Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/03/2001 Env Bd Packet
City of Lino Lakes December Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall January 3, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Citizen Comments 5. Appointment of Chair/Vice Chair 6. Project Review A. DellwoodLLC Update B. CSAH 49 Update/John Powell C. 12th and Holly D. City Hall Park QWEST Communications Tower E. Behm's Park/Lot Creation F. Saddle Club Project Update. Environmental Board Business A. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface Project/Updates B. Development Concerns/Birch St. and Centerville Rd. 8. Program/Project Updates A. Environmental B. Forestry Updates C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates 9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date ova oas.o 0 al tO CL MENO limow 1-t c+7 MN 55014 =2123 i ,The Practice of RESTORING ECOSYSTEMS A One -day Regional Seminar Des Moines February 22, 200 Minneapolis/ St. Paul Area February 23, 2001 SPONSORED BY The National Arbor Day Foundation arbordiy.org IN COOPERATION WITH Land & Water Magazine Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Association of Naturalists Iowa Academy of Science Iowa Environmental Council Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation Iowa Heartland Resource Conservation & Development Council Iowa Valley Resource Conservation & Development Council Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Three Rivers Resource Conservation & Development Council Hiawatha Valley Resource Conservation & Development Council Anoka Conservation District The Practice of RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS A One-day Regional Seminar Des Moines February 22, 2001 Minneapolis /St. Paul Area February 23. 2001 The practice of restoring native ecosystems is not only becoming more common, it is becoming a more crucial element in the effort to maintain natural systems and habitats. A brad cross- section of professionals is involved in the restoration and creation of ecosystems across the country and around the world. The restoration of degraded ecosystems, or the creation of new ones, can be a powerful tool on environmental stewardship. This seminar will examine the principles behind the concept of restoration as well as important ".iies, approaches, and techniques. Case studies .il be included to provide real -world examples a show how you can apply what you learn in our own projects. Topic outline • Defining ecological restoration and other key terminology • Ecological health assessment and planning • The elements of good design • The science of wetland ecology • Streambank restoration • Bioengineering • Prairie ecosystems • Woodland and savanna systems • Pond edge aquascaping • Best management practices (BMPs) • Maintenance needs for long -term success • Role of stormwater management • Urban corridors and greenway restoration • Habitat restoration techniques • Discussion/conclusion What you will learn ❑ You'll learn about the most progressive techniques being used in the restoration of a variety of ecosystems. O You'll learn the components of a good design and how to base that design on a clear understanding of historic ecosystems and current ecological systems. ❑ You'll learn the importance of biodiversity. ❑ You'll learn more about wetland, prairie, and upland systems, and explore the areas of streambank stabilization, pond edge aquascaping, and bioengineering. ❑ You'll have the opportunity to interact and share ideas with others involved in restoration. What others are saying "Steve and Bill showed the process of restoration on a level that was easy to grasp." Robert Jones, President, Timber Creek Design, Inc. Bloomington, IL "Informative, well worth it, very entertaining." -- Patrick O'Neill, Lake Manager, Lake Carroll Association, Lake Carroll, IL "Steve and Bill make a great team — science and experience coupled with design and experience." —Lisa Paschal, City Horticulturist, City of Fayettevilk, Arkansas "...On the cutting edge of the new science of restoration ecology." -David Boyd, Director, Planning & Information Systems, East West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, Missouri Who should attend The Restoring Native Ecosystems seminar is designed to benefit individuals engaged in the broad range of disciplines involved in restoration: ❑ Environmental planners ❑ Conservation engineers O Landscape architects ❑ Public works officials ❑ Restorationists, volunteer and professional ❑ Nature center directors ❑ Foresters ❑ Land improvement contractors ❑ Natural resource managers O Ecologists ❑ Biologists O Geologists ❑ Water Scientists ❑ Conservation district staff members ❑ Wildlife managers ❑ Professors and students of related disciplines ❑ Anyone interested in restoration How you will benefit Restoring Native Ecosystems is a unique seminar presented by two highly qualified professionals with in-depth knowledge of restoration and extensive practical experience with a variety of ecosystems and bioengineering projects. The presentation is fast - paced, loaded with information and concepts you can profit from and use. This continuing education program deals in the practical. It includes helpful visual aids that bring actual restoration projects into the seminar. Lectures, group feedback and case studies teach important concepts you'll be able to use in your future projects. You'll have the opportunity for one -on -one and group discussion with others who share your concerns and problems. You'll receive practical materials to use during the seminar that will serve as a valuable reference guide you'll use again and again. Meet your instructors Steven Apfelbaum is one of the leading research and consulting ecologists in the U.S. involved with ecosystem restoration. Founder and owner of Applied Ecological Services, Brodhead, Wisconsin, a pioneering restoration consulting and contracting firm, Apfelbaum has over 20 years experience in ecological research, design and implementation. A frequent keynote speaker at ecological seminars, Apfelbaum is recognized nationally as an expert in wetland creation and restoration, and has been published extensively on the restoration of wetlands, prairies, oak savannas and woodland systems. He eamed a master's degree/in ecological science from the University of Illinois at Urbana. William Young William Young is manager of restoration projects with The Dawson Corporation, a design -build landscape restoration contracting fum located in Clarksburg, New Jersey. A registered landscape architect, he specializes in ecosystems restoration. Bill earned a B.S. in environmental science/landscape architecture from SUNY College of Forestry and an M.S. in urban design from Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, NY. He has lectured at various conferences including the Harvard Graduate School of Design Manufactured Sites Conference and the National Arbor Day Foundation's National Conference on The Practice of Restoring Native Ecosystems. Bill's projects have included implementing low- maintenance landscapes and wildlife habitat on corporate lands, as well as streambank restoration and bioengineering. General Information Schedule Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. The seminar will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude at approximately 4:00 p.m. Tuition This all -day seminar is $125 per person ($150 if registration is received within 7 days of the seminar). Included are all training and reference materials, a networking lunch, and refreshment breaks. Locations Des Moines, IA: Des Moines Botanical Center 909 E. River Drive Des Moines, IA Minneapolis Bunker Hills Regional Park St. Paul Area, MN: Activity Center 550 Bunker Lake Blvd. Andover, MN Cancellations A full refund is available for cancellations made 7 days prior to the seminar. If you must cancel within 7 days of the seminar, you may send a substitute from your organization. Overnight Accommodations The National Arbor Day Foundation has a block of rooms available for each seminar. For the Iowa seminar, contact Holiday Inn Downtown; 1050 6' Ave.; Des Moines, IA at 515- 283 -0151. The rate is $79.95 and reservations must be made by January 31. For the Minnesota seminar, contact Country Suites; 155 Coon Rapids Blvd.; Coon Rapids, MN at 612- 780 -3797. The rate is $82.95 and reservations must be made by January 22. Registration Restoring Native Ecosytems Seminar (Please check the appropriate city and date.) ❑ Des Moines, IA • February 22, 2001 #3564 ❑ Minneapolis/St. Paul Area, MN ' February 23, 2001 #3571 For immediate registration: CALL (toll free) 888 -448 -7337 or 402-474-5655 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. CT) OR FAX to 402 - 474 -0820 OR MAIL this form to "Restoring Native Ecosystems" The National Arbor Day Foundation P.O. Box 81415, Lincoln, NE 68501 -1415• OR ONLINE at www.arborday.org /meseminar (Please print) ❑ Mr. ❑ Ms. Title Organization Address City State Zip Phone ( ) Fax ( ) Method of payment: ❑ American Express ❑ Master Cana ❑ VISA ❑ Discover . card # exp. name on card ❑ Check or Money Order enclosed (payable to The National Arbor Day Foundation) ❑ Purchase Order enclosed Registration fee: ❑ Early registration fee (7 days prior to seminar) $125.00 ❑ Regular registration fee (within 7 days of seminar) $150.00 Important: Priority Code If there Is a number in the upper right corner of the mailing label, please indicate the last four digits above (even if the brochure was not addressed to you). ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : November 29, 2000 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:25 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus (excused at 7:56 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Brian Wessel (part), and City Planner Jeff Smyser. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 25, 2000 — The following corrections we quested: Page 2, 6th paragraph, " Kukonen moved to nd avoidance of piecemeal development, and does not suppo 'nue• oad expansion or development until a comprehensive plan for the are . • completed and approved. Page 3, 8th paragraph, co %•`♦ ;'n_ the word "habitat." Davidson moved to approve ' tober 25, 2000 meeting minutes as amended above. Kukonen seconded the motion otion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the meeting agenda: • E -Mail Discussion The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, asked if the Board is aware that plans are being made to expand Highway 49 into a four lane highway, which would double its current size. She stated her concern about the potential loss of the beautiful country atmosphere in Lino Lakes. Ms. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Grundhofer commented on the importance of maintaining highway ditches to protect wildlife including frogs and birds. She urged the Board to consider construction methods that assure the protection of the natural habitat and environment. Chair Lanyon stated this highway project has not yet come before the Board. Ms. Grundhofer stated this potential project has been considered by Anoka County for several months and the Lino Lakes City Council has also discussed it. Wessel suggested that City Engineer John Powell attend the next Board meeting to provide a project update. Mach asked if Anoka County is open to compromise when designing this road project. Wessel stated he believes there will be the opportunity for compromise, noting the County Engineer is concerned with addressing road safety issues. _ No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Dellwood LLC/NE Quadrant of 35W and '� — A leson explained this project had been reviewed previously by the Environment a ' oard who indicated a desire for implementation of tree preservation practi ._ • ludi i moving trees from the site that may be saved by tree spading, stockpiling, . . g back onto the site; to promote infiltration as much as possible; to ativ aterials from upland to wetland; and landscaping consistent with the .w "' enter design. Asleson presented this pr ► °ect fo T• t SuperStore and requested general comments from the Board concern _ ,_., viro ental preservation and restoration. He advised that Target has taken a strong im ► r ,' with environmental protection and reviewed the awards they have received inc ding specifics of their successful recycling program. Wessel explained that Dellwood LLC is the developer and Ryan Construction is the entity that will build the project. He reviewed the other firms involved with the project, noting that Target is driving the project. He reviewed the permitting schedule which indicates Target would break ground in May of 2001 and be open 2002. Wessel emphasized the need to raise the major issues of concern early in this process and encouraged the Board to contact staff should other concerns arise. John Payton, Parsons Transportation Group, Minneapolis, introduced his company and background with Target Stores. Mr. Payton then introduced Jeff Fulner and his background in development. He acknowledged that this site contains serious environmental concems and stated he wants to assure everything is appropriately designed and engineered. Mr. Payton noted the many meetings that will be held where this project will be discussed to assure all concerns are resolved. 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Mr. Payton stated preliminary wetland delineation will be started next week and done again in the spring to assure the correct boundaries are identified. Tree tagging to identify species and caliper inch will be conducted as well as a survey of the locations. He stated they will also survey the boundaries of the property. Wessel advised that the exact location of Apollo Drive is in litigation and a court opinion will be rendered in about a month. He reviewed the projects proposed for that area and that of the Dellwood LLC project under consideration tonight. Mr. Payton presented a diagram of the subject site, noting the location of the roadways and City right -of -way. He advised of the Target Superstore concept for 174,000 square feet that includes an Archer Farms grocery component, deli, bakery, pharmacy, photoshop, Starbucks Coffee, Crispy Cream Donuts, and a fast food such as Burger King. He stated he was involved with the Target Store in Forest Lake which was also developed on a difficult site. Mr. Payton pointed out the loading dock area to the back of the building and screening in that area. Mr. Payton addressed the storm water issues by exp ni e stormwater analysis and how they will assure adequate pond capacity. H v sed o existing soil types and explained the predevelopment condition for a torm event. He stated a two - pond system with a NURP and bounce component considered and drainage would be handled with the incorporation of a berm t Ric reek Water Management Organization (WMO) standards for graduat< He estimated a four -foot bounce during a 100 -year event which wi cco i odated by the surrounding berms to assure the correct rate of discharge. - it ould take 48 hours for that bounce retainage to dissipate. Mr. P . '``er the wetlands are delineated and trees surveyed, they will be ab o pr e : etter topographical map. Wessel stated staff has met • four times with the developer and Ryan Construction made a preliminary presentati •. at the Council worksession last Wednesday. Discussion by staff has related to the architectural expression of these structures to assure it is consistent with the Town Center. Wessel advised that staff has also discussed the location of the buildings in relation to Lake Drive. Asleson explained an option raised by the City Engineer to use biofiltration along the pond edge along Apollo Drive to create a natively planted and aesthetically pleasing feature. Another option raised was underground power lines. Mr. Payton stated they will do an air quality sampling and a traffic analysis. He stated they are excited about the concepts being raised for parking lot depressions and islands, on -site pond infiltration, and native pond vegetation. Mr. Payton noted the location of a remnant parcel that cannot be developed and stated staff is determining if it could be utilized in some fashion. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Trehus noted that 14 cubic feet per second would be going into the third pond and asked if that runoff would leave the site. Mr. Payton stated it would not leave the site and the water would back up behind the berm. Davidson asked if the goal is to keep the rate of runoff to the level it is prior to development. Mr. Payton answered affirmatively. Chair Lanyon stated it is important to the Board to not increase runoff and to also improve water quality. Other concerns relate to requiring down focused lighting to eliminate night time spill, minimizing impervious surfaces in general, and creating green spaces. Mr. Payton explained that the longitude and latitude of the store are submitted to a security agency who reviews the incidents of theft, homicide, etc. and uses a master formula to determine the security level which relates to the intensity of the lighting plan. He stated their willingness to work with the City to assure adequate lighting while also assuring security for their customers. Mr. Payton stated will present a sample of the downlit lighting fixtures which Target uses along with foot -candle calculations. Chair Lanyon agreed that safety is paramount an lights be kept as low as possible while assuring safety is addressed. Donlin stated it is admirable that Target h that a big box project is being considered in Target rather than a Wal -Mart and IF i greenway corridor is being pro Asleson stated a standard the type of developmen parking lot depressions and cling effort but she is crestfallen es. She stated she is supportive of a of involved. Donlin asked what type of red pond will be required on this site no matter e creative ideas being discussed with biofiltering, Trehus stated the Board wants to see natural preservation within Lino Lakes while areas develop and encouraged innovation to preserve trees, etc. Mr. Payton stated this is a preliminary plan and more cannot be done until the tree survey is completed. Also, the site must meet the Rice Creek WMO requirements for a runoff rate of two cubic feet. Mr. Paton stated that he believes they have presented a worse case scenario and the numbers will be lower once the project is designed. Donlin asked how this site can be "green" once the drainage is acceptable to the Rice Creek WMO and City. She reviewed the previous effort made to assure Lino Lakes remains a green city and asked how this project can be developed to assure those goals are met. Mr. Payton explained every project has "needs" and "wants" that have to be quantified. The "needs" are a requirement of the project and one need is to provide five parking stalls • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 per 1,000 square feet. A retailer's needs and the City's needs also relate to the number of parking stalls. Donlin commented on the importance of assuring balance in all developments including economics, culture, and environment. Kukonen asked if pervious parking surfaces have been considered for this project. Mr. Payton stated that would have to be looked at in relation to high volume of traffic and the need to assure emergency vehicle access. Chair Lanyon asked if the current site plan impacts existing wetlands. Mr. Payton stated it does. Mach stated his concern with impacting the type and amount of vegetation that will survive. He stated his agreement with Donlin and Trehus related to the lack of green space and high volume of drainage that would be directed into these ponds. Asleson noted the location of significant trees. Mr. Payton commented on the importance of this that following the tree survey and wetland deli project to resolve the concerns being expressed to impact the wetland but they will work tow present on this site. of di b.; d assured the Board ey ill be better able to design a He stated that this project will preserve the natural elements Chair Lanyon stated it has been projects due to the difficul with that City image. He a project that matches spaces. ino Lakes would not consider big box w a Target Superstore could be consistent ill be the challenge to the developer, to develop ge, which will take a lot of creativity and green Davidson stated she walked this property several years ago and knows there are significant trees on this site. She recommended that as part of the green feature, all trees possible be preserved. Wessel stated those trees are located on property that is not part of this project. He suggested that if the Board believes this is a critical entryway parcel, the Board may want to consider whether the parcel should remain under City ownership to assure the trees and trail connections are preserved. Trehus asked if there is some leeway in building design to eliminate the long straight wall design. Wessel stated that issue was raised by the Council as well and during the Council worksession, the architect presented some architectural designs including building materials that better match the Town Center and pedestrian environment. He stated they found the Target representatives and development team have been very willing to discuss 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 those options. Wessel stated there will be more building articulation but agreed it will be a major challenge to deal with this big box concept. Chair Lanyon raised the issue of native plantings and the Board's desire to assure they are included in the planting plan. Mach suggested that the oak savanna be incorporated and intermingled into the parking areas along with native plantings. O'Connell stated all Target stores have a lit logo (a red bullseye) and asked if that is being proposed. Mr. Payton stated this project will meet the City's sign ordinance requirements. Smyser stated staff has not yet looked at the signage plan but agreed it will be reviewed during the project review process. Trehus left the meeting at 7:56 p.m. O'Connell asked about signage that would face Lake Driv Mr. Payton stated that he does not have specific sizes but monument signs will b : esigned that meet the sign ordinance. Wessel noted this is the Lino Lakes Tow CegE and the objective will be to identify that aspect and assure the lighting, signs c. all � gether. Donlin asked if the sign ordinance had been comp will know of the location of this Target an "TARGET" sign is needed. Chair Lanyon summarized that meet the image they have for work to resolve those co ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD B She pointed out that everyone believe a large sized bullseye or any concerns about how this project can encouraged the developers to continue their this project closer to that image. A. Minnesota DNR / Wildland Interface Project / Peggy Sand — Asleson reviewed the City's involvement with the Wildland Interface Project which incorporates smart growth. He introduced Peggy Sand, Metro Region Forestry Manager and Wildlife Interface Project Manager. Ms. Sand explained the DNR has a reputation of managing its own land and placing regulations on other land but, in the metro area, the DNR owns very little land and is not as effective as they'd like to be to provide guidance and assistance to communities. She commented on the different regulations of local communities and explained they are trying to create cohesive, consistent, and well -timed assistance to communities and landowners. In that effort, a guidebook is being created for landowners. Ms. Sand stated the other component of this