacted by calling the head of the group Barbara Bor at (651) 426 -1563. A discussion ensued concerning the healt e ¢ ° # eggs, in that they were found to be lacking in the albumens O'Dea indicated that the group was intervi iHugonian, and she found it informative. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Stoneybrook Preliminary Pia Asleson contacted the wat width to 29 feet. He reviewe needed to be i could not re district w ommended they reduce the street ackground and indicated that the buyers oot street width was on the books, so they Chair K the reducti stated that R indicated that the developer was willing to do Grundhofer used H nd Meadows Second Addition as an example of reduced street width, but inquid about its status at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. O'Connell inquired about the City Council's decision, after she proposed narrower streets to the Planning and Zoning Board. Asleson answered that he was unsure. Donlin referred to the article in the background noting that the costs to the developer were reduced when the street width was reduced. She commented that everyone wanted to save money. Asleson mentioned that it was effective if the developer saved money for environmental issues. 2 DRAFT MINUTES • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 Grundhofer expressed concern over the higher speeds on Highway 49 because of the wider streets. Asleson responded that there was also the option of highway plantings for traffic calmings, and that he had participated on a project in the past. Donlin stated that she would like to see them reduce the width not just for environmental reasons but also because they reduce the costs to the developer and City maintenance. She inquired about the pronunciation and meaning of queuing. Grundhofer responded that it meant calming. O'Dea inquired if they had responded to the previous recommendations of the Board on that specific site. Donlin questioned their approaching VLAWMO. Chair Kukonen stated that according to Pioneer located in VLAWMO. He indicated that in area should be requested. ng, none of the site was buffering for the island Asleson mentioned that the Southeastern p good : sandhill cranes. He indicated that oak trees should be plants , c ' ?r in the additions. Chair Kukonen suggested they resub submit a tree preservation plan. Th specifically on Lots 23 -27. and that they had yet to wet and marshy areas, Grundhofer pointed out that t was not • u MUSA for the site, but only enough for about 40 acres on addres the issue stating the decision was the City Council's he e how they were going to sort it out. O'Dea com;etfa�` • ing thyers was a good idea. Donlin . w at the site us have standing water. The owner of the land, who was a *H K d�ember fo � watershed, had been making sure the water moved off the site ` the de pment had been drained. Asleson added that it had also been ditched ears. Donlin indicated it was not conducive to a housing development with basements. O'Dea questioned if the water from Birch Street drained onto the property already. Asleson noted that there was little that could be done with surface water volumes, so there was not much stress on infiltration, however the volumes over time needed to be addressed. O'Connell questioned the need for a meeting about the lake. Asleson stated that the lake was separate from this watershed. 3 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 • O'Connell asked about the buffer requirements for the backyards with wetlands. Grundhofer responded that perhaps the buffer should be increased to 100 feet. • Asleson answered you try to establish a wider buffer in valuable wetlands. If the buffer was 50 feet, there would be no backyards. Chair Kukonen added that the rule of thumb was 10 feet and any applicable addition. Grundhofer suggested increasing the buffer to 15 -20 feet. Donlin stated they were going to have problems with wet yards. Asleson agreed that the soils were going to be wet and mushy most of the time. Grundhofer noted that staff had made a stateme t " :soils should be imported or exported. The statement should be resta Donlin explained that omitting the info �` " ' at a " "s° ere open, people would not buy the houses. She pos t uestion : s the City remove liability. O'Dea pointed out that all the stateme: Council should be informed. Donlin asked what would happen if #lie was not comfortable with a so and mus development should take account. Chair Kukonennrd about the the recomm x ions o the Boar p, but that the City could not sell the sites. She pment. Asleson stated that the s of outlot management. He then recapped • The h #s should be cased around the wetlands to 10 -20 feet. • No so ®uld be imported .or exported without permission from the City. • The Land cape Plan should be resubmitted with oaks planted around outlot F. • Decrease the streets from 32 feet to 29 feet. • Applicant shou documentation on Lots 23 -27, and additional information on the normal and high water level on Lots 12 -14. • Submit a higher level of detail on the Tree Preservation Plan. • There was insufficient MUSA for the development. Only 11.2 acres of MUSA were available, therefore it could not be rezoned. • Purchasers would be notified of the soggy conditions in the lots with a signature, and that the Eastern ditch was a possible greenway. Grundhofer stated that signage was necessary to denote the wetland edge and no dumping of yard waste. 4 DRAFT MINUTES • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 O'Connell added that there were two items not addressed since the last reviewal. One was the request for 17 additional acres of open space, and the other was the issue of lighting. Donlin made a motion to recommend denial based on the wet soils, incomplete information, and the recommendations submitted by the Environmental Board. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Goals Chair Kukonen handed out the compilation and that 35% of the Parks go to open space. ,goals. He commented s through cquisition. Grundhofer Asleson stated that they were working on neighborhoods. Chair Kukonen proposed a one time tax added that even a 1% tax each year m Asleson stated that Rice Creek did "v itd, m sampling that showed overwhelming support for wet ds per year. Donlin explained that the issue was a referenda s .asue. O'Dea inquired about the pd e for the Athletic Complex. O'Connell pr o ed chi ffi.; #4 to include and/or City. Asleson greenways csted that the t Anoka C d might want to consider adding "in planning ation District. Grundhofer made • adopt the updated 2003 goals for the Environmental Board. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Zoning Code Task Force Update Donlin stated that the meeting on the Tree Ordinance focused on the difference between private and commercial landowners. Asleson indicated that he met with Al Brixius on the Shade Tree Ordinance and the Tree Preservation Plan. Parts of both were to be incorporated into the zoning code. The frustrating part in the past had been fences came down and were not replaced which resulted in the trees' death. Now there would be violations. There will be regular inspections for conformance on the Tree Preservation Plan. There 5 DRAFT MINUTES • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 will also be a telephone number of the property buyer, so he can contact them. He gave the example that according to the Land Classification, there were significant woodlands. These could now have more protection than previously. Significant trees would not be limited to size specifications, but if the trees had a function such as buffering around a wetland. There would also be specifications for a specimen tree also known as a tree standing alone. Grundhofer inquired about the timeline that the escrowed dollars would be held by the City. Asleson responded that the City would hold the money for 5 -7 years. Donlin agreed that trees could take a slow decline, that might not be apparent at the end of the project. Asleson concurred that if they violate the plan, and the trees showed signs of decline in that time period ;' uld be responsible for replacement. Donlin expressed concern that the buildi : _ rs ' "=' inspectors. Asleson responded that it would be as sim • the fence wn the building could not be inspected until it was * The building inspectors were on the site almost every day for van us part s . oject. Chair Kukonen stated that the gradi Preservation Plan instead of the re subdivision ordinance with less would speed up the process. 10% on all new developme Asleson commm an example Chair K Departmen overlaid on the Tree about the minor he newly modified one a new park dedication fee of inquired about on respond the City of Blaine's approach to parks as sleson's anticipation of a struggle with our Parks that he did not. explained f a th qty of Lino Lakes was trying to shift from a growing city to a mature city. Asleson noted the zoning districts and planned developments were tools. The R- 1XC was going to be an improvement. Donlin mentioned the issue of street lights. Chair Kukonen inquired if the City had an ordinance for street lights. O'Connell asked if something could be done about outside lighting on houses, specifically all the solar powered lights. 6 DRAFT MINUTES • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 Donlin mentioned that she had begun working at Wargo. She had asked a worker in Astronomy if they had noticed spillage. They said that it had significantly reduced their ability to see stars. Grundhofer indicated that the Dark Skies Association had a website where they list and rate many cities on their lighting spillage. 7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Environmental Asleson stated he received a call from the City o They wanted copies of the City's ordinances. H backyard plantings where there were many Chair Kukonen suggested that Barr Engi Ramsey's Environmental Board. received calls on Asleson indicated that the birds had aband study was being done. Density figures w found many water willows, thick curl zooplankton showed that the water lake. The drop in numbers of zoop Milfoil was found in the south the bottom and stay there. Co spoke with Jeff Perry about tabulating the do a program. sts again. An aquatic plant g. The researchers d flake. Samples of in the northern portion of the ergrazing by small fish. hich forms nuts that sink to floating, but anchored. Staff ation for future reference. There were very few eggs produce ,other suggests that of Minneso was not p determiii campfires e eggs that did form lacked albumens. This nmental concerns present. The University may provide some research on the lake. It rial Day. A joint City Council meeting needed, because there was evidence of Donlin stated that`az could be a joint effort Lakes. could come from Council. Asleson responded that it he City of Centerville, the County, and the City of Lino Chair Kukonen asked for a motion. Grundhofer made a motion to pursue CAP funding. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Grundhofer inquired about the weeds in Peltier Lake, if they were harvested. Another question was the reason for the numbers drastically dropping for zooplankton. Asleson responded that the carp were phosphorus pumps, therefore 7 DRAFT MINUTES • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 a decrease in the numbers of carp there would be a decrease in the phosphorus released into the system. Grundhofer asked if the numbers would increase in the Spring. Asleson answered that the shallow end did not overturn, so they probably would. Asleson had given the Land Classification to the Bald Eagle Church. He conceded that the building was huge and indicated that they could work with on site surface water management. He did not want water to be ditched and to flow into the lake. In addition, the impervious would be more if the site was developed as residential than a church. Marier stated that the increased traffic was an i ', sue for 28th Avenue. Donlin inquired if the City could purchas as a public outreach. Asleson indicated he had a scout who was Donlin noted that she was aware of tree Oaks had some. Grundhofer added t the pullers. O'Dea inquired about how the B. Solid Waste Recy The reports w C. Asleson s explained that" were waiting on t ullers, and North ge rental for the use of mired several calls on an oak wilt imitator. Staff ee program had the trees all down, and now they Asleson noted that there had been a recent Blandings Turtle sighting at Holly Drive and County Road J. Donlin added that a Blandings Turtle was supposedly found in a parking lot. It had been out of the water for at least one week and fed on corn and was 38 years old, but had been relocated in Pool 2 at Carlos Avery. 8. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board would be on July 31, 2002. 8 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 IIThere being no further business, Donlin moved to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • • Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9 DRAFT MINUTES • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LINO LAKES DRAFT MINUTES : July 31, 2002 . 6:41 P.M. : 10:02 P.M. : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Patrice Halen, Teresa O'Connell, Mary Jo O'Dea, and Nikki Schneider : Rod Kukonen : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Coordinator Michael Grochala, and City Plan J6 Smyser. Chair Kukonen was not present so Vice Chit + eider ca + + 'meeting to order at 6:41 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The approval of the minutes was to Board Meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF AGEN • Discuss 6 Century F 28, 2002 Environmental rdinance Review before 5A the Behm's The age n+ ' approved tnously. 