Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2000 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall October 25, 2000 6:30 PM Agenda Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda Citizen Comments Project Review A. Highland Meadows West/Second Addition B. Saddle Club 6. Environmental Board Business A. Landscape Ordinance Review B. DNR Project/Updates C. Other Business 7. Program/Project Updates A. Environmental Education B. Forestry Updates C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates 9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : September 27, 2000 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED 9:08 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Teresa O'Connell (arrived at 6:43 p.m.), and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : Rod Kukonen. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and City Planner Jeff Smyser (Part). CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 30, 2000 Davidson moved to approve the August 3 seconded the motion. Motion carried unam APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Lanyon announced that he is not completed at that point i meeting. minutes as presented. Donlin eave the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and if the agenda hair Davidson would preside over the rest of the The following items were added to the meeting agenda: • Open Space Design Tour • Plant Community Groupings • Landscape Firm - Premier Services The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No comments were made. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 PROJECT REVIEW A. North American Composites / Apollo Drive — Asleson introduced City Planner Smyser and indicated he would present the details of this project. Smyser presented a map depicting the subject site and reviewed the uses surrounding this site. The application is for a minor subdivision and site plan review. North American Composites wants to construct a distribution facility for their products of polyester resins, fiberglass, and related products to the composites industry as well as some repackaging into different sized containers. However, it is not a manufacturing facility. Smyser presented the site plan identifying the building footprint, points of access, and exterior elevations. The structure will be constructed of precast concrete and brick with those details discussed when the project is presented to the P &Z Board. O'Connell arrived at 6:43 p.m. Smyser noted the requirement for shoebox fixtures to ass presented the proposed landscape plan and stated staff areas in more detail. Smyser stated he received a li natural plantings around the pond area. downcast lighting. He review it and the ponding ng for the site for some Davidson asked if outdoor storage is being reques Smyser stated it is not. Donlin inquired regarding the percentage o impervious and the City allowanc , dus to hear of the lighting proposed type poles. us surface. Smyser stated it is 60% "al areas is 90 %. Donlin stated she is glad ighting was not on the higher "giraffe" Donlin stated she does o ' ative plant species being proposed for use. Asleson stated the landscaping in thi �,t.� ercial area has evolved into using native plantings in ponding and drainage areas. ► `explained the business people prefer more formal landscape in the front areas with native elements incorporated into flower gardens or infiltration pond areas. Asleson suggested working with the commercial community to do as much as possible with native plantings. He stated the important issues to address are to control peak flow rates and increase to volume runoff. Donlin stated she finds this landscape plan to be standard for the industry and she does not see where native species are being incorporated. Asleson stated staff will review the landscape plan with those comments in mind. Donlin stated that use of some native plant species around the perimeter is encouraging and asked if there is a commitment to follow it. Asleson stated it would be included in the development agreement. Chair Lanyon stated the City will need to work with the industry to determine the types of plantings that work well in front commercial areas. He stated there is clearly concern there is too much impervious surface not to address runoff and how it will be managed. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Chair Lanyon stated that a formal lighting plan has not been submitted but the Board can pass on their concern for downcast, shoebox light fixtures. Smyser clarified the impervious surface is actually 54 %, not 60% as previously stated. Trehus stated in looking at the site plan, it appears that there is impervious surface of 75% or more. Smyser explained the site plan being reviewed is not to scale and reviewed the setback distances. Donlin stated the trees being proposed for use are heavy water users which suggests they will need to irrigate frequently. However, the Board is trying to encourage lower water usage. Chair Lanyon suggested the use of more native species to reduce the irrigation requirement. In response to questions related to drainage and on site treatment, Asleson reviewed the location of the drainage easement and suggested it could designed for better infiltration than impacted soils would provide. Smyser stated staf ill address these concerns with the applicant. Trehus suggested the incorporation of vegetat treatment. o address infiltration and on -site Chair Lanyon agreed the water treatment p ' Water quality issue needs to be addressed as well as the landscape Davidson moved to recomm ' . • v the Northern American Composites application subject to the an a•` s ss retention of as much storm water runoff on site as possible, include no c • • acte • ; oils in the drainage easement, landscaping plan revisited after water retentio is in place, increased use of native grasses and trees that require minimal irrigation `'': d the City's standard for lighting. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mueller -Bies Funeral Home — Smyser presented a map depicting the location of the subject site and a site plan identifying the building footprint, parking, and storm water ponding. The request is for a minor subdivision. Smyser stated staff needs more information on the utilities and alignment of the utilities as well as the drainage areas. He explained the setback is problematic since part of the area has been filled so it is difficult to determine the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark. Chair Lanyon asked about trees on the site. Asleson stated there are some grade C3 trees, meaning a degraded, invasive tree species. Chair Lanyon asked about the lighting plan. Smyser stated there are a few lighting contours that seem to go over the property line that will need to be addressed. He stated 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 the Ordinance indicates 0.4 foot - candles at the property line if abutting residential property. He noted the area to the south is residential property and the air base is also zoned residential. Asleson presented a computer graphic identifying the site and surrounding uses. Smyser reviewed how the DNR determines the OHW if there is land at a higher elevation than the OHW. He noted this site is a long distance from the water and there is high land between the site and lake so the setback will probably not be an issue. Russell Karasch, applicant, pointed out the location of the proposed building and pond. He stated they have delineated the wetland which is not within their building pad and would not be impacted. Asleson noted the location of a wetland within the subject parcel according to the National Wetlands Inventory. Mr. Karasch stated Metro Survey did the civil engineering on this project. Asleson suggested staff verify the location of the wetland since, sometimes, the National Wetlands Inventory is not correc Chair Lanyon asked how this wetland relates to the ._ si 4 - tention pond. Mr. Karasch stated none of the drainage will leave the site H aine the drainage will be directed into the ditch line, through a culvert t - - r land, and then enter the holding pond itself. He stated they had showed using a sw .m , not a culvert, but he is unsure what the watershed district will require as part o al. Asleson stated it appears the site has been designed for zero volume wat " Karasch stated that is correct. Mr. Karasch stated there shoul candles would be lower than noting there is no abuttin and had thought the su parcel. of the parking lot lighting and the foot - ement. He reviewed the surrounding uses, esidential. Smyser stated he stands corrected, on the southern parcel rather than the northern Mr. Karasch reviewed their parking stall arrangement and landscape treatments. Trehus asked if they will use landscape plantings to screen the parking areas from the street. Mr. Karasch explained they are using the swale area along the street for drainage. Asleson reviewed the recommendation of the Watershed District and requirements related to ponding. Mr. Karasch stated they have received that information and revised the plans to address each requirement. Chair Lanyon questioned whether the Watershed District has found this site can handle 100% infiltration of all on -site drainage. Donlin addressed the issue raised by Trehus related to screening from Lake Drive. She explained that screening is an important issue to the Board in an effort to assure aesthetically pleasing developments. Donlin stated it is important to screen this use from 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 the road to screen the view of vast parking lots and large buildings. Mr. Karasch stated the parking lot is 15 feet from the property line. He stated they will be giving a 20 -foot