Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/14/2000 P&Z Packet
• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, June 14, 2000 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2000 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IVY- -OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. David Snell, 600 62 °d Street, Minor Subdivision B. Gary Uhde, 265 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision C. Gary Uhde, 295 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision D. PUBLIC HEARING (Open and continue to July 2,,2000) Gary Uhde, Apollo Business Center, Conditional Use Permit - Dirt Stockpile 7,0J E. Bluebill Ponds, Main Street, Preliminary Plat F. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Town Center Development Standards G. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance H. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 10 -00, PCS Tower Moratorium s VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1'� Nominating Committee A. Planning & Zoning Representative to Community Service Award V C A`` VII. ADJOURNMENT • • AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: June 14, 2000 TOPIC: David Snell, 600 62nd Street, Minor Subdivision and Variance DESCRIPTION: David Snell is requesting a minor subdivision and variance to split 10 acres from the 37.48 acre parcel at 600 62nd Street. This property has been in the Snell family for over 50 years. The site is Zoned Rural and guided for rural development through 2020 in our draft comprehensive plan. The proposed parcel would have 230' of width on 62nd Street. According to the Zoning Ordinance, parcels in the Rural Zoning District must have a minimum of 330' of lot width, therefore, a variance for 120' in lot width is being requested. The Ordinance also provides that "80% of the lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by the ordinance ". In other words, 20% of the lot area must be upland. The survey document indicates that 2.35 acres are wetland leaving 7.65 acres of upland. Sewer and water are not available to serve this site, however, adequate space is provided for an on -site septic system and an alternate. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Snell believes a hardship exists in the fact that there is a septic system and drainfield for the dwelling at 600 62nd Street between the home and the new parcel that limits the available width for the new parcel. The property west of the existing home contains a considerable amount of wetland with patches of upland limiting the usability of this upland. Mr. Snell's parents also have some outbuildings and fencing on this west side of their home they would like to retain with their homestead. For P & Z and Council information, several parcels have been platted on the south side of 62nd Street that do not meet the 330' width requirement. These lots, however, were created at a time when smaller lots were permitted. They include: • Six (6) lots @ 153' in width ( +1 -) • One (1) lot @ 165' in width • One (1) lot @ 250' in width • Three (3) lots @ 150' in width (corner of Ware Road and 62nd Street) Staff suggested Mr. Snell consider platting this 10 acre parcel on the west side of the dwelling for two reasons. One being the deficiency in lot width and the other the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive. This state aid route is indicated in our Transportation Plan as continuing from 62nd Street to Co. Rd. J. some time in the future. The extension would need to be located somewhere within Mr. Snell's proposed 230 feet of frontage. Although it is unlikely that the City would extend this roadway without a development plan or request from the property owner we do need to consider the location of this future roadway when locating new buildings on the property. Mr. Snell indicated he has no intention of developing at this time and has actually been planning on constructing a home on this site for several years. He stated that he considered the City's recommendation of locating the 10 acre parcel on the west side of the dwelling and rejected that idea for the following reasons: • Less useable upland is available on the west side • Tree plantings and drainage improvements have been made on the east side in anticipation of this subdivision which was originally planned for the early 1980's. • Fencing and other improvements on his parents parcel westerly of the dwelling. In review of this subdivision and variance request we believe a hardship to the land does exist in the configuration of the wetland area and location of the septic system and drainage field. There are eleven (11) existing lots on 62nd Street that are less that 330' in lot width and less than 10 acres in size. The proposed subdivision does meet the 10 acre area requirement. Should the P & Z and Council agree that the variance criteria can be met in this case, we would recommend approval of the minor subdivision and variance with the following conditions: 1. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated for the future reconstruction of 62nd Street. Currently there is 16.5' of right -of -way from the centerline, the City would require an additional 23.5' along the entire frontage of both parcels to provide 40' of right -of -way as 62nd Street is classified as a State Aid Route with an 80' required right -of -way. • • 2. Any construction on the 10 acre parcel shall be so located to avoid the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive as determined by the City Engineer. 3. Park Dedication shall be collected as required in the Subdivision Ordinance. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Minor Subdivision and Variance with conditions outlined above. 2. Deny Subdivision and Variance request. 3. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 • 374 REVISED JAN. 1987 REVISED 378 REV. MAY 1988 REV. 380 REV. AUG. 1989 REV. 381 REV. FEB. 1991 REV. 382 REV. FEB. 1992 REV. 385 REV. FEB. 1993 REV. 385 REV. MAY 1994 REV. SCALE I "= 1 500' 1/4 1/2 MILE NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 3/4 LOCATION MAP SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK IODATION CITIES CENTERVI LLEi 1 era •12.191,1 Ell osiiguill u�0pp © ©p0� ©,1oe�° - aim sitior 44E04 MR § azwci'MM v off' V PP 4 • �I �a D� reinuccoms113111 PARK m• SEP. 1974 ) NOV.1978 MAR.1980 SEP.1981 DEC .1982 JULY 1985 DEC. 1985 • REVISED JAN. 987 REVISED NOV. 1994 REV. MAY 988 REV. JAN.1996 REV. AUG. 989 REV. JULY 1997 REV. FEB. 991 REV. JULY 1998 REV. FEB. 992 REV. AUG. 1999 REV. FEB. 993 REV. REV. MAY 994 REV. SCALE 1'1=1500' 1/4 1/2 MILE 3/4 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION CI' CENTE 1 _1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Sunset Roa Pine Street as ti Main Stret±t Carl Street Main Street Lois Lane 77th Str et 77111 Street E.k ac Street ,a'1 C r rfje t4',3(Ch L.. -iht: Peltier Lake 4 Centerville Lake w ,;Main Street Centerville Birch Street Birch Street Y • 62nd, Street V O L rn Ash Street CNI Holly Drive 0 z • I I I I I • I I I LEGEND Principal Arterial "A" Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street Existing Proposed SRF Ca m c Gwur•Ixc 1997 CITY OF LINO LAKES TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Kemper & Associates, Inc. 721 Old Hwy. 8 NW New Brighton, MN 55112 Telephone: (651) 631 -0351 • Fax: (651) 631 -8805 •email: kemper @pro - ns.net h7i§d71 }i.aJs7t�f4 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE PROPOS D MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE SNELL PROPERTY • • AGENDA ITEM V B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: June 14, 2000 TOPIC: Gary Uhde, 295 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision DESCRIPTION: This application involves a request for a minor subdivision in the Apollo Business Park that would create a 4 acre parcel (Parcel D) just west of the proposed H & L Mesabi site. A site plan review is anticipated for P & Z and Council review in July or August, however, the anticipated closing on the property is schedule prior to that time, thus the minor subdivision request. The property in question is Zoned LI, Light Industrial and indicated as commercial on the City's Land Use Map. The proposed lot will meet all requirements of the ordinance pertaining to lot width, depth and area. Access to the site will be via a shared driveway with the parcel to the west. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and indicated no objection. The access locations are consistent with the City's Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County. Drainage and utility easements will be provided per City Code and access subject to the existing Joint Powers agreement with Anoka County. Staff would recommend approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements are provided subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. A shared driveway agreement shall be provided subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. Park Dedication shall be required based on the Park Dedication Ordinance. OPTIONS: 1. Approve minor subdivision with conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 LLL 6 1%ardfara.- ,,m„„id jr........,.,. ...:.„..... um. U E 1M ------ --F RIMING 1C1.10 ---- , l — $t.# 111111 • n I 1 I ALIO. 11 MIUMNIM iwva Amur= 171 1111111•11IMM RUN 2 INO PARK NORTH 11111111115MP1543 Cril;";tr'' cr.G11.1= EU ow._ Ct 9I1111 pi at- A FAR 0 de% liodUNO Kum .9 • NO. 134 VW 3 4 55 6 3 4 56 6 MEM LINO LAKES 1— 1;10i5/4"t fa REHABILITATION HA CENTER MARSHAN LAKE t- !I r CENTER OF SECTION 32, T31N, R22W = S 89 °58'25" E 580.00 PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE SNELL PROPERTY 600 62ND STREET CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO 40' SOUTH OF THE CENTERUNE OF 62ND STREET WETLAND AREA PER AIR PHOTO AREA *4.194 S.F• S 89 °58'25" E 910.00 S 89 °58'25" E 230.00 80.00 NORTH UNE OF 5E1/4 SECTION 32 cct EXISTING �l RESIDENCE # 600 SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 40 FEET OF THE N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 32 (O z ►■\ S 89 °58'25" E 250.00 0 z EXISTING COUNT' DITCH EXISTING 33' RIGHT OF WAY APPROXIMATE UMITS OF WETLANDS FROM 1/2 SECTION N 00 °32'16° W 1321.40 A LINE 657.90' NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH UNE OF THE N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF ..110N 32 • N 89 °58'25" W 330.00 S 89 °59'47' 7 E 214.36 --6 21\2 -S TR-E APPROXIMATE AREA OF WETLAND CONTAINED IN N N w o SUBJECT PROPERTY w Li vi ±2.6046 ACRES 4) 0 / 1490 /SOUTH UNE OF THE N 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 SECTION 32 / N 89 °59'47" W 1045.64 20086 (20086.DWG) LEGEND N 89 °59'47" W 1490.0 — — — — — — WETLAND LINE PER HALF SECTION MAP DITCH LINE PER HALF SECTION MAP D.B. R. CRAMMER TREE UNE PER AIR PHOTO APPROXIMATE AREA OF UPLAND CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ±7.3954 ACRES 0 100 200 1 INCH EQUALS 200 FEET VICINITY MAP SECTION 32, T 31 N, R 22 W WARE ROAD 62ND STREET SITE APPROXIMATE AREA OF TREE COVER CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ± 2.0208 WETLAND AREA PER AIR PHOTO AREA 16,567 S.F. (NOT TO SCALE) PROPOSED PARCEL DESCRIPTION (EXCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONAL 23.5 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.) EXCEPT FOR THE NORTHERLY 40 FEET THEREOF, THE EASTERLY 230.00 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 1490.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T 31 N, R 22 W, AND THE SOUTHERLY 657.90 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 214.36 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 444.36 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 1,490 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 32, T 31 N, R 22 W, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 10.000 ACRES. KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. • LAND SURVEYING • ENGINEERING 721 OLD HIGHWAY No. 8 NW NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 651- 631 -0351 FAX 651- 631 -8805 • 74th STREET 5 41:10 41 896 • \ 4 , —, ,s‘'\.: • , 47 ... "". ...... , , Os \ • , • , ' • ....‘ ‘,.. • / 7 4,•;\ 4 ‘,.. \ ..,.‘ • , • , ., ‘‘, v 350291 sq. ft. .. 0.0 \ / 8.042 acres. \ 0,‘ / ' N,':, CII I I / CT I ..1 / WN\ / soon , ■ , \ :. , \ , -,‘..‘, .....,.. '".".....> s' ' - • ' '. *::: .z......