4. OPEN MIKr' No citizen comments ° ``wmade. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Draft Subdivision Ordinance Review Smyser recapped that the two goals of the Task Force were to update the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The Subdivision Ordinance was on an aggressive schedule that regulated the subdivision of property. The issues of Site Plan Review of commercial and industrial buildings and setbacks were not a part of the subdivision ordinance. 1 Draft Minutes • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 Smyser indicated that he was present at the meeting to answer any questions that the members of the Board might have. He stated that Al Bixious was the Planning Consultant hired for the ordinance review process. The update included a definition of terms and the submittal requirements that were more clearly stated in the update. A minor subdivision would be less than three unit lots instead of four. For more than three, a plat, grading plan, and utility plan was required. A minor subdivision required only a certificate of survey, septic system information, and possibly other information to ensure the lots can be used. Minor subdivision review and approval would now be done administratively. He gave an example of a garage built across a property line, causing the builders to purchase land from their neighbor. This was considered a minor subdivision. The City had a provision where it could require more information if necessary. A sketch plan review phase requirement w staff review. It was not adopted because start the clock at the first submittal of the made voluntary, but staff believes develop the developer money. first step for informal line law that would Smyser continued that the areas of co delineation, a Tree Preservation Plat included in the Resource Inventory expedient to address these issu ; arly in formal submittal is so labor intensive an an phase was e it would save ey, wetland g land information were 03. It was considered s, because the preparation of a =Section 107 was modified to etland. Section 107.4 indicated a require a minimum 10 -fool Conservation Subdivision did not require conservatio incorporati A rural wastewate preservation in disturbance, tree p r around e coordinated and designated open space. It dress the open space issues involved in the ping Ordinance will allow for f Conservation Subdivision and urban clustering. honing Ordinance will allow for a community 1 =09 addressed the requirements for tree tree plan, signage, fencing, preservation against soil zd tree inventory. If a tree was planned to be Rdivls f the principles;: provision in the tni nt. Section cli idu; a full% preserved but was lost, seeded to be replaced at a two - for -one ratio. The City had a list of acceptable trees to choose from. Grundhofer inquired about the definition of a buffered yard and wanted a more detailed explanation. Smyser responded that the definitions were explained further in the Title and Application section, which includes the definitions. O'Connell questioned if the numbering of Section 106 -2, paragraphs 1 and 3 was a typographical error. Smyser answered that paragraph 1 was to be divided so that the last sentence is paragraph 2. 2 Draft Minutes • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 O'Connell indicated she had another question, there was a provision for shared driveways, and she wanted to know if it was possible for residential. Smyser stated that it had not been considered. Common ownership would be necessary, and a shared driveway agreement, which could be difficult for some to manage. Access management standards required that there be no additional driveways on main roads, and there was an established hierarchy to deal with the issue. O'Connell asked about Section 106.2 under minor subdivisions part K if the consideration should be both sides of the street, and not merely the adjacent properties. Smyser clarified that they needed to show where the driveways were going to be, but that the opposite side of the street had not yet been considered. O'Dea inquired about the lighting standards. Ordinance. Smyser responded that lighti Ordinance, because it is an issue that is h sed in the Zoning in the Subdivision O'Dea asked if it could have requirements. did not control the issue, but Qwest did. of using different street light fixtures the City and Qwest. Grundhofer stated that in Sectii mention the Environmental B require to go to the Enviro conditions were not met it w Zoning Board but only MIJ managem swered that the developer cussing the possibility be arranged between ff has question a or denial process did not . Smyscrtidited that the final plat did not Cal Board, belle preliminary plat did. If the off the Council agenda. The Planning and because there would be no design changes, occurred because the City growth plementa Donlin no issues were pr the Board but uired more public attention. concerned about the preliminary plats when ddressed by the developer, and she thought there should be reparati • n er responded that every group following the Board received a copy of recommendations the Environmental Board passed. He stated that some of the recommendations past were not possible, those that were are pursued. The Council either adopted or rejected the recommendations, it was not the staffs' or the boards' decision. Donlin stated that she was ashamed of the McDonald's site, and she stated it then because Grochala and Smyser were present. O'Dea indicated that she was impressed with the updates on the ordinances. 3 Draft Minutes • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 O'Connell noted that Section 104.3 did not indicate the Park Board, Economic Development, or the Environmental Board. Smyser stated that the process began at Section 104.9, and in Section 104.10 number 7 referred to advisory boards. Donlin stated that the Park Board was expected, but that it would be good to specifically state the names of the boards. Smyser responded that it could be changed. The Board thanked staff for the update. 