HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2000 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL 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 correction to the: approved August 30, 2000
meeting minutes, Page 2, tenth paragraph, to indicate "Saw Mill Golf Course" rather than
Sawtooth Golf Course.
A. September 27, 2000 — The following corrections were requested:
Page 3, eighth paragraph "Davidson moved to recommend the following items be
addressed: retention of as much storm water ..."
Page 6, fifth paragraph: "Davidson moved to recommend the following items be
addressed: providing a visual buffer 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:
o 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
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.5;' 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 hassome concerns with the
greenway issues in the area. Asleson presented a map of the site and suggested the Board
address the issue that this should not be phased in for development without a
comprehensive plan for the entire area.
Vice Chair Davidson asked how this fits with the Bluebill Ponds development. Asleson
stated Bluebill Ponds is located to the ,west.
Asleson advised of the concern of Parks about. the trail and greenway areas. He noted the
wetland mitigation was done on the,north side of Main Street and, at that time, a lineal
greenway corridor was discussed: He connnented on how that greenway could be worked
into the plans.
Kukonen moved to recommend avoidance of piecemeal development, and does not
support continued road expansion or development until a comprehensive plan for the area
to the north is completed and approved. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried
with Trehus voting against.
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
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
characteristics are present on this site. Asleson 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. Asleson 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, uplands, and areas to be developed
for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of areas to be developed and those to be
conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the area of conservation. He pointed out
areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and access points. Mr. Fairbrother
addressed their intent to soften the hard surface areas and stated all areas not platted for
housing would be deeded for a conservation easement.
Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the roads would be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road
width is negotiable, depending; on what the City wants.
Mach stated this plan is well thought put but he has found upland, which provides
habituate, suffers with these projects: He stated if a conservation easement program is to
be continued, diversity of habituate types needs to be considered to assure a diversity of
wildlife is present.
Asleson 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 habitat and animals. Asleson stated the GIS data for this site
would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations.
Asleson 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 that the MUSA was arbitrarily
drawn through the middle of this property. He advised that Heritage Development has
indicated they will develop the property in two phases and request the MUSA line be
redrawn, possibly with tradeoffs in other areas.
Mr. Adolph stated the single family area uses more of the upland area and the intent of
the conservation development is to cluster the development with smaller lots. However,
in the economic analysis, one larger sized lot -does not equate to a smaller sized cluster
lot.
Asleson inquired regarding the price range of these homes. Mr. Adolph stated $160,000
to $180,000 is the base price plus options which could increase the price to $200,000.
Trehus askedlow a consideration of townhomes was raised. Mr. Adolph stated more of
the upland acreage could be retained 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 homeowners association to
address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would provide the benefits of townhomes
without having a partywall.
Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be :'smaller which meets a market demand and
need for those who are downsizing or empty nesters.
Vice Chair Davidson agreed with Donlin regarding the desirability for smaller lots if it
contains the same amenities, viewsheds, and fewer houses.
Asleson asked if lots of that type would sell in the marketplace. Mr. Adolph stated Mr.
Hill would be able to answer that question.
Donlin stated she appreciates ,the better viewsheds with this plan but she does not think it
is fair to then add 15 units which 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
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
, and 52 be removed.
Trehus stated he would like to see the calculations .on impervious surfaces.
Mach asked if it is up to the associationto address tree preservation. Asleson reviewed
several tree preservation/protection options used by other communities and commented
on the importance of assuring City input into those issues.
The Environmental Board indicated a desire for a fewer number of lots and more upland
preservation.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARDSUSINESS
A. Landscape Ordinance Review — 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
of normative species 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 - - :. ., ' •. - . - .. �:.. ' - - ,
equivalent a regionally -based wholesale nursery catalog ..."
V. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Page 6, A, 2: "The City encourages the planting of native species to the extent feasible.
When using native vegetation species, an effort should be made ..."
Page 7, B, 3, a): "... streets or abutting properties in designated for different zoning
district; land use."
Page 7, 4: "Screens shall consist of vegetation and other landscape elements. Berms,
walls, and fences may be used in combination with plant materials. Screens incorporating
plan materials are preferred plantmaterials or a combination of these. Buildings on the
subject property may function as screening devices if, as determined by the City, they
effectively block thoview of :the items or areas required to be screened.
Page 7, C: Board determined to 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 single-family
residential 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 single 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 designate(' for residential
different land uses."
VI. DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Page 9, A: Board asked that separate paragraph be added to address more diversity in
plant species and age.
Page 9, A, 2, ADD: Board asked language to<be added to allow use of seeds.
Page 10, A, 5, a): "... plantings should may be bordered with a strip of mowed grass..."
Page 10, A, 5, d): "... tilled into the sub grade to a minimum depth of seven (7) eight (8)
to ten (10) inches ..."
Page 10, A, 5, d): A'sleson.indicated he would work with the consultant on this
subsection.
Page 10, A, 6, a):
. pavement, etc.) so as to present a neat and an aesthetically ..."
Page 11, 6, Al D:.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.
B. 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 November 29, 2000 meeting.
C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000
meeting.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Discuss Development at the Intersection of, Birch Street and Centerville Road -
Donlin stated the trees have been bulldozed at the intersection of Birch Street and
Centerville Road and asked if a project has been submitted. Asleson noted the Tree
Preservation Ordinance does not restrict private property owners from removing trees
from their own property : He state&he is not aware of any project application for this site.
B. Discuss Lino Lakes Population - 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
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
Lino Lakes City Hall
August 30, 2000
6:30 PM
Agenda
1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Citizen Comments
5. Project Review (None at this time)
Environmental Board Business
A. Commercial Area Landscape Discussion/Continued
B. DNR Project/Updates
C. New Projects (Discussion of time/budget constraints)
D. Other Business
7. Program/Project Updates
A. Restoration Updates
B. Forestry Updates
C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates
9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date