_._......,- - - - - . • 24-CW 893.10 893.31 X LINO LAKES CORRECTIONAL FACILITY X x x X x POND I N 6 • 140' TEMP CUL -D SA ElITEC f t es 1 V \ -5 90012 RCP FES 01 0 50 100 200 Graphics Scale (in feet) MAP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY I SAT B.,...s. DAM_ IF174..Pt74-";r::::fr..??.474-.9.:".. ,,"::, j J C JOFNSON CONSULTANTS t NC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN C 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 J Phone: (763) 391-0243 FAX: (763) 391-0245 4/14/00 PRAECT NO.: CONCEPT Si TE PLAN - ALT 5A APOLLO BUS I NESS CENTER LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA 920901 R• Ho I )545 D„,„ • • • • • AGENDA ITEM V C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: June 14, 2000 TOPIC: Gary Uhde, 265 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision DESCRIPTION: This application involves a request from Gary Uhde to create an 8 acre parcel in the Apollo Business Center for future development. A development proposal is in the works and may be available for review by the P & Z and Council in July or August, however, the land sale is scheduled sooner. The property is Zoned Light Industrial and meets all zoning district requirements for width, depth and lot area. A shared driveway will be required on the east side of the site and the applicant will be dedicating a partial roadway on the west side that is intended to provide a second access to this 8 acre parcel. This proposed roadway is also intended to provide access to the balance of the northern portion of the business center which is approximately 14.8 acres in size. The two accesses provided are within the confines of the joint powers agreement with Anoka County. Although roadways are typically dedicated as part of a plat, staff believes this is an acceptable arrangement subject to City review and approval. The City Engineer has reviewed this proposed subdivision and finds the access roadway to be acceptable in regard to width and location. Final plans for construction of the roadway, storm sewer improvements, and site grading are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff would recommend approval of the requested subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements are provided according to City Ordinance and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. An access agreement shall be provided for the easterly driveway. 3. Final plans for roadway construction are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. Park Dedication shall be required subject to the Park Dedication Ordinance. et • • • OPTIONS: 1. Approve minor subdivision with conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 ...... ..r • 0, voerrtrr---vvrr-rwrtr ar-Ir7r—Prrr NO JO ..1 111111111111111 lir giouggi A—re. oplawg igiLoymoop um op issiondo. ar —wormEvar-wou V Ela 11E4 LE Ml=r lindi IIII Mil INF No4.1171' -Pe - MEW. !CHM • MM9 MI a. cic rm111= a= 013 r4g.;ln 1:20 at mru Tem AUD. ag immo 44/11210 Pom co ea mei Imm N 11111 II 1 I III m% i0 WI.,M11=1,71.•=111111 11111111111=1. 111111Z Emma. Binimemimmjim noin MOHO Now= NuNimre. • ni1113 Fm`- MMI 401 2 ..cEe mom orargra. Clti2er g". 11 . 11111111111311 3 4 55 6 3 56 6 7 LINO LAKES 1-1 REHABILITATION CENTER 52 30 4 3 38 1 MARSHAN LAKE • 74th STREET • MARVY STREET 6 90012 8S629 lfiia.91 24-CbP 893.* 897.31 x —x— — -- x —7273— x--x —x-- LINO LAKES CCRRECTICNAL FACILITY x x x x rt`c+ AN 8 ' 1� Nt 140' ) TEMP CUL _ 174462 sq. f 4.005 acres. O .M` 1 .4111-44■01.,440 Ott S� r! / 90012 RCP FES 0 50 100 200 Graphics Scale lia f..1) MAP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY DATE: 1 b% - 7 " "ate r1,. b. ..f *. s ,l..r �...e E.g.,..r mod.. J C J J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS INC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 Phone: (763) 391 -0243 FAX: (763) 391 -0245 444700 PRQ.ECT ti": V CONCEPT SITE PLAN - AL T SA APOLLO BUSINESS CENTER LINO LAKES . MINNESOTA 9209x1 R., 11. 11546 D.„,., • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM 5E Jeff Smyser June 14, 2000 Preliminary Plat, Bluebill Ponds The site is on the south side of Main St. across from Wood Duck Trail and Blue Bill Lane. The project has undergone numerous revisions since its initial design. The primary outstanding issue was the access to Main St. Heritage Development has reached an agreement with the House of Praise Church that will allow Wood Duck Trail to extend south of Main St., creating a full access intersection. This report refers to the following plans, all received by the City May 12, 2000: Preliminary Plat 4/28/00 Preliminary Utility Plan 4/28/00 Preliminary Grading Plan 4/26/00 Infiltration & Erosion Control Plan 4/26/00 Tree Preservation Plan 5/10/00 Wetland Replacement and Impact Plans 5/1/00 ANALYSIS Project Data: Total site 36.76 acres Wetlands 2.15 acres 77 single family lots. Gross density 2.09 units per acre. Net density (without wetlands) 2.22 units per acre. Land Use and Zoning: The site is completely within the existing MUSA. Land use and zoning for the site and surrounding land are listed in the following table. Comprehensive Plan (existing) Comprehensive Plan (1998 draft) Zoning site SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 SF Resid. north (across Main St.) SF Residential Low Density Unsewered Resid. R Rural east SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 SF Resid. west SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R Rural south SF Residential Low Density Unsewered Resid. R Rural Bluebill Ponds June 14, 2000 page 2 This site requires careful consideration because of its location relative to existing, pending, and future development. Access to Main St. is one issue, but the City must also consider traffic circulation on this site and surrounding sites in the future. The existing Mar Don Acres neighborhood and the developing Highland Meadows projects both relate directly to Bluebill Ponds. In addition, the City must consider the potential for development to the immediate west and east of Bluebill Ponds. This project is a good example of how land use planning and transportation planning are closely related, not separate processes. Lots, Blocks The plat complies with the maximum block length standard of 1500 feet. The submitted information indicates that lot areas shown on the plat do not include wetlands or ponds. All lot areas would then comply with the required minimum area of 10,800 sf of buildable land per lot in the R -1 zone. All lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements, of 80 ft. and 135 ft., respectively. The double frontage lots on Main St. meet the 145 ft. depth requirement, and all corner lots meet the 100 ft. width standard. Cul de sacs will be required at the ends of "Street A" and "Woodduck Lane." As noted in his memo (comment #24), the City Engineer is comfortable with having the cul de sacs completely within the proposed rights of way. The cul de sacs will be smaller than is typical, but because of the short length of the cul de sacs, we do not anticipate a problem for emergency vehicles. Transportation, Roads, Access, Circulation The proposed roads provide access to Main St. and internal circulation on the site. Two roads, Street A and Woodduck Lane, provide for future connection to other sites. Main St. Access: The major issue on this plat has been access to Main St. (CSAH 14). Anoka County and the City recently completed an access management study. Eventually, Main St. probably will have a median separating eastbound and westbound traffic. The access study recommends full access intersections with a spacing of one -half mile. Wood Duck Trail is the designated location for a full access intersection. Bluebill Lane will be a limited access intersection, which means it will be a right - in/right -out only intersection, where vehicles will not be able to take left turns and cross the median. The Bluebill Ponds development, with 77 lots, would be ill- served with a limited access intersection. In addition, the City should be looking to provide circulation in the area. Ultimately, there will be 150+ dwelling units in Highland Meadows developments. A full access intersection on Main St. is the appropriate connection, and Wood Duck Trail is the appropriate location for it. • • • Bluebill Ponds June 14, 2000 page 3 The issue with the Main St. access has been that the extension of Wood Duck Tr. south of Main St. crosses the current property of the House of Praise church. The developer and the church have negotiated a land trade that allows the Wood Duck extension. The developer will have better access for the new development. Access on the new Wood Duck Tr. will be safer for churchgoers than access on Main St. In addition, the church will best be served with a full intersection rather than partial access to Main St. The City will benefit from the improved safety because of the better access management, and from improved circulation in that area of the City. The new roads through the plats in the area will be very curvy. They will not be very good for a shortcut route between Main St. and Lake Drive. Rather, the new roads will provide circulation through these neighborhoods and access for the residents. Road Along Mar Don Acres (Street A): Mar Don Acres is immediately south of the Bluebill Ponds site. When Mar Don Acres was platted in 1978, the northern 30 feet was included in an easement. This 30 feet was intended to be the southern half of a right of way for a road. The other half would be supplied when the land to the north (the Bluebill Ponds site) was developed. Following the first review of Bluebill Ponds by P & Z in October 1999, several residents of Mar Don Acres informed us that they want the road built along the south border of Bluebill Ponds. They want the option of subdividing their lots, which requires the road to provide access. Staff held a neighborhood meeting on November 9, 1999 to discuss this issue. Residents along the alignment of the desired road were invited, including those in Mar Don Acres, Sherwood Green, and unplatted properties to the north. Based on this meeting and follow -up calls to residents who were not at the meeting, staff found that six of eight property owners in Mar Don Acres wanted the road. Residents in Sherwood Green and lots to the west of BlueBill Ponds did not want the road. Staff directed the developer to include a road on the plat. Mar Don Acres Want Road? Yes or No Lot 1 No Lot 2 Yes, on east half of lot only Lot 3 Yes Lot 4 No Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 Yes Sherwood Green Lots 1 -4, Block 1 No We have received a petition for public improvements that would include roadways within the site. This petition was scheduled for action by the City Council on June 12. Staff will have an update for the P & Z. Bluebill Ponds June 14, 2000 page 4 The City Engineer's comments list issues to be addressed, but he is comfortable that they can be resolved with the indicated changes to the plans. Utilities Stormwater Management and Wetlands: Several small wetlands exist on the site and will be impacted by the project. The mitigation plan is part of the review by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The wetlands will be covered by a drainage easement on the final plat according to standard policy. The Watershed District review status is "tabled with authorization for administrative action." This means that the remaining issues can be handled by District staff as long as the applicant submits additional information in a timely manner. The City Engineer's comments list a number of technical issues to be addressed, but he is comfortable that they can be resolved with the indicated changes to the plans. Sewer and Water: Sewer and water service will come from Main St. The City will need to prepare a feasibility study to determine how this development and nearby areas will best be served. It is City policy that the benefiting property owner bear the cost of such a study. We have received a petition for public improvements that would include extending sewer and water to the site. This petition was scheduled for action by the City Council on June 12. Staff will have an update for the P & Z. The City Engineer's comments list a number of technical issues to be addressed, but he is comfortable that they can be resolved with the indicated changes to the plans. Parks and Trails Originally, staff envisioned some park land in the southeast corner of the site, near the park in the Highland Meadows West plat. The two sites touch at the comers only, so the entire park would be oddly configured. The missing connecting piece would have to be filled in when the land to the east of Bluebill Ponds develops. We have no indication that this will occur in the foreseeable future, so the missing piece was only speculative. The road on the south edge of the plat (Street A) renders that idea impractical. This road was requested by the majority of the residents on the south side of the road, in Mar Don Acres. The future extension of this will separate the Bluebill Ponds site from the Highland Meadows park site. The 1992 trail plan envisions a trail crossing this site from east to west to facilitate a future connection between the park and 4th Ave. However, a connection to 4th Ave. will be difficult to create unless land to the west develops. Currently, that area is zoned Rural. The draft comprehensive plan shows some additional land in a growth area, but not all • • • Bluebill Ponds June 14, 2000 page 5 the way to 4th Ave. The residential streets provide bicycle and pedestrian access across this plat and to the Highland Meadows park. The additional right of way being dedicated for Main St. provides enough width for a future trail to be constructed there. The park dedication requirement is about 3.3 acres, or the equivalent in cash. We estimate that the cash dedication would be approximately $89,000, depending on the land value. The Park Board reviewed the latest plan revision on June 5. The Park Board's recommendations are attached. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS The Environmental Board considered the original application on September 29, 1999. Though the plan layout has changed since then, the environmental conditions on the site have not. The Environmental Board's recommendations are attached. That Board recommends a 50 ft. buffer around the forest on the east edge of the site, infiltration and overland runoff design where possible, open spaces to be incorporated into the design, use of native vegetation, a buffer around wetlands, and deep tilling of topsoil. This site is in the existing MUSA and zoned for residential development. No planned development is involved. Therefore, the zoning requirements apply and there is little room for flexibility or negotiation. Wetlands will be covered with an easement, though the wetlands are not exceptional and there is little justification for exceptional measures. The site is essentially an open field with little in the way of natural features or potential for interesting open space. Infiltration is required by the Watershed District and the City when possible. Native vegetation can be required around ponds and wetlands. While no buffer is provided, the submitted tree plan should be revised to accommodate the City Environmental Specialist's comments in his memo �f June 1. These include extension of the tree fence and oak wilt protection measures. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to any site grading. 2. Utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District prior to site grading. 3. The City Engineer's comments in his memo of June 1, 2000 must be addressed to his • satisfaction prior to site grading. Bluebill Ponds June 14, 2000 page 6 4. The tree preservation plan shall be amended according to the City Environmental Specialist memo of 6/1/00 prior to site grading. 5. Plantings around wetlands and ponds shall be as recommended by the City Environmental Specialist and shall be included in the development agreement. 6. The developer must obtain needed approvals from Anoka County for access to Main St. and work in the right of way. OPTIONS 1. Approve the preliminary plat with conditions included in this report. 2. Deny the preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION Option 1. • • • Memorandum DATE: June 1, 2000 TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner FROM: John Powell, City Engineer RE: Bluebill Ponds Preliminary Plan Review Comments We have completed our review of the latest engineering submittal for the referenced project. Our comments are as follows: 1) The minimum storm sewer size allowed is 15" RCP. 2) The infiltration tube located on the high point behind Lots 6 & 7, Block 4 does not seem appropriate. 3) There needs to be an easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 4 and between Lots 13 & 14, Block 4 for the proposed sanitary sewer. 4) A catch basin needs to be shown on the 18" storm sewer line at the rear lot line between Lots 7 & 8, Block 4. It is shown on the grading plan, but not on the utility plan. 5) The sanitary sewer needs to be extended to service Lot 3, Block 1. Sanitary sewer services can not be connected to manholes. 6) The majority of the sanitary sewer manholes do not meet the minimum depth requirements. Any sanitary sewer that does not have at least 7 feet of cover must be insulated. 7) The hydrant located in front of Lot 12, Block 2 is not needed. The required fire protection is achieved without it. 8) A hydrant needs to be added at the dead end watermain adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1 for flushing purposes. 9) A storm sewer schedule and calculations need to be submitted. 10) Utility details need to be added. 11) Supporting calculations for the infiltration tubes needs to be provided. 12) The lowest opening elevations for Lots 9 & 10, Block 3 must be raised to 1' above the emergency overflow elevation. 13) The catchbasins in the low points on Street A and Street B need to be located immediately across from each other. 14) The radius in the southwest corner of Street B and Street C will need to have the concrete curb tipped out, or a cross gutter, to prevent water from ponding. 15) The street grade arrow on Street C is pointed in the wrong direction. 16) The proposed contours on the grading plan need to be labeled. 17) For Lot 21, Block 3 the low floor elevation needs to be raised to 907.0. 18) The side yard setbacks are 10' on the house side and 5' on the garage side. The standard detail calls for 10' in both cases. 19) Verification of soil types used in model must be provided. 20) If proposed Reach 100 corresponds to existing Reach 2, then the discharge for the 2 year and 10 year proposed condition exceeds the existing condition. 21) It is unclear where Pond 6 discharges according to the routing information provided. 22) The 100 -year flood elevations of backyard ponding in subcatchment 78 and 79 need to be provided. 23) The RCWD reviewed this project at their May 24, 2000, meeting. The permit has been "TWAFAA" pending additional submittals. 24) Cul -de -sacs are not shown for the southeast and west roadways terminations. Temporary cul -de -sacs, which are completely contained within the proposed rights -of -way, will be allowed at these locations. 25) It is our understanding the developer does not control abutting properties at this time. 26) It is not clear whether or not the proposed 28 foot street width has been incorporated into the hydraulic and hydrologic design. Overall, most of the issues raised by our last review have been addressed. • • • • Lino Lakes Environmental Division Memo To Jeff Smyser From: Marty Asleson Date: 06/01/00 Re: Blue Bill Ponds Tree Preservation I have reviewed the tree preservation plan for Blue Bill Ponds and have the following comments: • On the Eastern Edge of the woodland on the Westem side of the development, tree protection fence should be extended from tree no. 2383 to tree no. 2386. There appears to be a gap here. Although these trees may fall on other properties, root zones should be protected on these trees. • Tree no 2394 is a double clump oak tree. The southem most stem (22" dia.) should be removed for safety reasons. • There should be agreement to install vibratory plow lines in the same tree line area to control oak wilt. Trees appear to be dying due to a possible recent oak wilt infection. • Protection fence needs to be indicated on the plan protecting the Western edge of the woodland on the Eastern side of the development. Although these trees are not necessarily on the property, root zones on these trees need to be protected. • All protection measures have to be installed and inspected before soil disturbance on the property. • This is the oak wilt season. All necessary pruning on oaks and all accidental wounding of oaks must be painted immediately. • Page 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Linda Waite Smith, City Administrator Brian Wessel, Director of Community Development Rick DeGardner, Director of Public Services Marty Asleson, Environmental Coordinator Jeff Smyser. City Planner John Powell, City Engineer Mary Kay Wyland, Planning Coordinator FROM: Carri Vilie11a, Building /Community Development Department Secretary . DATE: i5ctober 1, 1999 RE: Environmental Board Recommendations CC: - Environmental Board Members The following is the Environmental Board recommendations for the projects that were on the agenda: Athletic Complex The Environmental Board recommends that the Athletic Complex be implemented in a manner that will not only satisfy the recreation needs of the city, but will also demonstrate good environmental stewardship. This is a superb opportunity for the city to create a complex that works to enhance, rather than degrade, the 'environment. The Environmental Board would like to work closely with city staff to make this park a demonstration of the environmentally aware nature of our city. Blue Bill Ponds The Environmental Board recommends the followino: 1. The design of the development should be modified so as to create a 50 -foot buffer along the eastern edge of the property to protect the significant stand of hardwoods on the adjacent property to the east. 2. Ponds should be designed to infiltrate water on site as much as possible. 3. The city permit flexibility in R -1 zoning standards on street width, lot size, street setback, frontage,. etc... to permit preservation on larger tracts of open space without changing density. 4. Attempts should be made to create an overland storm water treatment train for surface runoff leaving the site. 5. When restoring vegetation to the site, the Environmental Board recommends the use of native materials, or other plants that require little irrigation or nutrient addition. • • l- • 6. Property owners be informed that 8 - 10 inches deep tilling of topsoil prior to sod or seeding will improve turf performance. 7. The creation of a buffer of native vegetation around natural and created wetlands. Highl nd Meadows Re -plat 1. Attempt to create a buffer to preserve stand of oaks on west side of property. 2. City permit flexibility in R -1 zoning standards on street width, lot size, setbacks, frontage...etc to permit preservation of larger tracts of open space without changing density. 3. Project design should attempt to maximize infiltration of storm water on the site and reduce runoff into lakes and naturally occurring wetlands. When runoff into water bodies is unavoidable, storm water should be directed over a vegetated surface via broad swales. The design should attempt to maximize the surface area over which the water tlows. The total linear distance of this storm water treatment train should be at least 100 feet between the storm water detention pond and the destination (ditch, lake, wetland). 4. Before spreading topsoil, the board recommends tilling the soil 8" to 10" deep to maximize the successful establishment of landscaping and minimization of surface runoff due to soil compaction during construction. 5. When restoring vegetation to the site, we recommend use of native materials or other plants that require little irrigation or nutrient addition. Use of exotic, invasive species is strongly discouraged. (Eg. European buckthorn, Norway maple) See City Environmental Coordinator for lists of recommended and non - recommended species. Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 June 6, 2000 TO: Mary Kay Wyland, Planning Coordinator FROM: Rick DeGardner,- Public Services Director SUBJECT: Bluebill Ponds Motion — Park Board Meeting 6/5/00 At the June 5, 2000 Park Board meeting the following motion was made after the board reviewed the revised preliminary plat for Bluebill Ponds. Paul Montain made a motion to take cash in lieu of land and pursue the purchase of Outlot D in the Highland Meadows addition with the balance being used for development of the park. Also, eliminate the proposed trails included in a motion at the March 6, 2000 Park Board meeting. Joe Boyle seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. sw /parkbrdBluebill Ponds Motion 6 -5 -00 Meeting.doc � i t - - 1 . . /s 0 :IaD1:tA y ulalligelkiikmE44 1_11111 IF 1 J 4 E! A 0u/I 18 9 8< 7 8� ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4 1 - -M-Ai-N- CTRCE-T - GOUNTY HW Y/ --R/GH OF *Ste PL-AF NHMR£R -23 - --f - — S AiR OUTLOT 8 PARK NORTH — LILAC— - -SfRE ET— 4 LINO LAKES // 4 d COUwr •swv/s.. r. !1 ! STATE'S a.• , 6 Y • 1 •O •• .2 •• .1 i t. 44E a • ! 6 7 • • •6 • 'VIEW 4 LAKE 2 Da a4 as as N a0 11 7S t • 4 ! r I 1 • L • RURA' NORTH 6 ! 4 ! ! I TRIAL ex/ sn./a detwee4 • ,. / jrrriit 1.• ?.• .....05Dy •-• `,1;:"4•• ••":-•••-.f.f-tr V: r•tWirik4,1t..,..:-. hod •••••••A.•'‘. • • 4,1•14td,A ifF-74.4-:0.-i .4iFigfAT, • •••• v•orx. •■••es, • • • " • A•tts4.40.•51q4CWW4?«.1.2tgt,7 -4•4t • -1". ‘''!" `"- %.•1••■44`,t • •.h 1: • '4* 2pi.t4r3t,At"/- • ;' 't of 1.7 ••• • 81, I • • I • • : I ;.'s 4; • :• •1;•kt.:•■•• •••:•••••t•:;;;:71. • 1 ,¢�. .. mot.. -z. t�.r '=x „d ;.c• q. „..,..: „..„,,. . 9 "'$ 4wO r ' it .i •ct:��;� y „?rl?