4 Draft Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 • 5. ACTION ITEMS • • A. Behm's Century Farm/ 6th Through 10th Additions/ Preliminary Plat Review Asleson reviewed the background and noted that it was important to consider many factors such as buffering, land classification, pedestrian transportation and the needs of the developer. Asleson had overlaid several maps, and showed the Board the oak savanna, high ecological value zones, and protection zones. He spoke with Rick DeGardener about park dedication and greenways. Mr. Johnson, Director of Engineering for Metro Land Surveying and Engineering, stated that there were 95 acres left to be develop - i bout 156 to 163 lots. He indicated that there were some updates to tl '1. as using, he believed it was the January version. He showed the b��_e 1'�a ere the collector road according to staff recommendations show ` ed, } not committed to that location. Council told th o s throu process of advisory board review. The site consists of gi'' with 20.96 acres of park open space. There were some modificat' to the" ° ~ + :ervation plan. The areas could be custom graded. The p1 _ n revi e� T"''' he plan was at 1.6 units per acre, while the density regiten .resent R -1 zoning code was 2 units per acre. There were two floc la w ® w together. Asleson stated that instead of see the trees in the southea� Mr. Johnson rtet responded t e southwest, he would rather lands both significantly drained. Asleson here was a chance to undo some things. Mr. Jo + ' tahcated that the groundwater had normalized. The water table never got above 95, so the Ater never got near the surface. Instead of raising the water level, ose to create the wetlands where they would occur presently. Mr. Jo " clieved that there was a misinterpreting of the aerial photos. He noted are at were field tested to be below the 100 -year flood, and he was unsure if drainfields would meet the need. He stated that the groundwater had been permanently altered. Mr. Udhe's goal was to develop 20-30 lots per year. O'Dea inquired about eliminating 2.5 houses in one cluster and 1.5 in another. Mr. Johnson replied it was probably not possible. O'Dea indicated that if Lot #5 could be moved or removed, it could save several trees. Mr. Johnson answered that there were 270 units under the zoning code. He did not know how to save the oaks because of the elevation under the current plan. 5 Draft Minutes • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 Mr. Udhe stated that the lots cost 30,000 dollars each. He also had to work with the airport. There was an ongoing issue of people wandering onto the runways. He anticipated that they would be asked to put up a fence. Grundhofer asked about the two dotted lines that went across the plan. Mr. Johnson answered that it was the maximum building height of 25 feet and would accommodate a two story building required by the airport. Vice Chair Schneider noted that there were no hangers proposed. Mr. Johnson responded that there were 11 pads, and those lots would be reserved for people would want pads with their lots. Asleson inquired if there were any special conce Mr. Johnson answered that it would be a t had met and exceeded the requirements. would fully disclose. The hanger area wo traffic over the pipeline. a paved surface. They with the design and Grundhofer stated that Outlot B was a wetly be addressed with the homeowner. Mr. J conservation easement. ted to know how it would that it was under a Asleson commented that the coup abash s o ghat the area was City land, but it was probably an error. Grundhofer asked for specifics etn the cons' ation easement, would it require buffering or signage She was iuerned about people dumping yard waste in the wetland. Mr. + + a were th `, e had the impression that signage was less than succes Asleso calls coming was not as mu tined that the ncause nei e working under the present zoning laws. He had s police the wetlands that had signage. There the look of the signs. Mr. Johnson stated tha. ditions 7, 8, and 9 needed to be developed. Some of the things discussed to be preserved were in the 6th Addition. Donlin noted that Mr. Udhe was very fair and forthcoming. She expressed disappointment that the conservation planning was not ready for implementation. The oaks needed to be addressed and the oak savanna needed to be preserved. The width of the roads could be reduced, which would reduce the cost for the developer. Mr. Udhe indicated that he would save the trees, but the entire area was required • to be graded according to the ordinances in effect. 6 Draft Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 • Mr. Johnson noted Carl Street was originally 80 feet wide. The updated plan had a 66 -foot wide street and an 8 -foot wide trail. • Grundhofer had questions concerning the plans for the other part of Carl Street. Mr. Johnson stated that the first 1/4 mile would be a 24 -foot road from 4th to Sunset Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan made Carl Street a minor collector road and would need to widen it to 34 feet. They believed the collector road would make more sense by the power lines. Donlin stated she was against additional roads. Mr. Johnson answered that road funding required that road be at least 32 feet wide, with water being directed into swales. Asleson added that the water needed to be lit ± through in a sand base. Mr. Johnson indicated that 11.8 acres we m e nori'fr h were not in the park dedication. O'Dea inquired about the possibility of development. Mr. Udhe stated the C admitted that as each addition was development decreased. He menti signage and a document for w Auld being a conservation ask ahead. He also elihood of a conservation no problem with the Asleson asked Mr. Johnson concurre ith Mr. Udhe on a commitment to conservation easements. M ,Jo cn answered that they would submit the record with the Cowll Asleson importi signage, native plantings in buffered areas, and no Grundhofer in ed about the pile of soil in 2nd and 4th Additions it would be used in the 6th Ad htion Asleson stated that a sequencing plan was required for the protection of soils and trees. Mr. Johnson indicated that the watershed required a sequencing plan. He added that it would be logical that the City should own the land and therefore control the use of the land. Donlin commented the Board recently recommended Stoneybrook to be rejected because there was not enough MUSA. Mr. Johnson answered that staff stated that he could not receive MUSA unless the boundaries were modified and approved. • Donlin stated the conservation development would be approved simultaneously with the MUSA. 7 Draft Minutes • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 Mr. Johnson mentioned that he did not believe the moratorium was necessary. The initial plan was to break ground in May, and they had not yet been approved. Vice Chair Schneider called for a recommendation. O'Connell posed the question of shared driveways to Mr. Udhe. Mr. Udhe responded that he was not in favor of them in single family homes, but he would be supportive of them in a conservation development. O'Connell made a motion to accept with the recommendations made by staff and additional recommendations made by the Board including: • Native plantings in the swales and buffering • Signage and disclosure for conservatiortase • The import and export of unsuitable s nee Koval • The planting of one boulevard tree pe • Low spillage, downward focused lighting ''' " to tho w .l e 5th Addition. • Use a Combination of conservation ease eri g ity owned buffering of ponds and outlots. • Evaluate to preserve the oaks in : luster was. Halen made a motion to accept the Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unan