easement so they can widen Lake Drive. Donlin asked if the swale and landscape can both be accommodated. Mr. Karasch stated it could be accommodated now but when the road is widened, it may need to be removed. Mach asked about the current landscaping. Mr. Karasch stated there are only a few scrub - type trees. Trehus explained the City is drafting a landscape ordinance. Mr. Karasch stated he is aware of that activity and they attempted to mesh the City's requirements with this landscape plan. Trehus noted that the ordinance will require the screening of all off street parking lots if over six stalls. He stated it is a concern of the City to screen parking lots from streets, especially main thoroughfares like Lake Drive. Asleson stated this is a business situation and the e integrated into natural urban plans. He stated the treatment in the front areas. Mr. Karasch stat tal water concerns can be es a manicured landscape Davidson asked if the swale can accommo ,, oth t' ' drainage and landscape screening. Asleson stated he thinks it can be done wit r areas used for landscaping. Chair Lanyon stated it is impo :: '. dr.. ` age plans to address water treatment. Mr. Karasch stated that will be a � • s s r '' iewed the site plan to explain the number of parking stalls. He noted re is of ` f on -street parking in this area so they need to assure adequate parkin: arge ` erals. O'Connell asked if it is possib t'`` to remove the two trees in the parking lot islands so parking can be added to that location. Mr. Karasch stated that would result in the loss of more parking stalls than would be gained. Chair Lanyon stated the major issue is to assure water quality and if there is a way to add additional landscape screening of the parking lot, that would make it a better project. He suggested the applicant work with staff to address those issues. Donlin noted there will be an illuminated sign, which is a concern to her. She stated there was discussion to eliminate all illuminated signs, which can be over lit and offensive. Donlin stated she thinks they can also be quite dangerous. Mr. Karasch stated he understands that concern and noted their intention for a country - theme development. He stated they will assure the illuminated sign provides a softer, non - glaring, effect. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Chair Lanyon stated the Board supports a country feel for this project and, wherever possible, to use native plantings. Another representative of the applicant noted the speed is 55 mph so if the sign is not illuminated, drivers will not even be able to see the sign as they pass by. Asleson stated it was discussed to eliminate the landscape islands and use that area for infiltration, or the islands could be lowered to provide infiltration. Donlin asked about the setback from the lake and stated she would like that setback distance verified to assure the setbacks do not deviate from the guidelines. Davidson moved to recommend approval of the Mueller -Bies Funeral Home subject to providing a visual buffer between the parking lot and Lake Drive without jeopardizing the drainage ditch, finding a resolution to the on -site wetland identified on the National Wetland Inventory Map, that the OHW question be resolved before Council consideration, including the standard recommendation rel ed to lighting, and to minimize the light emanating from the illuminated sig O' Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Saddle Club — Smyser reviewed the preservat pmefit process which Lino Lakes is trying to use in an urbanized area He explain. . ; project is being discussed with the citizen boards and staff continues to discu epts pith the applicant. Smyser presented a map depicting the subject 40 ac °. reviewed the surrounding uses. He explained the Saddle Club does n• dir.;t access to the public road so they have an easement in order to obtain acc " • f4. ir• Street. Smyser stated staff has recommended this one parce •� b. ""• rt . ' a zoning district line. He noted the forested and large wetland areas. yse to `aff visited the site and discovered an historic oak savanna in the sout a ea o ' he parcel Smyser presented several conc >' sts for street and lot layout. He used a map to point out the location of available utilities and explained this is why they have acquired land to the east, to align and connect the road to Killdeer Drive. Smyser stated a conservation easement would be needed for the wetland areas plus a wetland management plan. Chair Lanyon stated he does not remember this project being previously presented to the Environmental Board. Asleson used a computer program to display the GIS information on this site. He explained the original concerns related to vegetation as he reviewed the various areas within the site. Asleson stated that due to the soils present on this site, the potential exists that it could be a habitat for some endangered species. Smyser reviewed the area where the flood plain cuts through the site and stated it may actually follow the creek and flood plain area, which would impact the northeast corner of 6 • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 the proposed plat and would have to be addressed. Asleson reviewed the direction of the drainage on the site Chair Lanyon stated it appears the areas of concern are to mesh this project with the greenway trail system and the habitats of interest and concern which need to be protected during design and implementation of the project. Asleson reviewed the types of soils expected to be contained within this site. In response to Donlin, Ross Fairbrother stated they propose 66 housing units on the 17 acres of upland, or 3 units per acre. He explained they are proposing a small lot residential development with lots being 50 feet wide and 110 feet to 135 feet long, similar to detached townhomes. Mach stated it appears this proposal would use most of the upland area. Mr. Fairbrother stated that is correct. Chair Lanyon excused himself from the meeting at 8:0 .m. and asked Vice Chair Davidson to chair the remainder of the meeting. Trehus asked about the trees on the site and w Fairbrother stated they would have a conservation conservation easement is typically over th _ we noted this plan is at a conceptual level. e responsible for removal. Mr. ment. Smyser stated a d and open space areas. He John Hill stated they looked at for townhomes so they could protect those areas outsid those areas outside of t n the wetland areas and requested a PUD me owners association to maintain and e conservation easement would be place on Mr. Hill explained the concep eing displayed was created before they addressed shortening the depth of the lots with a conservation easement being on the areas outside of the lots. Donlin stated this is being deemed as a conservation development but she is not comfortable with that because all know that you cannot develop wetlands and they are already federally and locally protected. The danger of encroachment is usually at the edge where residents dump grass clippings, etc. Donlin stated the likelihood of being able to police that type of activity is difficult, however, it may be possible that the homeowners association can hold each other accountable. Donlin stated she is interested in conversation planning with the new urbanism and asked what makes this a conservation development since all of the upland area is being divided into "cookie cutter" lots. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Trehus noted the area is zoned R -1 with the southern part being rural but the proposal for townhomes is at a higher density than single family homes. He stated it appears they are trying to increase the density to townhomes by calling it a conservation development. Smyser stated he told the applicant they would need to justify that question. He noted the proposal is for detached townhomes which is really smaller sized single family homes on individual lots. Trehus asked about the distance between the walls of the houses. Mr. Fairbrother estimated ten feet from the building wall to the property line, or 20 feet between the houses. Mr. Hill stated the homes are 1,400 to 1,500 square feet and will sell for about $150,000 with empty nesters and first -time home buyers being their market. Asleson asked if the applicant also owns the southern part and if they will consider developing the southern part when MUSA expands. Mr. '11 stated this is the full 40 acres and they may consider development in several p s to develop the lots within MUSA first. Smyser advised that staff believes the zoning c on t°he draft plan should be moved so this entire parcel is within one zoning di Vice Chair Davidson stated the trade off fo the upland is developed, however concurred and commented on t preservation development. Lion development is that not all of missing from this project. Donlin ects that need to be included in a Asleson noted the Boar dress what is important beyond this 40 acres in terms of how it will be developed ture. He reviewed the alignment of the greenway corridor and explained that su ` a corridor is to be a green area with buffering and provide connections with people, wildlife, and ecosystems while preserving natural features. Smyser stated more buffer beyond the back yards is desired. The Board agreed. Donlin reviewed the conservation development charrette that had been presented and desire for open and visual viewsheds. She stated the proposed site plan does not provide for that aspect since it only provides a view into another home due to the smaller sized lots and higher density. Trehus concurred and stated a trailway plan will also be needed. He reviewed another project that involved the creation of viewsheds and trails. Trehus asked what incentive the City has to consider higher density townhomes. Smyser stated this proposal would require a PUD since it does not fit any of the actual zoning district criteria. He stated the 8 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 developer will need to answer the question about what the City would receive as incentive for considering this higher density proposal. Mach stated he believes the increased upland would be the incentive if views can be provided. Trehus suggested they consider 45 lots which provides better views and would command a higher price for the lots. Trehus asked if the current draft includes impervious calculations. Mr. Hill stated they have not. Smyser stated there is a per lot impervious percentage limitation. Asleson stated it is not always true that the most important area to retain is upland, it could be other areas as well. Donlin asked who addresses the flood plain. Smyser stated the Rice Creek Watershed District addresses the flood plains. Mr. Fairbrother explained it deals with contours an • at • rmation and a full set of plans is submitted to the Watershed District for t it onsi • ` • n. The Board stated the issues they would like addres .: are the creation of a buffer, providing more conserved upland, viewsh� ntio _ eenway retention, stormwater issues, and if a special habitat exists which s e verified by Asleson. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSI A. Landscape Ordinance ' iew m r stated the consultant is requesting direction before she can proceed Vice Chair Davidson stated th. "`ime is late, and she would like the ability to fully discuss the ordinance and suggestions of the members. Asleson stated there would be time to consider this discussion at the next meeting. Trehus asked staff to notify the Board if the timeline changes and a decision is needed before the next meeting. Consensus was reached to table discussion to the October 25, 2000 meeting. B. Litter Ordinance — Asleson stated he spoke with the Police Chief about this ordinance and the ordinance language was included in last month's meeting information. He reviewed the tonnage of waste that is picked up and the determination that there is a litter problem. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Police Sergeant Rausch explained that they have found some garbage and litter flies off the garbage truck so they have talked with the garbage haulers about keeping their load down. He stated they have also looked at how to deal with residents who do not clean up their garbage if it is dumped over before it is picked up by the hauler. Another generator of trash is along Main Street to and from Waterworks during certain days following events. Sergeant Rausch stated they will look into how people put out their trash and what they can do to address littering. Asleson asked if there are any successful, low cost anti- littering programs that can be considered. Sergeant Rausch stated that if a citation is issued, community service can be required. Vice Chair Davidson reviewed an article about a program that provides the ability to turn in a person littering via a web site and then a letter is sent to them. She stated that she thinks a telephone call from the Police Department would make an impact. Asleson stated some of the businesses who sell the items with this issue. Sergeant Rausch advised that the pen $1,000 fine. mmonly littered could help for littering is 90 days and a Mach stated if a license plate can be called int P e D - ` artment, then a call can be made to the offender. Vice Chair Davidson agreed and suggested be placed in the newsletter to alert residents. She noted that the artic ld al ' encourage businesses to place signs in their business to discourage Litt C. DNR Project / Updates : sles• •r nted copies of the Rice Creek Corridor Expansion meeting min d as,` ised of the upcoming DNR meeting on October 3, 2000. He stated he will ask ., ting Engineer Wedel to provide a DNR and Anoka Conservation District update. D. Other Business - None. PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES A. Restoration Updates — Noting new to report. B. Forestry Updates — Asleson advised of the extensive hours spent addressing oak wilt. C. Solid Waste / Recycling Updates - Asleson noted the upcoming Clean Up Day scheduled for October 7, 2000. He stated the vendors are set up and the event will be advertised in the newspaper. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 D. Open Space Design Tour - Asleson asked if anyone is interested in attending this tour which is scheduled for Saturday, September 30, 2000. O'Connell stated she would like to attend and will provide a report at the next meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Plant Community Groupings - Mach reviewed his conversation with several DNR staff members about the option of developing groupings of trees that would have evolved together naturally. He suggested this could be an alternative to native prairie plantings. He stated he had provided that information to staff and suggested it be considered in future projects rather than singly planted trees. B. Landscaping Firm — Premier Services - Donlin stated she is associated with the Pheasants Forever organization and Jim Helseth of Premier Services who does prairie restoration work. She provided staff with that information. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DA It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Bo a on October 25, 2000. There being no further business, Donlin moved to adj 8 p. ` . O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 Lino Lakes Environmental Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 10/20/00 Re: Highland Meadows West/Second Addition The Environmental Board reviewed subdivision proposals for Highland Meadows and Bluebill Ponds in September of 1999. The Area to the north of Highland Meadows was reviewed as future expansion. At this time, the developer has submitted a plan to develop the second addition of Highland Meadows West. The area includes a proposal to build two lots around three existing lots, and road expansion to access these lots. According to our inventory, there are no significant vegetation types in this area. Surface water issues have not been addressed with the watershed yet. I have some concems of the green way issues in the area that I would like to address at the meeting. I have attached The Environmental Board's issues reports and recommendations made at the September Board meeting of 1999 concerning the development issues in this area. 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 Villella, Building/Community Development Department Secretary • Page 1 DATE: October 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 following: 1. The design of the development should be modified so as to create a 50 -foot buffer along the eastem 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. 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. Highland 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. • Page 2 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 flows. 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. AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: September 22, 1999 TOPIC: Highland Meadows BACKGROUND: Please refer to the development background memorandum from City Planner Jeff Smyser. The Environmental Board did not previously review this project. Wetland mitigation is occurring on a parcel to the North and West of Lino Lakes Elementary. The Rice Creek Watershed District has issued a wetland permit. have walked the site with the developers engineering representative. To the drainage and grading plan are not all illustrated. For instance, the existing ditch on the SE side of the development will be filled. Water from the NW part of the development appears to be part of the Marshan Lake Subwatershed District, and water from the South and East part of the Development appears to be in the George Watch Subwatershed District. Water collected by storm events on the south side of the development will drain into an existing pond on south side of the development (not in the development). Please see the description for GWLNC and GWLNW on attached "Watershed Data" sheets from the Local Water Management Plan. Pond outlets on ponds 1 and 3 are designed 2 -3 feet below the normal high 1- year water level. Water from a normal rainfall would evacuate to the next downstream level. I have suggested that where possible, buffer areas be established and planted with native materials to try to capture back yard runoff. The City could also • Page 3 establish a buffer area on the south side of the proposed park area where the drainage easement is shown. Filterstrips should be incorporated through out the development, and soil- mixing practices applied. There are several resources classifications on this property. 3d /3c- - -West side of the property. 