`L'3` ;1y' A..r ai2•` U ` 3.i^+°�t.-”, y11:... ,'r>,`rK•'- 't:t�i '7r y x %`Y•t y -r-' °r..•,• �r.>;,�"7r `t f ' +' Kp�:r : i'i. fir s l 3'g°�p r �.:7ygy.• . r . °t '� .fir�ti ' '� q -""" P c. �.,._ f G \MYf - . - :Y•F y. 'i e>3''•1.''.t'• j�.r4a " .1'7 :t•'1wr r� ^ f r�t :.'. , L a Q'-• ,.o 7 'A.� Sx . • . , `ii 1 ' 1' `7'"•. fit .:.-•• . 5 »L • `• 4. .e fi• ! . r- 3 a t . •z.}:yie:e+ . .:v,a-ei-ipem —fi ` 'a�`rV� mt,r, +- ►n ' . . r- Y'FtiF,y" F•f Eir ;.I.-r - ' ;_ t - . ,s :.;ss " _.... y V R Y -. .i„... ^:W^S• �4 =.... ..- .. 1% ,Cy- • - -.. —. T Et •w4: tX.:tis' •: �+ �l sf!"..U�Mt'"".A.ti r'=a✓'te ••:. I i � t t- 23 E w.T+.1r$: 4v :p sirE,pt'.r •- . .r. r;.. `` 'r-a•' 7 ri .-4:>•'•^ tu`A r iga'`. wi ; � . -', .: ems% "%t a f' �'2•T"+"� %zv4.+- , `:i •� • t- r.i%'i• .yam!# -r..1-•-, • >' = r . =2........ re� + + rte' , .1f-7.,,...4.-1-• - � ` -. i�• .s•t!d.^ ^:- ri�Yi!c d•�..;+, - '•rs..L-5r�.. X..;.t. i�•_'y' .'� f +, irlr .. iaiS.: %: :.i.,£tve.'.r..r•ry. #`Si:��: t-. . .5.tt .s_ -Sst j .#. n- — t•.i�►' ya . 44:21:'• •g. '°A:�'�-•Y.°r5T8=b ':1� i �� y.. �ltaW �' •k.i7• tL���w.n,v. '- :.1r53i• i. �y��+ -- 27v l,°. .a•.� -.Y.e, •'' era. - �: 7.113.' tr � rid '} -.• : r" sAr 1 R -1 -.aa•. a r .411 F PS P SCHQQ. -suBDI 112$111r SIJB • • 71�LIDHTA CAVA.111 rag -- T • .: ' 1 ? . x' r :nvr r.: . . 2ND ADD AUD 713 1 • • •-IVMVW ;r4 . , �. 1 r / • i •' • ;'NO 1 -P$ P 1 ,414-77 i 1 1 1 1 1 • • • 900'30'44"W $ 33.00 -N\ 0 zzoo- -4 J J CO so L CS,AJ-L NO. 14 N89'28'331Y (MM'N S�-� 932.03 932 02 (MA /N 0 AR0A 1907 s 142 11 12 1200000 1.09 b' 0E8940 ea 84 82 6 '°' SETBACK 12001 so 5 =38 L - ■0•07 50 120009 e0 STREET) Q 932.01 N89'28'331W PARCEL. no �ttm0 s 40¢ 4 11018 s 3• 1202200 15 MOO / \ 12872 s 80 16 19m s 110 R R 0 112 NJ. 0. °nom 300^ 35 1 1 N 6 12001 s 12 110 14223 r 2 S00'31'27'W (33.00 31 —27.00 1 1M N€ lEx. 1 cHURCd 0 589'28'33 "E L. -, 390.92 H 1/4 CORNER T� 8, Q I` ANOKA 0022)T' (Cw) T -- --391.70 -- i o_7 L I� 1 1 0 o OUTLOT A 431900 350 / POND 8 ▪ 12834 s \ 83 110100 Sr 7' s OTm1' R-e0' 100E e0 80 la 8 vv. gr 118 17 81900 - Inn sr 80 90 15 „ 14 13 ,a90st2 1900 sP 190094 80 80 80 4010 80 80 ea r e0 STREET A to 147429 tamrl 10960s- • x10 35 R 30 30 R ea 9 12000 s a1o0 lr0O — Soo —j 12 1 1 11 10 - woo WS limos? 11100,: iO4 30 0 co co 30 W CO U1 V. l 128 MN oOM _f___:; ob • 1, s �O 2 122 • .1 ,1 s sr 112 132.10 MAR DON 989'27I24'E ACES R OBE CONSULTING ANNERS end SURVEYORS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1000 EAST 146th STREET, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 1 HEREBY CONY THAT nes PLAN WAS PREPARED 83 ME OR UNDER 00 DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A D1AX 60,m,m LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS Or THE STATE Cr MINNESOTA. PH 432 -3000 DATE4/2I(QIREG NO. 21121 REVISIONS 5/8/00 PRY REVISED PER C113 STAFF MO RCAO REVIEW 100 0 100 200 300 Scale 1 - 100 PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE DATA OWNER /DEVELOPER: HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 480E COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55117 CONSULTANT: PHONE: 851-481-0017 FAX 851-481 -1518 PROBE ENGINEERING CO., INC. 100E 148TH STREET SUITE 240 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 PHONE: 812.432-3000 FAX 812. 4323723 ENGINEER RALPH D. WAGNER PE NO. 7100 SURVEYOR RUSS P. DAMLO RLS NO. 19086 DESIGNER WIWAM J. MAURER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Towns* 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom that part of the North 313.50 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying east of a line drawn In a embody direction perpendicular to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Noolhw.st Quarter from a poled on the North Ina thereof distant 391.10 fast wad from the Northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. Also excepting therefrom PARCEL 30 and that part of the above described parcel lying within PARCEL 31, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 25. Subject to existing roadway easement for C. S. A H. No. 14 (Main Street). TOTAL SITE AREA = 36.76 Ac TOTAL WETLAND AREA = 93,713 SF 77 Tots 2.09 Lots / Acre LOT AREAS SHOWN FOR BLOCKS 1, 2, AND 3, DO NOT INCLUDE EASEMENTS AROUND PROPOSED PONDS LOT AREAS SHOWN FOR LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 5, DO NOT INCLUDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PREPARED FOR: Heritage Development 450 E. COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55117 DESIGNED CNECKED WJM ORAWN DATE PRM 4/29/00 SCALE OS N0. 9150.00 PRELIMINARY PLA T Bluebill Ponds Lino Lakes MINNESOTA REV. • • 1 1 K RAD. TRAP. SAO Cr WT. MAT TIP EASEMENT W UMW C. S. A. H. NO. 14 cw,wjaaGE g.e'y mtriaus BLUEBILL PONDS (MAIN STREET) CHI 1 i T 1 aER vim tersommousimm 'Cr v v© lv� [we:.,..- . e„,,..„„..,,,,,,,, iron-9 ...w • , INNS' '''' ' i�i�i���irE�i l4MTIM _ tsa u�u:. a�IOUW- :, s:, ., cr ate -- ■�' :ate X/MBA N 1I I ROBE CONSULTING RS and LAND SURVEYORS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. I I • I ! i MAR p(IN ACFP (-1000 EAST 146th STREET, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 PH 432 -3000 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OATS_ G. NO REVISIONS 2V REVISED PER al, STAFF h RCWO REOE ENSEO PROJECT FOR WOOD 0006 CONNEGO0 REVISED PONO CONTOURS RENSED POND CO TOURS 100 0 100 200 300 Scale: 1 - 100 r-^-� DENOTES EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR — DENOTES EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR /-• --- DENOTES WETLANDS DEUNEATED BY BARR ENGINEERING .r0'\ DENOTES EXISTING TREE UNE DENOTES SOIL BORING LOCATIONS DENOTES NORMAL WATER LEVEL - - -- DENOTES EDGE OF WATER POOL WITHIN PROPOSED WETLAND 1.5' BELOW NORMAL WATER LEVEL ® DENOTES INFILTRATION TUBE ® DENOTES LOWEST ALLOWABLE BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION © DENOTES BASIN NUMBER R/W 30' 30' R/W 16' 14' 14' 6' 1 /4• iR 8915 CURB ON TIT. RAO6 011 15 20' (16' W000 DUCK) (16' WOOD DUCK) D412 CONCRETE 25 SLOPE EURB AND GUTTER 1/2• -TYPE 41B 91NMINOUS %EAR COURSE 2• -TYPE JIB 5 OU5 BASE COURSE S• CLASS S GRAVEL 0001. BASE SURGRADE CORRECTION AS DIRECTED MITT Tr) Sr Al F TYPICAL STREET SECTION lOr IMMay 4W RAO. MAP. SAC Cr BIT. BEHIND W.TRBS) 1W EABEIBR E BEIM SAC --5 I N -a -a — R —R Ina MIS Ina RAI yam w1S1RATON KEY WPCS INNICTIMMYMNIMM PREPARED FOR: Heritage Development 450 E. COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55117 DESIGNED CHECKED DRAWN DATE ChM 4/26/00 SCALE 1 .100' J08 NO. 9150.00 Preliminary Grading Plan Bluebill Ponds LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA SHEET REV. • • C. S. A. H. NO. 14 (MA /N STREET) BLUEBILL PONDS >1� 900 895 900 895 CROSS - SECTION OF PRCPOND WETLANDS SECTION A -A A I "= 5'VERT. = 100' HORIZ. A 100 200 SECTION B -8 B 1" 5' 0090. 1" = 100' HORIZ. Nl4L= 9� 00 200 300 333 900 895 SECTION D -0 ,� / rITi.I rr ,_071 in l� Cod r C 1M fwmin� 1 ma_ I 1 1 1 1 1 ACriES 1 MAR OON / ROBE CONSULTING L N and ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1000 EAST 146th STREET. BURNSVILLE. MINNESOTA 55337 PH 432 -3000 1 HEREBY CET PREPARED ST SUPERNIS UNDER or 900 895 SECTION E -E E 1: s 5'VERT. 100' HORIZ. NWL= 901.0 100 TRY THAT THIS PLAN WAS BENISONS BE co MIDEK MY DIRECT p1 AND THAT I AM A DULY REtl41FA 911 ENGINEER THE LAWS OF THE STATE w++ESOTA. 4 5/8/00 DJM RENSED PER CITY STAFF AND R0W0 RENEW 3 4/27/00 450 REN5ED PROJECT FOR WOOD DUCK CONNEC110111 2 2/25/00 DM REVISED POND CONTOURS DATE_ REG NO. _ v 1 12/27/99 ZVJ REN5E0 P0N0 CONTOURS -44 4" 'I E 200 300 PREPARED ,OR Heritage Development 450 t: COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55117 DESIGNED 0.1.100 ED DRANK DATE DA, 5/1/00 SCALE 1'.W00• JOB NO. 9150.00 00 0 100 200 300 Scat 1' - 100' DENOTES EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR �^ --- DENOTES EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR e- • — DENOTES WETLANDS DELINEATED BY BARR ENGINEERING r ' DENOTES EXISTING TREE UNE DENOTES SOIL BORING LOCATIONS DENOTES TREES TAGGED BY S do S TREE SERWCE DENOTES NORMAL WATER LEVEL --- ---- DENOTES EDGE OF WATER POOL WITHIN PROPOSED WETLAND 1.5' BELOW NORMAL WATER LEVEL e DENOTES INFILTRATION TUBE ® DENOTES LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION LOT DENOTES IMPACTED WETLAND DENOTES CREATED WETLAND DENOTES TOPSOIL TO BE EXCAVATED(,) AND THEN PUT BACK IN THE WETLAND EXTENDING FROM 1' ABOVE TO 2' BELOW THE NWL DENOTES TOPSOIL TO BE REMOVED (1') AND BURIED UNDER BERMS IN UPLAND AREAS ON SITE A r DENOTES WETLAND MONITORING POINTS OR. 11,01 MCNT MT IUMSIRATION KEY LINO LAKES, Wet /and Replacement Grading Plan Bluebill Ponds MINNESOTA ET REV. 4" 'I E 200 300 PREPARED ,OR Heritage Development 450 t: COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55117 DESIGNED 0.1.100 ED DRANK DATE DA, 5/1/00 SCALE 1'.W00• JOB NO. 9150.00 00 0 100 200 300 Scat 1' - 100' DENOTES EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR �^ --- DENOTES EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR e- • — DENOTES WETLANDS DELINEATED BY BARR ENGINEERING r ' DENOTES EXISTING TREE UNE DENOTES SOIL BORING LOCATIONS DENOTES TREES TAGGED BY S do S TREE SERWCE DENOTES NORMAL WATER LEVEL --- ---- DENOTES EDGE OF WATER POOL WITHIN PROPOSED WETLAND 1.5' BELOW NORMAL WATER LEVEL e DENOTES INFILTRATION TUBE ® DENOTES LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION LOT DENOTES IMPACTED WETLAND DENOTES CREATED WETLAND DENOTES TOPSOIL TO BE EXCAVATED(,) AND THEN PUT BACK IN THE WETLAND EXTENDING FROM 1' ABOVE TO 2' BELOW THE NWL DENOTES TOPSOIL TO BE REMOVED (1') AND BURIED UNDER BERMS IN UPLAND AREAS ON SITE A r DENOTES WETLAND MONITORING POINTS OR. 11,01 MCNT MT IUMSIRATION KEY LINO LAKES, Wet /and Replacement Grading Plan Bluebill Ponds MINNESOTA ET REV. • AGENDA ITEM 5G • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser, Julie Farnham of TKDA P & Z MEETING DATE: June 14, 2000 TOPIC: BACKGROUND PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 09 -00 Tree Preservation Ordinance JU�vV�.�c7l�! NvQ Staff has been working with Julie Farnham of TKDA to prepare a new tree preservation ordinance. The new ordinance will do several things, including: • Codify and clarify tree preservation requirements for private development in one ordinance. • Require a tree preservation plan and clearly describe the elements of such a plan. • Establish a clearly defined tree replacement ratio. As the amount of tree loss increases, the required percentage of replacement increases. This is an incentive to minimize tree loss. The attached material includes the text of the tree preservation requirements and a formal Ordinance 09 -00. The text of the new tree preservation requirements will be inserted as Article I of the formal ordinance. Article II gives the ordinance a shorthand name. Article III voids a previous policy, and replaces it with the new ordinance. Article IV clarifies that the 1990 Shade Tree Ordinance relates to City property while this new ordinance covers private development. It also corrects a typo in the 1990 ordinance. The Environmental Board discussed the new tree preservation requirements twice before the May 10 P & Z discussion. After opening the public hearing and taking comment, the P & Z can close the hearing or continue it if additional information is needed. The ordinance will require a first and second reading by the City Council. OPTIONS 1. Approve Ordinance 09 -00 and forward to City Council. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • • RICHARD S. CARLSON & ASSOCIATES 7671 Central Avenue * Fridley, MN 55432 * (612) 786 -1218 Fax (612) 786 -1219 June 7, 2000 Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner Planning Commission and City Council Members City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Lino Lakes Tree Preservation and Replacement Ordinance. Dear Mr. Smyser, I am appreciative of the opportunity to review and discuss your tree preservation ordinance. I would ask that you hand out copies of my letter, included, to the Planning Commission and City Council members. I am in total agreement that the City of Lino Lakes should implement a tree preservation plan to minimize loss and preserve the integrity of your existing woodlands during the preliminary planning process, but, I respectfully disagree with portions of this draft for the following reasons. 1. In order to protect large areas of wooded property and to encourage the developer and property owners cooperation, the City of Lino Lakes should allow planned unit development attached to this ordinance in areas of high concentrations of woodlands. 2. Reforestation or replacement should not be required of the developer for park land, park trails, dedicated road right of ways or city owned easements. 3. Flexibility should be considered for wetland mitigation in city park land and park trails, and road right of ways. 4. 