B. JADT/ Plat Re -S» Ia1 Review Asleson reviewed plan propos 1✓ve was reviewed: The Target/Kcd lined Apollo Drive should be chan ges, should use the sari *98, the Board reviewed the site without a e proper was called McDonald's, the entire site o be no possibility of joint parking between andscape Plan was submitted. The trees that son King Maples and the Schwelder Maples er tree modifications followed. Ground seeding e as Target/Kohl's, with no irrigating in the plan. The developer should hire a'lndscape company to install native areas and maintain them for 3 -5 years. The "V" shaped building should have pervious paving in front, if possible. JADT should submit a sequencing and protection of the resources, as well as a BMP, both of which were required of Target/Kohl's. Asleson continued that there were 453 trees originally, and that the number of trees to replant could be figured out from there. He found that 123 trees could be planted in Outlot C. Grochala stated that hillsides were generally 75% impervious, but in this plan it was only 50 %. The major tree removal was a part of the Apollo Drive Extension, and not the responsibility of Target/Ryan. The project began in 1997. The tree 8 Draft Minutes • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 inventory had 306 trees, 275 of those trees were significant. Subtract the trees from McDonald's site and the Apollo Drive Extension and there was a need to plant 115 trees. Asleson noted there were 450 significant trees. Grochala cited that the numbers were 306 and 275 were the numbers to get back to if it was a one for one. He indicated that if the trees could not be saved, at least trees could be planted for the future. Donlin mentioned that the Board talked about the hillside preservation. Grochala responded that what was present, was what was approved by Council. Vice Chair Schneider wanted clarification if the Council did not uphold the recommendations. Grundhofer mentioned that there was deb it was a maintenance issue. sleson answered that O'Connell inquired about eliminating som that the number was the minimum, accor Review. O'Connell expressed concern over about numbers 70, 72, and 74. there. ces. Grochala indicated nary Plat and Site Plan ces on the end by the pond, ine people wanting to park Donlin asked what was to be i e „pink building. Grochala stated that it was not decided, but i O'Connel pasd the questtfthe entrances onto Apollo Drive could be reduced3 mod a stead put grasp aid fields. Grochala indicated that he would look into it. Donlin inquired what yellow area was. Asleson responded that it was a pond. Grochala mentioned that there were white and burr oaks present. Asleson answered that they might not survive the grading. O'Connell asked about the surface water drainage rates. Grochala stated that they were infiltration ponds, and were the concern of not only the City, but the watershed and MNDOT as well. Donlin noted a triangle that indicated a NURP pond on the southeast side should be preserved. 9 Draft Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 • Grochala mentioned there were 11 trees marked to be saved. Grundhofer stated that perhaps 113 trees could be planted. O'Dea admitted the plants were confusing to review. Grochala stated that the first sidewalk in Lino Lakes was located on Apollo Drive. Vice Chair Schneider called for a motion. O'Connell recommended approval with staff and Board recommendations including: • The use of Netlawn near ponding areas and retaining walls. • Add depressional areas in islands where possible. • A one for one tree preservation. • The preservation of the existing oaks in fron e "V" building with tµ= pervious paving in the area. • Look into eliminating the easternmos • Low spill, downward focused lightin Drip` et entrance. O'Connell made a motion to accept the reco s. O'Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Draft Subdivision 0 This item was discussed earl the meeting. B. Highl endow Parl andscape Design Review ain Street, West of Lino Lakes Elementary. The The park City was Board members finished. was nicely done and would be beautiful when O'Dea inquired if there was a pond. Asleson answered that it was a playground. Grundhofer questioned if the site was considered oak savanna. Donlin stated that Kukonen mentioned there was an agitation about removing the trees and laying sod there. Asleson clarified that there were two cultural uses clashing of sod and prairie. Grundhofer suggested that chips could be put down for a pathway to divide the • area. Donlin indicated that someone thought it was not appealing to the eye. 10 Draft Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 31, 2002 • 7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Forestry The Trade -a -Tree program was almost completed, with 2,500 dollars to purchase trees. It was considered successful. B. Solid Waste Recycling Asleson stated that he would have the figures next month. C. Other Environmental Asleson noted there would be a heron meet Four baby ospreys were banded at Rice L there was some discussion of a possible at 10 a.m. on Friday. e also stated that Donlin added that she had three baby ospre Asleson stated that a long billed curie ted m ` ` + Lakes. Another point of interest was a mesic prairie restoration • place near Lino Lakes Elementary. Asleson noted that Chair Kuk goals in August or Septem was go. Council with the adopted Board There being n Grundhofer secon Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • g of the Environmental Board will be on August , O'Dea moved to adjourn at 10:02 p.m. ion. Motion passed unanimously. 11 Draft Minutes • Agenda Item 5A Environmental Board Meeting Date: August 28, 2002 Topic: Ray Benkler, Lake Drive, CUP and Site Plan Review Background: Application to build a car wash and rapid oil- change was submitted for property on Lake Drive. This property is on the West Side of Lake Drive, East of the new elementary school, North of Don's Auto, and west of the Methodist Church (Attachment 1). A proposed Site and Utility Plan (Attachment 2), Grading Plan (Attachment 3), and Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plan (Attachment 4), were submitted and are enclosed with this report. The site is 1.56 acres. The site is zoned Light Industrial District. The allowable impervious area is 90 %. Sewer and water will service the site. There is no surface water or soils information available at this time. There is no Rice Creek Watershed District information at this time. Soils on this site are mostly sandy and hydric (Attachment 5). Soils are also indicated to be very sensitive to ground water contamination in the Anoka County Sandplane Groundwater Study. The submitted design directs surface water through infiltration basins and infiltration swales to a larger infiltration basin on the West Side of the property. The top of this basin