project is the local unit of government project to establish a set of materials and determine what they would recommend for 6 • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 various projects. She stated they received federal funding for this component and decided to work with the cities of Hugo and Lino Lakes on this project. Ms. Sand noted the information provided to the Board which detailed a permitting process time line indicating this project would be completed in August or September of 2001. She reviewed their primary activities will include the development of a checklist for natural resource guidance, conducting natural resource inventory and assessments, and to provide information and assistance to local communities. Ms. Sand asked if the Board is working on other plans and policies on which they would like DNR involvement. She stated they would also like to provide some voluntary input to work with developers. Ms. Sand provided a detailed list of what the DNR would like to produce as part of the Wildland Interface Project to help local units, a checklist for natural resource inventory and analysis checklist, a checklist for addressing natural resources in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and a checklist for a site based management plan for natural areas. Ms. Sand also provided a copy of the Best Management Practices in Minnesota booklet entitled Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities. Ms. Sand displayed a digital aerial photograph of the S Club property depicting land cover classification data including different vegetal E= c r 9 , unities, imperviousness, forest, non - native, and wetland areas. She also p • ed m s, entifying the level of disturbance and map of tree canopy cover whi • ,� , envi onmental benefits. Ms. Sand stated they intend to do mapping for the site he elementary school that may be developed. Asleson reviewed the site to the w the no Lakes Elementary that is currently under a purchase agreement for devel ► e ed the trail corridor alignment and advised of the uses of the property to Ms. Sand stated Metro planning grant and land acq of that information. Asleson ff reviewed the site to consider the potential for a assistance. She presented Chair Lanyon with copies ised of possible involvement with the Anoka Conservation District to assist with grant writing. Mach stated this property by the school is valuable and asked if the Board can do anything to assure it is protected. Asleson stated the Board can support a statement encouraging that preservation. Chair Lanyon stated in the past, the Board has not made specific recommendations about particular sites that need to be saved. He indicated support to move toward that position and suggested the development of a statement to the City Council emphasizing the importance of preserving this site, noting it contains an almost pristine wetland and abuts a school. Smyser stated it is admirable to look at areas to protect. He explained that as the City Planner, he needs to address many different aspects and one of the first things the City 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Council will want to know is "why." Smyser noted the City operates on a lean budget so a list of very good reasons should accompany such a recommendation. Chair Lanyon stated he would like the Council to be made aware of the fact that there are areas in Lino Lakes that are environmentally valuable and should be preserved. Asleson advised that the planning and land acquisition grant applications are due January 20, 2000. Ms. Sand noted it may not be fee title ownership but, rather, easement acquisition. She stated it may be appropriate to talk with the land owner since the grant may not be approved if the project does not have the support of the land owner. Kukonen stated he believes there are many in the community who believe this area is more important with its variety of plant life and wildlife than even the Wargo Nature Center. Asleson suggested a dialogue between the developer and land owner to determine the intent of the developer. Ms. Sand reviewed her conversa ', *n with the developer and stated the developer was provided with conservation e ent information. Smyser suggested this topic be discussed at the n ounci E,,:. ksession to determine if they will entertain the idea of purchasing this �3, =�" Co cil does not support a purchase, it may not be prudent to continue the pr Chair Lanyon noted the City's indication th to be a "green community" and suggested there is no better way t save uch a site with endangered species. Davidson suggested that repr ; -.� ta. { s o ` e Board attend the Council worksession. Chair Lanyon and O'Co will plan to attend. Smyser stated that Asleson will present this issue b cil. B. Lino Lakes Population / Am 1 onlin — Donlin distributed a written statement on the growth of Lino Lakes, noting it was 74% during the decade of the 1990s. At this rate of increase, the population of Lino Lakes jumped from 8,807 in 1990 to 15,324 at the end of the decade. She explained that to avoid surpassing the City's published goal of not exceeding 20,500 by the year 2020, no more than 5,176 new residences can be added, or an average of 257 newcomers per year for the next 20 years. She indicated support to assure the population goal is not over reached. Davidson stated she shares the concern for population growth. She noted the comment indicating "city officials adopted another figure" may not accurately reflect what occurred during the process of drafting the Comprehensive Plan, which has not yet been adopted. Donlin stated the Board sees projects first and, thus, should say things first if it thinks something is awry. Smyser updated the Board on the progress of the Comprehensive Plan. He advised that this population data is well known by the staff and Council. 8 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Chair Lanyon requested quarterly reports on housing starts and commented on the difficulty of managing growth that is too rapid. C. Development Concerns / Birch Street and Centerville Road - This item was tabled to the December 27, 2000 meeting. D. Property North of Lino Lakes Elementary - This item was discussed as part of Item 6A. PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES A. Environmental Education — This item was tabled to the December 27, 2000 meeting. B. Forestry Updates — This item was tabled to the December 27, 2000 meeting. C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled the December 27, 2000 meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. E -Mail Discussion - Since Trehus was not in atte ce, this item was tabled to the December 27, 2000 meeting. B. Status of Sign Ordinance - O'C Ordinance. Asleson stated that project, the City has not fo explained this is a very 1 d regarding the status of the Sign discussion as part of the McDonald's a revision to its current Sign Ordinance. He elieves a Sign Ordinance overhaul is needed. Asleson advised that a Ligh dinance revision has been included in the 2001 budget. He reported the Tree Preserva •n Ordinance was reviewed twice by the Planning Commission and they have directed major revisions on which staff is working. O'Connell requested a copy of the Sign Ordinance. C. December Agenda Items - Chair Lanyon requested the December agenda include a discussion of the Highway 49 Expansion, Elementary School property, Environmental Board Authority, and the Dellwood LLC/Target Project. Chair Lanyon stated the Board wants to establish a relationship with developers to provide basic general guidelines that can be incorporated into their project design prior to presentation before the Environmental Board. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2000 Smyser stated the Environmental Board's responsibility does not include giving direction to developers. Rather, that direction should be given to staff so they can work with developers and that information will then be reported back to the Board. Mach asked that an agenda item be included to discuss the process under which the Board operates so it can assure environmental issues are incorporated into the plan. Chair Lanyon agreed with the benefit of being more proactive than reactive, which may be helped by becoming involved with the ordinances. Smyser encouraged the Board to keep staff informed of their concerns so they can be raised and resolved by the developer. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on December 27, 2000. Chair Lanyon advised that he is not available on December 27 There being no further business, Donlin moved to adjo Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, 10 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : October 25, 2000 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:24 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Rod Kukonen, Dave Mach, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : Chair Scott Lanyon and Theresa O'Connell. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Davidson called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 30, 2000 - Kukonen requested a corre to a apoved August 30, 2000 meeting minutes, Page 2, tenth paragraph, to 'ndic w Mill Golf Course" rather than Sawtooth Golf Course. September 27, 2000 — The follow co do ere requested: Page 3, eighth paragraph: "D to recommend the following items be addressed: retention of • to ater ..." Page 6, fifth para_ av moved to recommend the following items be addressed: providm ual • ffer between ..." Page 7, seven stated they woul "Trehus asked about the trees on the site. Mr. Fairbrother Trehus moved to approve the September 27, 2000 meeting minutes as amended above. Mach seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the meeting agenda: • Discuss Development at the Intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road • Discuss Lino Lakes Population • Discuss Property North of School and Potential as a City Park 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Highland Meadows West/Second Addition — Asleson noted that the Environmental Board reviewed subdivision proposals for Highland Meadows and Bluebill Ponds in September of 1999. The area to the north of Highland Meadows was reviewed as future expansion. At this time, the developer has submitted a plan to develop the second addition of Highland Meadows West. The area includes a proposal to build two lots around three existing lots and road expansion to access these lot ording to staff inventory, there are no significant vegetation types in this are Surf • water issues have not yet been addressed with the watershed. However, st. as ; e c.' cerns with the greenway issues in the area Asleson presented a map . 'the 'te ggested the Board address the issue that this should not be phased in fob •me j ithout a comprehensive plan for the entire area. Vice Chair Davidson asked how this fits with the 1 Ponds development. Asleson stated Bluebill Ponds is located to the w Asleson advised of the concern of wetland mitigation was done o greenway corridor was discu into the plans. trail and greenway areas. He noted the of Main Street and, at that time, a lineal ented on how that greenway could be worked Kukonen moved to idance of piecemeal development, and does not support continued ro pansi • n or development until a comprehensive plan for the area to the north is • plete . _ approved. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried with Trehus vo B. Saddle Club — A son explained the Saddle Club project was reviewed at the September 27, 2000 meeting. The developer has submitted a new sketch plan. He noted the colored map provided by the developer indicating the total site area, total upland, wetland, trees to remain, and those to be removed. He stated he reviewed this information in comparison to the GIS map and the developer has determined the number of lots he needs to make it work. Asleson reviewed the greenway alignment and mentioned the types of soils and • vegetation found on this site. He stated this is a good area to consider for conservation development. Asleson pointed out the areas of wetland delineation and wetland vegetation. He also noted the areas of historic oak savanna and potential for trail locations. He advised this property is just outside the identified greenway expansion area, however, those ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this site is half in MUSA and half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources, and conservation development so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project. Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asleson stated he believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, it would create the desired buffers. Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and tree stands to strike a balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reas ' - to conserve. He stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the we Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, addressed their intent to soften the hard surface ar housing would be deeded for a conserva as to be developed ped and those to be ation. He pointed out po . Mr. Fairbrother stated all areas not platted for Vice Chair Davidson asked how w the ds ould be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road width is negotiable, depending e. the wants. Mach stated this plan is w habituate, suffers with be continued, diver wildlife is present. gh :.;, but he has found upland, which provides ects. e stated if a conservation easement program is to types needs to be considered to assure a diversity of Asleson expl • ' areas depicted on the map do not identify areas of open water. Mach stated he w = ld be willing to see some trees removed if it would save some upland and provide diverse nesting habitat and animals. Asleson stated the GIS data for this site would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations. Asleson asked about the number of lots and how it relates to the project. Mr. Fairbrother stated it would be a more appropriate to ask John Hill to address whether it is economically feasible. Ken Adolph, representing the applicant, explained that John Hill was unable to attend the meeting tonight. He stated they feel that 64 lots are needed to make this project fmancially feasible and if the lot number were to be reduced, they may return with a request for higher density, such as townhomes. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Trehus stated he is disappointed in this proposal and it being represented as a conservation development. He stated he believes a conservation development results in tradeoffs with a lower density. He noted that 25 acres of upland would equal about 50 homes and he would not support more than 50 homes on this site. Trehus commented on the amount of impervious surface and stated he believes the entire concept of conservation development is being shifted, which he does not support. Kukonen asked about Option A for 49 lots. Mr. Fairbrother stated that is the large lot option which they proposed at an earlier meeting. However, that is now off the table at this point based on the comments made at the last meeting indicating a desire for smaller sized lots. Kukonen asked when the property will all be included in the M sleson stated he is not aware of when MUSA will be expanded. Mr. Adolph stated at the last meeting, it was discussed drawn through the middle of this property. He advi indicated they will develop the property in two phas redrawn, possibly with tradeoffs in other area was arbitrarily Development has t the MUSA line be Mr. Adolph stated the single family area ses'' e of the upland area and the intent of the conservation development is to clus lopment with smaller lots. However, in the economic analysis, one larg not equate to a smaller sized cluster lot. --- Asieson inquired regardi to $180,000 is the base ce ._e of these homes. Mr. Adolph stated $ 160,000 op ' . ns which could increase the price to $200,000. Trehus asked how a erati • n of townhomes was raised. Mr. Adolph stated more of the upland acr te, a coul• etained and placed in the conservation easement with a higher density owes. He reviewed the applicant's conversation from the last meeting in 'n: a ey did not want the conservation easement line to run through private homes w _„ this revised site plan addresses. Trehus noted the number of lots also increased from 49 to 63. Mr. Adolph stated that is correct because one large lot does not equal one small lot. Mr. Fairbrother stated they propose 50 -foot buffers from all wetlands. Trehus asked if they are aware of the typical road right -of -way width in Lino Lakes. Mr. Adolph stated they are proposing a 50 -foot right -of -way. Trehus stated the requirement is for 60 feet and asked what the impact would be. Mr. Fairbrother noted this is a PUD so there would be some consideration for flexibility about road width and lot sizes. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Mr. Adolph explained that providing a 60 -foot right -of -way would push the homes closer to the roadway. He suggested that a 50 -foot right -of -way is adequate for streets in this development. Donlin stated she does not necessarily agree that smaller sized cluster lots with a conservation easement are of less value than a larger sized lot. She suggested less value would result in placing an additional 15 homes in this area due to added congestion. Donlin stated the quality of life would be better and the desired value could still be achieved if those additional 15 homes were removed. Mr. Adolph stated in this case, they are not considering a small sized lot to be of equal value to a larger sized lot. Donlin stated she realizes this is a PUD so consideration of V y, etc. is given but she is not sure this high number of homes is a necessity. Mr. Adolph stated with this development, there will be o sociation to address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would pr i townhomes without having a partywall. Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be sm hich meets a market demand and need for those who are downsizing or e rs. Vice Chair Davidson agreed with g the desirability for smaller lots if it contains the same amenities, vi , an• wer houses. Asleson asked if lots of Hill would be able to wo ell in the marketplace. Mr. Adolph stated Mr. t que tion. Donlin stated she ap ' tes the better viewsheds with this plan but she does not think it is fair to then 15 'di creates more congestion. Mr. Fairbrother conservation issu ed ' hen the point of economics of the development and the balance out. Vice Chair Davidson noted that Option C was discussed at the last meeting, not Option A. She asked if there is an option somewhere between Option A and Option C, to create fewer lots and more open spaces. Mach stated the role of the Board is to address the environmental aspects and while he agrees not much has been gained environmentally, he is sensitive to the economic issues. Asleson stated they bought the land to develop into houses and the question being asked is how few homes can be built and the project still work. He noted the developer has addressed issues of buffering and greenway. Asleson stated the developer will have to 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 address the density and financial economics. He explained that 2.5 -acre lots are not part of a conservation development, as they can be subdivided in the future. Vice Chair Davidson agreed and noted that large lots are also not conducive to wildlife corridors or contiguous areas. Trehus noted that with this plan the number of lots has been increased and the road right - of -way reduced, which is a win -win situation for the developer but not the City. He suggested there should be some tradeoffs for the City to benefit and asked if a formal application has been made. Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made. Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive t •` couples and empty nesters so there would be a lower population. To increase viewsheds, Donlin suggested Lots 7, 34, 35 . be removed. Trehus stated he would like to see the calculations 6%Jmp o surfaces. Mach asked if it is up to the association to address eservation. Asleson reviewed several tree preservation/protection opt' • s u _ y other communities and commented on the importance of assuring City inpu nto thou issues. The Environmental Board indic preservation. ENVIRONMENTAL BOA A. Landscape Ordin evie requested Bo comme During discuss' II. DEFINITION Page 2: "Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who undertakes to improve change a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon." SS r a fewer number of lots and more upland - Asleson presented the draft Landscape Ordinance and ollowing revisions were made: Page 3: "Native vegetation means vegetation, composed of native plants, that teen of normative spccies are indigenous to the area." III. APPLICABILITY 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Page 4, B2: "Upon submittal, the City environmental staff and/or Environmental Board will review ... " Page 4, B3: "For any project that requires a Landscape /Screening plan, the City environmental staff and/or Environmental Board will make ..." Page 4, C: "The requirements of this Section are separate from the City's Street Shade Tree Ordinance ..." IV. LANDSCAPE/SCREENING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Page 5, 8: "Table summarizing new plants by scientific and common name, size, root condition type, and quantity." Page 5, B, 1, a): ". including non -plant elements. In the eve City will use eft a regionally -based wholesale nursery catalog . V. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQ Page 6, A, 2: "The City encourages the planting o tive to the extent feasible. When using native vegetation species, an effo • oul '- be m i e ..." disagreement, the Page 7, B, 3, a): "... streets or abutting op ' ; in designated for different zoning diets land use." Page 7, 4: "Screens shall consi etati •'' and other landscape elements. Berms, walls, and fences may be use n with plant materials. Screens incorporating p lan materials are refe iii►:. ' Page 7, C: B • dete to not address outdoor displays. Page 7, C, 1, a): ° 1 -street parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from pu streets and abutting properties designated for single-family residential a different land uses." Page 7, C, 1, b): Board asked if the 3 feet in height size can be higher. Page 7, C, 1, c): Board asked consultant to decide. Page 7, C, 1, f): "Unless otherwise approved by the City in situations where infiltration is desired, islands within parking lots shall be edgeds with continuous curbing. However. the City encourages infiltration in these islands where ever possible." 