2c1/1a/1e----NE side 2c1 - -- -South side 3c East side The historic oak savanna/barrensand recently developed forest system in degraded condition classification is on the west side. The developer has moved the proposed flared ponding area shown in this area to the south side of the shown pond one where there is no significant tree area. The roads were also shifted away from this area, thus pulling the house pads shown further away from the trees. The southern part of the 3d /3c classification area is less significant then the north. Storm damage from last year and very little biodiversity in the ground story would put this in the degraded woodland category. In both areas a buffer of 50 foot would be advantageous. With the plan changes, there would still be some tree removal needed. There are a couple of significant trees on the north side of the property. The project engineer was checking on possible save options. The 3c forest on the east side is aspen. The aspen are growing along the ditch that is planned to be filled. There may be opportunities to work with the developer in the future on a short segment of greenway should he purchase a parcel on the NW side. There is a greenway proposed on the other side of Main Street North of the School. I have also suggested the use of native materials in and around the restoration areas. OPTIONS: To be discussed at the Environmental Board Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Generated From the environmental Board AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: September 24, 1999 TOPIC: Blue Bill Ponds Development Page 4 • • BACKGROUND: Blue Bill Ponds is a 35.35 Ac Subdivision proposal under consideration for preliminary plating. Proposal has been submitted by Heritage Development. This subdivision proposal is immediately west of and adjacent to the Highland Meadows proposal. Blue Bill Ponds is scheduled to go to Planning and Zoning on October 13. Enclosed you will find the wetland delineation, soils map, delineated wetland maps, and Quad map, Geotechnical Conditions, and resource inventory. The site is in the MUSA and zoned R -1. Water from this property goes into county ditch 10, and Marshan Lake. The property has been ditched and tiled. There is no significant ground vegetation on the site. Trees on the West are classified as recently developed in degraded condition (3c). Trees on the East are classified as Historic Oak Savanna (3d) and recently developed forest in degraded condition (3c). This stand of trees is on the Highland Meadows property. However, the draft resource management plan calls for a buffer in this area. The 50 -foot buffer would be adequate, particularly on the north end of this stand. A tree preservation plan needs to be submitted even though trees are on adjacent property. I do not have a surface water management budget at this time. I have asked the City Planner to have a representative to be present at the meeting and bring information on how much water is calculated as runoff and where is it going. Again, buffering, filtering, bioretention soils management and native plant restoration should be addressed. OPTIONS: Several options may be feasible for improvement of the stormwater treatment train. Buffering/ or at this time at least a protection plan developed for 3d classification. Preservation Plan should also be submitted for 3c and 3d /3c classifications. RECOMMENDATION: Implement preservation guidelines for forest classes. Discuss and develop stormwater treatment options. Use of native restorative materials used in restoration. • Page 5 CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX. FEB ESCROW DEPOSIT' Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 500 Conditional Use Permit $ 350 Interim Use Permit • $ 350 Site Plan Review $ 500 Subdivision: • . Preliminary Plat Preservation Development 1,250 Planned Development Overlay 1,250 Minor Subdivision/ $ 250 Lot Split Rezoning $ 350 Vacation: drainage, street, utility $ 250 Variance $ 250 Property Address 7912 Marilyn Drive PIN# R08 -31 - 2 2 - 12 -QQpI & 0010 ' OUTLOT E Legal Description: Lot Block Addition Hi ghl and Meadows West Existing Land Use Residential Existing Zoning R -1 (Single Family Residential) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 10.8 acre outlot into 4 single family lots and two outlots. Applicant: Owner Of different than applicant): rani, TSM Development name address 222 Monroe St. , address Anoka, MN 55303 phone 7K3- S76 -Q121 phone fax 763- 576 -9122 fax • 10/69/2600 12:24 6125331937 MERILA ASSOCIATES 9 S 89x1-9 35" E PAGE 06 Sag —971gQ E - - -� —_ 1_ a g i . 9 f I / I' i • _L / Si N aril. 35'w r — 1 - -r S. 0 W 5 89.15' 52" E . 185.00 tJ 659.95 / IV 1 569.15'52 "E I-- --+35 OUTI;OT 0 . ;!." `-_- z 4 -8 N v� /-� N N 5 89.15.52" E 165.00 �•:nl[•liil� likEET N. 1 RECEIVE'' OCT 10200�� • cm/ OF 1.1MO LAKES N09'15'52'11 2 135.00 � f• • . - - •tt l ♦NF • /rte .4.1)0'5 Svcs SIMISIRIAIREESMINI 9, a�C J LJ..rip.e agvaQO� �M1Mro�F�'kIF1A R'I�uaiiER�h+Ri�. 2% M © �.��_n arimnrairriir kkorgis MLA lellb EL. 111111X. oe ©�o ,-me.r.OrMAMTCAI r;i'vl1 0= OOQ t �0 Ale9I1�l$.� 0000voz000a ,w ii INIM0o0om0I0000C9IIN EMININSM NINIMINCIMet&TII E100_pg�00 oo 1111 ©©L. ALIA.� !I i t� sue. mum i E !I , _ n Es- aro ROA LINO ; LAKES L R EHABIUTATIO CENTER • • • t ,r NANCY DRIVE • b • N 005114• E 602.77 • 3 5 6 • • • 1 • 'N t , N 0057'14' E 204.00] N Od51'1 • E 204.00 OUTLOT A 391043 S0 F7 I 'TLOT t ='r •' .. 912 N 0050' E 270.0) J 2 y � 1 T N I Z NI • . '—N 01512-146 E 2D4. ,00 it • • g ', I >- I N 004736' E- -600.00 �. 1 f . 1 V II I = J(I7L OT f. HIGHLAND .1 EAU S wrsr DOC- ....••••. €I!i I;ri i LJ 1 cOV 16,2. `1 �1 -- --� .4 -- 1. w w »a• [ 'leltu91z OU7L r T.41 16,253 SO Fr l T ■ 1 C4 L_J N 00'47'38' E 80105 RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES SCALE: 1 INCH • 80 FEET SUBDIVIDER OT•ER: ENONEER SUWEYOR OESIONER 6ishq Z. 5 Proposed &ra p Near T&d Prepo.N Noma IMnonlol See; WY Nn SONY • SCAN M A.d TSMOoNepmmt, 222 Mprooe Anek., MV6670] Ften. put57041121 FINN 6Nnodn, ir0. 0001.70YAN Sb,N BRAN' A766.20 Rem (A471670.7656 R.1 pnpl►F.rdl0Red.ey R.I 40 0FedyFINNAN; e Loh br NOT Ngyhmrs TONG se•w bd 00 Ad (n NANNY EMI be had gabs* Ins) Fog Nerd Now led Sb• y.roNINN Sde yadoar•n•e.4 Sd. ya0paep&nbor • • • • • x Ad 30 MI IObd JO WI 6 MI Nola KIM* no&mnrbo Nam NINea M .0.l44et..ynd M bWdnp Nam& INN h 1.00..lino h.1 be NANNY DN. 0Prcp.Men : Sephmber25.2000 Nob Crape end UDty Enemmh ON be pro.dMn dmnbyM INN saw* IL.ee &cloning Niel *Tam 6N,6 MIN .4I, and.4.Ir., a ohN NINN end .o o6.r b.'Nued L.50ONemb&: CutolE1IQLMA%EJ00WS NEST, .ctorIr•b IM ma e&pld Reno( RNA County,Ma..eb ad palprl of NNW&ln., N *led end dedc bdiNI HP2KRN AElMON& WEST, Dip wd.Nof h rorhdyNhnnn dh.NbdyM dlel2, ERN ,0. o.W HEFLI OI&P00N S NW. M. Summery Lob • 01,276 ewer. MI WIRD • 0➢.255 Sv.er. MI ROI dWy• 19,T711 Equity bd Told M& • HN.76D EOM Oda 11201 Pau WORN E25SION CONTOUR& NNE •-•�.• W00 ELEVATION a+zre DIRECTION OF FLON/ MANNA HYDRANT VALVE CATCH DAM SANITARY SEWS! WATERMAN STORM NT:WBI DRAINAGE 6 UTILITY EAb'EMEN { n mum NIN • • • 1 1 I 2 � I .- I = I 111, // 1 V \ .. I I I I I I NANCY DRIVE L 912 S ti R'R f ,.911 3 1 40 / ON 1 6 1 I 1 I _ -1 I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I ( I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ANC 2 1!13 90707 IR\ 891.37( NY/Se Y- \991..71( • ±L- ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT MAIN STREET o, 0 .. 913 191.0 2 -908 10 3 • 1 c:3 0 90 J /••••••\ J1 44 IS O. -L TYPICAL LOT tuwma 1 ust4m 5.-.M em31Yl1 10!0915. MANNA M9.•IU1I*dmw •M5.eNmeal 305.30303 4NM48410111110101 1lwl•ml vI_ '31t4 4t�.� INY.M t4440--4.44•0•0•4 10 1m3M. - J IMemIN FIE Nn UN UN SCALE: 1 INCH 160 FEET o no Scale in feet RECEAVED OAT 10 2000 art of 1.040 LAOS NOM 1. Launder N •8•• M1••111•9 M.II.. on Mum *their Ipw.3.14 3533031.3030.* MM NUR ewn NAIII$Mn.I..11d 17 Pa 04 UM LAO. M MAM, Iw0ayw. N.13753 wd Me 4331153. The w.Mw.ut u no ,. • IOM 4••488• sang* M 1a41 WM. In M area 5.134 t4I in Own W11* ...* 30830. Cal ldn 41•44,••14 N 04y lowlier* pM M wmmism.N• wndnd3. AM Ia.ple3.MWMna/M.1f M 305.5341430 McIM MM M9Mp. 2. NMweMM.. 30.331.5.33. MM.4A end mid M 440•41, 303151313 N p.me.mt t Ne53Mielbn •M•• Owl lwl►welbulmamn• all Cily 1M4.d 1.eeIM1..M 4. AMn4nINpp•IMIM mom! w puled NlnNMda 5 N..m ewnl.aee pA.*WM 5.MM..4••••••• . PM MM. *31 M 1dnMml Ole4M.11 N5.pN4 eul Mum Tap •113055.•.*M3013. MAw. OM* gun t. N.p5.1••wN•e.■•■ M •••• W. 14m•pl• Aa 1.1Q IIM.3.Mnwe M: 3111.1 1 IM tiudnuos -13 .mm. 5.38043 pmnulW•M 140• 1Ym3500 t II 12.5.41 et.MMa. Mee I1* 1130, t1mlmw4mlmwm. Pommy/ *Min 95330131 N5.M1 1140110140101101. 1. Out m ewsnoulp..M. .11•114. Wind Mp e1Mn 5.14*. CM953WM18MM P.01.13.04.4101144.11Utun 91939333304338.330.53593.335.1.13043303.54385 • Humph Commulmn 0•331. --5.3.3.13.30 Welt 2 1 *41 M M..304at ••••••••414 N *w5. .N 133.111 .4*44aw44 MINnMM p•W 1 135 5.3045384130155 IMO pa% man 4.11nat 4 1• ..45.30 lot ..w.1 e11 514..5.150 330.413 d•••••■ Na.. M •••••4••• •1••••1.I•M .5.11.13330 M *4••30 w *MON M. dell MeU IWO 83089 MI n0308.304. 1 11n••144 5..I M.e3wd mend lalAlimn lull*. M3 14 put F1111171 MIMED CONTOURS: INDEX INTERMEDIATE SPOT ELEVATION um; 1!1 02;100 DIRECTION OF FLOW MAMWLE G • HYDRANT S • VALVE 1 I CATCH BASIN 0 • SANITARY SEWER --r WATERMAIN -'- STORM SEWER ->- -7- DRAINAGE SUTNTY .._..ql -._. EASEMENT L1 r L NANCY DRIVE / 11'/z 4 5 1 1 / / /< / / \ / \ s. / / / \ 3 /(%/ > Ch,f. 5 12 \ A D /7,0 1 5 6 - j I s f • -917 11' E S r HIGHWAY RIGHT / • \ MEADOWS\ M y 0 \ 3\� 899. 197.14 (S ! NN 107 M. 907.07 IIAi� 891.77 ,\Y 891.71 i ,%a'e SCALE: 1 INCH ■ 60 FEET o 90 120 110 Scale in bet SUBDIVIDER: TBM Dessloproot Mn OWNER 222 Monroe SL Marta, MN 55333 Phan" (612) 5764121 ENGINEER Mode I Armlet's. lox SURVEYOR 6601.7310 Ave Rs, 63 DESIGNER Brodlln Port, MN 56128 Platy 1763) 6334595 1. G. we 53a..NMOM1.edMtaeel.e.O.d.Y.a.b N pe&.M bw1em one Ive teen b.53 ..n M..wn.wl.a M al 51 Una 15154,115; arcItee2015.05m. wnM W owner. Tb.gewr M W3 w 31.vest11 WA the Neon a.lplw •.M NNpn NM Mw nor IblM> M 95551r eve .vest bee.. Qel.J53e5e11ve55,511.1555 555 Me.,* NnMewM•,. Nwnwbdbn. Pot .5505 wb.500I3 3.e In Matt 15115t •11•1 Ib. M1b 5331.... 1. M sift/Wm M M 1.5•a• 1..Nb..dw11.M53veb1 wNNM tenftdor a prone nst 3. Al 555.15515•5 NeM3.elN5M/.el.bwleelrs.M Mr 14155.51,554‘..46. b. Ab,&s0 per MIN moor aoweddeter& I Mnere.n.. w.. Opine NMS be Mhbl•a0N.w pp. CMNbnM NNb5 ■1105e..wNM..531..3.11 e d tom Tape wWw.MNw. 15151555r.1153 lga S MprNan& maim OW be 1Md.. don 1.a1we I* .53 Maine/. Mammon tow OM 1.1/2 Inch NwiMw we 0040..10..1 Oe7Nv.eM shell b IIMO... elm 5.apgd. 14. 