berm is 0.3 feet above the indicated seasonally high water elevation. All overflow water from this basin would flow to basins adjacent to the schools (Attachment 6). Infiltration swales indicate a 1.0 % slope. Curbing on the Southeast corner is designed as flat, if needed. The Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Design identifies this area as a Lake Protection Zone (Attachment 7) and several High Ecological Value Zones (Attachment 8) are in close proximity to the site. High Ecological Protection Zones are area where ecological protection opportunities are very high and that protection of these values should be a foremost consideration in the development process. The Lake Protection zone consists of waterbodies, wetlands and parks that are protected from development under current regulatory controls. Under protection status, no development should occur. Trees on the site consist entirely of recently developed and opportunistic types ( Boxelder) of trees growing on a largely disturbed site (Attachment 9). The MLCCS describes this area as boxelder /green ash forest with 11% to 25% impervious cover. Immediately adjacent to this area are areas that are seasonally flooded, have other exposed transitional land with 0 -10% cover and a weedy waste, and short grasses with 51 -75% impervious cover. Trees are proposed for removal to accommodate building and basin construction. • . The lighting plan submitted identifies proposed lighting fixtures. These fixtures are not consistent with our ordinance requirements. • • Analysis: • The high water elevation of the large basin on the west is indicated at 897.2. The West infiltration basin on the site is proposed to have a base elevation of 897.0. There needs to be at least a 3 -foot separation between the bottom of the basin and the seasonally high ground water level. The applicant should demonstrate that adequate separation exists or redesign the improvements to achieve this separation. This 3 -foot separation is consistent with MPCA's guidelines for septic systems. In addition, given this is a light industrial site, the applicant should submit a soil sensitivity test for designed systems to evaluate potential effects on groundwater. If runoff water could contain a significant concentration of soluble pollutants, infiltration basins should not be used. Proximity to drinking wells must be evaluated. Basins should be at least 150 feet from any wells and be situated at least 10 feet down - gradient and 100 feet up- gradient from building foundations • Basins should be designed with pretreatment features such as grit chambers, swales with check dams, filter strips, or sediment fore bays. Traps should be a component of any infiltration system. Desirable side slope dimensions of the basin should be no greater than 3H: 1V. Flatter slopes are preferred. The basin water depths should be no more than 2 feet to eliminate compaction to the basin, and the ponding time no more than 72 hours. A desirable length to width ratio for an infiltration basin should be 3:1 or greater. Overflow should include check dams, level bars or other structures to ensure sheet washing. Access to the site for maintenance should be addressed. • Swale areas should be kept to a 1% to a 2% slope. Recommend that the design of these swales be modeled after Met Council /Barr engineering design standards. • Sequencing and Construction Sequencing Plans (BMP's) should be submitted. Suggested guidelines are in the Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. (Attachment 10). • A Maintenance Plan should be submitted with the BMP Plan. (Attachment 11). • The landscape plan seems to have appropriate materials. All soil areas in the landscape, and surface water treatment train, should follow written and approved BMP's. There are no trees that will be saved on this site. The City native plant seed schedule (Attachment 12), should be used in and around the basins and swales, unless cultured sod appearance is desired in front. All sod areas must be irrigated. • Lighting should be low- impact, downward focused, low- spill, flush mounted lens design. Options: 1. Approve with analysis questions answered, and corrections made as necessary. Address any additional comments and concerns listed by the Environmental Board below. 2. Do not approve the Project. Recommendation: Option 1 Environmental Board Comments: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site and Utility Plan 3. Grading Plan 4. Landscaping & Tree Preservation Plan 5. Soils 6. Water Direction 7. Lake Protection Zone 8. Eco Value Zones 9. MLCCS 10. Infiltration Basins - Sequencing 11. Infiltration Basins — Maintenance 12. Seed Specs • ga 0 v • o co J t N V • FtitiokkmeAtt SITE AND UTILITY PLAN • UTILITY NOTE$ WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION TO BE MADE TO EXISTING HYDRANT., STUB � IF REQUIOMESTIC AND FIRE —FLOW SHAD. BE SPUT IN THE BUILDING PROPOSED 12- WATERMAIN EXTENSION WAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE CITY TO DETERMINE F 12- OIP WATERMAIN NEEDS TO MOVE TO WEST SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SHAU. BE EXTENDED FROM MMNUNE ON WEST PROPERTY UNE NO SEWER SERVICE CURRENTLY EXISTS FROM THE WEST SANITARY SEWER TO BE EXTENDED FROM 41H AVENUE AND TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY UNE NO TREES TO BE PLANTED OVER UTILITY UNES OR IN ANTICIPATED EXPANDED ROW • GRAPHIC SCALE • • fI IFR IW-91 M. (NIERY Q*Wv THAT 0uS UN aF SPECIFIC/MOM RAS M®pIREO sr YE OR IFOER Mr NM TIP RM9011 Mo lUX 1 N1 A OOlTRECISTEND PROFESSIONAL t � IF > E STATE Or MFrE91TA RAI . MOAN Hama) DRL 0 WATM 08/12/2002 VERMJY. 1. ' JOG NO. 02504 PAGE SHEET 2 3 was) Waaurnant 3 GRADING PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE IA .. (PIRW ) t AAA OS R • $RARING NOTES ANO SEQUENCING SILT FENCE TO BE INSTALLED DOWNHILL FROM ANY GRADING ACTIVITY SOME TREES ANO DEAD FALL ARE TO BE CLEARED BEGIN STRIPPING TOPSOIL IN RIGHT OF WAY SITEWORK SHAD. BEGIN ONCE SILT FENCE IS INSTALLED CONSTRUCT ANO MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE OFF LAKE DRIVE SILT FENCE TO BE MAINTAINED DURING GRADING SEED AND MULCH DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FINAL DIS1URBANCE SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE MNDOT SPEC 3876. AT A RAZE OF 35 PLS Lbs /ACRE OR MNDOT SPEC. 500 AT A RATE OF 50 PLS tbs /ACRE MULCH RATE SHALL BE TWO TONS PER ACRE MIN. BSMT. OR FLOOR ELEV. SHALL BE A MIN. OF TWO FEET ABOVE 100 YEAR POND/LAKE ELEVATIONS ANY R PRAP SHALL BE CLASS I CONTACT WWAM MCCULLY AT GLENN REHBEIN COMPANIES AT (763) 784 -0657 .!.r. !t !itBi t•;; ;i` • . �•!I• t.lr.lt•1. B' WNtYUY OEPflt ~:'•1'•• �qy •-gat: !r. fit. it. ix. r WASHED �WASHED 2.3 pN C 1B' IMAM CUT OFF BERM TO WHAM RUNOFF FROM 91E MAINTAIN ROCK ENTRANCE F 1RACKING BEMIS ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE W CHECKED WATM Da i12/too2 vows. SCALE HORes .NOB NO. 02504 BOOK