Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260527 Environmental Board Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 TIME STARTED: 6:29 p.m. TIME ENDED: 6:53 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Schwartz, Lindsay Buchmeier, Mary Jo Stevenson, Danielle Berger, Jonathan Parsons, Elizabeth Larkin, Kelli Damiani MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Hoffman, Jennifer Alderink, Maddey Gintner 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mr. Schwartz called the Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. on May 27, 2026. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Schwartz declared open mike at 6:32 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Schwartz closed public comments at 6:32 p.m. 4. SETTING THE AGENDA: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items th Mr. Schwartz took a motion to approve the May 27, 2026 agenda. Mr. Schwartz motioned to approve the agenda. Motion was seconded by Ms. Damiani. Motion carried 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th Mr. Schwartz took a motion to approve the March 25, 2026 minutes. Ms. Buchmeier motioned to approve the agenda. Motion was seconded by Ms. Stevenson. Motion carried 7-0. 1 6. ACTION ITEMS Tree Preservation Ordinance Updates The City of Lino Lakes is evaluating updates to its Tree Preservation Ordinance to improve clarity, consistency, and overall effectiveness while continuing to protect the community's urban tree canopy. Staff began working with HKGi on updates to Section 1007.049: Screening, Landscaping, Buffer Yards, and Tree Preservation in January 2026. These updates were focused on the tree preservation elements within Section 1007.049 and are intended to simplify complicated and conflicting requirements while still maintaining roughly the same level of preservation. In particular, Staff, and HKGi are focused on adjusting the tree replacement calculation to make it easier for staff and developers to calculate. As development continues throughout the City, the ordinance update is intended to simplify preservation requirements and create a more user-friendly process. Proposed updates also include revisions to ordinance definitions and terminology to improve clarity, consistency, and interpretation for property owners, developers, and city staff. environmental health. Preservation of the existing canopy provides benefits including stormwater management, erosion reduction, and improved air quality. Maintaining tree canopy also supports neighborhood aesthetics and contributes to overall quality of life within the community. The proposed ordinance updates are intended to balance environmental stewardship with reasonable use of private property. The revisions aim to establish clearer preservation standards and replacement requirements to help mitigate canopy loss when tree removal occurs while also improving predictability and consistency during development review and permitting processes. The updates are intended to support the broader environmental and natural resource protection goals while ensuring the ordinance remains practical and administratively efficient. Tom Hoffman, Environmental Coordinator for the City of Lino Lakes, introduced speaker Beth Richmond from HKGi, who will be going over some of the major changes to the Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance language. Ms. Richmond presented and was available for questions. Based on the Proposed Removal Calculations table, Mr. Schwartz asked for clarification about the replacement requirement in an environmentally sensitive residential district. Specifically, he asked 2 whether, if 100 caliper inches of significant trees were removed, the developer would be required to replace 30 caliper inches of trees. Ms. Richmond said that they could remove 30 caliper inches or 30% without penalty, which equates to the Basic Use Area idea that was taken out. Beyond that, you would need to start replacing \[trees\]. Mr. Parsons asked if basic use with roads was 100 feet. Mr. Hoffman clarified that the 100 feet was for residential. For commercial, it was the entire building footprint. Mr. Parsons asked if that would include where you are putting that road or that 100 feet. Ms. Richmond said that it is not specific to a location. She said that assuming you are building a road and need to take out trees, that would be a part of the equation. Ms. Berger asked if the removal of undesirable trees specifically refers to new residents or developments and not flood plain areas or established neighborhoods. She noted that cottonwoods and silver maple trees are disappearing from flood plains, so these are species we want in the flood plains. Ms. Richmond said that they were not necessarily talking about floodplains when they were thinking about \[the tree removals\], but they may need to clarify some of that language. Shoreland and Flood Plain Ordinance supersedes that. He notes that the undesirable trees are unhealthier. All the ash trees are considered undesirable because they either have Emerald Ash Borer and are dead/will be dead. He said that cottonwoods and silver maples are probably the two big ones that the City needs to decide if they if they are considered undesirable or we for the replacement of those. Ms. Larkin said that this discussion about undesirable trees is good, because a lot of what we are talking about is based on a snapshot in time. If we happen to have a bunch of oak trees get wiped out, would the recommendation be to replace those? The current language does not appear to reflect that because \[oaks\] are considered unhealthy. She notes that we would still want to replenish those oaks and keep our city green. Mr. Hoffman said that the language in the Tree Preservation Ordinance would just be for have to mitigate for those trees that are on site that are dead. Ms. Larkin said that she does not necessarily agree with that because we want to preserve Lino Lakes as a green place and if our trees are falling ill, she believes that we would want to replace them with younger, more diverse trees. Mr. Hoffman said that if the property owner wanted to cut down every single tree on their property before they sold it to a developer, they could. If dead trees on the site were going to get removed 3 anyways, \[the developer\] must still meet open space requirements. They would also need the boulevard, a buffer, and if it is for commercial property, they need canopy cover. He said