7.N.N.a3w tow .M 24 ebM4dnsw..Mwewb 1.1..1... -1 .13 \ 9.wINNU4.lemerenb.M.. ANY. 891.10 2 \ 64O4I NaaN7nal • /0 1. std.waNM.t b555 NON..MI .we53 ` /' are CMMNM>13•511 1W P4' .03MM Ap.w7 Net \. / /Woe* e..ralke Midas I.d53.M1.enM. C.dIN Merest \ / 2 1 NO b ll. wNMAMe r.wedMl0 e.w 53Nl.NMN is. 11 � ofed5.55e11 M ar dumb. of Ow 551151. 3 1 1 T. lb. weeeM OM ere.e.w pwr%.wa NN.e.b. 4 TN..e.Y3 NN mem. N w..MNbredb1NN Oq.NJdS•1. wp...nnn1•M. I NonwdrrN ..wnp 4Md be 515.50q15 5.15455. 5 4.3, bwO 189 *wino we M le Mimed 5 Shaw MIN NM N YWMI55•551•20115305515555111153 Ms 15 pad MAIN STREET C1 li g00 •L \• / RECEIVED OCT 1. 0 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES LEGEND Ewan Raceme) CONTOUR& 9, INTE▪ RMEDIATE SPOT ELEVATION 000(0 0300 DIRECTION OF FLOW MANHOLE Q HYDRANT b VALVE 3 CATCH BASIN 0 SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN STOMA SEWER SEWER - - > -- DRAINAGE & UTS.HY EASEMENT • 4 • -3- DEMON CMTIM The NO Feel nealbe Wanmd Me4.44.64 Imp.Mere. 1M •Ma•em b.Mma M em b 4a. S ■ ma Theme ie eMmldn The ea* mm m.tlbe I NE NA Me Ail ea WOW CAI a CAA Them W4.. 1M prep= MAAANFTWe ma Imps b.. air MN. 110 M/ MINI ~OM mbl 4Ob.bp Imp mewm.. 4.p M piled /.dim 1peb tlam44. AOmmm1 .e' m4.M4.Wampre 4.mlepm.l .RI.Y1d nut __ Web.p le l The w Nee aumiMOOK ROOMFNGWCE NOCX EM/NANCE DETAIL MINON•I10E IFIMAIGION NTW IN Ma MTh. orYTh Or rpm F.dne.M MINION apeW 4e.d mAn mien MAP Than Thed'm to 4.rWel M. palm asWbmbmm4.e The*, r The .4.r.Nrbm aneFmeam.ft The mad e4./ 0Th 4._NN.Mlapbdmr\bmnwl.Mn + reMNA el he NA T'hmlpd mdM tamed r 44.mecear.r b.lmmmaq ENeemf. MAW 1NA, NATO IfVIC =MTh NI NOR I1O010b0 TREE PROTECTION AREA DUTCH Mho NO at MFR WNNIau 4.NNE PRDIWIU4 NM IOII NO MINN POND BENCH DETAIL COMM/COON OF A MILT FENCE I. EeNe as 1.•4m m m. Theta t AW. I. Met I. el. em The MTh end MAY 0 M. Me bed\ 4 Them M e....4 CO w SILT FENCE DETAIL IANKINIANCF FROGMAN IAA bp4..m.a • M Fps NM M Mewed TheThembi Mm ..m WWI rd m bah dal. 4.4.. 1+w. Mr 4.■14 —. Mall be ANN kemeThely. 11! IAFb..mr4 • fable The M .4.4.4 Themer Thew I MeTheer .t bowmen 4rll.dw Irby b. MAW e M Them 'ammo. IS! 11.864 a.ms.. • I.me.4 *They alga M Thome. W mu. Mo. .m. Thelma. M 4.'44.4 Then Theft weft mWe eeeN eft-The he bays el e. K..r. M' mime h.n..ie b Nem der Me r brae Fe 4Th beTh b A. Mr, 4.4.1.4 4l be emend ▪ a.nbm .N N ..Mail Nde. mewed oel e eThet IAA Mad el .1 Map • M Them Nat M a► er.d .in they The a 0 Maw AWN 'Them. b. and W. ea Them. The M Wm pawam/ 100 kat I M wipe — b le be Thom. Them 4.,4 W.. M w ON be mend yea Thew - 4'.rrbn Then i. am'd. T. 1 100410 boa WWI AMINO MTh MTh ANN RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2000 CITY OF L---- NO LAKES MPS m\ FULL BASEMENT LOOK -OUT (FBLO) / wwimorp errs. .em4... ml SPLIT ENTRY (SE) MOO POO 1114.■ WOOS eM The C\ SOWN ROM Wm .1.Mm1 WNW eM SPUT ENTRY WALK-OUT (SEWO) a wpm. WNW, SOL 8 1 5. 4 _ e d .• ; tI C 2 LL LL 2 LL 1 • �F) N hJ Lino Lakes Environmental Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 10/18/00 Re: Saddle Club The Saddle Club was reviewed at the September, 2000 meeting. Recommendations are given in the enclosed minutes from the meeting. The developer has resubmitted a new sketch plan. I have enclosed a copy of the old plan with the new. The Environmental Board is being asked to look at the new plan for comment • Page 1 • L. TOP NUT NYORM1T Z.T. CORNER tELEVAT" SD goe F REVISE 1 1 WOW TOM two not PM FOSCOM OR ramm .• nNrrlm R •I a ma" w o1KCT Stnlossis MO d l• seta M w7 ar of MM[7m, .M.m >r e� � ,. _w Na. ■o. SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGIN= • ZUMRTOIR • MAN INO 92L TWINS • EM■s01NORK SWAM 100 I•YZATA OOINlYPAD. SUNK 1 _T01NA w 65306 (N!) 54N—T/01 rA1C 4s -ices ...•00000410.M.M1 r. 9 CLIENT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD 0 ST. PAUL, MN • 651- 481 -0017 o ?Tio14 G , 5!M114v1: 'FAMILY : SHALL t r — aor .•4 rem : ; 6S'coPses- - .1.er DerTY4 : 17.5' RTLrj ; 146' wenl..4 Pt,JS — PONT S 2 .CY -: 34" — sate ssTT;AGR- S b. FE-R- ¶1 !4 : G(, tors LL END .-V- ter woe. we1LM (!As soup. ogee) srtUS vas. ressleLe PETTi+T01 EWMS p„ PV Teat SWABS E.14 (*TPA •TLfi. 34N5- LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE. CLUB LINO LAKES, MN CONCEFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN • Q "lot4 S I TIC L� FPTML f : ST?cNDV1/41?-D Ldr — trr wt 'rll : to. — lot IMRH : 1'S5' — fttot$r slzrptA.gt..: T;o — Nave SANTRAC* —: 10' PER Pit 4 : 4.9 Lots Lor LUHT. Wc1L•ND CAL 11.WpAAt ) Sidi pbF TA ../t.E7E1rs u>4 sums T+ENM1ullq•c :/8• tstr+ILS EAtA"nr4 7,88.4I•6. 5'0 )00 • TOP NUT WNW( T.T. CORNER T `ELEVATgN � T IONS DME REV1S IT 1MMT1LTi "t"G _"^ tN 1 S +R "0 ° 1 SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. trC T0111 .l4 PAEPMLO MM: M WOGM0.1[C1 �G..s(u ro nu, , r ouu .tmTCPtO P•ORS1O.4 ttl.(ILTIN • lUR.O'016 R pNN1 MIX WOG M MM Of M MU Of adisma0.im >a. TESTING • �K'Q 10510 WAY=ATA pGIISW . lure 1 IwIrEf0NRll IN n70s ' '- - M(' "� (552) 010 -7(01 VAT[ 0[5-10( 1 le m•IF1e(Nq(1r1( 11 L M(11 Y1• . 10Wt T PAGE T (Tm 0611 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN r:`•I 41i1 ono DATE. ? 1997 1 LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE CLUB LINO LAKES, MN CONCEPT DEVELOPMEN- PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. SHEET OF SHEETS 896- - 894 896 6' -KIN CHMNUNK FENCE / / I / 898 / / I �\ /a / A. - / a. / r WETLANDS FEN I _ \ 1 I r `� ,. (HORSE C• �L) / 244,11:o \ 5 I Pr ;'6,� --�-= ` I w W000S sto 1307.62 r MO ► // APPROX. fL00DPLAIN / BOUNDARY \ Iw / ZrB \ 393 - �. _' ash r . -• r ,yf/ r -� - EL -V 8961 r - ANDS _ r • r / / + r r r lr r r^ 95' /.• W0005 Al. rw j p sJ , ,o.,I I w * / 1,,„ ATLANDS O o !Olt w N TCR • ,v ,so 14 CO q0 i N r / �r / ... \ . . / / 1 ,wo I/ . 1 TOTAL .RBI- ►.73&.31.3 /l S O A / - /I w TOTAL ICRRSR3I.77 / • - ✓� / TOTAL WIT' LARD ARIA■841.O6R1 / / r / • / TOTAL I17' LAND ICR/9R11.7* / / r r / S r / LEGEND \ r • -- / , - TL ANDS r \ // a ✓ r Sri + SOA r //' r / / ��- r sorts / / / - 1 ti . �. \ ( / I / r y \ / r / // ,coops Zing : LYMERIIAN FME SAND , / / MEiLANDS �►/ ee4 � \ / LnA : LNO .LOAMY NNE SAND \ / / SoA SOOERMLLZ FINE SAND ' I. : IS/W R ONE SANDY LOAM \ — / _ Ma : MARKEY MUCK ' / - a WETLANDS / r a../. ...,IL—N2 . / / / / - /' i SOA I r r T I .MARK: e / Iw r / TOP SoA ► 1 / I 1306.96 NUT HYDRANT T.T. CORNEA %\t N88 44'OrW r / ( ♦ 1 REVISIONS 1 "MV COMFY RIM nos PLI'• CIICOO1L Ca (CLIENT RCYORI w „rrrNUe er a 7"4110100V1071' ol,ecr SCHOELL MADSON. INC. aE�e510N SOCIN " calcal an API , Or P0[ISgN,L 040114111 L111001 MI Lan a>K= """""10R6'""""'"° HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SOA. 1E58N0 ' flIP1R01MRi1TK SERYICO ,oxo WAYIATA B.....M) 9DIrt) 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ,,,,: „_� 440. PC, rolraTM MN 50.700 ST. PAUL. MN (6T:) 514 -�a6+ FAIO see -9om 651 - 481 -0017 RTMLMTn er. 0111[ I �' r r r r ath .4. y r r WETLANr I DS H - r Iw � I r 592 r r I - r 892 892 TREE UNE a . WETLANDS a • WRINGS a - WIT POLE •o. • POWER POLE GTE 8? YIDS_ • • r / . r O9Z /r r Ir Ir WETLANDS - 1 Iw / 892 r / I r • r • / r r r - 8009 ? P909 ? ('1?) DATE: ? 1997 )C LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE CLUB LINO LAKES. MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. SHEET OF SHEETS CITY OF LINO LAKES LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE DRAFT OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE II. DEFINITIONS M. APPLICABILITY A. Landscape/Screening Plan Required B. Plan Review Process C. Relationship to Other Ordinances IV. LANDSCAPE/SCREENING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Plan Submittal Requirements. B. Performance Security Required 1. Amount of security 2. Release of Security V. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS A. General Landscape Requirements B. General Screening Requirements C. Specific Screening Requirements 1. Parking Lots 2. Loading/Outdoor Storage Areas 3. Mechanical and Utility Equipment 4. Dumpster Enclosures and/or Recycling Receptacles D. Additional Requirements 1. Traffic Visibility 2. Easement/Utility Clearance 3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) VI. DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Plant Material Standards 1. Type 2. Size 3. Quantity 4. Quality 5. Installation 6. Maintenance 7. Substitutions B. Non -plant Material Standards (e.g. walls, fences, berms) 1. Type 2. Size/Height 3. Quantity 4. Quality 5. Installation 6. Maintenance VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT A. Compliance with Approved Plan 1. Protection Measures 2. Plan Implementation B. Inspection and Enforcement 1. Compliance Inspection 2. Non- compliance 3. Dead Plants 4. Structural Disrepair 5. Use of Performance Security ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 LANDSCAPE/SCREENING ORDINANCE OUTLINE — LINO LAKES I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE Enhancing the environmental quality and visual character of the community is important to the City of Lino Lakes. The City places a high value on preserving its existing natural amenities and integrating new urban development into the natural environment. To achieve these objectives, the City has established landscaping and screening requirements for development on private property to promote: • Attractive Development: Landscaping and screening enhance the aesthetics of the built environment and allow better integration of new development with the surrounding landscape. Appropriate screening can mitigate potential negative impacts of certain uses while improving the visual quality of the built environment. Landscaping can also establish a sense of human scale in the built environment, making it feel more comfortable and appealing. ■ Landscape -scale Approach: Natural landscapes do not follow man -made boundaries such as property lines or jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, the City encourages landscape plantings in new developments and/or redevelopment