PAGE SHEET 3 seETS / IfHI'aG,rrreM+, LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION PLAN • KEY Seisdilie Nam Habit4• Comments AO Amdarciu..sgrmd.Oona 'Alum BrBWoce• Anima Bffsrros S•evieeb•my MD Clump foam AR Amr subr.a'Noathwooda' Nedhweods Red Mate M BN Badadgra Ritter Birch MD Champ form CC Caracas ertgo.golt var. Mow!: lhwdmlhwahem 11aslthnny MD Droudrtt kraal CO Calm oxidesaeis MD MP Mates • tailiafire• P a refus)bwasm Crabapple M MS Mobs, y' Sums' Trim Howerbg Cadapple M PO8 Bkak Bilk Soma* MD PN Final Nips Auriga line MD Mk taboret PR Pasty mimosa NormsorRadliae MD PT Pepdoas&uundaidr GB (Swots bicolor Suable Altos Swamp VIM Oet MD Plant in gauping MD 8111 SivisAW ma dato'Ivory Sik' Japes.e TreLTac M SIMUBS Key Scientific Nome Coma same 1M, tot Comma* AGC Acrgaade hampaam' Comma Amrb4pls MD MW CS COMM satom'Lodi• band Dogwood MW Moisture blamed DL J#wydfabnmsnc Deena&Honalanokle DM DtUSIMWeird Creating JBC JrmbsrNi Wise Clip' Blr Clip Faber MD PPG Plowpmg m'Globose' Dwarf U Use Spier MD 4'4' RC Rem Yimplais' Cbampkk Womb Rose M Red 2.5-3' ey.blooaia RC Row 'Gam Woods? Caaham W b,ShrubRem M Pik2J•evmbloaiW ROY Rosa Yeas Vaasrvr' George V•rusvr Sink Rose M Red3' RH Rosa it•ary Hodson' 1i.mi Heir Shrub Ram 14 White 3' RIM Rosa 'Hope for Rmamity' Hop for Husriy Shrub . Ras M Red 2.S3'cvabIoo 11:4 Rosa 'WiteregParke Visitors Pula MakRose M Red 2- 25avaWomina Coopeat SO 7pawsa'Gddaosed' Gaidmamed Spires pad WI SriogosljicNthgllww • P•sdemtasLlm M 10.12' • SP Syringe pomiaWise KW Mss Kim LT•e M 64* PERENNIALS AND mutts H.A201(PORBS) KEY Sandi& Name Comma arse Habitat Size Comments AI Amber: i ear as Swamp Milkweed MW 23" Wrddy daptabk CV Caneopatsamstei8da'Zapab' Zagab Compels MD 81 Tolerate do mgbt SIR EopamrmrmoadaWml Joe PmWeed MW 23" EP Minor pompom Paolo Case Flower MD 4" Tolerates wet mires RPM Aa an'adlIs'Padaa Me' or'Deja' Dirtily 'Pardee Me' M 81 Deep Red RSD HerarrocallieStens de Qv' ar 'Happy Itetorme Skikda Oro Artily M 81 Golden yellow orli It yellow 18 Ms semi= 'Raffled Velvet' Wiled Velvet Marin Lis M 81 IV kisvadeolor EkmFkgkit MW 4" MF Mossolo kmbsa Wild Bergamot MWD 2.5" NW Napnt 1foosod /'WalkenLow' Wake's Law Catmint MD 81 Wastes drought RO Reba#m'OoldAnm• GdMrnPnlediaerr Brown Eyed Sum MD 4" GRASSES KEY ScieatifmName Common New Habits Size Comments CA Coleare reds z WM/lase WwiForsea' Faster Reed Oa. M 4" Wrddy daptabk 811 Sparobohu harel4' a Prairie Mammeed M 4" 811 SraltdmWnmmuaem India OMB M 4" 8P Spartirpj wawa Prairie Cadman MW 2.5" Tolerates wet mires 8S Sah6oaljyar=pvms Little Bluest= MD 4' •D- Ping trPled paces adryaka ,M- Maio-plotlrefersaaimWakmod rrelv.baaaeaew,ivdyiaist. W -* tpressamolaloationand REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES, SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND PRAIRIE PLANTS: • • All deciduous tram wets be 2"infumsta r wester (measured at 6" frees pond) sad root grams ka6 and hrlapp•d (B&B)ad supported i • sandy wire badcet that holds be root ball in a finx aigid coaddion (See pp. 54. itan 13. 1 through 1 .4atAAN Starlet* for Nursery Stoll) All evapeen (comtena) tee are to be 5'-6' in height end Ines dug and processed ming BIB method with study wire basket around root ball. ldmimunt root bell Aradea abaft be the muse Whose specified for deciduous tees (am 13.1 through 1.4 and pp 14•.13, tan 321) Minimum d esseterbell is 20" fora 5' osa8e , 22" minimum fora 6' hoe. All slink, overman sad deciduous, at to bee of 43 pilau aaaaiarake (m 83 er85 pot slam) ABpeemkkandpukiepLatssusmbein cochleastyaaleriamwhat k 'pealedia plantEst Container sizes specdidiinchesreferto the dimdarar width of container or pot. A 81 size alas toal gallon site otatma: OTHER REQUIREMENTS: • Mulch dl totes and shrubs with 4" of herdwod shredded bilkmukh. Mobbed areas round tree trunk should be 4' in diameter. • Mulch all perennial beds with 2" of hardwood shredded Berk mulch • Auer planting and berate aukhio& apply • granular pcamergea herbicide (suck a Preen) around all pbmts. • Edge e8 bads with Black Dimond Vinyl edging or equivalent • Water plants thoroughly after Onto,. Ako wet down mulch themghly so moisture penetrdes into soil below in cider to activate herbicide. REQUIREMENTS FOR SEEDING AREA& • Infiltration basing shaft be seeded with a Prairie Restorations mixed haigM/M.ic WOdllower seed mix Seeding shall be bmdaoat • 4 oz./1000 SE • Onus MIS and bans shall be seeded with a Prairie Restorations Short/Dry seed mix. Seeding am be broadcast at a 0.5 Ibs PIS/1000 SF or drilled at l0lbs PLS/rra GRAPHIC SCALE r m • r 1 z' (wtau) t Leh - am a • ) LEGEND SWAMP WHITE OAK ilk PINE GRASS CLUMP G SHRUBS AND Q PERENNIALS GENERAL LANDSCAPING NOTES NO IRRIGATION PLANNED SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND BERMS WITH: SPECIFIED SEED SEED INFILTRATION BASINS WITH THE PRAIRIE RESTORATION MIX ALL TREES TO BE BALL AND BURLAPPED ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED AND GUYED PER NURSERYMAN'S STANDARDS LANDSCAPER TO INSTALL EDGING MATERIAL AROUND SHRUBS, FLLED WITH MULCH OR ROCK PER DEVELOPER'S CHOICE PRESERVE AS MANY TREES ALONG NORTH, WEST AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES AS POSSIBLE / / / / / \/ N /r BN BN :/ / / / / RECEIVED AUG 1 3 200 . 2002 •ClfY OF LINO LAKES 7- --- -_ II IEREBY CERTIFY FIAT TXIS5 PLAN OR SPEORCAION WAS PREPARED BY NE OR ENDER NY MRECT $UPERNSON AND THAT 1 HI A DULY IEQSIEiED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF 1I1E STATE OF YIWESOTA 1A.L meCUILY W11TE: ---REQ N0.231�3Q / ENECKEO MAIL 08/122/2102 wawa scALE Nom; JOB NO. 02504 BOOK PAGE SHEET 3 3 s1E 15J 1.0 ICJ O O et V cJ e NMd'UD O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 N M 01 01 01 M Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr N • N O O • O O Y M M M J Tr d'd' 11 t0 O M 01 et UD N N N CI CI et et mt et et et 1 w 1 ww W IMILL INN - W Zy 0 D Z J �' W' O of � Z Z F J m Q W 'ZC� Cr 0 CC W N O, Z \((i) ; y _ - -- 7 L1 co d 2 0 0 O Si • c a) E _c 0 co Z't • • c 0 E .P 0 d L CI L a) 15 ma 0 co L co ci t N Attachment 7 L trAIEFEN Ili 1r11 1 1 ►, ;1. �IIIII! !ls1,1 I1111�►. ►xis li 1p Ikeinipt-- Shadi .1111111.11, r•isow-_morommor low 0. to 2 cp Lam.. c CL wow Ulm .oungl i €.: w 'i P ' 9110 r III► _., ■1111/ 2== �! oral It MEL 9i1\ ■l !!,!!'!�\U;. i11�!! 211111 elife‘). 11.1 Sre mum Runup, mourn 111/91111 cn 2 011 w N co 0 V • W 2 V 0 z z za to Z W = a ul W cd r I I co 0 at' to 0 0 -J • co 0 • , i!i R § qi .1. n . R • H9� . |P@| ! m 1445- $m. , ks .gu p$ R| :II:. ;,&1 ; � le - mm , 1 H || Vim, @ ,ill' , � g� $. » q! mmmm m rim| lmcm,E m� §4 @ ! §$x111°11 §§ Milli a !| gmmm.mr.• | m .D |,� ®�,i��~ || 211111111 qI §I II §i1 $ q.. $ h ] $ ! �� Vii,` .r 1111 ! Am�!@4 g mmmR¢'9i §2y mmlit $ %su� mms�mU /$ mm mmsm]mi, 1 •MICIMU : w . . : :,: . 