that just because \[the developer\] is not mitigating for \[the dead trees\], they still go above and beyond on those sites. Mr. Hoffman goes on to say that it would be hard to enforce restoring dead trees because you would start to lose the value of the land and possibly face lawsuits. Ms. Larkin wanted to clarify that the focus of the removal calculations is specifically looking at the development of the land and the certain threshold of trees, not undesirable trees or trees that are ill. Mr. Hoffman confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hoffman also noted that outside of our tree preservation, we have our open space, canopy cover, buffer, screening, and boulevard trees. The boulevard trees and mitigation trees are always going to be in addition to everything else. You can also get some overlap with open space and canopy cover. Ms. Larkin asked if the Tree Preservation Ordinance would include not only a large development, but, say, a homeowner that wanted to put a shed in their yard. Mr. Hoffman said that it would just be for new construction. He used the example of the commercial auto sales building that was proposed in the City. There were 12 trees on site and all 12 trees were in the basic use area for commercial development, so \[the developer\] could get rid of every tree on site. . Now they would be required to mitigate for the 50% (or whatever the City settles on), and then do their vehicular hardscape, their open space, and everything else. already got in place. Ms. Berger commented as to whether the definition of undesirable and common trees can be written in with flexibility so changes can be made if diseases and pests become an issue with certain species of trees. Mr. Hoffman said that a catch-all for that concern would be to have multiple different documents. One would be a code that the City is looking at revising and the other would be landscape guidelines that the City gives developers. The landscape guideline document can be changed at any time without going through public comments, City Boards, and City Council. Ms. Berger inquired as to whether the landscape guidelines could be applied to common tree definitions as well. Mr. Hoffman responded that he would could make the language consistent with landscape guidelines and pull that out. Mr. Schwartz asked what the debate was with silver maples. Mr. Hoffman said that silver maples are fast growing and tend to get poor branch unions because of how fast they grow. They can splinter and tear apart due to their size. The larger trees such as cottonwoods and silver maples tend to be maintenance nightmares access for maintenance, etc. 4 Mr. Schwartz agrees with keeping the silver maples listed as undesirable for the reasons that Mr. Hoffman listed. Ms. Berger asked if the tree classification has to be significant in order to be replaced. Ms. Richmond said that all the trees listed as significant or specimen need to be replaced. North. Mr. Hoffman said that a significant common tree would now be 12 inches, whereas previously it was 6 inches. He said that about 70-- the trees that went to fallow and they stopped maintaining, so those trees popped up tons of them because being maintained. This site was an example where the mitigation requirements outvalued the land for the current standards the City had. Mr. Hoffman noted that the thought is to try and allow more removals of the common trees, make the common tree be wildlife value. Ms. Larkin asked who typically does the tree survey. Mr. Hoffman said that the developer does the tree survey. Mr. Larkin asked if anyone verifies the information that the developer submits. Mr. Hoffman said that the City does verify the survey and that is why they asked for the electronic table. Ms. Larkin asked if someone from the City physically goes out and looks at the property. Mr. Hoffman said that someone from the City does go out and do a spot check on site. They especially pay attention to the trees that are in poor condition, undesirable, or diseased to confirm that they actually meet the categories or not. Mr. Berger asked if there would be a benefit to having a distinction between the dead and poor categories when assessing the trees. Mr. Hoffman said that the City talked about doing that. To make things easier, the City thought that going with 75% canopy cover would be a good measurement. If it is less than that, the tree would be considered in poor condition. Ms. Berger asked if using that measurement would then categorize those trees as undesirable. Ms. Richmond said that some trees are exempt from being surveyed. These examples include trees that are a part of a commercial operation, such as a Christmas Tree Farm, a tree nursery, any trees that 5 are transplanted from City property to City property, and trees that are within the right of way of major roadways. Ms. Richmond also talked about finding ways to incentivize developers to save the best part of each site. She said that an option that they came up with is tree stands, or a larger group of trees, which is more valuable than a single tree on their own. The incentive is that for every quarter acre of a significant tree stand that is preserved, the City would reduce the requirement for tree replacement by 5%. Mr. Hoffman also noted that developers often want to remove trees because of the need for fill beneath them. The idea is to try and incentivize them to keep those areas natural and bring fill in from somewhere else, which could save the developers mitigation credits in the future. Mr. Schwartz wanted to confirm that if you have a 100 acre site and there are 5 acres of significant tree stands preserved, there would be no tree mitigation for that development based on the first incentive. Mr. Hoffman said that we could put a cap on it, like we capped the specimen tree credit. You could do the cap up to a certain percentage. Mr. Parsons said that he was asking if 5% was enough of an incentive. He believes that preserving a significant tree stand is sometimes more important than single oak tree here and there. He said it would lead to more green space and potentially open park space. Ms. Berger said that if the developer is interested in something more restoration-related like an oak savannah to prioritize trees like healthy oaks, that could be a third incentive option. She noted that allowing flexibility for that if there is not a significant tree stand to be preserved should be taken into consideration. Ms. Richmond said