that reflect the plant communities intrinsic to the development site. The Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development identifies the natural landscapes and ecological prototypes existing in the City. These prototypes should be used to provide a framework to determine appropriate landscaping for a development site. • Native Vegetation: Some of the existing natural landscapes and ecological systems within Lino Lakes have been severely altered by human activities such as farming, ditching, and flood control. However, where appropriate, the City encourages the use of native plants as the foundation for landscaping of new development in order to enhance overall environmental quality and ecological continuity. Wildlife Habitat: Landscaping that reflects and enhances the ecological function of the site can contribute to its value for sustaining wildlife habitat and movement corridors. ■ Environmental Quality: Landscape plantings help moderate the local micro- climate through the provision of cooling shade, wind blocks, heat reflection and absorption. Landscape plants can also improve air quality by filtering dust and other air -borne particles, intercept and filter surface water run -off, and help control erosion. Consistent Standards: Establishing reasonable standards for the provision of landscaping on private property can foster systematic improvements in the visual quality of the community while enhancing environmental quality and ecological continuity. 1 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 • Administration: Provide for administration and enforcement of the landscaping and screening regulations herein to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. II. DEFINITIONS Applicant means any person or entity who is required to submit and implement a city - approved landscape /screening 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. Berm means an earthen mound designed to provide visual interest, screen undesirable views, lighting, and/or decrease noise. Buffer yard means a strip of land utilized to screen or partially screen a use or property from another use or property or to shield or mitigate noise, lights, or other impacts. Caliper inch means the diameter of a tree measured at twelve (12) inches above the ground. 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. 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/Ornamental) 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/Ornamental) means 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 stem. 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. 2 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 Ecological prototype means a plant species model that reflects the ecological context of an area resulting primarily from existing soil type and hydrology. Both unaltered and altered ecological prototypes exist in the City and are identified in the Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. (See Appendix A). Groundcover means a herbaceous plant that occupies the ground story (e.g. grasses, forbes, wildflowers). 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 of earth 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 yards per acre. Landscape architect means a person licensed by the state as a registered landscape architect. Mulch means materials placed over the surface of the soil, around plantings, to help retain soil moisture, improve soil quality, and retard growth of unwanted vegetation. Acceptable mulch materials include: wood chips, shredded bark, partially decomposed leaves, river rock, pine straw, or similar. Native species means a species that occurs naturally within a given region. Native vegetation means vegetation, composed of native plants, that has been little modified by human activities such as logging, farming, ditching, or the introduction of nonnative species. Nonnative species means a species that has been introduced to an area by humans or that is present in the area as a result of human- caused changes. Shrub (deciduous or evergreen) means a multi- stemmed woody plant, smaller than a tree, consisting of several stems growing from the ground or small branches near the ground. Traffic visibility triangle means the triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting the ends of two lines extending fifteen (15) feet along the curbline from the point of intersection of two streets within which vegetation or structures may not impede vision. [illustrate with diagram] Vegetated swale means a shallow linear depression around parking lots, in parking lot medians, and along roadsides, often used downstream from detention facilities to slow 3 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 the flow of surface water runoff and promote pollutant removal. They are planted with moisture tolerant species. III. APPLICABILITY A. Landscape/Screening Plan Required: A Landscape /Screening Plan as described in Section W herein, shall be reviewed and approved by the City in conjunction with all applications for: • Site and Building Plan Review (commercial, industrial, and multi - family only) B. Plan Review Process: 1. The applicant shall submit a Landscape /Screening Plan for review by the City in conjunction with all other plans required for the site plan review application. Plans shall be submitted on or prior to the application deadline established by the City. 2. Upon submittal, the City will review the Landscape /Screening Plan to determine compliance with the regulations and standards herein. The City will also . use its Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development or other list provided by the City to determine the compatibility of proposed new landscaping with the ecological prototype of the property. 3. For any project that requires a Landscape/Screening Plan, the City will make a determination that the plan meets the requirements herein prior to City Council approval of the project. C. Relationship to Other Ordinances: The requirements of this Section are separate from the City's Street Tree Ordinance and Aboriculture Specifications and Standards of Practice. Replacement tree plantings as required per Section (Tree Preservation ordinance), can be used to satisfy, in part, the landscaping requirements defined herein. Where both a Tree Preservation Plan and a Landscape /Screening Plan are required, preparation of the plans shall be closely coordinated. IV. LANDSCAPE/SCREENING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Plan submittal requirements: For all applications outlined in Section III.A. plans relative to landscaping, screening, and restoration shall be submitted. All plans shall be signed by a registered landscape architect or certified nurseyman and be based on an accurate, to -scale drawing of the property boundaries. If deemed necessary, the City may require the applicant to submit a certificate of survey to verify the property boundaries. The City may also use its discretion to waive submittal of some of this information, or to require additional information, if appropriate to the specific situation. The Landscape/Screening plan shall include: 4 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 1. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners, developers and/or builders 2. Delineation of all existing or proposed buildings, structures, utility easements, rights - of -way, sidewalks and trails, impervious surfaces, and water bodies. 3. Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance, including a detailed description of the methods to control soil erosion during and after construction. 4. Estimated location and type of all structures, utilities, and existing vegetation on adjacent properties within 100 feet of subject property. 5. Size, species, and location of all existing vegetation on property indicating plants to remain and those to be removed. Plan should specify protection measures to be used. 6. Size, species, and location of all new vegetation to be planted on the property, including the square feet of areas to be sodded or seeded. 7. Size, type, and location of non - vegetative landscape or screening devices (fences, walls, berms, etc.), including typical sections or details. 8. Table summarizing new plants by scientific and common name, size, root condition, and quantity. 9. Describe any plans to modify, restore, or protect the existing soils and the associated procedures for such actions. 10. Table summarizing the total square feet of pervious green area on site, including area of required buffer yards. fln definition, may want to include how required buffer yard is determined — i.e. "as specified in Section X of the zoning ordinance " ? ? ?J 11. Signature of person(s) preparing the plan, date plan prepared, scale and north arrow. B. Performance Security Required: The applicant shall provide security for the performance of its obligations pursuant to this section following City approval of the Landscape /Screening Plan and prior to commencement of any 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 landscape plants and other elements of the approved Landscape /Screening Plan. The applicant shall submit a schedule of costs associated with implementation of the approved Landscape /Screening Plan, including non -plant elements. 