1 believe your preservation and reforestation plan should incorporate all residential development including open areas that have been stripped of trees by property owners for farming and other reasons prior to development. This could be accomplished by the ordinance requiring a minimum number of trees planted on each residential lot whether open or wooded according to the zoning example RIX =7 trees minimum. Attaching this formula to your ordinance would allow some flexibility in areas where high volume of trees exist and a reasonable net loss occurs using your replacement formula. The residential lot size should determine the number of trees that can be planted and any reasonable net loss in extreme cases will be more than made up for with minimum tree requirements for non wooded lots. III -C - Other Ordinances Required replacement tree plantings may be used to satisfy other requirements on private property, which means the net loss would be carried forward to areas off site. This should not be necessary if a minimum of trees are required on non wooded lots. Boulevard tree planting required of the developer should be included in the minimum tree requirement. IV -1 -B - Submission Requirements - The size, species, condition and location of all existing significant trees and woodlands. The preliminary planning stage should include a reasonable and thorough estimate of existing trees until further design is accomplished. Excessive inventory may be required of areas that would not be impacted by development. IV -C -1 The amount of security is excessive and totally unnecessary. A 100 lot development planting 7 trees per lot, or 700 trees, would require a letter of credit for $262,500.00, permit fees of $100,000.00, cash fees for city and approximately $175,000.00 for the cost and planting of trees. Please reconsider the implication of this security. A 100% performance bond and estimated cash fees paid for by the developer should more that satisfy your requirements. VI -A -2 - Compliance Replacement trees in residential areas within 6 months of site construction is not possible. Additional time should be allowed, after construction of the home, to the developer to work with the city forester, builder and homeowner to locate planting areas, select species, and allow nurturing necessary for survival. In closing, because of the importance and long term ramifications to the property owners and citizens of Lino Lakes, I am asking the City Council to please allow more time for the staff and Planning Commission to review comments, including my own, from other property owners. The staff and Planning Commission should research, review and analyze other community tree ordinances in an attempt not to compromise, but simplify and reduce future administration costs. is ordinance shou . be governed by reason and not become a barrier to future planning. Thank you, Richaa Carls RSC:ce cc: Marty Asleson, Brian Wessel • • • MAY-26 -2000 16 :31 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.02 /11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 LINO LAKES — TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE . I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE Preservation of trees, woodlands, and the other significant natural resources within the City of Lino Lakes is a stated priority of the community. The City Council finds it in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural resources and environment of Lino Lakes and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development of land. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City of Lino Lakes has established the tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: • Natural Environment: Recognize and protect the natural environment consistent with the City's mission statement and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development through preservation and protection of significant trees and woodlands. ■ Protect Benefits: Maintain and enhance the benefits provided by trees and woodlands including beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, enhancement of property values, air quality improvement, energy conservation, buffering of cultural and natural resources, and protection of' natural habitats. ■ Enhance Quality of Development: Encourage creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and damage during development and enhances the natural aesthetics of the community. • Control Loss: Define standards to control cutting, removal, destruction, and protection of existing trees on private property, particularly significant trees and woodlands, as a result of land alteration or development. • Require Replacement: Establish reasonable requirements for replacement of significant trees and woodlands lost on private property as a result of land alteration or development. • Administration: Provide for administration and enforcement of the tree preservation regulations herein to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. IL DEFINITIONS Applicant means any person or entity who is required to submit and implement a city- approved tree preservation plan under this section. Builder means any person or entity to whom a building permit is issued for the construction of a single- family residence. 1 MAY -26 -2000 16:31 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.02/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 LINO LAKES — TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE . L INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE Preservation of trees, woodlands, and the other significant natural resources within the City of Lino Lakes is a stated priority of the community. The City Council finds it in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural resources and environment of Lino Lakes and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development of land. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City of Lino Lakes has established the tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: • Natural Environment: Recognize and protect the natural environment consistent with the City's mission statement and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development through preservation and protection of significant trees and woodlands. • Protect Benefits: Maintain and enhance the benefits provided by trees and woodlands including beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, enhancement of property values, air quality improvement, energy conservation, buffering of cultural and n atural resources and protection of natural al habitats. • Enhance Quality of Development: Encourage creative land use and environmentally compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and damage during development and enhances the natural aesthetics of the community. • Control Loss: Define standards to control cutting, removal, destruction, and protection of existing trees on private property, particularly significant trees and woodlands, as a result of land alteration or development. • Require Replacement: Establish reasonable requirements for replacement of significant trees and woodlands lost on private property as a result of land alteration or development. • Administration: Provide for administration and enforcer ---,ration regulations herein to promote and protect the public heals f the community. IL DEFINITIONS Applicant means any person or entity who is required to sub. approved tree preservation plan under this section. Builder means any person or entity to whom a building perr construction of a single- family residence. 1 .ty- • • MAY -26 -2000 16 :31 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.03/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Caliper inch (Replacement Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at twelve (12) • inches above the ground. • • Caliper inch (Significant Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height (DBH). For multi- stemmed trees, the diameter shall be measured at the widest point of the largest trunk stem between one foot and 4.5 feet above ground. Canopy means the extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk. Canopy coverage means the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the crowns of all the trees on the site. Coniferous (evergreen) tree means a cone - bearing woody plant which, at maturity, is at least 12 feet or more in height, having foliage on the outermost portion of its branches year - round. Construction area means any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography, soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change in the natural character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading, building construction or any other land disturbing activity. Critical damage means injury that results in tree removal or significant alteration of the natural form of the tree due to inappropriate pruning or other actions. Critical root zone (CRZ) means the circular area surrounding a tree trunk with a radius distance of one and one -half (1 1) foot per inch of tree diameter, measured at DBH (e.g. a 20 -inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of thirty (30) feet). The minimum CRZ for any tree shall be six (6) feet. Deciduous tree (Large) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is more than 30 feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually. Deciduous tree (Medium) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 15 and 30 feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually. Deciduous tree (Small) mcans a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 12 and 15 feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually. Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon. - Diameter means the length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree. For multi - stemmed trees, the diameter is measured through the widest point of the largest trunk stern. 2 MAY -26 -2000 16:32 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.04/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) means the length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree 54 inches (4.5 feet) above ground. Forester means a person designated by the City with specialized knowledge of forestry and aboriculture. Hardwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: ironwood, oak. maple (hard) walnut, ash, hickory, black cherry, hackberry, honey - locust, and basswood. Land disturbing activity means any excavating, grading, clearing, filling, or other earth moving and land reclamation which may result in movement of: • Five thousand (5000) cubic yards anywhere in the City; • One hundred (100) cubic yards per acre, or more, anywhere in the City; ■ Within a Shoreland Overlay District, ten (10) cubic yards on steep slopes or within Shore Impact Zones; or ■ Within a Shoreland Overlay District, fifty (50) cubic years per acre. Landscape architect means a person licensed by the state as a registered landscape architect. Pine Plantation means an area of low plant diversity consisting of a pine canopy with little or no ground story or shrub layer vegetation. Significant tree (coniferous /evergreen) means a healthy evergreen tree measuring a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height. Significant tree (hardwood deciduous) means a healthy hardwood deciduous tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein. Significant tree (softwood deciduous) means a healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring a minimum of eight (8) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein. Significant woodland means a grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees providing contiguous canopy cover over 1000 or more square feet of the property, which includes hardwood deciduous trees over four (4) inches in diameter, softwood deciduous trees over six (6) inches in diameter, and/or coniferous trees over six (6) feet in height, and associated ground story vegetation. A woodland covering less than 1000 s.f. on a property may also he considered significant if it is a continuation of a larger woodland on an adjacent property, with a cumulative area of at least 1000 s.f., or if it is part of an identified buffer area. Softwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: cottonwood, poplars /aspen, birch, boxelder, catalpa, willow, silver maple and elm. Tree removal means the loss of a significant healthy tree as a result of: 3 • MAY -26 -2000 16:32 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.05/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 • Land disturbing activity, whether temporary or permanent, affecting thirty (30) percent or more of a significant tree's critical root