2 0 0 • Itari * In i tra i asms • oracilMeAT lO Rani ge ents Care should be taken during construction to minimize the risk of premature failure of the infiltration basin. This failure is caused by the deposition of sediments from disturbed, unstabilized areas. This can be minimized or avoided by proper sequencing. • Ideally, construction of the infiltration basin should take place after the site has been stabilized. • No runoff should enter the infiltration basin prior to completion of construction and the complete stabilization of the tributary areas. • Diversion berms or silt fence should be placed around the perimeter of the infiltration basin during all phases of construction. Sediment and erosion controls should be used to keep runoff and sediment away from the infiltration basin. • Initial excavation of the basin should be carried out to within one foot of the final grade of the basin floor. Final excavation of the basin floor should be delayed until all disturbed areas in the drainage area are stabi- lized. All excavation should be performed by equipment with tracks exerting relatively light pressures. This will prevent compacting of the basin floor, which would reduce the infiltration capacity. • In order to avoid soil compaction, absolutely no equipment should be driven in the area of the basin before and after its construction. • After final grading, the basin floor should be tilled to a depth of at least 6 inches to provide a well- aerated, porous surface texture. Six inches of compost should be tilled in at this time if soils are even the slightest bit compacted. This will help to facilitate infiltration and root growth. • During and after excavation, all excavated materials should be placed downstream, away from the infiltration basin, to prevent redepositing during runoff events. • Immediately following basin construction, the bottom and side slopes of the basin should be stabilized with a dense stand of appropriate plants. Construction Experience has shown that the longevity of infiltration practices is strongly influenced by the care taken during construction. The construction sequence and specifications for each infiltration practice must be precisely fol- lowed. • Infiltration basins should not be used as temporary sediment traps during construction. • Infiltration basins will operate as designed only if they are constructed properly. There are three main rules that must be followed during the construction of an infiltration basin: - Basins should be constructed at the end of development construction — Smearing of the soil at the interface with the basin floor must be avoided and/or corrected by raking or rototilling — Compaction of the basin during construction must be minimized 3 -166 Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual at Innitration asms • Before the development site is graded, the area of infiltration basin should be roped off to prevent heavy equipment from compacting the underlying soils. • Light earth- moving equipment should be used to excavate the infiltration basin. Use of heavy equipment causes compaction of the soils beneath the basin floor and side slopes, resulting in reduced infiltration capacity. Since some compaction of soils will occur during construction, the basin floor should be tilled with a rotary tiller to restore infiltration rates after final grading. Maintenance Maintenance is required for the proper operation of infiltration basins, as it is with all BMPs. Plans for infiltra- tion basins should identify owners, parties responsible for maintenance, and an inspection and maintenance schedule. The use and regular maintenance of pretreatment BMPs will significantly minimize maintenance requirements for the basin. • Pretreatment devices associated with basins should be inspected and cleaned at least twice a year, and ideally every other month. • Once the basin has gone on -line, inspections should occur after every major storm for the first few months to ensure proper stabilization and function. Attention should be paid to how long water remains standing in the basin after a storm; standing water within the basin more than 72 hours after a storm indicates that the infiltra- tion capacity may have been overestimated. Factors responsible for clogging (such as upland sediment ero- sion and excessive compaction of soils) should be repaired immediately. Also, the newly established vegetation should be inspected several times to determine if any remedial actions (reseeding, irrigation, etc.) are necessary. • Thereafter, the infiltration basin should be inspected at least twice per year. Important items to check include: differential accumulation of sediment, erosion of the basin floor, condition of riprap and the health of the vegetation. Eroded or barren spots should be replanted immediately after inspection to prevent additional erosion and accumulation of sediment. • Sediment removal within the basin should be performed when the sediment is dry enough so that it is cracked and readily separates from the basin floor. This also prevents smearing of the basin floor. • Light equipment, which will not compact the underlying soil, should be used to remove the top layer of sediment. The remaining soil should be tilled and revegetated as soon as possible. • Vegetation should be maintained to control weed growth and maintain the health of the vegetation in the basin. Weed once monthly during the first two growing seasons. After that, weeding two or three times per growing season may suffice. Metropolitan Council / Barr Engineering Co. 3 -167 A4Fa$tme,i.t 12, Lino Lakes Seed Specs 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) 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 incamata) 4% Panicled aster ( Aster lanceolatus) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 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) 6% Blue vervain (Verbena hastata) .5% Ironweed (Vemonia 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) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 3% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum) 25% Little bluestem ( Schizachyrium scoparium) 25% Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans) All above by PLS wts. 2% Kaim'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) 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) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 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% Lithe 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) 3% Heath aster (Aster ericoides) 3% Azure aster (Aster oolentangiensis) 1% 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) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo .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 Rangc Spring Thaw To August 10 September 20 to Freeze Up Approximate Costs For Seed Seed Blend 1— $2.50 /oz., $37.75/Ib. Seed Blend 2– $13.00 /oz., $195.00/Ib. Seed Blend 3— $1.00 /oz., $15.2511b Seed Blend 4– $11.25/0z., $168.75/Ib. Seed Blend 5- $1.35/oz., $19.75/Ib. Seed Blend 6– $11.50 /oz., $172.50/Ib.