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Page 8, C, 2, -a): Board asks if the term "mixed use" should be used rather than "special zoning districts." Page 8, C, 2, b), ADD: "All loading and outdoor storage area plans shall be subject to review by CPTED officer." Page 8, C, 3, a): "... shall be screened from abutting and surrounding public streets or property designated for different land uses." Page 8, C, 4, a): "... screened from all public streets and abutting property designated for different land uses with a fence, wall, or other enclosure six (6) feet in height." Page 8, C, 4, b): "... existing or future public street or property ated for reside} different land uses." VI. DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS Page 9, A: Board asked that separate paragraph be plant species and age. ss more diversity in Page 9, A, 2, ADD: Board asked language to be o allow use of seeds. Page 10, A, 5, a): "... plantings rdered with a strip of mowed grass..." Page 10, A, 5, d): "... tilled in . b -gr; •'e to a minimum depth of ceven (7) eight (8) to ten (10) inches ..." Page 10, A, 5, d): Asle ated e would work with the consultant on this subsection. Page 10, A, 6, ".. ent, etc.) so as to present a-neat-and an aesthetically ..." Page 11, 6, AD t' : of `d asked language to be added as a separate subsection to address not watering imp:.,- ious surfaces. Page 11, 6: ADD: Board asked language to be added as a separate subsection to address maintenance of native prairie grasses and diversity of plant edges. Page 11, B, 2, c): Board requested clarification as to earth berms being a maximum height of three feet and to assure the berms will support vegetation. Page 12, B, 4, b): "... All posts or supporting structures shall be on the inside of the screening structure unless the posts or supporting structures are part of the fence line itself." Page 12, B, 4, d): Board requested a clarification. 8 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 B. C. Page 12, B, 6, a): "... present a neat, an aesthetically pleasing ..." Vice Chair Davidson inquired how this ordinance, if adopted, can be enforced with the current level of City staff. Donlin agreed that inspection and enforcement will be a major component and this Board has previously expressed concern that the current staff level needs to be increased. DNR Project/Updates — This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000 meeting. Other Business - None. PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES A. Environmental Education — This item was tabled to the No B. Forestry Updates — This item was tabled to the Nove C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was to meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discuss Development at the Inte Donlin stated the trees have be Centerville Road and asked Preservation Ordinance dr.? res from their own prope • ted h B. Discuss Lino Lakes `u atio meeting. C. Discuss Prope 2000 meeting. eeting. ovember 29, 2000 h Street and Centerville Road - the intersection of Birch Street and een submitted. Asleson noted the Tree rivate property, owners from removing trees is not aware of any project application for this site. - This item was tabled to the November 29, 2000 o 'a of School and Potential as a City Park - This item was tabled to the November , 2000 meeting. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on November 29, 2000. There being no further business, Donlin moved to adjourn at 9:24 p.m. Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Lino Lakes Environmental Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 12/18/00 Re: Project Review /NE Quadrant Lake Dr and 35W /Update /Dec 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 2000 -1... PROJECT: NE /Quad /DelwoodLLC DATE OF ORIGIN: 11/21/00 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Discussions of this area started in May of 1998. Records attached. • Site Proposal includes large retail and several smaller retail stores. • There have been several meetings with the project representatives. • General overview to be given by Brian Wessel STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: Surface water treatment imperative Information from the Environmental Inventory, specific site inventory and recommendations from AES, Tree Inventory from previous development proposal, as well as specific modals on surface water treatment, and information on structural soil use has been given to the developers. Streetscape design and alternative transportation access need to be effective. • Very expensive commercial property • Developer has hired a reputable environmental consultant as part of their team. • Attraction of "Green Industry" • Greenway design Environmental Issues: The following identifies potential impacts to Environment. • Page 1 • large impervious surface /Lake water quality impact concerns. • oak woodland to south and miscellanius recentlydeveloped tree areas to north. • Several prairie and savanna areas previously identified by AES on freeway side. • Greenway consideration. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: Refer to the following references for information that may affect discussions related to this issue. Section 2 - Assessment of Needs • Completed by Brauer AES and presently being studied by consultants. Section 3 - Governing Polices • Creating a sustainable landscape requires a broader view that starts with the big picture or vision and moves Into a physical plan and set of action steps to achieve that vision. The 20/20 Vision Plan established the philosophical vision for the community that was the starting point for this study. Public response to the study clearly reiterates the ideals defined in the 20/20 plan, which are as follows: " Sustenance of The natural environment of Lino Lakes Through The protection and management of The wildlife, habitats, and other natural resources, and to • ass on to future residents a community rich in These Section 5 - Administration • Adopt a conservation development approach to planning as the working model for community development. Example was established with the construction of the Civic Complex. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: November 29, 2000 Environmental Board. See Draft Minutes. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: Position issues in Draft Minutes of November 29, 2000. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW : December 13, 2000. Mr. John Payton from Delwood LLC presented the site proposal the NE Quadrant of Lake Drive and 35 W. Brian Wessel introduced the intent of the meeting to be an open discussion of fundamental issues. Please find the draft minutes attached. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: • Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): • .. pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE:... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Please Refer to the Attached Schedule Revision Dated 12- 13 -00. PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE:- • Page 3 Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 12 B. Dellwood LLC, Concept Plan Staff reported it has been working with Dellwood LLC on a proposed retail development in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive/I -35W interchange consisting of a Target Superstore and six additional retail buildings. The project is still in the conceptual stage and going through the Preservation Development informal review process. The Environmental Board discussed the project at its last meeting. Staff presented the project layout, noting it follows a standard, suburban retail development model with a "big box" retail anchor (Target Superstore) and a number of "satellite" retail locations. Other than the location of the extended Apollo Drive east of Lake Drive, the project bears little relation to the Town Center design of Calthorpe that has been the focus of discussion for some time. Staff presented its analysis of the concept plan, noting the City Council directed staff to work with the developer to incorporate desirable architectural elements while acknowledging and accepting that the project depart m the overall vision represented by the Calthorpe design for a traditional neighbor velopment. Mr. Wessel reviewed staff's work with Dellw Rehbein. He advised they have a fairly a_ 1 es neighborhood meeting has been planned t reviewed the anticipated constructio to the Planning and Zoning Board. John Paton, Paton Transporta city engineer. Mr. Paton ex with a grocery store componen additional uses that include a deli, shop. C who is purchasing the land from si nstruction schedule and a eral community input. Mr. Wessel considerations that will be presented of the consultants working on this project. troduced himself as a consultant and former a Target Superstore is like a Target Greatland eviewed the square footage to be constructed and rispy Cream Donuts, fast foot restaurant, and coffee Mr. Paton reviewed their work to address site enhancements to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment including sidewalk concepts, main street theme, architectural enhancements such as pavers and tree grates, and enhanced site lines. He noted the location of existing trees, ponding areas, roadway alignment, and location of screening opportunities. Mr. Paton addressed the existing sandy soil conditions and how structures will be designed to allow water to permeate. He stated that in order to maintain water runoff rates, a two pond NURP system will be developed to assure water quality and quantity. He pointed out the wetland area that would accommodate the runoff "bounce" prior to discharge. Mr. Paton stated a berm would be constructed to create a water retainage area. Mr. Paton pointed out the location of utilities that would serve this project. He explained how the site would be graded and areas created for screening and berming. Mr. Paton stated they will work with staff to address how to minimize the amount of storm water Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 13 runoff. Mr. Paton stated they want to work with the Board to address their vision and apply what they would like to see in this project. Mr. Wessel stated the intention tonight is to open discussion on the fundamental issues of this project. He explained how discussion had occurred which resulted in relocating the Target Superstore closer to the freeway to create more of an entry area. He stated the City is negotiating how the character of this project will have a connection with the Village located to the south. Mr. Wessel noted this project will be more automobile oriented when compared to the Village which will remain a mixed use concept and more pedestrian oriented. He stated the development team will explore how to tie the buildings, materials, and exterior elements so it "reads" as one Town Center and create a unique identity. Mr. Wessel stated this is only the beginning of the discussion on this project. Mr. Paton stated their intention to bring in some of the elements present on the bank building with roof peaks and arched doorways. He noted the architectural relief being provided to the front elevations, pointing out the Archer Farms doorway on the right side and Target entrance on the left side. Mr. Paton revie, materials and their attempt to address elements on desire to include features the City and commun the proposed exterior building trian scale. He stated their to see. Chair Schaps asked about potential tenant or t er retail space. Mr. Paton stated he does not have that information. Mr. Wessel stated the intent woul.t; ,,,v a entire project committed prior to breaking ground. He suggested th ti ►~ be asked at the January meeting. Ms. Lane asked about the 1 ther Target Superstores. Mr. Paton advised of their location, noting none are .. ► - ned for business. He offered to bring a short video tape to the next meeting for the B B'ard's review. Mr. Rafferty raised the option of designing an entrance through the center of the parking lot with a tree -lined promenade to create a "grand entrance" feature. Mr. Paton stated they will bring a Target architect to a Board meeting to explain the interior working features and circulation. Mr. Rafferty stated he is suggesting a parking lot entrance, not necessarily a center building entrance. Mr. Paton reviewed the alignment of Apollo Drive and how that suggestion would result in a change of focus from Apollo Drive into the parking lot. He stated it may be possible to incorporate plantings into the southern portion of the parking lot to create a tree lined entrance feature. Chair Schaps asked if other communities have asked for this level of site and building enhancements. Mr. Paton stated they have not except for the front elevation relief. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Schilling asked about the thought process to place the Target building closer to the residential area. Mr. Paton stated there were site issues, screening from the driveway activity, and light fixtures. Ms. Lane asked if it would be a 24 -hour operation. Mr. Paton stated it is not. Ms. Lane asked how large the grocery component would be. Mr. Paton stated it would be 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the community response. Mr. Paton stated he has presented this concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, City Council, and Environmental Board and they are looking forward to the upcoming community meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2000. Mr. Powell explained it will be an open house format between the developer and residents. Mr. Wessel stated the Target Superstore concept has been well received by the Council and the concern has been to maintain the architectural integrity with the Town Center. C. Town Center Update Staff noted that the large project in the northe Superstore) was not designed as a traditio but, rather, is a standard suburban retail d vision and design standards will be r and that information can also be pr,: Mr. Smyser advised that the grant rather than the reques has resulted in the upcoming ant of the Town Center (Target rhood development with mixed uses . Staff stated the Town Center e Council at an upcoming workshop Planning and Zoning Board. unities Committee is recommending a $450,000 Ilion grant for implementing the Village Plan. This on of the City's goals and vision. Mr. Rafferty stressed that staff has worked hard to put this product together and the Metropolitan Council also stressed an urgency to assure funds are available for this project. He restated that staff did an excellent job and he would support staff's continued work toward those ideas. D. Tree Ordinance Update Chair Schaps offered his assistance with the proposed Tree Ordinance. Mr. Smyser thanked Chair Schaps for that offer and stated he has requested copies of tree ordinances from additional cities and will be study ways to address the issues raised by the Planning and Zoning Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane stated she will not be present at the January 10, 2001 meeting. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 7 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning ning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., December 13, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NO 8, 2000 2, Page 2 first paragraph: correct Ci .in r John Powell's name. Page 6, seventh paragraph: . Jo , son concurred with the impact to traffic." Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2000, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board as corrected, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining Chris Lyden owns 4.07 acres of property, zoned rural, at 6275 Holly Drive. Since the ordinance requires a minimum of ten acres in the rural zoning district, this property is a pre - existing non - conforming lot of record. Mr. Lyden would like to construct a 34 -foot by 64 -foot pole barn on the property using metal siding and roofing material. The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits metal siding and roofing material on properties less than five (5) acres in size. The proposed construction will meet the square footage requirement and setback requirements. Staff reviewed the findings of fact that need to be met for variance consideration and indicated staff does not believe this variance criteria can be met in this case since Mr. Lyden can construct a wood frame building, on footings without a slab, that would have a similar effect to a post frame building although it may be more costly. Staff advised it has received numerous requests for such construction and always discouraged the variance procedure because in most cases, the reques ere based on the additional construction costs. Staff presented its analysis of the request, not pplicant has described his hardship as follows: 1. Pole barn type construction is pref 2. Pole barn type construction, wi mid- engine all wood day cruis 3. Pole barn type constructio abl t s property due to questionable soils. nt floor, is necessary to preserve 1958 oisture factors. e threat of loss from grass fires. Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:37 p: Mr. Johnson inquired regarding the questionable soil issue and asked if they had been recently tested, or if fill soil was involved. Mr. Smyser stated he is unable to answer that question but, perhaps, the applicant could provide that information. Mr. Johnson noted a building that conforms to the Code can be constructed without a slab. He asked if that type of building can be constructed on questionable soils. Mr. Smyser stated he does not know. Mr. Corson asked if the concern is the corrugated siding due to the image and desire to have accessory buildings match the appearance of the house. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct as well as an attempt to keep less rural sized lots from being covered with pole barns since they are typically not the most aesthetically pleasing structures. He noted that pole barns are allowed on larger sized rural parcels. Mr. Corson asked if the property behind the applicant's land remains undeveloped so it would not infringe on a neighbor's rights. Mr. Smyser stated the surrounding property is wetland and he doubts a house could be built on it. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Rafferty noted the five -acre requirement and criteria of hardship on the owner based on the size of the lot. He stated it clearly appears that beyond the western half of the property, it is not buildable for anything. Directly to the north, it is clearly all wetland. Mr. Rafferty noted the City goes the extra mile to get permissions from the neighbors so they are aware of the request, but the ordinance draws some "lines in the sand" to protect the interests of the City for future development. Mr. Rafferty stated he spoke with the surrounding land owners and one neighbor, who has a large investment, stated he has seen these plans and agrees with the request if the pole barn is located on the southern portion. Mr. Rafferty asked if the front elevation would contain a formal setting such as a concrete apron. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Chris Lyden, applicant, stated it was not his plan to put a slab in front of the building but he has been considering some type of apron that the overhead door would come down on. He stated if it is the consent of the Board that a slab should be added, he would do so. Mr. Rafferty stated his concern that the front elev passerby. He suggested that a two to three foot Rafferty reviewed the recent request from the costs of the structure with a metal seam ro Mr. Schilling arrived at 6:43 p.m. tain a formal appearance to the provide that aspect. Mr. tikes Bank and inquired about the Mr. Lyden stated the issue is not o ut one of providing a quality building for his antique boat. He explaine ction as proposed would be more costly and he believes a wood type struc oncrete floor, due to its weight, is not appropriate for the site due to the wetland . Lyden advised that his front steps and other concrete slabs have dropped in ele ' ation so he believes a pole type structure is appropriate for this type of soil. With regard to the antique boat, Mr. Lyden explained that moisture would destroy it so the recommendation is for strong roof ventilation and no concrete floor. Chair Schaps stated his concern that during his eleven years on the Planning Commission, they have denied more than a dozen pole barn requests on this size of acreage. He stated he understands the soils issue, but no scientific or expert analysis on that aspect has been submitted. Because of that, he does not see how the specific findings of fact can be made to support a variance request while avoiding the establishment of a precedent. Chair Schaps noted the first criteria is whether the property can be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Thus, he can not conclude a wood barn cannot be constructed. The second criteria deals with special circumstances to the soils, which is not present since no scientific information has been presented. Chair Schaps stated the third criteria is to not convey a special privilege, which he believes approval would do since no scientific data has been provided. The fourth criteria to meet the intent of the ordinance has also not been met and upheld three times recently based on the aesthetic issues with a pole barn. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Lyden stated he is aware of those concerns and has taken that information into consideration when designing the pole barn. He stated that cost is not the issue, rather, it is the quality of the building. He noted the added aesthetics resulting from the 5:12 roof pitch of the pole barn to match that of the house, the wainscot style of siding, two foot overhang, and overhead garage style door. Mr. Lyden pointed out the proposed location is right next to his house so he will be constructing a quality structure. Mr. Lyden stated he understands the concern related to aesthetics. However, no one will build within one - quarter mile to the north or within hundreds of acres to the west. To the south, the property owner is buffered by 75 feet of pine trees and has provided his consent. Mr. Lyden stated this proposal will not be a negative impact to the residents or future development of the City. Chair Schaps stated a reading of the ordinance indicates the criteria is not met. Mr. Lyden stated the siding proposed for the pole barn is higher than what is on his house. Mr. Rafferty asked if this will be an aluminum •'c re. . Lyden stated it is and explained there is a 50 year warranty on the p : ' • or, and materials. He advised of the other quality aspects including the wainsc aint. Mr. Rafferty commented on the main on his house and asked if this is th siding would consider. ues he has experienced with cedar siding g someone interested in maintenance free Mr. Schilling asked about t .tio fan EIFS, a plasterboard siding. Mr. Lyden indicted he is not aware of tha material. Mr. Schilling stated the issues of quality and maintenance free material wo d be met with EIFS. Mr. Lyden stated his main concern and reason for the variance request relates to the soils. Ms. Lane noted the front of the structure will be visible from the street and asked if a house -style of siding can be placed on the front elevation of the pole barn so it is more attractive and better matches the house. Mr. Lyden stated that may be a viable option and explained that his plans are to use a clay colored siding and then reside the house next summer so it matches the pole barn. Chair Schaps stated he is unable to vote to support this request tonight for the reasons he stated. He suggested more investigation needs to be done on other siding treatments. He noted that the Ordinance specifically states a prohibition to "corrugated siding and roof." Mr. Lyden stated that term may be up for interpretation and he does not believe it refers to the type of metal he is proposing. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Schilling stated that he is also not able to vote in support of the request tonight but believes there are other siding materials that could be considered that may be more acceptable. Mr. Schilling noted there are also different types of footings and systems that could address poor soil types. Mr. Lyden stated he respects everyone's opinion and would like a vote taken tonight. Mr. Corson asked where the septic system is located. Mr. Lyden stated his first pole barn location choice would have been to the north, however, the septic system is on the north side and he wanted to keep his options open in case he needs a new septic system. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request of Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, to construct a 34 -foot by 64 -foot pole barn on his 4.07 acres at 6275 Holly Drive based on the rationale that the variance criteria are met and conditioned on the following: 1. Providing a minimum four foot concrete apron. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Ms. Lane noted her support for the variance b of the large amount of undevelopable wetland that surrounds the A • • lic property. Mr. Corson asked Mr. Lyden to inves to` : p on of using EIFS which he believes would improve the aesthetics of th Mr. Rafferty stated he has see' • - ct in use and does not support its use due to the potential for damage. Base d the trend for construction in aluminum and maintenance free materials he • t want to include a requirement for EIFS. Mr. Rafferty stated he does not believ - "' it makes a difference whether the siding stripe is vertical or horizontal. Mr. Schilling stated EIFS is widely used, successfully, in many commercial structures. He pointed out that metal siding will also dent and rust. Mr. Schilling noted there are obvious direct ordinance regulations pertaining to the use of materials and the Board is looking for a way to help Mr. Lyden. He stated he believes EIFS is a viable option so he is unable to vote for the application without the inclusion of that requirement. Mr. Corson asked about the option of using a rock or metal material on the bottom portion of the structure with EIFS on the top portion. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Rafferty if he believes this variance request meets all of the criteria required in the ordinance for a variance consideration. Mr. Rafferty answered affirmatively. Motion failed 3 ayes (Lane, Rafferty, Zych), 3 nays (Corson, Schilling, Chair Schaps), 1 abstain (Johnson since he was not present for a portion of the discussion). Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Corson stated he voted against the motion since EIFS was not being considered as an alternative. B. Marvin Emly, 590 62nd Street, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining Marvin Emly is requesting permission to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot accessory building on his property at 590 62nd Street which is zoned rural and consists of ten acres on the south side of 6211d Street containing his home and four (4) accessory buildings. One of the buildings was damaged in a storm this past summer and must be removed. Mr. Emly would like to replace it with the requested building, however, the Zoning Ordinance allows only three (3) accessory buildings on a parcel of property between ten and 20 acres in size. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the need for two variances, one from the number of buildings and one from the section of the Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming structures. Staff reviewed the findings of fact that need to be indicated staff does not believe this variance c not justify a hardship other than financial. buildings and build one larger building th Ordinance. variance consideration and et in this case since it does could remove the two accessory within the requirements of the p Rafferty, ed the grandfathered provision. In response to Mr. Raffe Mr. S �� d �� Mr. Zych asked if the two par ombined to make it acceptable. Mr. Smyser stated he is not sure whethe Co ty would allow these two tax parcels to be combined since they are separ. 62nd Street. It may also cause a problem should the applicant desire to sell one of the s arcels. Mr. Zych asked if the Board can consider both parcels as if they were one parcel. Mr. Smyser noted the applicant has the right to sell the northern parcel which would leave this structure existing on the southern parcel. Discussion occurred regarding the options to attach the structures, possibly via a covered walkway. Mr. Smyser stated one possibility to avoid increasing the nonconformity is to construct the new structure as attached to Building #2 with the middle building being removed. Then it could be considered as one structure without increasing the nonconformity. Mr. Smyser explained that square footage is not an issue. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Marvin Emly, applicant, stated he can tie Buildings #2 and #4 together into one large building but there is a distance between the two buildings. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if it would meet his needs to combine Building #2 and the structure to be torn down with an addition made to the western edge. He noted that would allow the use of the existing slab. He asked about the distance between the vehicle garage and house. Mr. Emly estimated 16 feet. Mr. Rafferty asked if constructing a covered walkway would meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Smyser stated he is unable to answer that question but could ask the Building Official about that option. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if the option he was suggesting would meet his needs. Mr. Emly answered affirmatively. Mr. Rafferty asked if that option would save money rather than to construct a new structure (estimated at $8,000). Mr. Schilling stated the construction costs may be less but there are issues of structure integrity due to the load on the roof. Mr. Emly state did raise that question with the contractor who explained how a bearing wall coul structed. He stated he thinks a separate building would look better than one th patc together. Mr. Rafferty asked if the front faces are alined. Emly stated they are. Chair Schaps reviewed the ordinance indicates that a structure legally ex same size. Chair Schaps stated it reducing the number of build' greater. ating to grandfathered buildings which 'me of the ordinance may continue at the propriate to decrease the nonconformity by to three even if the net square footage is Mr. Smyser agreed with the desire o not increase the nonconformity. He stated it may be possible to work out a solution without the need for a variance and suggested this application be tabled to the next meeting to allow staff more time to work with Mr. Emly and design a plan that does not violate the ordinance. Mr. Emly stated he will ask the contractor about attaching to the building he had planned to remove. Mr. Rafferty suggested the contractor also be asked about the option of replacing the roof trusses even if it results in having to reshingle the roof. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table consideration of the variance request of Marvin Emly to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot pole barn on his ten acres at 590 62nd Street to allow staff and the applicant to further investigate other options, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. C. Udor, 375 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by UDOR for an accessory storage building on their site. The principal building approved in 1994 was originally 6,000 square feet and the City Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 8 approved an addition of 2,400 square feet in July of 1999. One of the conditions of approval was that two existing accessory buildings be removed prior to construction of the new addition. However, that did not occur and the accessory building was built without a building permit. Gordy Johnson of UDOR wants to replace one of the accessory buildings with a new one. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting it has concluded that accessory buildings are not allowed in the GI district under the current zoning ordinance. Under Minnesota Statutes 15.99, if the City denies an application it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the application. Mr. Smyser stated if the applicant agrees to an extension of the review period, an option is available to apply for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory buildings in the Industrial Zone. Staff recommends the item be tabled if the applicant agrees with an extension so that alternative can be researched. Mr. Smyser estimated that it may take two to three months to complete such an ordinance amendment. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to a comment. Gordy Johnson, applicant, stated that option is .tab him. Mr. Johnson asked why additional storage nee Gordy Johnson reviewed the history of this business, its growth, and h. ings were constructed. Discussion occurred regarding the location and s', ., o.uildings. Mr. Rafferty stated the Board has recent past. He noted this ap will result in beautification t outdoor storage for equipment in the ng an extra effort to construct something that ather than outdoor fenced storage. Mr. Smyser reviewed the past dis "' ssion related to outdoor storage in other zoning districts. Mr. Rafferty asked if this business area contains outdoor dumpsters. Gordy Johnson stated dumpsters are everywhere in the Apollo Business Park and he even took pictures of outdoor dumpsters and pallets last summer which he provided to staff. Mr. Rafferty asked if there is a way to allow the applicant to construct an attached addition. Gordy Johnson stated there is a separation due to the sprinkler connection for the Fire Department, however, he may be able to find a way to connect the buildings. Gordy Johnson stated his agreement to an extension of the review period. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table consideration of the site plan request of UDOR to construct an accessory storage building on the UDOR site at 500 Apollo Drive to allow for a separate application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be processed, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 (Schilling due to his absence during a portion of the discussion). Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 9 Discussion occurred regarding options for connecting the structures, exterior building materials, and need to involve the Fire Department to gain their input. Mr. Smyser stated the zoning amendment will be on the January 10, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meeting agenda. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recess at 8:03 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps called the meeting back to order at 8:12 p.m. . DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Saddle Club — Revised Concept Plan Staff reviewed the Board's past consideration of the Saddle Club sketch of a planned development and indication the plan did not justify ditional density on the site compared to standard R -1 zoning. Staff advised t developer has submitted a new concept plan that corresponds with standard zo St esented a summary comparison of the two concept drawings and ' sis of the revised plan. Staff identified the location of the subject : . a of the MUSA boundary and zoning change. It was noted staff wi - co . t n i that be remedied so the single tax parcel is no longer split by MUSA •' Staff noted the revised concept plan has a reduced number of lots and elimin e d connecting Old Birch Street with Kildeer Drive that had been proposed , a vious concept plan. Mr. Johnson asked if the north er of the subject site would be landlocked. Mr. Smyser answered affirmatively an noted the location of existing trailways which would no longer be connected with the revised plan. Chair Schaps noted there are trails all over Lino Lakes and asked why a trail is not being proposed that is similar to the original concept plan. Mr. Smyser noted the lot boundaries now extend to the edges of the plat so it would be difficult to create trails unless they are located within the private property. Mr. Rafferty noted the lots could be made less deep to accommodate trails. Chair Schaps stated there is a need for open space. Mr. Smyser noted the long length of the dead end street with the new concept plan and need to extend utilities down Old Birch Street to serve this property. He pointed out the location of the 500 -foot high tower on the neighboring property and issue raised with ice loading as a potential danger. Mr. Smyser stated he contacted Shoreview and learned that they require the tower owner to carry additional insurance should ice fall from the tower and cause damage. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 10 In response to Ms. Lane, Mr. Smyser advised of consideration by the Park Board. Ms. Lane suggested the new concept plan be presented to the Park Board so they can address the open space issue. John Hill, representing Heritage Development, stated they decided to extend the property boundaries to encompass all of the property since a homeowners association was no longer being considered. He stated the lot configuration can be reduced in depth as long as it meets the R -1 depth requirement. Mr. Hill stated they had considered a conservation easement. Chair Schaps stated there will be open space behind the houses and he believes it would be conducive to trails if the lot line boundaries are reduced somewhat. Mr. Hill stated his impression that the extension of the lot lines would not exclude the creation of a trail. With regard to the road connection, Mr. Hill noted that only four lots would be created on one side of the road so it is not financially feasible to construct the 800 foot roadway. He noted that if lots were created on both sides of the ro the wetland would be greatly impacted. Also, he has been unable to reach an u ding with the neighboring property owner to purchase the additional prop to ac odate a road connection. Mr. Hill stated he does not think this exclude struction of a bridge for pedestrian traffic or to dedicate park land. Mr. Rafferty stated that he thinks a p co ' . e s eveloped to correct a single entrance in and out. He noted the new concep es the number of lots and lot sizes but he remains concerned with the lot de • c = e depths have doubled since the previous concept plan. Mr. Rafferty a t ossible to create a road (in and out) on the applicant's property. Mr. Hill stated he has contacted to property owner to the east with two letters and five telephone calls but that person is not interested in selling any portion of his property at this time, however, that option may exist in the future. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the impact on the adjoining property owner who has to work with the location of where the road ends. Mr. Powell stated the City would not support having the road dead -end within this project and noted the watermain has to be looped through these lots. He stated that he assumes the easement is contiguous with the Old Birch Street right -of -way. Mr. Hill answered that it is contiguous. Mr. Rafferty suggested that an exit to the east, within this development, would work better or to connect it to Kildeer Drive. Mr. Powell agreed that a connection to Kildeer Drive would work better, however, the applicant does not have control of that property since it is outside of this project. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Schilling thanked the applicant for addressing the density issue. He noted that at the last meeting, he had suggested using the southern portion of the parcel as lower density and the northern portion as a higher density which may make it financially feasible to construct the road to the northeast corner. Mr. Hill stated they did discuss that option and addressed whether the owners of nicer homes to the south would want to drive through a higher density area, such as townhomes, to get to their house. He stated with that scenario, it would have been closer to financially feasible to construct that roadway connection to the northeast. Mr. Johnson asked about the cost to the City to deal with the Old Birch Street access and quality of pavement. Mr. Powell stated another consideration is the cost for utility services on Old Birch Street. Staff would also have to consider whether the bituminous surface of Old Birch Street can accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Hill stated they looked at alternatives to loop the street but found no option due to the location of wetlands. Mr. Corson stated his support for Mr. Schilling's to the south and the street being connected wit trails will be an important feature to include. Mr. Hill stated the issue of trails is not a to the east is an issue since addition on to place higher priced homes s facing it. He added that them. However, the property owner s needed to make the roadway connection. Mr. Powell stated the property ow t ast needs to be dealt with since a utility easement is also needed. Mr. Hill stated they will look a ternative of blended units as suggested by Mr. Schilling. Mr. Smyser stated it appears the Board would like to see a compromise between the new concept plan and a blended plan. He reviewed the alternatives available to the applicants to submit another concept plan to the Board or to make a formal plat submittal. Mr. Hill stated that due to time constraints, he would like to submit a formal plat as soon as possible. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Schilling if he is recommending a reduced lot width to accommodate a blended plan. Mr. Schilling stated he is. Mr. Rafferty stated he would not support that adjustment. Mr. Hall stated the City Council did not look favorably at the smaller sized lots so they revised the plan to extend the lot boundary lines. Mr. Smyser recommended the developer hold a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Hill stated he will be in contact with staff. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 12 B. Dellwood LLC, Concept Plan Staff reported it has been working with Dellwood LLC on a proposed retail development in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive/I -35W interchange consisting of a Target Superstore and six additional retail buildings. The project is still in the conceptual stage and going through the Preservation Development informal review process. The Environmental Board discussed the project at its last meeting. Staff presented the project layout, noting it follows a standard, suburban retail development model with a "big box" retail anchor (Target Superstore) and a number of "satellite" retail locations. Other than the location of the extended Apollo Drive east of Lake Drive, the project bears little relation to the Town Center design of Calthorpe that has been the focus of discussion for some time. Staff presented its analysis of the concept plan, noting the City Council directed staff to work with the developer to incorporate desirable architectural elements while acknowledging and accepting that the project depart by the Calthorpe design for a traditional neighbor velopment. m the overall vision represented Mr. Wessel reviewed staff's work with Dellw Rehbein. He advised they have a fairly a_ es neighborhood meeting has been planned t reviewed the anticipated constructio to the Planning and Zoning Board. John Paton, Paton Transporta city engineer. Mr. Paton ex with a grocery store componen additional uses that include a deli, shop. who is purchasing the land from si nstruction schedule and a eral community input. Mr. Wessel considerations that will be presented of the consultants working on this project. ntroduced himself as a consultant and former t a Target Superstore is like a Target Greatland eviewed the square footage to be constructed and rispy Cream Donuts, fast foot restaurant, and coffee Mr. Paton reviewed their work to address site enhancements to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment including sidewalk concepts, main street theme, architectural enhancements such as pavers and tree grates, and enhanced site lines. He noted the location of existing trees, ponding areas, roadway alignment, and location of screening opportunities. Mr. Paton addressed the existing sandy soil conditions and how structures will be designed to allow water to permeate. He stated that in order to maintain water runoff rates, a two pond NURP system will be developed to assure water quality and quantity. He pointed out the wetland area that would accommodate the runoff "bounce" prior to discharge. Mr. Paton stated a berm would be constructed to create a water retainage area. Mr. Paton pointed out the location of utilities that would serve this project. He explained how the site would be graded and areas created for screening and berming. Mr. Paton stated they will work with staff to address how to minimize the amount of storm water Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 13 runoff. Mr. Paton stated they want to work with the Board to address their vision and apply what they would like to see in this project. Mr. Wessel stated the intention tonight is to open discussion on the fundamental issues of this project. He explained how discussion had occurred which resulted in relocating the Target Superstore closer to the freeway to create more of an entry area. He stated the City is negotiating how the character of this project will have a connection with the Village located to the south. Mr. Wessel noted this project will be more automobile oriented when compared to the Village which will remain a mixed use concept and more pedestrian oriented. He stated the development team will explore how to tie the buildings, materials, and exterior elements so it "reads" as one Town Center and create a unique identity. Mr. Wessel stated this is only the beginning of the discussion on this project. Mr. Paton stated their intention to bring in some of the elements present on the bank building with roof peaks and arched doorways. He noted the architectural relief being provided to the front elevations, pointing out the Archer Farms doorway on the right side and Target entrance on the left side. Mr. Paton revie, materials and their attempt to address elements on desire to include features the City and commu the proposed exterior building trian scale. He stated their to see. Chair Schaps asked about potential tenant or t er retail space. Mr. Paton stated he does not have that information. Mr. Wessel stated the intent woul • ►` breaking ground. He suggested th. ti ► be asked at the January meeting. e entire project committed prior to Ms. Lane asked about the 1.. 'ono 'ether Target Superstores. Mr. Paton advised of their location, noting none are ` w ned for business. He offered to bring a short video tape to the next meeting for the B ard's review. Mr. Rafferty raised the option of designing an entrance through the center of the parking lot with a tree -lined promenade to create a "grand entrance" feature. Mr. Paton stated they will bring a Target architect to a Board meeting to explain the interior working features and circulation. Mr. Rafferty stated he is suggesting a parking lot entrance, not necessarily a center building entrance. Mr. Paton reviewed the alignment of Apollo Drive and how that suggestion would result in a change of focus from Apollo Drive into the parking lot. He stated it may be possible to incorporate plantings into the southern portion of the parking lot to create a tree lined entrance feature. Chair Schaps asked if other communities have asked for this level of site and building enhancements. Mr. Paton stated they have not except for the front elevation relief. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Schilling asked about the thought process to place the Target building closer to the residential area. Mr. Paton stated there were site issues, screening from the driveway activity, and light fixtures. Ms. Lane asked if it would be a 24 -hour operation. Mr. Paton stated it is not. Ms. Lane asked how large the grocery component would be. Mr. Paton stated it would be 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the community response. Mr. Paton stated he has presented this concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, City Council, and Environmental Board and they are looking forward to the upcoming community meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2000. Mr. Powell explained it will be an open house format between the developer and residents. Mr. Wessel stated the Target Superstore concept has been well received by the Council and the concern has been to maintain the architectural integrity with the Town Center. C. Town Center Update Staff noted that the large project in the northe Superstore) was not designed as a traditio but, rather, is a standard suburban retail d vision and design standards will be r and that information can also be p Mr. Smyser advised that the grant rather than the reques has resulted in the upcoming ant of the Town Center (Target rhood development with mixed uses Staff stated the Town Center t e Council at an upcoming workshop Planning and Zoning Board. unities Committee is recommending a $450,000 Ilion grant for implementing the Village Plan. This on of the City's goals and vision. Mr. Rafferty stressed that staff has worked hard to put this product together and the Metropolitan Council also stressed an urgency to assure funds are available for this project. He restated that staff did an excellent job and he would support staff's continued work toward those ideas. D. Tree Ordinance Update Chair Schaps offered his assistance with the proposed Tree Ordinance. Mr. Smyser thanked Chair Schaps for that offer and stated he has requested copies of tree ordinances from additional cities and will be study ways to address the issues raised by the Planning and Zoning Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane stated she will not be present at the January 10, 2001 meeting. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 7 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PERMITTING PROCESS Lino Lakes - City Center Lake Drive & I -35W City Council Work Session Meeting — No. 1 Environmental Board Meeting — No. 1 City Planning Commission Meeting — No. 1 City Council Meeting No. 1 - Order Lake & Apollo Drive Improvement Feasibility Study Neighborhood Meeting Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Start EAW Documentation Preparation Indirect Source Permit - Start ISP Documentation Preparation Wetland Mitigation Start Plan Preparation Rice Creek Watershed District — Meet with District Engineer RePlat/Site Plan Application Submittal to City & WSD Rice Creek Watershed District Meeting - No. 1 Complete Draft/Draft EAW City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 2 City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 1 City Park Board Meeting - No. 1 City Planning Commission Meeting — No. 2 City Council Work Session Meeting — No. 2 City Council Meeting No. 2 — Project Public Hearing Complete ISP Documentation Preparation Submit ISP to MPCA City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 2 CPR Meeting — Ryan /PTG Team @ Target City Park Board Meeting — No. 2 City Planning Commission Meeting — No. 3 - Recommend to Council — Preliminary Plat Approval City Council Meeting - No. 3 - Accept Draft EAW and Authorize EQB Monitor Publication - Review Preliminary and Final Plat MPCA Draft EAW Deadline for Submission City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 3 First Printing in EQB — Monitor — Start 30 Day Comment Period Offsite Wetland Bank Credit/Bank Confermation Rice Creek Watershed District Meeting - No. 2 EAW 30 Day Comment Period Ends - Prepare and Submit response to EAW Comments City Environmental Board Meeting * Joint Mtg? — No. 4 - EAW Negative Declaration Recommendation City Council Meeting No. 4 * Joint Mtg? - EAW Negative Declaration - Approve Preliminary/Final Plat and Developer Agreement Rice Creek Watershed District Meeting - No. 3 Submit Plans to State Health Dept. — Sewer & Water Ext. Submit Grading Plans for Building Permit MPCA Approves ISP Install Silt Fence Prepare and Submit NPDES Permit Application Begin Site Grading Activities * Special Joint Meeting for EB & CC improves Schedule 30+ Days Wed 11/22/00 Wed 11/29/00 Wed 12/13/00 Mon 12/18/00 Wed 12/20/00 Thu 12/28/00 Thu 12/28/00 Thu 12/28/00 Week of 01/08/00 Mon 01/15/01 Wed 01/24/01 Mon 01/26/01 Wed 01131/01 Thu 02/01/01 Mon 02/05/01 Wed 02/14/01 Wed 02/21/01 Mon 02/26/01 Wed 02/28/01 Wed 02/28/01 Thu 03/01/01 Fri 03/02/01 Mon 03/05/01 Wed 03/14/01 Mon 03/26/01 Mon Wed Mon Mon Wed Wed 03/26/01 03/28/01 04/02/01 04/09/01 04/25/01 05/02/01 Mon 05/14/01 Mon 05/14/01 Wed Fri Fri Mon Mon Mon Wed 05/30/01 06/15/01 06/15/01 06/18/01 06/18/01 06/18/01 06/20/01 Revised 12 -13 -00 PROJECT #: 21 -2... PROJECT: Land Holding/12th and Holly /ConCept Plan DATE OF ORIGIN: November 5h, 2000 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Directly West of Peregrine Pass. Zoned R -1X, 8Ac, 14 Lots, 2.13 Units /Ac • Water Drainage to Wards Lake • Pine Plantation Trees STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • Peregrine Pass required a variance. Zoned R -lx, this variance allowed staff to work with applicant on a conservation development PDO. Please see photography. Land Holding/12th and Holly site does not require a variance. Land Holding Intends to submit standard zoning Preliminary Plat to Boards in the near future • A Conservation Development Ordinance would allow for Conservation Development planning in this (12th and Holly) type of site. I have enclosed a modal ordinance. Environmental ISSUES: The following identifies potential Environmental impacts: • Soil Compaction due to construction activities /effects on surface water infiltration rates and Volumes. • Surface Water Runoff: quantity and quality changes due to increase • of impervious surfaces soil compaction, and volume increases. • Tree Preservation: Site has existing pine plantation. Some of these 17apxo_ &_P psartov_BoapS- Xtrt- o0_Atvollwc cr tree might be moved. • Wetland study has not been submitted.. • Site should be surveyed for Husveth rich fen evidence /suitable vegetation and soil banding occurring on this site. If found /site design should include buffering and minimization of hydrologic Impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COUNTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: _ FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): • .. pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... Ilapxo_ &J'sxpsanov _BoapS_ XtzLoq._Aavo_ wcsc • COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): • .. pending .. • COUNCIL ACTION DATE: . ... pending .. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The related to actual implementation. resolved) during implementation, outcome. • .. pending following defines staff This includes issues general observations, PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending observations raised (and and project ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Ilap ar & PeZpeariov_BoapS_ 3 X :zI_ogLAzvo laxsa- E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. 9180 Lexington Avenue NE Circle Pines, MN 55014 Phone: (763) 786 -5556 Fax: (763) 786 -6007 Email: egrudduswest.net Website: ht(u: //www,egru . Attn: / 24 2 y / Y To: 67 Y 9, G/I✓U LETTER OF TRANSMITTAip Date: /2- 5 -20047 job No: O9 `$ Sent Via: Mail Email Courier Pickup Overnight Delivery ❑ Fax ❑ Other: Project LAAA 1-71D1-13i 416 0,219 &re. From: c3;6.01,/ U� We are sending you the following: Invoice Attached Under Separate Cover Originals --> Prints Letter Fax Specifications Diskette Color Drawings Change Order House Plans Other: QUANTITY DATE DESCRIPTION neicro These Transmissions are: For your Approval ---X For your Use . For your Review & Comments Copies for Approval For Billing Purposes -X-- Per your Request Corrected Prints Approved as Submitted Copies for Distribution Corrections Noted Approved as Noted Submit Return Other : REMARKS: COPY - /3 TO: / ✓ l - , 32 & 2 J . L > /Imo roll (yr r2o U i> SI CITY OF LINO LAKES NUM AREA Oceans PARK LOCATION MAP OF CITIES OF LINO LAKES_ I / 1 \. 1 1 _ ` SI /INE of THE EAST Sao a PT. a SE? /` ov $EC.2a 1 144k . I ° TRAPPER CROSSING\ 1 1 er 1 . 1 t f A s000tw --e 'Nat %, I�REG RIME PASS 0o LEGEND: I. ..,.+...... NOW WOW 04.4 C o..a. to Ow oat 0• 9...I. W. .e. rw.a .q* Drake eiollog d..aa. ® Woods& raw ywow ~wow CONCEPT FOR LAND HaLOrN, 11 75.73 la 50 FEET b Owego* hyOre4 8.00 M.. 9..1. `asfl ."w". 14 4 14 tots 1.047 Acres 656 Acres 2.13 Unita /Aa. 144 Acres 11310ENTIAL 013110IT 14.625 SO.FT. 15 5 I.di3) 90 feet 135 1..1 (145) yi 90 feet • bZ WO -_. 141 911.14 • Ieweenem Sen. ar y:w.-r,:..wrw,y tl..1:1.w,e:4yj,. r.r .+w.r: w -w.. • 014 r. I RECEIVE NOV 5 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES 40 4 N. .si Ltd 7. '.'t- ; n'-5r • t_ - wr. �,, r . : ; . rJ V/ 0 0 Y:1tti4 �s� .wui„ w-� .x.741,.,__ ay� `r .. 1 ►x • _ • ¥ f PROJECT #: 21 -3... PROJECT: Qwest /Land Use Application /1189 Main Street DATE OF ORIGIN: January 3rd, 2001 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Qwest has requested rezoning and administrative review application for a Personal Communications Service(PSP) facility with a 135' monopole to be located on City property at City Hall Park. • Site and tower location map attached. • STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • No comments at this time • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No Hapx6 &J'ezpeanov_BoapS_ Xin- ogLAzva.Awce6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The related to actual implementation. resolved) during implementation, outcome. pending .... following defines staff observations This includes issues raised (and general observations, and project PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending .... 17apxa_& Fexpeaztov_BoapS XtrLo Ljitvo.jlatceay ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date HapKc &_PeZpeariovJaoap5_ DEC 112000 CITY OF LINO LAKES CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX FEE ESCROW DEPOSIT Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 500 Conditional Use Permit $ 350 Interim Use Permit $ 350 Site Plan Review $ 500 Subdivision: Preliminary Plat $ 1,250 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 WTI :.. 44 G, j L :...r L-,y ,t Al PIN # 3- l=_ - it - Legal Description: Lot Block Addition Existing Land Use pAp i„ 1{,1,. <, Existing Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Re 2oN e._ 4t. QSQ • Applicant: Owner (if different than applicant): name ���s�: [.� : pek<< -, L.L.c, name C.4•41 i .., address w �t� /0, 4 v.e, address S s/. Po-A, , A44: 5 Th .t L. ; L.02 4 ,i'i ,Ili y- t K phone (sit- 3E7 -Ada phone - • fax 6rt - r-a:1a -4.`1 fax • IIY,7MFtiNIP1 "-C'ISLhi ±F'lAP4 4 i s,_wr AterTiny MIN aid 11 magEall _ t. Wireless L.L.C. 426 N.Fairview, 1st Floor St. Paul, MN 55104 651.642.6942 fax December 10. 2000 Jeff Smyser City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Qwest. RE: Rezoning and administrative review application for a Personal Communication Service (PCS) facility with a 135' monopole to be located on City property at City Hall Park. Qwest Wireless L.L.C. will be persuing a rezoning of City Hall Park located at 1189 Main Street. Lino Lakes, MN and an administrative permit for a communication tower. BACKGROUND To fulfill its mandate from the FCC, Qwest Wireless has developed a grid of antenna throughout the service area. These facilities must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographical variables. at intervals approximately three to five miles from each other and at a height of approximately one hundred and fifty feet to one hundred and eighty -five feet. Rural areas have a lower user density; therefore towers can be further apart and provide a larger coverage area. The objective of the system is to provide wireless services to all Twin City area communities. Since Qwest Wireless intends to utilize PCS as an affordable Wireless Local Loop service, coverage at the neighborhood level is essential (unlike Cellular. which typically focuses on mobile service). Our services are currently voice. but will likely expand into data transmission within the next five years. Given the size and magnitude of use of the Qwest Wireless system. there must be several antenna facilities located in Anoka County for Qwest Wireless to provide service throughout the community. As each additional facility is constructed. its location and height become relatively fixed. This makes it essential to ensure that any newly proposed facilities are at the proper heights and locations to allow them to "connect" and provide seamless coverage between the existing sites. Because of this. the amount of DEC 112000 err OE OW %D t.r ES USA Proud Sponsor Wireless L.L.C. 426 N.Fairview, 1st Floor St. Paul, MN 55104 651.642.6942 fax Qwest...` flexibility in the acceptable heights and locations of the remaining proposed facilities is reduced. With these parameters in mind, we have identified the property located at 1189 Main Street that meets the engineering requirements for the proposed site. LOCATION SELECTED FOR PROPOSED US WEST PCS FACILITY The proposed facility will include antenna configuration at the top of a 135 -R. monopole. The monopole will be galvanized in color and constructed to carry two additional wireless carriers. The cabinets that house the electronics for the monopole at the base of the facility will be no longer than 9 ft and no higher than 6 ft. The proposed facility does not generate noticeable heat. noise. vibration, traffic. pollution, or waste. Site construction and installation will not create a safety hazard or damage adjacent properties in any manner. The size and location of the parcel of land on which the site will be located more than adequately safeguards against hazards or possible damage to neighboring property. Maintenance of the facility consists of routine checks by a qualified engineer and occasional snowplowing. This imposes no additional risk to adjacent landowners. Appropriate landscaping will minimize the visual effects of the tower. In addition. upon cessation of use. the owner of the tower will have the responsibility to remove the tower and the related facilities. Finally, the proposed site meets the goals of the City's Comprehensive plan by: facilitating wireless telecommunication, locating on a preferred land use area, minimizing adverse visual effects, avoiding property damage, creating a structure where future telecommunication companies may locate, operating in a manner that imposes no additional health risks, and preserving the quality of living in the community. Qwest will not create any additional public cost or service requirements. In addition. the monopole will be tri- locatable (two additional users, three total). Sincerely. W> Kelly Sleeter Qwest Wireless L.L.C. Enclosures USA cif j1 , Proud Sponsor RONDEAU LAKE RD W GRANT IN MD TR 1 N 0 1 a 1 1 Di i 1 1 PL PL PL pl P5 PL —r / / E0 rn I1 6 z / / 0 / (frt. adO21 AJ.Nf1O0)1332i1S NMI 0 A 3- r z 0 1 0 m v r r 0 R.O.W. R.O.W. R.O.W. R.O.W. RONDEAU ROAD WEST R.O.W. J 1 O 8 A a Cs 1 Ea 1 1 1 CI v r a rn k' te N 6 ,i> ✓' O 1 C rn 0 • 135 -0" EXISTING BLEACHERS EXISTING BASKETBALL BACKBDAR] 1 ' EXISTING WOOD POLE AND LIGHTS TO BE REMOVED 3. -0" LIGHTNING ROD H'M US WEST ANTENNAS (TYP.) 7-US WEST MONOPOLE EXISTING HOCKEY RINK GROWTH CABINET (FUTURE) US WEST EQUIPMENT 0 11 MI 3 31 INSTALL EXISTING LUMINAIRES & SUPPORTS AT EXISTING HEIGHTS US WEST ICE BRIDGE MAIN STREET SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16 " =1' -0" [EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BUILDINGS 16' 32' V ■ O co ii z 3913188 331 1S3M sn r -T -in 31OdONOIY 1S3M sn SONIO1In8 ONIISIX3 Rx • 7 op 0 ✓ 1 A O 1 1 1 0001 1 330 10:14 1.0 503 JtiJ 4014 valmont � MIGROFLECT • • • • • Adrian Schottroff Qwest Wireless, LLC 426 North Fairview Ave. St Paul, MN 55104 Ph: (631) 643 -2073 Fx: (651) 642 -4719 �I^ uu1 October 3, 2000 DEC 11 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES Subject: Failure Modes for Tapered Monopoles and mounting appurtenances. Communication Monopoles Designed for the State of Minnesota Dear Mr. Schottroff, We understand that there may be some concern on the part of local building officials regarding the potential for failure of proposed tapered monopoles we will be quoting for Qwest Wireless project sites located in Minnesota. To address this concern we offer the following: Communications monopole structures designed by Valmont/Microflect are typically sized in accordance with the .latest revision of the EIAJTIA. 222 Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures." This standard has been approved by ANSI, who has generated the standard for "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ". The standard, which is the basis for design loading for practically every building code and standard in the country, has dealt with the design of antenna support structures for over 40 years. The EIA standard, based on provisions of this nationally known specification, has a long history of reliability. At its core philosophy is it's first and foremost priority to safeguard and maintain the health and welfare of the public. The EIA standard dictates minimum wind loading (the predominant loading on a monopole structure) for each county in the United States. It is Valriaont(Microflect's policy to use the wind loading listed in the latest EIA standard as a minimum loading unless the customer specifies a larger value. Statistically, the wind speed listed in the EIA standard has been determined to be that wind which has an average reoccurrence of 50 years (Le. the magnitude has a 2% chance of occurring in any one year). This wind is the "fastest mile" wind at 33 ft. above ground. By definition, the "fastest mile" wind is the average velocity of a mile of wind passing a fixed point. This "fastest mile" wind is customized with height, exposure, and gust factors that apply to a particular installation which, in effect, increases the wind velocity. Page 1 of 3 Camnnnicolion: Division, Valmont Industries. Inc 3575 25th Street SE Salem, Oregon 97302.1123 USA 503.363.9267 fax 503.303.4413 www,valmont.com 10 -03 -00 17:21 TO:US WEST WIRELESS FROM:503 363 4613 p01 The loads generated by this wind speed, along with weight of the monopole sections and any ice loading being considered, are used to design the structural system. To fail monopole.sections, the wind must exceed all of our estimates for magnitude, duration, as well as overcome the factor of safety determined from the design. Say for instance, a 150 ft. monopole is designed for an 90 mph Basic Wind Speed. This Basic Wind Speed translates into a sustained, gusted wind speed of 145 mph at the top of the monopole. Considering a survivable wind speed which considers the ultimate yield strength of the steel, failure of the monopole would not be expected until wind speeds exceeded 162 mph. Beyond 162 mph we can only make an educated guess as to the failure mechanisms that would take place. The term Failure used above only suggests that "local buckling" has occurred at this point. "Local Buckling" is the result of a relatively small portion of the shaft distorting by "kinking" the steel. Local Buckling does not cause a free falling pole, rather it relieves the stresses from the pole at this location. If wind speeds continue to increase, the pole may continue to buckle and eventually crumple/fold over upon itself. Once this takes place, a significant reduction in wind load will cause the pole not to experience further deformations. In the above scenerio, we are assuming sustained, gusted winds. As we all lcnow, a. gust would soon dissipate and, after this peak wind is gone, the stress in the pole would be reduced. Poles are flexible, forgiving structures which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as a wind gust or earthquake shocks. It may take some time for the entire structure to "see" the impact loading. Even after a local buckle, the pole has significant capacity. It is this capacity along with the transitory nature of the loading that prevents a pole from "falling over." It should also be noted that typical antennas are designed to survive 125 mph. With the absence of antenna loading the pole would have additional capacity. ValmontMicroflect's Pole design and full -scale testing have provided the public with a very reliable product. Poles have gone through extensive'full scale testing, resulting in a .history of being extremely reliable. This public, in my opinion, has been well served. Vaimout/Microflect has provided structures that have performed well during the earthquakes in California, the hurricanes in the South (including Hugo, Andrew, and Opal), and a number of tornadoes. Valmont/Microflect has never experienced an in service failure of a communication pole due to weather induced overloading, even though, as in the cases of Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew, the wind speeds may have exceeded the design wind speed. Valmont/Microflect has no direct experience with monopole failures. However, From what evidence we have seen from other vendor's experiences, I can state that it is rare for a monopole to fall in a radius larger than, say, half it's height, and that in most cases it will collapse in a small confined area as it comes down upon itself Page 2 of 10 -03 -00 17:21 TO:115 WEST WIRELESS FROM:503 363 4613 p62 Valmont/Microflect's communication towers have proven to be very reliable products. In our over 40 years of engineering and fabricating thousands of towers and monopoles, we have riot had one structure fail due to overloading (even in the extreme cases that wind speeds have exceeded design values). We use the latest standards, wind speed information, and sophisticated analytical tools to ensure that we maintain our unblemished record for quality. I trust this letter satisfies your requests. If you have additional questions or comments, I may be reached at (503) 315 -4515. Sincerely, Adrian Mclunidn, P.E. Communications Division Pole Engineering Team Leader I hereby certify that this plan, speci- fication, or report was or :pared by me or under my direct s:•per•+s;^r: and thee# I am a duly Reglsterer eer under the laws _ e State e ota. Page 3 of 3 Regietration No. 25175 10 -03-50 17:21 TO:U5 WEST WIRELESS FROM:503 363 4613 P03 9 s ‘'i'rr o • vaA • :all Sign: KNLH679 game of Ucensee: -- •• - ......O • .....•••••• ...... ..uwauvua G1u1 Eau Radio Station Authorization 1 S WEST WIRELESS, LLC. 12121 GRANT ST RM 201 THORNTON CO 80241 Market Number BTA298 File Number 50451CWAL98 I Print Date: 12/10/1998 Harket Name: Minneapolis -St. Paul, MN Channel Block: • D Sub - Market Designator 1 The license hereof is authorized, for the period indicated, to operate a radio transmitting station In accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter described. This authorization is subject to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subsequent Acts of Congress, international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a signatory, and aq pertinent rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, contained In Title 47 of the code of Federal Reenhtleen 'ursuant to Section 309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. 