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 landscape plantings proposed on the approved Landscape /Screening Plan. For non -plant elements, the City will estimate the costs for comparison purposes. [needs work] 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 Landscape /Screening Plan as estimated by the City. 2. Release of Security - The applicant shall notify the City when the planting has been completed so the City can verify that the landscaping and/or screening is completed, ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 identify any discrepancies with the approved Landscape /Screening Plan, and confirm the planting completion date. a) The security shall be retained for at least one year after the date the planting is completed. Prior to release of the security, the City shall inspect the site to verify compliance with the approved Landscape/Screening Plan. If non - compliance is found, the City may retain security to cover the cost of bringing the project into compliance. b) In no event shall the performance security be released before expiration of the one -year plant warranty period. V. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS A. General Landscape Requirements 1. All exterior areas on the property not paved or designed as roads, parking, or storage must be landscaped with vegetation and other landscape elements, unless otherwise approved by the City. 2. The City encourages the planting of native species to the extent feasible. When using native vegetation, an effort should be made to arrange plants in a manner that reflects the plant layers (e.g. over -story, mid - story, and under -story) naturally found in association with the ecological prototype of the site as identified by the City. 3. Priority should be given to retaining healthy native vegetation existing on a development site. Where appropriate, re- establishment of native plant communities using plants native to the area is encouraged to foster bio- diversity and wildlife habitat. 4. On development sites that have been significantly disturbed through urbanization, farming, or other human activities, use of plants commonly associated with historic development periods of the immediate area is appropriate. -However, where opportunities, exist to restore native plant communities on these sites, an effort should be made to do so. B. General Screening Requirements 1. Screening is require in situations where obscuring views is necessary to minimize the potential negative impacts resulting from abutting different uses. 2. Visual buffering, rather than full screening, should be provided in situations where views are intended to be reduced while maintaining opportunities for surveillance (i.e. allowing eye level views). (See Section VI.D.3). 3. Screening required: a) Screening is required in multiple family, business, industrial, and certain special zoning districts (e.g. PSP, PDO) where the following uses are visible from public 6 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 streets or abutting properties in different zoning districts [but only if residential zoning/use? Should you use land use category vs. zoning since zoning may not accurately reflect future use ?]: 1) Off -street parking areas containing six (6) or more spaces; 2) Loading, service, and outdoor storage areas; and 3) Utility and mechanical equipment 4) Dumpster /recycling receptacles b) Screening shall be in addition to other required landscaping per Section W.A. 4. Screens shall consist of berms, walls, fences, plant materials or a combination of these. Buildings on the subject property may function as screening devices if, as determined by the City, they effectively block the view of the items or areas required to be screened. C. Specific Screening Requirements [do you want to deal with outdoor displays (e.g. windshield washing fluid) and storage of merchandise as "outdoor storage " ?? Do you want to specifically exempt them? See Section 3.G and R pp. 3 -24 in ZO] 1. Parking Lots [reference Sec. 3 Subd. 5 p. 3 -40 ?] a) All off -street parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from public streets and abutting properties designated for single family residential uses [should this just say "designated for a different land use " ?]. b) Parking lot screens shall be at least three (3) feet in height. The maximum height shall depend on the specific situation and shall be subject to other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.[Note: the ZO and OPTED objectives provide several different height limits — need to achieve some consistency] Plant screens shall be at least two (2) feet at time of installation/planting and shall provide seventy percent (70 %) visual obscurity year- round, within three growing seasons [need to make sure this is consistent], unless otherwise approved by the City. c) [include requirement for overstay trees around parking lot perimeter? This is more a landscaping /micro - climate issue than screening] d) Parking lot screens shall comply with all applicable Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards (see Section VI.D.3). e) All parking lots with fifty or more spaces shall provide interior planting islands that occupy at least five percent (5 %) of the parking lot area. Planting islands shall be at least eight (8) feet wide with a minimum of two hundred and forty-five (245) square feet of pervious surface. Plants used in islands should generally consist of large (over -story) deciduous trees tolerant of heat, deicing salt, soil compaction, and drought. All islands should include a ground layer of organic mulch and/or herbaceous groundcover that can tolerate the island conditions. f) Unless otherwise approved by the City in situations where infiltration is desired, islands within parking lots shall be edges with continuous curbing. 7 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 2. Loading/Outdoor Storage Areas [reference Sec. 3 Subd.6 p. 3 -53 ?] a) All loading and outdoor storage areas in business, industrial, and special zoning districts shall be screened from abutting and surrounding public streets or property designated for residential uses. b) Screening of loading and outdoor storage areas shall be at least six (6) feet in height at time of installation/planting and shall provide seventy percent (70 %) [is this enough? Too much n visual obscurity year -round unless otherwise approved by the City. [p.3 -45 limits height to 4 feet. Potential conflict with CPTED ? ?] c) All loading and outdoor storage areas shall be located behind the front building line of the principal building and shall conform to the standard side and rear yard setbacks established for other structures in the zoning district. 3. Mechanical and Utility Equipment a) Any mechanical or utility equipment located on the roof top, exterior walls, or premises of any multi - family, commercial, industrial, or institutional building shall be screened from abutting and surrounding public streets or property designated for single family residential uses. b) Window or room air- conditioners, chimneys, and stacks shall be exempt from these screening requirements. 4. Dempster Enclosures and/or Recycling Receptacles [reference Sec. 3 Subd. 4G? p. 3 -25] a) All trash dumpsters and/or recycling receptacles on the premises of any property used for multi - family, commercial, industrial, or institutional uses shall be screened from all public streets and abutting property designated for single family residential uses with a fence, wall, or other enclosure six (6) feet in height. b) Enclosures shall provide a minimum opaqueness of eighty percent (80 %) at eye level view on all sides. However, the City may waive the requirement to provide enclosure gates if the resulting open side of the enclosure is not visible from an existing or future public street or property designated for residential uses. c) Enclosures must be located behind the front building line of the principal building and shall conform to the standard side and rear yard setbacks established for other structures in the zoning district. D. Additional Requirements: 1. Traffic visibility requirements (p. 3 -9 ZO) — On corner lots, vegetation or structures shall not be placed or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impede vision in the traffic visibility triangle between a height of two and one-half (2 i) and ten (10) feet above the centerline grade of the intersecting roadways. [illustrate with diagram] ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 2. Easement/utility clearance — Trees, shrubs, and structures used for landscaping or screening shall not be permitted within any utility easement or public right -of -way unless specifically permitted by the City and shall require filing of an encroachment agreement. Trees, shrubs, or structures placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. No trees or shrubs shall be planted under existing or planned utility lines when the mature height and spread of the plant may lie within ten (10) feet of such wires. [per p. 3 -30] 3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) - All landscape /screening plans shall be consistent with the objectives and standards of CPTED as determined by the City police department and zoning administrator, including, but not limited to: a) Creating a sense of ownership or space definition. b) Establishing appropriate access controls while maintaining freedom of movement through the site. c) Providing for appropriate visibility into, out of, and within the site. Generally, a visual buffer should include a combination of lower and upper level plants that allow through visibility between a height of four (4) feet and seven (7) feet above the ground. [illustrate with diagram] VI. DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Plant Material Standards 1. Type —New landscaping should be compatible with the ecological prototype(s) existing on the property and/or complement existing landscaping or vegetation established on the property and adjacent properties. Appendix A includes plant species list associated with the various ecological prototypes within the City. 2. Size — The minimum size at time of planting shall be consistent with the following standards, unless otherwise approved by the City: a) Large deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 212 caliper inches b) Medium and small (ornamental) deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 112 caliper inches c) Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height d) Shrubs and hedge material shall be a minimum of two feet (24 ") in height e) Herbaceous ground covers, grasses, and perennials shall be potted in a minimum of 4" pot. 3. Quantity — Plantings intended for visual screening should be planted at a density to achieve seventy percent (70 %) visual obscurity year- round, within three growing seasons, unless otherwise approved by the City. At a minimum, the quantity of new plant material shall be consistent with the following standards and shall be in additional to screening required per Section VI.B.: 9 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 [See attached alternative quantitative approaches — e.g. buffer yard or green space approach] 4. Quality — Plant materials shall be healthy stock, free of insects and disease, and meet the guidelines set by the American Standards of Nursery Stock. The City can reject plants if found to not meet these standards. 