that the option mentioned by Ms. Berger was also part of the discussion. She said that as a part of the proposal, the areas that are being restored will not count against the developers trees you need to take out in order to restore it to prairie or oak savannah. Mr. Hoffman said that the developers could go in and remove those trees and then restore the area to them. Mr. Hoffman also said that a lot of it comes down to the fact that some of these larger developments are Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and with PUD, they have the flexibility to do the management plan instead. Ms. Berger asked if the trees that will be replaced will be native trees or can they be non-native trees. Mr. Hoffman said that the City has an approved planting list which is part of the landscape guideline. He said that the City does encourage native plants when replacing what was taken out. Mr. Hoffman did say that the hard part is trying to create diversity so there is not another elm, ash, or oak wilt issue. Ms. Larkin asked if there are any state or federal grants out there that can help developers pay for some extra trees. 6 Ms. Berger asked if there still could be an incentive for developers to plant native species. Mr. Hoffman said that it would be hard to incentivize for native plants because if they do die, it would be almost impossible go back and require the developer to then replace the dead native species that they received 3x the credit for and then also require them to replace with more of something else. He suggested that the City could ask for a minimum percentage of trees that need to be a native. He said that the City could provide the developers with some alternate species that the tree nurseries have available. Mr. Schwartz inquired as to what sort of influence the City has over the species that are planted based on local ecosystem factors. Mr. Hoffman said that the City can influence it, but there are factors that come into play once the development occurs. He said that the site is not even remotely similar to what existed there before being developed, largely due to fill that they put in. For this reason, only so many species can grow there at a success rate, which is why we see the same 12 perennials that are planted along the foundation in a commercial setting. Ms. Richmond discussed the second incentive, which is a credit for specimen trees. This is proposed as a credit in inches at a ratio of two to one, so two inches of replacement for one inch preserved capped at 50%. This would hopefully incentivize the developers to keep those big trees and create a design around them. Ms. Richmond talked about the idea of a warranty. This would require that replacement trees would be healthy for two years onward from the date of landscape acceptance. If the trees are not healthy at that point, the developer would be required to replace them. From there, the replacement trees need to be guaranteed for 12 months. Ms. Larkin asked if a replacement tree dies within those 12 months, does the warranty reset. Mr. Hoffman said it would reset forever and perpetuity. Ms. Larkin asked if a tree keeps dying, is there an analysis done into why it keeps failing. Mr. Hoffman said there are so many factors that go into why a tree keeps failing, so if it becomes a perpetual problem, they start looking into planting different species in its place. Ms. Buchmeier asked if certain trees/shrubs keep dying, are the developers able to pay a fine and be done replacing them. Mr. Hoffman said that is not an option because once we have the approved landscape plan, we hold an . The City would then go out and replace the tree/shrub until it was established. Once that landscape plan and 7 Ms. Buchmeier wanted to know if the .25 acres of trees mean .25 acres of solid trees, not just plantings here and there. Mr. Hoffman clarified that it would be the canopy cover in one area. Ms. Buchmeier asked if once the changes are adopted, they would be in place for all developments going forward. Ms. Richmond said that code in general is adopted to anything moving forward. It does not apply to anything in the pipeline when that code is adopted. Ms. Larkin asked if the City has ever taken an inventory of the types of groupings that we currently have in the City and at what rate they are being developed. She also inquired if they are being replaced. Mr. Hoffman responded that the City gets the information on the private lands that are developed and they know about all of the trees that are on those sites. The City also knows what their boulevard/right of way Ms. Larkin inquired as to whether we have a good handle on the different groves that we have within Mr. Hoffman said that as things develop, we know exactly the amount of trees, the canopy cover, and trees. that they are not being replaced in equal fashion. Mr. Hoffman said that that is what tree preservation calculations are for. He noted that because of the necessarily replace all the landscape taken out, so they are replacing the trees at 25% to 100% depending on the type of mitigation. Ms. Larkin asked if there is any evidence of displacement becoming an issue for certain animals due to tree loss. Mr. Hoffman responded that it depends on the animals. A lot of animals do better with human interference. Animals like turkeys, deer, wood ducks are generally not bothered by human disturbance. Animals with bigger ranges, like black bears, are likely to be displaced more. Ms. Berger wanted to know if we could prioritize preserving contiguous habitat that already exists on a site. Mr. Hoffman said preserving contiguous habitat is what they already looked at doing. Mr. Schwartz makes a motion to approve the recommendations for the Tree Preservation Ordinance Updates. Mr. Schwartz motioned to approve the recommendations. Mr. Parsons seconded that motion. Motion passes 7-0. 8 Environmental Board March 25, 2026 Page 1 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recycling Intern Updates Mr. Hoffman introduced Maddey Gintner, the new Lino Lakes Recycling Intern. Ms. Gintner provided some information on her educational background and what she is doing in her role. She also gave an update on the recycling program. 3. ADJOURN Ms. Schwartz took a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Ms. Buchmeier motioned to adjourn. Ms. Stevenson seconded the motion. Motion passes 7-0. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Alderink Office Specialist APPROVED MINUTES