309(h)), this license is subject Ills license does not vest in the licensee any right to operate a station nor any right la the use of frequencies beyond Xher manner than authorized herein. Neither this license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or othe �f the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, et seq. This license is subject in temu to the right o )y Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 606. Special Conditions: is au onza on is su ject to the condition that the remaining balance of the winning bid amount wt l be paid in ccordance with Part 1 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 1. to the following conditions: the term thereof nor in any rwise transferred in violation f use or control conferred his authorization is subject to the condition that, in the event that systems using the same frequencies as granted erein are authorized in an adjacent foreign territory (Canada/United States), future coordination of any base station ansmitters within 72 km (45 miles of the United States /Canada border shall be required to eliminate any harmful iterference to operations In the adjacent foreign territory and to ensure continuance of equal access to the frequencies y both countries. R It DEC 11. 2000 C TY OF LUttO LAKES A graphical representation of the geographic area authorized to this call sign may be generated by selecting 'License Search' at the following web address: http : //wtbwww05.fcc.gov Effective Date 1st Build -out Date 2nd Build -out Date 3rd Build -out Date 4th Bulid -out Date Expiration Date 06/27/1997 06/27/2002 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 nndklene• 'ursuant to Section 309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. 309(h)), this license is subject Ills license does not vest in the licensee any right to operate a station nor any right la the use of frequencies beyond Xher manner than authorized herein. Neither this license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or othe �f the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, et seq. This license is subject in temu to the right o )y Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 606. Special Conditions: is au onza on is su ject to the condition that the remaining balance of the winning bid amount wt l be paid in ccordance with Part 1 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 1. to the following conditions: the term thereof nor in any rwise transferred in violation f use or control conferred his authorization is subject to the condition that, in the event that systems using the same frequencies as granted erein are authorized in an adjacent foreign territory (Canada/United States), future coordination of any base station ansmitters within 72 km (45 miles of the United States /Canada border shall be required to eliminate any harmful iterference to operations In the adjacent foreign territory and to ensure continuance of equal access to the frequencies y both countries. R It DEC 11. 2000 C TY OF LUttO LAKES A graphical representation of the geographic area authorized to this call sign may be generated by selecting 'License Search' at the following web address: http : //wtbwww05.fcc.gov Collocation Technical Data Sheeet U S WEST has the following parameters: PCS D block, - Actual channels used: 325, 350, 375 Base station Tx frequencies: Base station Rx frequencies: Modulation/Standard: Maximum EIRP: Channel Bandwidth: Antenna Information: 1946.25 MHz, 1947.5 MHz, 1948.75 MHz 1866.25 MHz, 1867.5 MHz, 1868.75 MHz Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum / CDMA IS -95 +53dBm (37dBm + 16dBi gain antenna) 1.2388 MHz Ball PCS -vR -18 -6507 Gain = 18dBi Azimuth beam width = 65° Elevation beam width = 7° Antenna Size 48 "x73 "x2.2" Weight 11 lbs. including mounting hardware (Desired) U S WEST PCS Antenna Height: (center of antenna) Standard Antenna configuration: 2 antennas per sector 3 sector design, 120° each Center of sectors at 0 °, 120° and 240° wrt TRUE NORTH Horizontal Spacing: 3' to 6' depending on antenna height Governing FCC Rules: Out of Band Emissions: Intermodulation Levels: AC power requirements: AC input voltage AC input current Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 (Telecommunications) Part 24 (subpart E) Section 24.238 (a) On any frequency outside a licensee's frequency block, the power of any emission shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 101og(P)dB. This is an FCC requirement. Below are the equipment specifications: Note that F = frequency of other party and Fbe = frequency at block edge, for D block Fbe = 1945 and 1950 MHz Out of block: <=-13 dBm/12.5kHz for IF — Fbe 1 <=1 MHz < =13 dBm/MHz —1.2 dBIMHz 1 F - Fbe 1 for 1 MHz< I F - Fbe I < =65 MHZ <=-90 dBm/MHz for: 1F - Fbe 1 >65 MHz. less than —125 dBm delivered to the antenna, at the ldB compression point of Tx amplifier. 208/240 VAC, 50/60 Hz, single phase 35 Arms Q 180 Vrms Q 2KW DC output 9wra 0 tx•�^u'� DEC 1 12(100 cm( OF LINO Revised 04 /17/00 8 21:?4NN a ar zrn gNNZA rn r mmm tTomM -�My Z NAB O >! Z C m 8 0 O ��:+NU! a Dal DZM MmOmR A F r Z Z n m 0 0 0 4QiO1O3tIIO 103I'O Id n O Z z0 X co r � ITI rn cc, z (i) O > z z z m cn m r cn m morn Z v, r w o r- cn n N O ➢wb P 1 n rn ' 7171 o r 2 I...4 •r. � 0 Sips ., r z ED • PROJECT #: 21 -4 PROJECT: Behms Park /Lot Creation DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Refrence Memorandum Octoberl9, 2000 /Jeff Smyser /Letter to Gary Udhe from Jeff Smyser dated November 15, 2000, and Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Information. • Pending doccument submittal requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Application have been submitted and are attached to this report. STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • A small area on east side should be buffered with a Native planting. This area would capture a small area of run -off from the park bluegrass area. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No 411 FINAL VOTE DATE: flapxv_ &_Pexp6anov_BoapS_ Xzn-oglilzvo AaKea DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: pending .. COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): • pending .. COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .. pending .. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The related to actual implementation. resolved) during implementation, outcome. •.... pending following defines staff observations This includes issues raised (and general observations, and project PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending ,... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date 17ap ro-_ &J'sxpsazzov.Boa Xczz_oqS.jizvo_Acarsa RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 3585 LEXINGTON AVE N SUITE 330 ARDEN HILLS MN 55126 -8056 Phone: (651) 766 -4191 Fax: (651) 766 -4196 NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS Date of this Notice: 9/28/00 Permit Application No: 99 -133 Applicant's Name & Address: Century Farm Development, Inc. Fax (612) 424 -9542 3621 85TH AV N, SUITE 108 BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 Project Location: South of Palomino Lane and west of Mustang Lane, Lino Lakes., op Purpose of Project: Land Development Plan for a single„mayargiolentlevelopment and park area to be known as Behm's Farm Par llots, acres. At their meeting on September 27, 2000, the Board of Managerst li a Rice Creek Watershed District took the following action on your Permit Application: Table with authorization for administrative action pending receipt of: 1. Revised grading plan specifying emergency overflow outlet structure for the CD 10 -22- 32 Mustang Lane crossing satisfying District freeboard requirements. 2. Preliminary plat or legal document with satisfactory form and description granting ponding and flowage easements over all hydrologic features (including 50 feet from the centerline of Anoka County Ditch 10- 22 -32). *Please forward 2 copies of the draft document [unsigned] for verification of legal language and description of legal location to the RCWD office. After District approval of easement format, permittee is required to have the easement document signed and notarized and then forward the original document to the RCWD office. RCWD will then record the original document at the County Recorder's Office. 3. Easement document covering new alignment of Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 acceptable to District Attomey. This Board action is in effect 15 days from date of notice. After 10/12/00, it reverts to a TABLE status. If this occurs, the application must come back before the Board. Submittal deadline date for the 10/25/00 permit meeting is 10/12/00. Please submit 3 copies of all required exhibits. After receipt and review of the above - indicated items, additional information may be required for clarification to ensure that the District's requirements have been met. If you have any questions, please call the District Office at (651) 766 -4191. Michele D. Hanson Permit Coordinator c: Township/City of Lino Lakes Applicant's Engineer J. C. Johnson Consultants, Inc. Montgomery Watson RCWD File Correspondence MEMORANDUM October 19, 2000 to: Rick DeGardner from: Jeff Smyser subject: Behm's Park Lots I have reviewed the history of the Behm's park property, based on information I got from Mary Kay. The park area includes Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Sunset Oaks. The City acquired the four lots via warranty deed in December 1985. The City rezoned Lots 14, 15, and 16 to R -1 in 1994 (Ordinance 15 -94). Lot 13, the southern portion of the park, was not included in the rezoning action. I don't know why this lot was excluded from the rezoning. In 1997, the Metropolitan Council allowed the City to use part of its MUSA reserve for the Behm's site. The approved submittal map did not include Lot 13. That is, Lot 13 was not included in the area where MUSA can be applied. .I don't know why this lot was not included in the City's submittal. In 1999, the City Council authorized selling 2.55 acres of the park. I was not involved in this negotiation, but my understanding is that G. M. Development provided improvements to the park worth $75,000. I believe the understanding is that Uhde would get the 2.55 acres in return (with the intention of creating nine house lots). Three actions are needed by the City: 1. Rezone Lot 13 Sunset Oaks to R -1. This should be a relatively straightforward matter. 2. Allocate 2.55 acres of MUSA reserve to the area to be sold to the developer. This would include approximately one -half acre outside of the approved area, but I can support this descrepancy because both the City and Gary Uhde have operated with good faith on this issue. Preliminary plat, with normal plat submittal from the developer. The plat should include the entire park area (8+ acres). It will be simpler to plat it all rather than doing a lot split (minor subdivision) and then a plat for the nine lots. There are easement issues to resolve, and the plat will address them. I recognize that the City approved the land sale with no guarantee of building lots or rezoning. However, with the park improvements, I trust we can convince the City Council that it is worthwhile. I suggest we bring this to the next work session on November 8h. Let's discuss this. • November 15, 2000 Gary Uhde Century Farm Development 3825 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55433 re: Development of Lots in Behm's Park Dear Gary: As you know, the City agreed in a purchase agreement to sell to you certain property that is currently part of Behm's Park. As described in the attached memo of November 8 to the Council, there are three approvals needed from the City Council: rezoning Lot 13 Block 2 Sunset Oaks to R -1; allocation of 2.55 acres of MUSA reserve to the property to be conveyed; approval of a preliminary plat. At the work session of the City Council on November 8, 2000, staff supported these actions and the City Council directed staff to proceed with the staff recommendation and necessary actions. I will schedule the rezoning and MUSA allocation (comprehensive plan amendment) for the December 13 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board unless I hear from you not to. We will need the application and fees by Friday, November 24. The normal deadline for the December 13 meeting has passed. However, because of the unique situation and the straightforward nature of the rezoning and MUSA actions, we will have time to process them. We will not schedule the preliminary plat for the same meeting because the time required to review the plat is longer. As long as we get the complete preliminary plat submittal by December 11, we will schedule it for the January 10, 2001 Planning & Zoning Board meeting. I will be the staff handling these actions. Please feel free to call me with any questions at (651)982 -2425. Sincerely, ✓Jeff Smyser City Planner cc: Ric ;DeGardner, Mary Kay Wyland, John Powell 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651- 982 -2410 IIME WWI .s_ { • — 2. _ • & »x ( '&z -} ti 1 I • • �J BEHM'S FARM PARK ADDITION j �(T r-1 IL lIS i IVI NW CORNER OF LOT 16: - -- J� WEST LINE OF LOTS 13,14,15, & 16, BLOCK 2, SUNSET OAKS 7 S OO•01'4I° W - -- 25.00 20 CL_IV1UI \I 1 (\1 \IVI 31.74 0 20 O '')A I (N!!IA \ I( iV111VU I A L l E L_r 11 VL_ NORTH LINE OF LOT 16, BLOCK 2, SUNSET OAKS- ---- - - -``` M M -- 578.86 N 87 °09'10" E -- _153.88 _ ao 00 so 00 --- • - - - -� . r 1 r--- ---- 1 1 1 W 31 A QI 5 I O 't IO 11 1 IO i 1 Ipl pI I 1 �1 3 NI ') OI I I p �'8 ' "'� Z I I Z I I N , �.0 tO 1 o n o'). 6 ♦♦ E' --I �, -' of ` \`` %.Sg ♦ ♦ ♦`� _ U ' V 80.00 — 80.00 : �/\ _ 80.30 _ �' S ^`` i 5TH1 1(2 I ( rsr\IT I(JAI 13o 30 (∎L/ VI IIVIv iL - - - - -- 0 M O I I(j I M 1 _ L 80.00 - - -- 400.00 i ice' p\Nkt^ 4- /011- � ,"3,.' r ' ` M \587 °09'10 "W__ - .' ♦♦♦, 1 3.63 N87 °03'15 "E ' 01 ; - 135.00,' N89 °29'14 "W 1 _E. ------ 1- , 4 C1( J\ 4 ‘Z' \') I rJ (J\ 1 ti 438.01 - -- 573.22 N 87 °21'40" -- ----- -SOUTH LINE OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, SUNSET OAKS S00 °30'46 °W -- W I. .. r, i W o _ y z 1--135.00 N89 °29'14 "W 0 0 -1 2 0 0 1_ 1 \ vl a 0 I o 2 ° N O NI W ri L J f o 0 m l --- I35.00 S89 °29'14 "E ---- r , - -- 135.00 N89 °29'14 "W - - -. ;,r 2: N i0 A J 8.— ___ —1 --- , i 6i 0 W O Z J -r 135.00 N89 °29'14 "W 3' 10 ' a N a 2 - -- 135.21 8 c 33 i 33 I r E LIJ CJ 1' c0 L e .-)r •F, 1\/ i w/`^' ILIT UU1\ 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22. S 0 50 100 150 SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET o - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS: 5-� 5 10 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT -OF -WAY LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT, HY —LAND SURVEYING, P.A. LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS BEHM'S FARM PARK ADDITION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, owner and proprietor, of the following described property situated in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, to -wit: Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2. SUNSET OARS, according to the duly recorded plat, thereof. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as BBMY S FARM PARR ADDITION and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the park and easements for drainage and utility purposes as shown on the plat. In witness whereof said City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officers this day of 200_. Signed: CITY OF LINO LAKES r Clerk State of Minnesota County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before we this day of , 200_, by the Mayor and the Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, on behalf of said Corporation. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My commission Expires, January 31, 2005 I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the land described on this plat as HENN'S FARM PARK ADDITION; that this plat is a correct representation of said survey; that all distances are correctly shown on said plat in feat and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as ehown on said plat; that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on said plat; and that there are no public highways or wetlands to be deeignated on said plat other than as shown thereon. Milton B. Hyland, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registration No. 20262 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before se this day of 200_, by Milton B. Hyland, land Surveyor. Ruthanne Mary Hyland, Notary Public, Henn. Co., Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 2005 CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22. LINO LAKES, M2NNESOTh We hereby certify that the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, duly accepted and approved the plat of BERM'S FARM PARK ADDITION at a regular meeting thereof held this day of 200_. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the carmiseioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommenda- tions, as provided by Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA Mayor Clerk This plat of BBIM•S FARM PARK ADDITION was checked and approved by me this day of 200_. Anoka County Surveyor HY -LAND SURVEYING, P.A. LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS 4 Pp 0� - --FES 324'- — • SEWO 905.6 SEWO bQ5.6 905.6 EWO /905.6 SEWO 904.0 904.0 905.5 905.5 905.6 CB 326 CB 3271 CB 1328A 1 lams pipe me J4ISIY, ligelia - •! \I 904.3 904.3 / I i E._i . 80. S %N2 / n.- — fT; _ .' . j'/ peg? 1 — 0 „g `.. % .. i %ice £ / / / K `1 SEWO 9.4 SEW Oo. ft 0 25 50 100 200 GRAPHICS SCALE (in feet) r • 904.2 SE 000 '904- 5' • Qoo.p I1 • 22 . 7 1 I 1 I i MFB -906. T5- 105' \ SEWO 905.65 SEWO 9b5.2 906:15 SHEET 2 3 DATE: 12/ i I /00 PROJECT N0� PRELIMINARY PLAT BEHM ' S FARM PARK ADDITION CENTURY FARM DEVELOPMENT. Inc. Lino Lakes. M n ''•� "' °"'`° "�' .w, " ° "� z... ..r. „.e qr a. r .,e j� .r..ywras m.2 FAr, "'`.tec.,Lpr '�° :.. t.. d .�.< •.�.�:.� +� ..::.. J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN Phone: - 75th Ave. 6) Brooklyn Pork. MN 55428 Phone: 1612) 566 -6158 FAX: 1612). 566 -4374 921206 cnoo NO.: s , -pp Q,. __ 115 ___ ,• )ajd�. ;906. 15 1 5106. 15 1 SP. w4 its / 1/ - FES1?4- It I 0 I. 144/1- SEWO 904.0 EWO 9'04 . 905.5 90 9.0 =— �I 904.0 905.6 SEWO '90 .6 SEWO 995.6 905.6 /905.6 905.6 CB 3271 C8 326 904.3 ( 904.3 .■ SEWO 904.3 SEWO _ / ..... ...........1................... / / 904.3 904.9 I� ,1�900.3� 904 SEV 00. IMENEWEEMIE ¶� A� iyu. ` (� ‘ i [7' .135• 904.2' 0 25 50 100 200 • GRAPHICS SCALE (in feet) v -T 000 f • • Ci Y OF Li I SEWO REVISED 10 /II /00 REVISED PIPE OUTLET & DITCH & ADDED EASEMENT REVISED 8/29/00 REVISED SILT FENCE. TRAIL & WETLAND LOCATION REVISED 9/30/99 REVISE SILT FENCE LOCATION REVISED 9/9/99 ADD EROSION CONTROL DETAIL 905.65 u G► SHEET 3 3 PATE: GRAD I NG PLAN B E H M • S FARM PARK ADD I T I ON CENTURY FARM DEVELOPMENT. Inc. Lino Lakes. Mn mat "°'" ". :, ' vw.`. ' ex, " '' ` ':;' ° =w y !.v" —..' -�� ' �' J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE PLANMNG AND DESIGN 6601 - 75th Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55428 Phone: (612) 566 -6158 FAX: (6)2) 566 -4374 4/18/00 Paa,l�cT o.: 921206 MONO.: o.., _ 11 6 rZ��/ EF.,. -nE II 906.15 1 .l_ 106.15 i0C �--� `FES,334- SEW° 9 °A ,0 1 { � � 1 f /J r': • I 902 got___ -- 1 — — — .` / `/ 1 1 J/ A ....A ....................a / / •_ —"t 1 , 1 I r 1 904.3 SEWO .• ........................... DEC 1 0i cc 1— iw ci 1 CITY OF _s 23 0 25 50 100 200 GRAPHICS SCALE (in feet) i \ • v SHEET 1 DATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS BERM e S FARM PARK ADDITION CENTURY FARM DEVELOPMENT. Inc. Lino Lakes. Mn =44=?: °. ' °�;;°tt"`2 '°°«� i-4 vi+e a•v of rye Src:e of 1f +nvata �'fe' "�q�rk�' taNPR rr'`— / j\J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. C SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN j 6601 - 75th Ave. N. Brooklyn Pork. MN 55428 Phone: (612) 566 -6158 FAX: (612) 566 -4374 tzillJOO �)JECT No,; 921206 CAM) No: 8.9 __ _46_ ,,., 1 -r ,t e P, _1 • i 906.15 06.15 PROJECT #: 21 -5 PROJECT: Saddle Club Update, DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT : CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : October 25, 2000 : 6:30 P.M. : 9:24 P.M. Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin, Rod Kukonen, Dave Mach, and Mike Trehus. Chair Scott Lanyon and Theresa O'Connell. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson • B. Saddle Club - Asleson explained the Saddle Club project was reviewed at the September 27, 2000 meeting. The developer has submitted a new sketch plan. He noted the colored map provided by the developer indicating the total site area, total upland, wetland, trees to remain, and those to be removed. He stated he reviewed this information in comparison to the GIS map and the developer has determined the number of lots he needs to make it work. Asleson reviewed the greenway alignment and mentioned the types of soils and vegetation found on this site. He stated this is a good area to consider for conservation development. Asleson pointed out the areas of wetland delineation and wetland vegetation. He also noted the areas of historic oak savanna and potential for trail locations. He advised this property is just Hapxo_ &_Pexpeariov Boap5_ Xtrt_ocLiltvo.JlatcEQ 1 outside the identified greenway expansion area, however, those characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this 410 site is half in MUSA and half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources, and conservation development so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project. Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asleson stated he believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, it would create the desired buffers. Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and tree stands to strike a balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands. Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, uplands, and • areas to be developed for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of areas to be developed and those to be conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the area of conservation. He pointed out areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and access points. Mr. Fairbrother addressed their intent to soften the hard surface areas and stated all areas not platted for housing would be deeded for a conservation easement. Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the roads would be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road width is negotiable, depending on what the City wants. Mach stated this plan is well thought out but he has found upland, which provides habituate, suffers with these projects. He stated if a conservation easement program is to be continued, diversity of habituate types needs to be considered to assure a diversity of wildlife is present. Asleson explained the blue areas depicted on the map do not identify areas of open water. Mach stated he would be willing to see some trees removed if it would save some upland and provide diverse nesting habitat and flap co_ &_Pexpeauov_Boa, XI z__ogL4l vo__Aarcea animals. Asleson stated the GIS data for this site would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations. Asleson asked about the number of lots and how it relates to the project. Mr. Fairbrother stated it would be a more appropriate to ask John Hill to address whether it is economically feasible. Ken Adolph, representing the applicant, explained that John Hill was unable to attend the meeting tonight. He stated they feel that 64 lots are needed to make this project financially feasible and if the lot number were to be reduced, they may return with a request for higher density, such as townhomes. Trehus stated he is disappointed in this proposal and it being represented as a conservation development. He stated he believes a conservation development results in tradeoffs with a lower density. He noted that 25 acres of upland would equal about 50 homes and he would not support more than 50 homes on this site. Trehus commented on the amount of impervious surface and stated he believes the entire concept of conservation development is being shifted, which he does not support. Kukonen asked about Option A for 49 lots. Mr. Fairbrother stated that is the large lot option which they proposed at an earlier meeting. However, that is now off the table at this point based on the comments made at the last meeting indicating a desire for smaller sized lots. Kukonen asked when the property will all be included in the MUSA. Asleson stated he is not aware of when MUSA will be expanded. Mr. Adolph stated at the last meeting, it was discussed that the MUSA was arbitrarily drawn through the middle of this property. He advised that Heritage Development has indicated they will develop the property in two phases and request the MUSA line be redrawn, possibly with tradeoffs in other areas. Mr. Adolph stated the single family area uses more of the upland area and the intent of the conservation development is to cluster the development with smaller lots. However, in the economic analysis, one larger sized lot does not equate to a smaller sized cluster lot. Asleson inquired regarding the price range of these homes. Mr. Adolph stated $160,000 to $180,000 is the base price plus options which could increase the price to $200,000. IZap a_ &_PExpeanov._.BoapS_ Xzn_o011zvollaKeo Trehus asked how a consideration of townhomes was raised. Mr. Adolph stated more of the upland acreage could be retained and • placed in the conservation easement with a higher density such as townhomes. He reviewed the applicant's conversation from the last meeting indicating they did not want the conservation easement line to run through private homes which this revised site plan addresses. Trehus noted the number of lots also increased from 49 to 63. Mr. Adolph stated that is correct because one large lot does not equal one small lot. Mr. Fairbrother stated they propose 50 -foot buffers from all wetlands. Trehus asked if they are aware of the typical road right -of -way width in Lino Lakes. Mr. Adolph stated they are proposing a 50 -foot right -of -way. Trehus stated the requirement is for 60 feet and asked what the impact would be. Mr. Fairbrother noted this is a PUD so there would be some consideration for flexibility about road width and lot sizes. Mr. Adolph explained that providing a 60 -foot right -of -way would push the homes closer to the roadway. He suggested that a 50 -foot right -of -way is adequate for streets in this development. • Donlin stated she does not necessarily agree that smaller sized cluster lots with a conservation easement are of less value than a larger sized lot. She suggested less value would result in placing an additional 15 homes in this area due to added congestion. Donlin stated the quality of life would be better and the desired value could still be achieved if those additional 15 homes were removed. Mr. Adolph stated in this case, they are not considering a small sized lot to be of equal value to a larger sized lot. Donlin stated she realizes this is a PUD so consideration of higher density, etc. is given but she is not sure this high number of homes is a necessity. Mr. Adolph stated with this development, there will be a homeowners association to address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would provide the benefits of townhomes without having a partywall. Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be smaller which meets a market demand and need for those who are downsizing or empty nesters. Hapxo_ &_Psxpsartov_8oa, Xert_oL/1tvo_Awrea Vice Chair Davidson agreed with Donlin regarding the desirability for smaller lots if it contains the same amenities, viewsheds, and fewer houses. Asleson asked if lots of that type would sell in the marketplace. Mr. Adolph stated Mr. Hill would be able to answer that question. Donlin stated she appreciates the better viewsheds with this plan but she does not think it is fair to then add 15 units which creates more congestion. Mr. Fairbrother asked when the point of economics of the development and the conservation issues balance out. Vice Chair Davidson noted that Option C was discussed at the last meeting, not Option A. She asked if there is an option somewhere between Option A and Option C, to create fewer lots and more open spaces. Mach stated the role of the Board is to address the environmental aspects and while he agrees not much has been gained environmentally, he is sensitive to the economic issues. Asleson stated they bought the land to develop into houses and the question being asked is how few homes can be built and the project still work. He noted the developer has addressed issues of buffering and greenway. Asleson stated the developer will have to address the density and financial economics. He explained that 2.5- acre lots are not part of a conservation development, as they can be subdivided in the future. Vice Chair Davidson agreed and noted that large lots are also not conducive to wildlife corridors or contiguous areas. Trehus noted that with this plan the number of lots has been increased and the road right -of -way reduced, which is a win -win situation for the developer but not the City. He suggested there should be some tradeoffs for the Citylto benefit and asked if a formal application has been made. Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made. Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive to older couples and empty nesters so there would be a lower population. Ilapar &_Pexpsanov_Boaps Xzn_oLAivoJlaxs6 To increase viewsheds, Donlin suggested Lots 7, 34, 35, 46, 51, and 52 be removed. Trehus stated he would like to see the calculations on impervious surfaces. Mach asked if it is up to the association to address tree preservation. Asleson reviewed several tree preservation /protection options used by other communities and commented on the importance of assuring City input into those issues. The Environmental Board indicated a desire for a fewer number of lots and more upland preservation. • Heritage Development Submitted a new Concept Plan on December 13, 2000 to Planning and Zonning based on standard zoning subdivision development. Please refer to table in Jeff Smyser Report dated December 13, 2000. As you can see the parcel lot lines have been platted entirely through the greenway space areas previously considered. The area blanked out in the SW corner is an outlot. P &Z has asked for more open space and discussed trail issues. !II • Another concept plan is currently being planned addressing "space" issues. • A new site specific environmental inventory was prepared by the Department of Natural Resources as part of the Wild Land Urban Interphase project. The inventory shows the area to the south as a mixture of upland and wet areas that are very conducive to the proposed greenway through this area. Because this area has been disturbed by soil disruption in the past, the vegetation consists of invasive reed carary grass and other invasive plants. However, this area also includes the banded soil water plant relationships that exist in the rich fen areas that are being found elseware. This site is worthy of preservation for public greenway purposes. STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • Visual Open Space • Greenway and spacial conections • Trail Issues • .... Buffering Issues flap ar &_PezpwanovBoa, XzrLoz A vollaxsa 411 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: Refer to the following references for information that may affect discussions related to this issue. Description Comment Section 2 - Assessment of Lino Lakes Needs Areas for Ecological Protection as the Underpinning of a Greenway System The inventorying and mapping of the areas exhibiting higher value ecological resources provides the basic underpinning for a greenway system that forms a mosaic of interconnecting natural areas. This in turn can serve as the backdrop for community development and park and trail system planning decisions throughout the city. In this context, the inherent structure of the local ecology will be a principle factor behind the ultimate form that the city takes *once development is complete. This planning principle is considered in greater detail in forthcoming sections of this manual. Section 3 - Governing Polices •. Action Step 3 — Establish Conceptual Plan for Greenway System Action Statement: Develop a plan for creating a city -wide greenway system that forms a network of interconnected natural areas. Discussion: As noted in the last section, inventorying and mapping the areas exhibiting higher ecological resource qualities is the basic underpinning for a greenway system that forms a mosaic of interconnecting natural areas. This in turn serves as the basic underpinning for future land development and park and trail system planning decisions throughout the city. Under this pretense, the inherent structure of the city's ecological resources will become a principle factor behind the ultimate form that the city takes once development is complete. Action Steps: 0 1) Establish and adopt the conceptual plan for an interconnected greenway system that serves to link Hapw &_Pexpeanov_Boap&. Xtzi_ogLAzvaJ1axea 7 key ecological communities together. 2) Utilize the greenway plan as the fundamental underpinning for land use decisions, which includes residential and commercial development as well as parks and trails. 3) Routinely update the greenway system plan as more detained information is gathered and inputted into the GIS system.... .... Section 4 - Environmental System Framework •.. This zone consists of largely upland areas considered under various natural vegetative cover types, such as oak savannas, mesic forests, and prairie remnants. This zone refers to areas of the city that fall outside the other two zones. Greenway Zones and Their Interrelationship with Community Development As the above map illustrates, three zones are identified within the greenway system. The following considers each of these. Protected Zone: This zone largely consists of water bodies, wetlands and", parks that are protected from development under current regulatory controls. Under protected status, no development will occur. High Ecological Value /Greenway Trail Corridor Zone: This zone consists of largely upland areas as defined under various natural vegetative cover types, such as oak savannas, mesic forests, and prairie remnants. The zone should be viewed as an area where ecological protection opportunities are very high and that protection of these values should be a foremost consideration in the development process. It is within this zone that protection strategies such as buffer systems, conservation easements, land trusts, and so forth can be used to protect higher value natural resources. Also included in this zone are lineal corridors that link the higher quality natural areas together and provide space for the proposed city -wide greenway trail corridor. Currently, development in the high ecological value zone is allowed in accordance with development requirements as stipulated by city codes and' ordinances. Beyond these regulatory requirements, the ecological values 17apxa_ &J'epeanov_BoapS_ Xtzt-011zvo. Aaxeo of 411these lands are not substantively protected. In addition, land ownership rights and economic development pressures preclude the possibility of arbitrarily limiting development in this zone. Given this, fostering a conservation approach to development is the most advantageous way of preserving the key ecological values in this zone while at the same time allowing development to proceed in an economically viable fashion. Ecological Enhancement Zone: This zone refers to areas of the city that fall outside the other two zones. Typically, this includes lands that are defined under agriculture designation and thus do not currently exhibit high ecological value, but offer opportunities for significant ecological enhancements as part of future land use decisions. An example of this is transitioning some agriculture fields into prairie communities as part of a conservation development. Also included under this zone are areas already developed, such as a residential subdivision, where ecological enhancements are • still possible, albeit perhaps on a more limited basis. The main objective of this zone is to articulate that the opportunities to expand the footprint of high quality natural areas, and thus the greenway system, within the city are very extensive and that sound ecological protection strategies should not be limited only to areas that currently exhibit higher ecological qualities. Quite to the contrary, under the mantra of conservation development approach to planning, protecting and enhancing the ecological values of all lands should be considered whenever development occurs in the community. Further, every attempt should be made to link these newly created natural areas to the larger greenway system as depicted on the map wherever opportunity to do so exists. This linkage should be both in the form of a natural landscape features as well as linear trail corridors that allow for human access and appreciation of these natural amenities... The 411inherent form of the ecological systems within the city offer a great deal Hapx6 &_Pexpeanov._.Boap& Xin_oL Azvo AaKecr of potential to serve as the backbone of a greenway system that links natural areas with parks, trail corridors, and development areas throughout the community. Realizing the Vision of a Greenway System As the mapping image in the last figure illustrates, the inherent form of the ecological systems within the city offer a great deal of potential to serve as the backbone of a greenway system that links natural areas with parks, trail corridors, and development areas throughout the community. There are, however, a few critical points that need to be made if this vision is to be realized. First, the city is going to have to approach community development in a decidedly different way than in-the past if the areas that fall within the high ecological value zone and the ecological enhancement zone are to become substantive parts of the greenway system. Conventional land development practices, which respond to local zoning codes and ordinances, do not offer enough flexibility or incentives for developers to set aside lands for open space beyond that required through regulatory action, such as wetland ordinances and park dedications. Instead, a more ecologically sensitive approach to development will have to be adopted to achieve this end. Section 7 considers this issue in greater detail. The second point is that should these natural resource lands be set aside in a greenway system, the city and land owners will have a greater responsibility for their long -term stewardship. At the city level, this will require a fundamental evaluation of the organization structure at the staff and political levels and the recognition that adequate resources (man power and funding) will have to be directed at resource restoration and management programs if a sustainable resource quality is to be achieved. Interrelationship of Greenways with Parks and Trails The conceptual idea of the greenway system as presented here is a natural outgrowth of the existing park and trail system plan for the city. The 40 existing plan makes numerous references to the development of a greenway system Hap_& Fe, peazzov_Boap5_ Xzrt .oL_1ltvo_laKw 10 for its natural values as well as providing the conduit for a city -wide Aft linear trail II/corridor system. In many respects, the existing park and trail plan was part of the community visioning process that manifested itself in the 20/20 Vision Plan. The plan remains the basic underpinning for the park and trail system and should still be used as the basis for planning future parks and trails. Integrating the Greenway System with the Park and Trail System Plan The Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan and Development Guide for Lino Lakes defines the overall plan for the city's parks and trails and establishes the parameters for its implementation. The plan remains the basic underpinning for the park and trail system and should still be used as the basis for planning future parks and trails. As part of the planning process for this manual, the city -wide park and *trail system plan was overlaid on the greenway system map shown in figure 4.2. This combination illustrates how the linear trail corridors and individual park locations can be effectively intertwined with the natural areas contained within the greenway system. Figure 4.4 illustrates this concept. As shown on the figure, the actual and conceptual location of existing and proposed trails are identified. The trails are broken down into two types, park trails and connector trails. Park trails refer to trails that are located in their own easement, in a greenway corridor outside of a road right -of -way, or in a city/ regional park. Connector trails refer to trails that are typically located in an existing road right -of -way. In the context of this study, the park trails are of greatest concern in that their ultimate location is intrinsically linked to the ultimate extent of the greenway system. In this sense, success toward establishing a greenway system will *also mean greater success in establishing an interlinked system of park trails Mapco_ & _Pexpeaziov BoapS_ Xtzi_o¢11avo11axea 11 throughout the city. Flexibility of Implementing the Park and Trail System Plan As with the greenway system itself, it should be understood that a certain degree of flexibility in meeting the objectives set by the park and trail system plan is warranted. This could be considered in the same light as showing greater flexibility with respect to lot sizes, road widths, and setbacks in order to provide more open space and resource protection opportunities. This greater flexibility is not to suggest deviating from the principles of the plan, which must be adhered to if a balanced park and trail system is to be achieved within the city. What is suggested is that the physical location and makeup of specific park and trail elements be considered on a case -by- case basis whereby the vision of the plan is still realized, but with greater flexibility as to how that actually occurs on the ground. The ultimate location of parks and trails and their physical size, orientation, and inter- connectivenes411 are all factors that need to be considered within the context of the overall greenway system and community development footprint. Site - specific natural resource characteristics and development opportunities and constraints will all play a role in how park and trail issues are ultimately resolved. Worth noting about the greenway and trail corridor systems is that once completed, the user experience will be that of a being in a largely uninterrupted natural setting the leads from one park setting to another. Section 5 - Administration .....One option for ensuring the protection of key ecological resources is public purchase of the property. The city is fortunate to already have a significant portion of some of the most diverse ecological systems already protected by city and county parks. In some cases, it may be advantageous to purchase additional significant properties that can not be protected in any other way. However, given the land area already under public ownership, such as Rice 17apxo_ &_PexpeanovBoap5- XtrLoO_Alvo_Aaxecr 12 Creek Regional Park Reserve, this will be more the exception than the rule. More realistically though, the public's willingness and capacity to purchase additional open space is at best uncertain. The value of the land in Lino Lakes has and will continue to escalate on into the future. The resources that are held near and dear now also tend to result in heftier land values. From a pragmatic standpoint, the route to protecting these valuable lands is by having them set aside through the private development planning process. It is this reality that underscores the need to give the conservation development approach to planning so much attention in this handbook. It also underscores how important it is that the relationship between the city and the development community be heightened into a strong working partnership. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: . • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes FINAL VOTE DATE: Ilapxo_ &_13Expeartov _Boap8_ XarLo¢_1lvo_laxea 13 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): ... pending • COUNCIL ACTION DATE: . ... pending .. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The related to actual implementation. resolved) during implementation, outcome. • pending .... following defines staff observations This includes issues raised (and general observations, and project PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: pending .. ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date flap ar &PsxpsaztovBoapS_ 14 Xt ogLAtvollaxea AGENDA ITEM VI. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Discussion Item: Saddle Club Concept Plan BACKGROUND The Board discussed a concept for developing the Saddle Club at the last meeting. The developer, Heritage Development, presented a sketch of a planned development that included the possibility of some common or public open space. The Board expressed a number of concerns regarding that sketch. The Board did not believe that the plan justified the additional density on the site compared to standard R -1 zoning. The developer has submitted a new concept for discussion. While the new plan corresponds with standard zoning, several elements have been removed that could be considered desirable. The following table offers a summary comparison of the two concept drawings: previous concept plan new concept plan received 11 /21 /00 number of lots 64 40 net density on 25.05 upland acres 2.6 lots per acre 1.6 lots per acre lot widths 50' 80' lot depths 130 130 roadways • Connection between Old Birch and Kildeer, offering circulation Access on Old Birch, 1 /a mile long cul de sac, no circulation. 50'ri :htofwa . between neighborhoods. 