5. Installation - The following installation standards shall be met for all planted areas: a) In areas with native plantings, plant mix and spacing should approximate the structure of the appropriate native plant community. In addition, native plantings should be bordered with a strip of mowed grass or other more "manicured" edge to provide a clear sense of care and maintenance. b) Turf slopes in excess of three to one (3:1) are prohibited. c) Plant material centers shall not be located closer than one -half the typical mature spread of the plant to a fence, property line, or building (principle or accessory) without permission of the adjacent property owner. d) Soil — To the greatest extent possible, the existing site soils will be protected and utilized for new plantings. If soil modifications are necessary, they shall foster restoration of the existing soil type or enhance the soil to support the desired landscape prototype. The topsoil in planting areas shall be thoroughly tilled into the sub -grade to a minimum depth of seven (7) inches prior to planting. [needs work — Marty please review] e) Irrigation — All landscaped areas shall be covered by an underground automatic irrigation system except as approved by the City in situations where: a) the area is reserved for future development; b) the area is intended to be kept in its natural state; or c) the landscape design specifies a planting scheme that does not require irrigation (e.g. vegetated swales, dry prairie plantings). f) Mulch — All landscaped areas shall be mulched to a minimum of 2 inches with a mulch material deemed acceptable by the City. The City may waive this requirement where certain natural plantings, such as prairie plantings, will be used. 6. Maintenance: a) General — The property owner, or if applicable, the home owners association, shall be responsible for maintenance of landscape elements (plants, structures, pavement, etc.) so as to present a neat and aesthetically pleasing appearance free of any unhealthy or potentially unsafe conditions. b) Disease control - Plants shall be maintained in a healthful, disease -free condition. Plants that have died or become diseased shall be promptly replaced with the same type of plant, or a substitute plant type approved by the City. 10 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 c) Watering - Automatic irrigation systems should be operated between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m., or as otherwise approved by the City. Irrigating during these hours reduces fungus growth and loss of water due to evaporation. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to minimize water waste due to loss of heads, broken pipes, or misadjusted nozzles. d) Pruning — All pruning should be accomplished according to good horticultural practices. Trees shall be pruned only as necessary to promote healthy growth. Unless special approval is provided by the City, trees shall be allowed to attain their natural height and shall not be severely pruned or "hat- racked" in order to permanently maintain growth at a reduced height. e) Lawn maintenance and establishment — Turf grass shall be mown as required in order to encourage deep root growth and ... [Help - does the City have property/lawn maintenance standards to include here or another section to reference ?] f) Removal or replacement — It shall be the responsibility of the property owner, or if applicable, the homeowners association, to remove any trees or shrubs, or parts thereof, that are dead, diseased, or that overhang or interfere with traffic control devices, public sidewalks, rights -of -way, or property owned by someone else. 7. Substitutions — In the event that the plants listed on the approved Landscape /Screening Plan are not available, or do not survive, substitutions of similar plants shall be made upon approval by the City. B. Non -plant Material Standards 1. Type — For purposes of this Section, non -plant materials used for landscaping and/or screening refers to walls, fences, and berms used for decorative, retention, or screening purposes. Non -plant screens may consist of materials such as wood, stone, brick, decorative block, earth (e.g. berms) and metal. 2. Size/Height: a) Retaining walls shall not be constructed higher than three and one -half (3 Y2) feet. b) Fence heights shall be subject to the standards of Section 3, Subd. 4.S.p. 3 -29 [Jeff - Or is it Sec. T.1.c. p.3 -38] [do you plan to keep separate section specific to fences or do you want to incorporate all those requirements here ?]. c) Earth berms shall be constructed so the side slopes do not exceed a slope of 33% or maximum height of three (3) feet. 3. Quantity: In general, non -plant materials should be used in combination with natural plant materials. However, in situations where space is limited, non -plant materials may provide the primary means of achieving desired aesthetic and screening objectives outlined in Section VI. 11 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 4. Quality: a) Screening structures (e.g. fences, walls) shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, aesthetically compatible with those used in the construction of the principal structure on the property as determined by the City. b) Screening structures shall be finished on both sides, or the finished side shall be on the side facing the abutting property or public right -of -way. All posts or supporting structures shall be on the inside of the screening structure. [What do you think about requiring that at least some x percent of the length of such a wall or fence shall be landscaped ? ? ?] c) Screening structures shall be constructed of durable, weather resistant materials which are aesthetically compatible with the principal structure. d) Screening enclosures shall have an impermeable floor surface. 5. Installation: a) All screening structures shall require a building [and footing ?] permit and shall be permanently anchored. b) It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure any structures used for screening are placed on their property. If deemed necessary, the City may require verification of the location on a certified survey. 6. Maintenance: a) General - The property owner, or if applicable, the homeowners association, shall be responsible for maintenance of all non -plant screening elements so as to present a neat, aesthetically pleasing appearance, free of any potentially unsafe conditions. b) Repairs - All repairs shall be consistent with the original design in terms of location, materials, and appearance. Repairs shall be made in a timely manner, not to exceed sixty (60) days from receipt of written notification from the City regarding needed repairs. c) Removal or replacement — It shall be the responsibility of the property owner, or if applicable, the homeowners association, to remove any fences, walls, or other screening devices that are dilapidated or broken beyond repair. VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT A. Compliance with approved plan: 1. Protection Measures: The applicant shall implement the plant protection measures indicated on the approved Landscape/Screening Plan prior to commencement of any land disturbance activity on the property. The plant 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. 12 ROUGH DRAFT 09/20/00 2. Plan Implementation: Proposed landscaping and screening shall be installed 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 VIII.B. B. Inspection and Enforcement: 1. Compliance Inspection: One year after installation of plants and other landscape /screening elements the applicant shall make a request in writing to the City for an inspection to determine compliance with the approved Landscape /Screening 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. Landscape /Screening 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 timeframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. 3. Dead Plants: Any plant that is not alive or healthy one year after planting in accordance with the approved Landscape /Screening Plan, shall be removed and replaced, by the applicant, with a new, healthy plant of the same size and species, unless otherwise approved by the City. 4. Structural Disrepair: Any structural landscape/screening element (e.g. fence, wall) that is in disrepair one year after installation in accordance with the approved Landscape /Screening Plan shall be repaired or replaced within a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. 5. 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 and other elements in accordance with the approved Landscape /Screening Plan. 13