zone; • Utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electirc, telephone and cable TV and trenching) resulting in the cutting of thirty (30) percent or more of a significant tree's roots within its critical root zone; • Mechanical injury to the trunk of a significant tree causing wounds or loss of bark, which may result in tree decline; • Compaction of thirty (30) percent or more of the surface of the soil within a significant tree's critical root zone. This includes compaction caused by vehicle movement, material storage, or similar actions; • Chemical pollution from leaking or spilling of liquids (e.g. paint, fuels, concrete rinsewater) that alters the soil chemistry; • The complete removal of a tree. III. APPLICABILITY A. Tree Preservation Plan Required: 1. On individual single - family lots with existing significant trees or woodlands as identified by the City, a Tree Preservation Plan, as described in Section N.A. herein, shall be submitted for review by City staff in conjunction with a building permit application. • 2. A Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section IV.B. herein, shall be reviewed and • approved by the City in conjunction with all applications for: • Preliminary Plat • Planned Development Overlay (PDO) ■ Site and Building Plan Review • Earth moving and land reclamation or other land disturbing activity. B. Plan Review Process: 1. The applicant is encouraged to meet with City staff prior to submission of a Tree Preservation Plan to determine the most feasible and practical placement of buildings, parking, driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, in order to minimize loss and damage to significant trees and woodlands. Upon submittal, City staff will review the Tree Preservation Plan to evaluate compliance with the regulations and standards herein. City staff will notify the applicant of any deficiencies with the plan or if additional information is needed to complete the evaluation. 4 MAY -26 -2000 16 32 TKDA 651 292 0083 P. 06/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 3. For any project that requires a Tree Preservation Plan, the City will make a determination that the Tree Preservation Plan is acceptable prior to issuance of any permits. C. Relationship to Other Ordinances: The requirements of this ordinance are separate from the City's Shade Tree Ordinance and Aboriculture Specifications and Standards of Practice. Required replacement tree plantings may be used to satisfy other landscaping requirements on private property, as defined elsewhere in the City Zoning Code, however, they cannot be used to fulfill boulevard street tree planting requirements. IV. TREE PRESERVATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS A. Plan Submission Requirements (Individual Single Family Lots): Applicant's for building permits on single family lots shall submit the following information in addition to plans required for a building permit: 1. A certificate of survey that accurately identifies the location and types of all existing significant trees and woodlands to be removed and those to be preserved on the lot. The drawing shall illustrate where protection devices will be placed and areas to be used for material and equipment storage. 2. A description of the measures to be used to protect the trees and woodlands to be preserved on the property. These measures shall be consistent with the measures outlined in Section TV.13.3. unless otherwise approved by the City. B. Plan Submission Requirements (General Development): For applications outlined in Section III.A.2., a Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following components. However, the City can use its discretion to waive submittal of some of this information, or to require additional information, if appropriate to the specific situation. 1. Tree Inventory: A tree inventory shall be prepared by a landscape architect, forester or certified registered land surveyor knowledgeable in identification of tree species and shall include: a) The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners, developers and /or builders. b) The size, species, condition and location of all existing significant trees and significant woodlands on the property. c) The estimated size, species, condition and location of significant trees and significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary. d) Table summarizing the size, species, condition, and number of existing significant trees and significant woodlands on the property. Table should list plants individually and provide summary of total caliper inches. 5 MAY -26 -2000 16:33 TKDA 651 292 0083 P. 07/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 e) Delineation of existing buildings, structures, and /or impervious surfaces on the property. 0 Signature of person(s) preparing the plan and date inventory completed. 2. Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan: A tree preservation and replacement plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, forester, or certified registered land surveyor knowledgeable in identification of tree species and shall include: a) The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners, developers and/or builders. b) Delineation of all buildings, structures, utilities, irrigation systems, or impervious surfaces to remain or be built on the property. c) Delineation of all existing and proposed grade changes and limits of land disturbance. d) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant woodlands to be removed from the property. This should not include any trees listed in Section V.C.7. nor should it include diseased trees. e) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant woodlands to be protectcd on the property. f) The estimated size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary. g) The size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. h) Table summarizing total caliper inches of existing significant trees and woodlands to be removed, percent (%) of total caliper inches to be removed, and total inches of replacement trees to be planted. i) Itemized estimate of costs of replacement trees, protection devices (c.g. fencing), labor, and other elements necessary to implement plan. j) Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan and date plan prepared. 3. Tree Protection: The Tree Preservation Plan shall identify the measures that will be used to protect significant trees and woodlands on the property or on abutting property. All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to and maintained throughout any grading or land disturbing activity and should not be removed until all new planting is installed. These measures may be identified directly on the Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan drawing and/or included in a companion document. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the following protection measures shall be required: a) Trees and woodlands designated for preservation shall be identified and/or enclosed with brightly colored protective fencing (minimum four (4) feet high) or other means acceptable to the City. The protective measures must encompass the entire Critical Root Zone of the trees or woodlands, unless less protection is necessary due to the proximity of a structure, road or similar obstruction to be a part of the development, in which case, at least seventy percent (70 %) of the 6 MAY -26 -2000 16:33 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.08/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Critical Root Zone of the tree must be protected. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this protected area. b) Where possible, a two (2) foot deep trench shall be cut around the edge of the tree /woodland protection area to sever the roots between the trees to be saved and those to be removed. c) Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning as part of proposed land disturbance activity. Any oak trees pruned between May 1 and July 1 shall be required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound sealant immediately after the wound is made. d) Identification of areas on property where soil chemistry may be altered due to concrete truck rinsing and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or paints. e) Identification of areas on the property where tree debris will be stockpiled. f) Identification of areas on the property used to burn tree debris. g) Identification of areas on the property to be used for building material and equipment storage and/or staging. h) Identification of vehicle access points to the property. i) Additional information, as requested by the City, to demonstrate adequate measures will be taken to protect against spread of tree diseases. For example, providing information to confirm felling of trees to be removed will not result in injury or wounds to trees to be protected. C. Performance Security Required: The applicant shall provide security for the performance of its obligations pursuant to this section following City approval of the Tree Preservation Plan and prior to commencement of any grading or land disturbing activity as follows: 1. Amount of security: a) Letter of Credit — A letter of credit equal to one - hundred fifty percent (150 %) of the estimated cost of the required replacement trees and other elements of the approved Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant shall submit a schedule of costs associated with implementation of the approved Tree Preservation Plan. In the event of any disagreement, the City will use the current Bachman's Wholesale Catalog (published annually), or equivalent regionally -based wholesale nursery catalog, to estimate the cost of replacement trees proposed in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. b) Cash Escrow - A cash escrow equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the cost of staff time associated with monitoring and enforcement of the Tree Preservation Plan as estimated by the City. c) Single Family — On single family lot development, a one thousand dollar ($1,000) cash escrow shall be submitted to the City with the building perrnit application as performance security. 2. Release of security - The applicant shall notify the City when the planting has been completed so the City can verify that tree planting is completed, identify any 7 • • MAY-26 -2000 16:34 TKDR 651 292 0083 P.09/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 discrepancies with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, and establish the planting completion date. a) The security shall be retained for at least one year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. b) Prior to release of the security, the City shall inspect the site to verify compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section VI - • Compliance and Enforcement. If non - compliance is found, the City may retain security to cover the cost of bringing the project into compliance. c) In no event shall the performance security be released before expiration of the one -year plant warranty period. V. GENERAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Required Tree Replacement: The following table identifies the required amount of tree replacement based on type of development. Percent of Total Significant Tree* Caliper Inches Removed Required Replacement Tree Caliper Inches Per Inch Removed Single family & large lot residential Multi - family (medium -high density) -- Commercial, industrial, institutional -- 0-9.9 -- 10 -19.9 .4 -- -- 20 -29.9 .5 .4 -- 30 -39.9 .6 .5 .4 40 -49.9 .7 .6 .5 50 -59.9 .8 .7 .6 60 -69.9 .9 .8 .7 70 -79.9 1.0 .9 .8 80 -89.9 1.1 1.0 .9 90 -100 1.2 1.1 1.0 NOTE: The amount of replacement is to be measured in "Replacement Tree" caliper inches (measured 12 inches above normal grade) and the amount removed is measured in "Significant Tree" caliper inches (measured 4.5 feet above normal grade). * Caliper inches of significant woodlands shall he based on the cumulative total inches of all trees within the significant woodland. 1. Pine Plantation Management: Pine plantations, as defined herein, are exempt from replacement requirements when thinning of the tree stand would improve tree health. The applicant shall submit information as necessary to adequately describe how the plantation will be managed (i.e. amount and location of thinning). B. Location of Replacement Trees: Replacement trees shall be planted on the subject property described in the application. 8 MA`r' -26 -2000 16:34 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.10/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 C. Size, Type, and Quality of Replacement Trees • 1. No more than one -third (1/3) of the replacement trees on a property shall be of the same species, unless approved by the City. 2. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed or of a species similar to the indicator species of the Ecological Prototype of the property as defined in the City's Handbook for Environmental Planning and. Conservation Development, unless otherwise approved by the City. 3. Large to medium sized deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two and one -half (2 V2) caliper inches at time of planting. 4. Small deciduous trees shall be a minimum of one and one -half (1 Lei) caliper inches at time of planting. 5. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height at time of planting. 6. Replacement trees shall be healthy stock, free of insects and disease. and meet the guidelines set by the American Standards of Nursery Stock and/or Inspection and Contract Administration Guidelines for MnDOT Landscape Projects. The City can reject trees if found to not meet these standards. 7. The following shall not be used as replacement trees: • Siberian Elm • Norway Maple • Amur Maple (A. ginnala) • Cottonwood, Silver Maple, or Boxe]der (unless specifically approved by City) • Black Locust VI. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT A. Compliance with Approved Plan: 1. Protection Measures: The applicant shall implement the tree protection measures indicated on the approved Trce Preservation Plan prior to commencement of any land disturbance activity on the property. The tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is made to and approved by the City. 2. Plan Implementation: Replacement trees shall be planted within six (6) months after completion of site construction activities, unless otherwise approved by the City. Failure to implement the plan within this time frame shall constitute non - compliance, subject to the actions outlined in Section VI.B. 9 MAY -26 -2000 16:34 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.11/11 REVIEW DRAFT" 05/26/00 3. Unauthorized Removal: If a significant tree(s) or woodland that was intended to be preserved in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan is removed without permission of the City or sustains critical damage resulting in tree removal as defined herein, the applicant shall replace each tree so removed or destroyed at a rate of three (3) caliper inches (replacement tree) for each caliper inch (significant tree) removed. Replacement trees shall be of the sarne, or similar species as the lost tree. The sizc and quality of replacement trees shall meet the requirements of Section V.C. B. Inspection and Enforcement: The City shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. 1. Compliance Inspection: One year after all replacement trees have been planted the applicant shall make a request in writing to the City for an inspection to determine compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. Upon inspection, the City shall determine whether compliance has been achieved and, if so, release the performance guarantee. 2. Non - compliance: If the City finds that the property is not in compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, it shall inform the applicant regarding the non- compliance and describe, in writing, the steps needed to bring the property into compliance within a reasonable tirneframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. • 3. Dead Trees: Any replacement tree that is not alive or healthy one year after planting in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, shall be removed and replaced, by the applicant, with a new, healthy tree of the same size and species. • 4. Use of Performance Security: If after notification of non - compliance, the applicant fails to achieve compliance within sixty (60) calendar days, the City may exercise its authority to use the performance security to complete the planting in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. C. Variance: The applicant has the right to apply for a variance to the requirements herein. [need to work with Attorney on language] 10 TOTAL P.11 Council Member introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption. CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 09-00 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 15 -90 REGARDING TREES ON PUBLIC LANDS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: Article I (new tree preservation ordinance text will be inserted here) VII. SEPARABILITY It is hereby declared to be the intention that the several `provisions ojfthis Ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: 1. If any court or competent jurisdiction ` any provision of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affectny other provision of this Ordinance not specifically included in such judgment 2. If any court of competent jurisc4tiolf shall adjudge invalid the application of any provision of this Ordinance to a particularAproperty, building, or structure, such judgment shall not affect other property, buildings or structures. Article II This ordinance shall be known as and may be cited as the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Article III The City of Lino Lakes Tree Preservation Policy of April 1, 1991 is hereby declared inapplicable and is replaced by Article I. • • • • Article IV Ordinance No. 15 -90, known as the Shade Tree Ordinance, is hereby amended as follows: 1007.1 PURPOSE An ordinance regulating the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees and shrubs in the public streets, and other municipal owned property: 1.) establishing a shade tree board and establishing the office of forestry as the agencies prescribing regulations relating to the planing, maintenance, and removal of trees and shrubs in public places: 2.) Providing for the issuing of permits for the planting, maintenance and removal of trees and shrubs in public places: 3.) providing for the pruning and removal of trees on private property which endanger public safety: providing for standards and specification of all policy concerning shade trees on public property, providing for trees in land disturbance areas. 1007.12 PROTECTION OF TREES A tree preservation plan is to be submitted by all developers.builders and soil disturbance project area facilitators in accordance with the :City of Lino Lakes Tree Preservation Administrative Guidelines Policy Tree Preservation -Ordinance. 1007.14 LEGALITY OF ORDINANCE;. AND PARTS THEREOF 'Should any section, clause, or provisionszof the Ordinance be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect thevalidity of the Ordinance as a whole, or parts thereof, other than the part to be declared to be- invalid. Article V This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2000 John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Ry -Chel Gaustad, CMC, Clerk/Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member in favor thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared passed and adopted. • • • • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM 5H Jeff Smyser June 14, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 10 -00 PCS Tower Moratorium On May 22 the City Council adopted Resolution #00 -67 directing staff to initiate the process for adopting a moratorium on new towers for personal wireless services, such as wireless telephone services. The resolution also set a public hearing at the June 14 P & Z meeting. The attached Ordinance No. 10 -00 establishes the moratorium. MN Statute 462.355 Subd. 4 authorizes a municipality to adopt an interim ordinance (moratorium) for the purpose of protecting a planning process when conducting a study. Staff has begun a towers location study. This study will inventory existing facilities in the area with the goal of determining where new facilities likely will be needed. To the extent we can do this, we can plan for those locations and minimize the number of towers. We are also asking surrounding communities to join in the study. With their cooperation, we hope to minimize the number of new towers in all our communities and still provide for full PCS service in compliance with federal law. We also will ask for the cooperation of the providers of wireless services, such as the firms that lease space on our water towers. We hope the study will be beneficial to all involved, including the participating cities and the wireless service providers. Our City Attorney advises us that once the City Council initiated the process by directing staff to prepare a moratorium ordinance, we can forestall approvals of applications for new towers until the study is completed. A moratorium on new tower applications will be treated as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. The following schedule gives the anticipated timeline: May 22 City Council meeting: initiate process for adopting 90 -day moratorium by directing staff to prepare ordinance and setting public hearing date June 14 public hearing at Planning & Zoning Board meeting June 26 first reading of ordinance at City Council meeting July 10 second reading of ordinance at City Council meeting July 17 ordinance published in newspaper August 16 ordinance effective (30 days after publication) November 14 90 -day moratorium expires i • OPTIONS 1. Approve Ordinance 10 -00 establishing a moratorium on new towers. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • • Council Member introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption. CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 10 -00 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TOWER STRUCTURES FOR THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does hereby ordain: Section 1. Findings The City Council finds that current demand for personal wireless services in the metropolitan area is creating the need for new antenna locations. The antennae may be located on buildings, water towers, and other tall structures, including towers constructed specifically for the antennae. The City Council finds further that a study is warranted to examine the demand for new towers and the potential tower sites for provision of personal wireless services. The purpose of the study is to create a plan of how best to provide for the provision of personal wireless services while minimizing the number of tower structures and protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Council finds, therefore, that a moratorium is required in order to protect the planning process and to prevent the construction of new towers pending the completion of the study and the consideration and, if necessary, implementation of new regulations. Section 2. Moratorium Established In accordance with the findings set forth in this ordinance and pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes 462.355 Subd. 4, there is hereby established a moratorium on the permitting and construction of new personal wireless services towers within the City. During the period of the moratorium, applications for new towers shall not be accepted by the City nor shall any building permits for such work be issued. For the purposes of the moratorium, the term "tower" shall mean "any ground mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade." Section 3. Applicability The moratorium shall be applicable to property throughout the City. The moratorium applies only to new tower structures for personal wireless services. • • • Section 4. Exceptions The moratorium shall not apply to (1) personal wireless service antennae mounted on existing structures; (2) the repair and /or maintenance of any existing tower provided that such work does not enlarge or expand that tower; (3) work on a tower necessary to preserve health, safety, life, or property in the face of an emergency, or (4) amateur radio towers. Section 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in force and effect upon its adoption and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. This ordinance shall be effective for 90 days after its effective date and shall expire at that time unless further extended. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2000 John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Ry -Chel Gaustad, CMC, Clerk/Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared passed and adopted. • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : April 26, 2000 . 6:33 P.M. . 8:19 P.M. : Maurine Davidson, Amy Donlin, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, and Teresa O'Connell (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) : J.P. Houchins Staff Members Present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consensus was reached to table the approval of the scheduled Environmental Board Meeting. • APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Donlin added item 7E, Testing of Resi Davidson added item 7F, Letter o Acting Chair Lanyon adde The agenda was appr es o` Mar < 29, 2000 to the next CITIZEN COMMEN ation for Brower ADS. ing on New Members. above. No citizens were present for comment. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Tree Preservation Ordinance — Asleson presented the second draft Tree Preservation Ordinance, which had been modified after the Board's review in March. He noted the City Attorney's response to legal questions and presented Julie Farnum to review changes that were made. Julie Farnum, TKDA, reviewed the following changes made to the Tree Preservation Ordinance: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 • Addition of the definition of "critical damage" • Addition of the definition of "plantation" and replacement of "Schedule and Management of Plantation" as suggested by the DNR. • Addition of language to clarify the process and requirements for single - family versus larger developments. Regarding "Amount of security for single - family" on page 7, Farnum suggested if the Board desired some security they could initiate a performance security account as an incentive to single- family builders to comply. She noted she did not know if this suggestion was brought to the City Attorney's attention. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if Jeff Smyser had commented on this account. Asleson responded he had not, however, there are penalties if a tree is tali +own or damaged as part of the building process. Donlin asked how this is policed. Asleson responded t ecked and if anything is seen it is enforced. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if Asleson would rr security. Famum noted this would require Staff to inspection, and return the money, and th. cou Asleson responded Staff presently hold oneys building inspections for new const on ' es. this. d thfcollection of a performance t the money, perform the equire a process that is not in place yet. r landscaping and sodding, and for e noted there is a process in place for Farnum reviewed page 9, ctio B:+ ation of Replacement Trees. She noted in Eagan applicants are in: rite µ; f ho much mitigation they are responsible for, however, nothing is in writin Donlin asked at the o 1. would be to a developer that bought two acres for a Commercial D and would want to clear the trees for tree replacement. Farnum respond ,+ the : eveloper would be required to do landscaping. She advised that if this ordinance ' s to be taken literally, and the developer could not satisfy the mitigation, the City could waive the mitigation requirements. Donlin stated she would not want to waive mitigation requirements. She expressed concern that someone might pay the fine rather than replace trees. She stated she would like to have strong requirements for mitigation. Acting Chair Lanyon noted the flexibility has been removed from this ordinance and the way this is written now, mitigation must be done on site. Famum responded that is what she understands from the City Attorney. She noted there are times when mitigation on a large development is quite substantial, and there is not enough space left to mitigate on site. 2 • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 Asleson stated many things could be negotiated in the contract with the developer in regards to mitigation. Acting Chair Lanyon suggested the text on page 9, section B2 be changed to state if it is not possible to replace trees on site, the developer can negotiate with the City to complete that mitigation requirement. He suggested the Board come up with a recommendation for City Staff on what they would like considered for negotiation, and suggested these guidelines not be included in the ordinance, but act as a guideline for Staff. Farnum responded she is not comfortable speaking to the legality, and will consult the City Attorney. Farnum noted when developments come for review the Board will be seeing the developments as it goes through the process. At that point they ;. e a recommendation on the tree mitigation. She clarified mitigat , n on si s the first choice, however, there is some allowable removal of trees and so pc re .val 1 not be considered significant. Donlin expressed concern with o ®igh rmine "significant ". Acting Chair Lanyon noted tree types. <spel ; out on page 3. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if Section B, Page noted if there is trouble with something, it would negotiate. Farnum responded this wouldbe as the things this ordinance will hopefully d . is fos more careful site planning. uld efer oily to mitigation on site. He ome back to the City to of the City Attorney. She noted one of some further negotiation and some Donlin expressed concern th developer might quickly Asleson responded this time. Donlin asked • responded it w ordinances addr development, an clause, however, t ce were to be rigid rather than flexible, a e t . nd cover stumps to hide the fact they existed. occurrence, happening only about one percent of the e would coincide with the Shade Tree Ordinance. Asleson p ate from the Shade Tree Ordinance. Farnum explained the tw different things. The Shade Tree Ordinance relates to public is ordinance is specific to private property development. There is a at talks about the relation to the other ordinance. Farnum reviewed page 10, item A3, additional language was included regarding tree removal to state "or sustains critical damage resulting in tree removal as defined herein, ". O'Connell arrived at 7:05 p.m. Donlin asked if they could add another species to the list of trees that should not be used as replacements listed at the top of page 10. Acting Chair Lanyon requested that boxelder be added to the list. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 Acting Chair Lanyon stated after reviewing the draft, the following will be addressed: • Page 9, items B 1, B2, and B3 will be eliminated with the City Attorney to determine if this section could state "If on site mitigation is not possible, the developer to negotiate with City Staff." • Page 10, Boxelder to be added as a tree not to be used as a replacement. Davidson questioned if this should be approved at this time, as they are waiting for feedback from the City Attorney. Farnum questioned if the Board would still approve this if the City Attorney did not approve their changes. Davidson moved to recommend City Council approval of the Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance with the following changes: • Page 9, items Bl, B2, and B3 will be eliminated with the if this section could state "If on site mitigation is not p negotiate with City Staff." • Page 10, Boxelder to be added as a tree not to be Att ey to determine si the dveloper to ement. Kukonen seconded the motion. Motion carried . ani ously' B. Environmental Education Packet — A !son resented the revised Environmental Education Brochure for Clearwater Cre and re rested input regarding a purpose statement that can be included in t �. ± oc '� nt. Acting Chair Lanyon sugges the packet and see what c accomplished at the ne purpose statement. and protects the inve t t being built alo m the fences are co andard time every year for the Board to revisit •be made. He asked if that could be g. A eson agreed and said it will be separate from this is is part of the Conservation Development Project he eveloper and City made in natural areas. Houses are areas and residents are starting to get concerned because Kukonen questio + the statement "Wetlands filter surface water runoff prior to discharge into s, protecting water quality." He suggested they recommend non - phosphorus lawn chemicals be used. Acting Chair Lanyon noted the following two points: • The fourth paragraph of the last page only states "Careful use of lawn chemicals will help minimize the potential for contaminants from entering the system ". He noted it does not help the homeowner with the meaning of careful. Careful use of lawn chemicals means not overusing, being careful about where they are applying it, and using the right chemicals, such as non - phosphorus. 4 • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 • The next paragraph states "no mowing or disposal of private yard waste such as leaves, grass clipping, and branches allowed ". He noted it does not say where to dispose of them. Acting Chair Lanyon recommended the information should be more helpful and not buried in the back of the packet. He suggested it be up front and highlighted as their recommendations. Kukonen suggested the brochure recommend composting for yard waste. Asleson stated he would work with Acting Chair Lanyon on refining a purpose statement for the brochure. C. DNR Project — Asleson explained he attended a meeting with the DNR regarding natural resource inventory and assessments to take place with Lino Lake the City of Hugo. He distributed the following two handouts from the Local U of Government Work Group: • Primary Activities & Products of Project / Sche • Inventory & Assessment Activities & Products Asleson stated he will copy the Board with inform egarding four different ways of Ecologial Restoration and noted many c es - xarting to use GPS to identify their land. D. Community Service Award — A designed to recognize individu community. He reviewed th member of the Board is n O'Connell voluntee PROJECT REVIE the Community Service Award is have made a significant contribution to the snaking such a nomination and explained a he Community Service Award Committee. A. Behms/Rice La '` a s Es' . tes Park Prairie Projects — Asleson reviewed slides of Behms/Rice Lake)Estates Park Prairie Projects. Acting Chair Lanyon noted he had thought the Board would be expected to act on this project. He requested the Board not be expected to act on anything if they do not have materials by the time the agenda goes out. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Solid Waste / Recycling Day - Asleson announced the Solid Waste / Recycling Day is scheduled for next weekend. The City could not obtain the Good Will due to the cost of bringing a truck in, however the Vietnam Vets will be present. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 Asleson reviewed a letter and a certificate of appreciation from Anoka County. The County thanked the City for their efforts in reducing waste and recycling. Acting Chair Lanyon suggested the City newsletter publish the certificate. B. Earth Day Summary — Asleson presented slides of Earth Day and noted there were approximately 1,000 people present. Acting Chair Lanyon noted a discussion he had at Earth Day, which resulted in a question if the City has a website. Asleson responded they do not. Acting Chair Lanyon encouraged Staff to look into formulating a website, which would be very beneficial to the residents of the City, and a good way to advertise the City. C. Arbor Day — Asleson announced that Arbor Day is scheduled for May 5, 2000 and said he would inform the Board of the time, which would likely be 1 : k 0 , 4 1 : 3 0 . D. City News Letter — Asleson asked if the Board would like o ude a? hing in the newsletter. Kukonen suggested an Earth Day summary t adso < = Bested information on good lawn care and the use of low phosphorus la E. Testing of Residential Drinking Water - Do sta d she as concerns about the drinking water in the wells where she lives. She w, there is a procedure to have the water tested. Asleson responded PCA °rva nteer group study occurring. He will follow up with them and copy Donlin o the inf ation he receives. Donlin suggested a test sampling be done from all corn and he ce tral part of the City. F. Letter of Referral for Brow for Brower ADS. She re .t step the d to bring any information they would like included in the letter to e_ `meet'" g. son volunteered to write a letter of referral G. Standing on New ° e ,v: rs - cting Chair Lanyon asked the time line for new members. As e on resp . d this would be done as soon as possible. Davidson noted the City Counc come letters of recommendation from the Board. O'Connel noted the deadli or applicants is Friday. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE Acting Chair Lanyon requested the Board to review the minutes from the March 29, 2000 meeting prior to the next meeting and to bring any comments on Brower ADS to the meeting. He requested Asleson to add Tree Mitigation Negotiations to the next agenda and asked the Board to bring any suggestions for Staff guidelines on this. Davidson suggested the Board review the existing landscaping packet prior to the next meeting. Asleson stated he would supply packets to the Board members that do not currently have one. Acting Chair Lanyon adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 26, 2000 • The next meeting date will be May 31, 2000. • • Transcribed by: Carol Hamer TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.