50'ri:itofwa . - open space Large wetlands and some forested areas in common or public open space, which matches greenway vision for the area. Potential for trail through site in greenway. Potential for connecting to existin : trail to north. No open space — entire site platted within house lots. No trail potential except in street right of way. No potential for connection to existin • trail to north. Saddle Club December 13, 2000 page 2 Land Use and Zoning: To review some information, the site currently is split in half by the MUSA and by a zoning line. Staff is recommending that the City Council amend the land use map to resolve this, which would allow for rezoning the southern portion. The new concept would not require a planned development. The lots are intended to meet current R -1 zoning standards. This new plan is a good contrast to the previous plan, and offers the opportunity to look at the potential trade -offs. There are no special features in return for smaller lots, higher density, or both. Fewer lots means less economic incentive for offering amenities beyond the norm. The previous plan offered the potential for variety in home styles. The new plan would provide for lot cost and home style common to recent suburban developments. Without road and utility connections to the east, the property to the east will remain undeveloped. There is upland there, and Kildeer Drive could serve the area. Like the Saddle Club site, the north part of the 141/a section to the east is within the current MUSA. The previous concept plan opens the potential for developing some of that area —utilizing some existing MUSA land. The existing MUSA land may develop without the Saddle Club connection, but it will be more difficult to do so. The P & Z suggested investigating how Shoreview addresses the potential for failing ice from the guy wires of large towers. I expect information soon from Shoreview staff. Open Space, Trails: The smaller lots of the old plan offered potential open space and trails through the site. No public or common open space is seen on the new plan. The entire site is within individual house lots on the new plan. (The fate of the southwest corner of the site is undefined.) Without development of the northeast corner of the site, there is no connection to the • existing trail in the Oaks of Lino In addition, the land on the east of the site where the road ends is largely wetland and floodplain. This seriously reduces the possibility of a trail connection to Birch Park. Transportation: The previous plan included a road that provided circulation through the site, connecting Old Birch with Kildeer Drive. The new plan does not provide this circulation. It includes Old Birch access and a long, dead -end road. Utilities: Without the road connection to Kildeer, utilities would have to follow Old Birch from Birch St. The economic feasibility of this will need to be determined. RECOMIVIENDATION Discussion and direction to the developer for assembling a plat submittal. ANAU LAKE OW 0 ILLS PRISERIE /11/011u.aN IIIII©I°°yo `�:►; �. emu_ fT� /,',.,u a-iw,L :rj MI ��ril _Q©riaI r. au,m •i �Q'R' °�I� m0n Ems' ' Im 41. _r +:Ion` 13 )11 t4 4 MD b1 1K.4 MINS Ldr VIND warurq aw►tw10.4 �YVy1 jtbblM.1NCiTRe57. 10U0, 4sAirsbr.S MI MST Ift WR 9,7. CORM 0 x 100 ,!0 %N2 N rut �- .1001 ! } /i m 951 eic co 201 Q� O og g 0 ` d ��Iy `aa 10 1- aT* 4 • MUNI • 1 • / • . 17-1- I I 1 i 1 41 L L _ L k_L}) t3 Goi r. Su .141-F_ LE FM1UX �t -1hU- LOV - Lor Wi ni : 65"+ DErni S rya'. - vPONiT f1S7'l a.R. 1 25' ..1'. `rag. Rr t•1 : (of LDTS Lor / Leg E tsrpt - - -- 4OT LINZ wonoNo Cosus ,sc'') Inaapenon OWN, ofn rMYYti., RlMNW Wj TReeS amn ONri 40 Apo 00 .80100 03A1333 OtriCINERVO TOP NUT H ORNIT 7.7. CORNEA ELEVAAON . 7 r- -• 1 �•_•_� /• 1 ^ % •�•1 ....._.7 5. 5 ff p TYrIcAL O >o • *00 SOU N I00 • a •e 4 I W wDoos soo • 0788'5011 1307.82 Ma - 994 • 994 9• -Ma+ CNAtNU19C FENCE n APPROX. FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY ZmB r' te 11 /. y. / i . / a. ./. I I. r 0 00 tat tb aCNt N Ttfr .l�yb k IWEILANOS Iw i. / TOM 41,111.47=4341.2 ITITA4 seers -SLn / 2174E WIT LAND ARzLdIEOtlJ MIL VW LARD £P -S .7a / / LEGEND • 1RU LM[- 8 •IOW= • • LIGHT MME •• ▪ .POWER Rat SOILS Zia* : 7MNRRNAN FIt SAND IMA : UNO LOAMY RK SAND 3•5 : MUMS f ( SAND h0 : DIANA RN( SsNOY LOW W s MARKEY 1N101 N St CORNER SoA • • /Iw - •C • Alums ',/ - r . (r SoA .. SoA //' �� 1' �. \ / -- / ■ \\ N. oor SoA —r--"— / / r / wf1LAND4 + 4. • Iw `p / r 1 • N88Y�•a1"M r + I 1, •- ,• �. + • - / I. (` • . + • r a. / en r 4_ . . . / / - /' I /' / r ( �.� / _ + , ` L WETLANDS 992 • 592 I / / J). tgaT °Awa laam a i as ° I SCHOELL & UADSON. INC. c 'o�awr°"'m UNDO o bs ws ai i' "swc�/°v°O�.noog oAaEas9 • sw0(TO101 • nl *e 4S 1118 =ONO • DAM0N 0/01. SUM= loaE0. rung* mamma 2C91(. 1 ONO ..*-.. .cn Na i1NNtra 41 NN 9409 (0121 IN -7001 IANt 54 -2029 tNyswts tnt tNtt ' �'0"N CUENT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL. MN 651 -481 -0017 OATEt ? 1997 LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE CLUB LINO LAKES. MN EXISTING CONDRIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. SHEET OF SHEETS Anoka County Greenway Workgroup Meeting Meeting Notes November 28, 2000 11:30 — 1:30 Attendees: John VonDeLinde, Anoka County Parks 550 Bunker Lake Blvd. Andover 55304 Jeff Perry, Anoka County Parks 1350 Bunker Lake Blvd. Andover 55304 763 -767- 2896 Al Singer Metro Greenways 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul 55106 651- 772 -7952 al.singer@dnr.state.mn.us Bill Penning, Metro Greenways 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul 55106 651- 793 -3981 bill.penning @dnr.state.mn.us Clarence Leeman, Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Dept. of Ecology, UofMN 1987 Upper Bufford Circle St. Paul 55108 612- 625 -5734 lehman@lter.umn.edu Ingrid Verhagen, MPCA Project Manager, 520 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul 55155 651- 296 -7266 ingrid.verhagen @pca.state.mn.us Marty Asleson, Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes 55014 651- 982 -2435 masleson @ci.lino_lakes.mn.us Kurt Schneider, East Bethel, 2241 — 221st Ave NE East Bethel 55011 763 -434 -9569 kjschneider@uswest.net Marie Holm, Linwood Township, 22530 Sunrise Rd. NE Stacy 55079651- 462 -2394 marie.holm @medtronic.com Heidi Nelson, City of Blaine 9150 Central Ave. Blaine 55434 763 - 717 -2623 hnelson(Zi ci.blaine.mn.us Chris Lord, Anoka Conservation District, 16015 Central Ave NE #103 Ham Lake 55304 763 - 434 -2030 anokaconservation @msn.com Others on List: Elizabeth Mursko, Columbus Township, 16319 Kettle River Blvd. NE Forest Lake 55025 Kate Drewry, Rice Creek Watershed District, 3585 N. Lexington Ave Suite 330 Arden Hills 55126 Sam Lucast, Oak Grove 19900 Nightingale St. NW Cedar 55011 The meeting began with PowerPoint presentations from Anoka County Parks highlighting the Cedar Creek Corridor greenway planning project, from Anoka Conservation District highlighting the Northeastern Anoka County Greenway project, and from City of Blaine highlighting their greenway planning project. Each project was different. Parks focused on public involvement and goal/direction development. ACD focused on inventory and identifying high priority parcels for acquisition/easement /education. Blaine began with an inventory, continued with public participation, identified a greenway network and succeeded in having a bond referendum for 3.5 million passed to implement the plan. Current efforts to inventory most of the Rice Creek Watershed District portion of Anoka County was also mentioned. Ingrid Verhagen, MPCA, noted that MPCA owns four superfund sites in the county. Two of them are in identified corridor areas. Another has a nice oak savanna on it and the other is in the riparian corridor of Coon Creek. Everyone agreed that there is a good opportunity for prairie establishment on these sites. Clarence Lehman described the Cedar Creek Natural History Area, noting it is the U of MN's largest land holding with over 6 square miles, one of the nations premiere long - term ecological research sites, the home of radio tracking, one of the most diverse areas in the state with examples of ecosystems from all of the major biomes in the state. They are also conducting open -air research on atmospheric carbon change. He noted that they are very interested in how the area surrounding the CCNHA is managed because it will undoubtedly impact them. The group noted the great resource the CCNHA represents to show residents what is meant by natural communities and how unique they are. CCNHA staff, researchers and former research papers were also noted as a potential references /resources for improving techniques to manage for functional wildlife corridors. There is also a great opportunity for new research to investigate current wildlife movement compared to that of the 1970's prior to much of the development that has occurred. The group discussed how to coordinate future planning and benefit from each others efforts. There is support for additional planning in Linwood, East Bethel and Lino Lakes. Chris Lord agreed to prepare planning grant outlines for Linwood Township, the City of East Bethel, and Lino Lakes to complete inventories and do some cursory planning. Parks and ACD will jointly prepare an application to conduct additional planning and implementation in the already inventoried Cedar Creek Corridor and Northeastern Anoka County project area. Implementation will involve parcel prioritization for education and outreach and then providing workshops and on -site consultation to interested landowners on how to manage their property and land protection options. Long term, there is a need to pursue additional inventories in Oak Grove and St. Francis. The group agreed that everyone would greatly benefit from the hiring of a county -wide greenway coordinator to provide planning and inventory expertise to all interested municipalities, coordinate efforts between municipalities, and promote land protection options and beneficial land management techniques in high priority areas. ACD could house such a person. Potential funding sources were discussed and include DNR, Met Council, Anoka County Parks and municipalities (more likely the county with municipal support since funding could come from property tax revenue anyway and the county already contributes significantly to ACD). Lord will try to coordinate meetings to pursue discussions on this. A plan would have to be well underway by April to accommodate budget planning for 2002, with a start date of January 2002. Thanks to everyone for attending and to Anoka County Parks for the great facility and lunch. II/GU/LUCK) U0.44 01L4U1U (JU Fax I\VIJLI lfl_I4 Lt,v it\ ..l VI \v KJOLI-IAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY P m idiv axnd Bakr7cad Ca rpr&mnsn a Nahad Rbsowoa SoiAlory TO: NAME COMPANY FAX NUMBER Marty A. City of Lino lakes 851- 982 -2499 CC: Mike Quigley Ponta 763 - 7556311 FROM: NAME DATE # of pages (Including tills page) Mart Kjolhaug 12/20/00 4 RE: Clearwater Creek 37O — Natural Area Restoration and Management Plan ® FYI ❑ For Your Review ❑ Please Reply ❑ As Ws Discussed • Comments: Marty — 1 am forwarding an update of our restoration project for you review. Considerable progress was made this year, however, problems with weather prevented us from completing all year l project goals. Please call with questions. Mark 261051NId Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 812- 401 -8757, Fay 612-401-8798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO I\V VL1119V4 LI 1V 1I\ JLI\V 1 r1..�IL GJL PHONE NO. : 320 274 S316 Dec. 19 2000 12:S4PM P1 Deeember.•1 ... 2006' Mark Kjoll*g .Kjolhaug Irnvironmental Services • 2610-Wild Rose tile.: . • • • •Shorewood,.,MN 55331.:. Dear Iviark, • •. : = 1 :atif.wiitrng•td update you about. the. native plant community restoration •: • •wontattlearwater Creek: I inust.first•iiotc this' is a large and unusual.• project for various reasons. The characteristics of the project are reflective . ` • • . of the landscape within. the': projeot:area,..varied and nondescript.. We knew entering'into this project.there were. goingao be issues'withfweather' and•thus• soil conditions; that may. •effect. our.aatlity -to get stages :ofthe.project. •• • .• • • coi tplete. •• • • • • • ;0veraiV..the: roject. is moving, along .tine. Atter delving :into the•project We.: it this: project would not advance; in terms of a restoration • cesSeS;:'eiisiventionally:. The majority of the.project entails re- vegetation • • ofaround'.20: acres •of existing wetlands eUrrently infested with Reed Canary:. ... Grass.. Reed Camay. is an exotic.:.grass Used for forage, It. is a .proliflc seed. producer and•re- grows vigorously from its`roots, even.after multiple herbicide treatment. Generally,.es:was in • this. project, it•grows in wetlands • • that:range from seasonally wet to year round saturation: • As you would • 'expect due.to its high forage • characteristics Recd Canary leaves a significant amount 'of residual materials hat needs .tube • dealt.with before: .planting. seed: • • • A prescribed burn is by far the most desired method for removal of residual . plant material: This method has added benefits of exposing the topsoil: for .: proper seed to soil contact as well as providing for effective herbicide . •, • 11754 Jar.vta .tva.•1,1W •Aesaan faJa, 141241 853•2.. 6020)274-532.6 .• f lac •t320)274 =3.er • • • 1 L/ LU, LUUU UO. LY 0144U1O I JU FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO IWVLI 1P9V�.. La1V i1\ VLI\V PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12:55PM P2 • application., . Normally, when entering a project with demands like these; the • .first step is to burn the dead material in the spring before there is new growth . that will inhibit a clean burn. Since the project was given to us "after" this • spring window, the next step was to use chemical to kill and thus create ' conditions that would enable us to burn early summer. Unfortunately, the site was a little to wet early on to get spray equipment on site and effectively • kill the Reed Canary grass. In the meantime while we waited for the dry down of the wetlands we worked. on exotic brush control in the. understory of most of the woodland set - asides. This was done in stages to provide the best results. First, the smallest saplings of Buckthorn, Honeysuckle and Prickly Mb were cut off at . about 2 feet to put all on equal height level and: make eventual herbicide treatment easier. The idea was thatthe saplings would leaf out at the same heigbt.and make herbicide to plant contact most efficient. Secondly, in mid summer we proceeded further with brush control by cutting all saplings of invasive exotic species noted above, then stump treating each one with Galion Herbicide. The process was .methodical and labor intensive but I feel very effective in controlling and reducing the existing plants of these : • • undesirable species. However, it most be noted, this does not effect new growth.that may potentially occur from an existingseed bank. • • When we got back to work on the wetlands we were in late summer and into a drought. This was fortunate in that it allowed us full access to all the now dry wetlands with our spray equipment. It was unfortunate though, because once we sprayed and killed existing the vegetation a burn ban was put on statewide, preventing us from accomplishing this very important step in.the restoration process. So we waited. Unfortunately time ran out on us this fall to bum and thus properly prepare the site for an effective installation of all the restorative materials. 'In manyy ways this works out fine for us and for the ultimate 12/2U/2101M bl:44171tllli FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO KJULt'IHUU =MIK =KV rMUt U4 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12 :55PM P3 success of the project. Because of the site and condition of this project a longer line should have been drawn into the original plans. The initial time line to install the project was one season. This was in retrospect, pushing the limits of what could be effectively done with a site of this magnitude, considering the size of the project area and the massive infestation of hearty exotic and invasive species. In the spring of 2001 the first task to be performed will be a prescribed burn. After a period of time has elapsed sufficient to allow re- growth from seed or residual roots systems, a final herbicide treatment will.be applied. Anytime after the final herbicide treatment all native plant materials will be installed using the most effective method given the precise landscape involved • (drilling seed with Truax drill whereever •accessible, broadcasting seed when less accessible). After the initial installation we will monitor the site for. further management issues. I hope the elongated timeline we are now dealing with has not created an inconvenience or caused any problems with any of the parties involved, including, Gorem, The city of Lino Lakes or Kjolhaug Environmental. I • assure you, although this project may be running longer than originally • thought, it will be completed and completed successfully. If any members of the parties noted above need more clarification about this letter,1 would be well disposed to answer any questions ask to me regarding any aspect..of this project. Sincere' Tony Rieger -Borer President City Council Meeting (2nd & 4th Monday) January 8, 2001 January 22, 2001 O 0 (-4 N .r w February 26 March 12 March 26 April 23 1 May 14 May 28 TBD? June 11 June 25 ON N ti August 13 August 27 September 10 September 24 October 8 • October 22 November 12 November 26 December 10 December 24 TBD? 1 January 14, 2002 January 28, 2002 February 11, 2002 City Council Work Session (Wednesday before Council mtg.) January 3, 2001 January 17, 2001 February 7, 2001 1 February 21 March 7 March 21 et Q pp ~ May 9 May 23 June 20 July 4 TBD? ono ti August 8 August 22 September 5 September 19 October 3 October 17 November 7 November 21 December 5 December 19 January 9, 2002 N O O N M N�+ e� February 6, 2002 Planning & Zoning Board (2nd Wednesday) December 13, 2000 O 0 N O .. February 14 March 14 74 Q 12. CT 2 June 13 July 11 August 8 I September 12 October 10 November 14 December 12 January 9, 2002 Park Board (1st Monday, except Jan., August and Sept.) December 4, 2000 January 4, 2001 February 5 N April 2 N 2 June 4 N PN July 30 September 4 October 1 November 5 December 3 January 7, 2002 Environmental Board (Last Wednesday) November 29, 2000 EDAC Dec. 7 1 December 27, 2000 January 31 EDAC Feb. 1 February 28 EDAC March. 1 L) 00 W N 2. April 25 EDAC May 3 May 30 EDAC June 7 June 27 EDAC July 5 July 25 EDAC Aug. 2 August 29 EDAC Sept. 6 September 26 EDAC Oct. 4 October 31 EDACNov.1 November 28 EDAC Dec. 6 December 26 Application Deadline (Monday four weeks before P &Zmtg.) INovember 13, 2000 O N .—i A IJanuary 15, 2001 IFebruary 12 IMarch 12 1 I May 14 IJune 11 I July 9 IAugust 13 1 ISeptember 10 IOctober 15 November 12 December 10 1 t s a O o •• g • 0 5 0 . � Q .0 N e 01 p� O i` of ci ..... s C= q d cu z v O n t; a e •`S ▪ 0 d .8 b ••o .? R s o `'� y 4. • u o-r ° e's o o 1". 0 3fi ,o �+ oZi `�'r U CS ti � ° p � d e bo ,� . o; A r V E -o of 0 0 0 + Z r � u ° .a'j c3 -O b ao C "� C ° v o y e 0 m .• v e i , V ,O G e o �O p c, E e � c 2 of „ • a 0a t:.;,, e b o °' Z" .o oi s O Al b :b � o ~ • '° `' Ca � C N fi '� C e R • r �• 0 o3i a O C.1 teaa, ... g y 3 i. p b °, . 4 cdi 0) q N~ ' o°i y U p o° o a L. fi 12 a ta to O 0" L to w z. .,. •..t z of a o) `..S "' " S d G e y N • ,O °' o •S. w". N E of O " o"i -{` " 'Zs bo '1 -O L. o 'S .� oe"i V 4 at ti :h d d ea ° ?, tic ° obi c 0 C -O ° 0 ° 0 Z e m h fi o R co -o G >m? c,�� a c- O bo Q h ..z z "O z -°o z fi Q° O° fi u „c 'b .0 0 C in -t1 d d, -o e° 'ts Q. y d o 3 o c .o d i of Zs O v i o O C i oa Ss r y O? i o� L. .3 33. obi a ...a.:?... s 4 4, boo E e E. a z. v e o U'e e o N O Cr bo " = 3 U 3 3 c, y .r Model Sustainable Development Ordinances ILLILLMI imittittrtmme•••• Chapter XX Model Community Conservation Subdivision District XX.01 Statutory Authorization, Intent, and Purpose ca a; 110 0 ^a 0 Q) O C = L. i.. V .. L Ti .0 ° a. — = o e L° 4, .> co 1 ° ° .r ^v 3 O .5 co 00. O .� V.� y , ^O U Oy 2 C ' U R Q O- G y at 4.. U ^) '_ o 0 0 � C a > E . En ' o k n 'b C ' Q+ U " .y c 0 > = v .b o " y cA v � V . " ' a. 0 HiU C 0 y O O y .0 +' C y :) ) c o Uo: 2 c . y U o is ti :=5 7:3"1." c ° CA : 0 a, a. •° 0 0 ° U o a ° • a 3 c c ° O. .5 y -° o i rA `° o A ° n:72 42 0 C 1 w ° 0 0 .0 4.1 id 0 0 0 0' a) at U c 0 ° 0 ^> i o ° ° a a � ° a° > >) . ai o y ° o ° `d '° y° c N° '° aeQ= o> E o f o' o � i c � p O} .0. S U. M y n , y p, y ° E .a o f o ai o 5 o a ° 'it a= E 3 ° °. a o ' a- > > t7 bA ^c .. c O 3 y 3 i 3 3 E y 0 as, 0 .= s a) ) v' ' 6 4 . 0 E C 'fl EL' o- - y O E- & b d 'C 'O y .0 U) O s a. O O O -p C o 7 ° iO ON a-.0 = N .• te bb y a � cd 0 a; • i . i U o. ,o-2. U 2 0 is 1 ..0 w d 0 0 662 '� w 0 0 8 0 pw O 0y 0 0 0 0 1 O O 0 O a O ?EL O I.9. H at E• L. ad E4 CO E- ca) U E— .,5 E• y E- y E-•2 - a. V1 O ►� C ^O i0 .. '� w . + U wo fV ri 4 vi l- *it O■ Q Ca U > O S v .r y d fi o, 0 O N �• V o 4. ~ p^,' TSO fi d G o 'r .. O O .?. o� of t Q. o o fi •0 r d k3, E y obi h"O Q o y a i.CN 0 a) ....J 0 0 0 E. b0 o i N . h r V ;0 b O •o C Z-Z E. ••••• fi Z ., fi 0 .'` 3 C4 '.. Z V r 4 d `� of Q r 3 C:11 CJ • ..o an d -'0 -i .- O a h %) O y d yr 4 ti y L. ,�. V V N h _ '' .y 0 i El a tl .. �. a. v fi Zs % 0 0 o d s,.0 o h fi d o Z3 ZO qU L. O ZS r b p~ N 0 00.2 V fi • •o d ° 0 o iUIic 0) 0 0 0 °` _ 0 q U ~ Ct Ex. C O =." y0 .r b0.. fi "� C fi U y O L h C1) o) Z +0. q O Q' 0. .a. S Oi •-'). O� Q O ~ ., •w O O d a. y a. fi O fi .. z O fi U O i z 0" o" L. Q o 0. 0 ,� O= 0 O 0" Z 0 y -,a 0 o 4 C ea O 0. h Ems a 'F.. y y S. Q fi h E- • U 0 O 4 -. E . ca . • .J • Biko Associates, Inc. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances • cn O. ea 0 0 0 0 b 0 4 4, 0 0 Cl) 0 i].. 0 w VJ 0 .ry w a) A 0 are defined as follows: ... ° Q �° a) co h z.•C.O .2 L .- a) y� ° U co +' a) O ed 0 O N N . _ al .r Vl 4. 0 Ct G a O. r+ ! R. bp bq bA E. ~ .0 0 O. G 0 0 O. c. o bA 0'i.'-, 0 N O 0 :5 y 00 U „.+ ; 4.. no d ed O -O 2 y a) +' U CL O 4. .2 °' � c o.6 o. 0 3 1.. ° .. 0 To 3 4-. 0 ,.. ^ ¢.m ^0 04-.0 0. ° c y . c WM On 00 �O .� �. e0 a p .0 N 0 N ° GL C ai to a) -co V 0 ,..-111 a0 N 0. •� y U a a 0= 0 WI s. o a 1... 0 co ai N t • > .6 r aa 0 0 ° 0 F L C . U '.,. N N y V i-s N N 0 O. �" tit v 0 •0 d-0 U 0 U 00 E. 0 cue° P. .0 2. N N 0 4- 0 "O 0 4. 0 O a� 0 0 0 O .a 0 4- 0�1 0 0 0 :�.. 0 0 0 0 4- N O O. 0 .1 b 0 • 0 0 0 O 00 0 .0 4t 0 00 0 y 0 0 a) C.) a N 0 0. lra O "O 1 •N "v 0 0 0 0 0 Ci >l 0 0 es co 3 � C) a' E 73 o •'p ai . 0 s 0 0 0 0 f:. it 0 o V '0 a) VI 0 0. R..0 Oo Tr 0 0 as N b0 A N N N CC U ....cn 0 C "C 09'10 0 -o a� 0 �_ 'fl a C A _. 0 45' o 'CI •0 0 '30 cNd S O �' o y o w o lid C ° 0 O O0 " O 'C a. O O 0 0 a) • •fl -.2 a.... O .O C .O U 0 Ct 0 y 0 0 O C y .° L ' 0 4 O • ; T t 0 C ) O c iC 0 A 3. ti O 0 0 0) N °' 0 E 0 a +- }' 0 0 O 0 0 U 0 0 ad Q p O O ti. 4. y Q g �'�° 0 O ww 5 --- 0 < O 00 •� ° a 0 $ =I ^ "0 0 0 0. a).0 E o• a) it $ CU O. O O : O 0 O O E 0 0 3. co. a) V 0 8 A a�i o L Ci C', -C3 0i '0j N 3 ° CU C3 ° t .0 i°• •G 0 ' A g A 3 0 a x °v Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 0 C E y ›, 'O 0 C 0. C s 0 = b to Y,- co C i o;, o 0" -0 1, - C a t a) . 0 U OO e. O cot O. En cO c p, y •L7 O .'- ed cos ti 1_, 4. `° g 03 CI 0 0 0 el 0 0,L4 . . rn w O u 0 C "l7 bU > 0 't to •0 o O 8 u . 0 t. o > b C 'C .D U 0 .0 c 0 a) S. o o 70 O _ rn ' y 4- 0 O. RI °i' y 0 ) ass. 6" til 0 = rte+ 0 c 0 ). H "0 •0 O a) a) M. o. +, C tr..... od -O cn a• o o 2 b o:� a) = w U:71 'b Ri 0 a•• '> O `•• c 3 y o, 0•c�� duo dam's En 0 C 0 0 C Cb y U_ *4_1 +U. O 0-o'i- CQ.� C '� U C ,es L. .°o> a0"03 0 a. c, • 0 o 0 0 0 0 c*>a,•0 V.- 0 U y aa) a. aas b U 1 0. 7 � 2„, z end.0 s U 0 "U y O 0 CI3 U d .b w C o 2 0 0 ° U En p, a0) j, 0 0 5 0. 0 40 .E 0 0 a) tn a) 0. O 0 0 e0 0 •� 0 a) -O C ai 0 r; F" 3 0 0 1:: O 0 it ) 0 . v c.. C 4) 'b y C a) 0 a) 0 - E ss. U vi O b 0 y O 0 Us. n. -0 ate') 0 N C 0 a) C 0 U a) L O 0 rn z 0 O 0 a w C 0 Development standards. 0 a) _ ) ,. _ U 4. 0 0 • C L C 4. eE.) �O w R' U 1 o11: , 0 y ., a) a) 0 i "O Is U00� •` -,b.c0 y a. •a 3 �'° w o o •e,° 0 y U as 0 4., sa. tI 0 O 0 y .0 o 45 .O :0 c = o y C am' i. a Q A =y y O 0 ; .0 w � C o 0 : c 3 'fl gO . U a) ns o : o _ O 0 co 7 .a .N � V to c AS 0KVA 0 vi C 8 o ;.�. E O aoi ` — tn 0 Cb . > 8 0 a) .— "O a) 'C •> i O .0 N 0 -C s CaC H Q .0 N • Q ti N w .0 d •Z d CZI ? p O „..t C 52 O r e''� b0 tz y fi O y N tz y 0� O O ri p, O C1 V V c• O 'y o, z O .6.- ? O.. fi •2 h. i N C .� ? U a7 Y CS N in t 0 .? y O 0 O m 0' **0 am "Its _Q ••••• fi r o ,i 4.... C h : and can not exceed four units total for the entire subdivision. to CU CA 0 3 3 as o 4) ••• C 0. o CA Rog -a 0 us 0 0 0 "Cl ; 0 .4°= °' Oi1 0 3 ooi v b g ° � 0 0 0 c a> i 0 0 •0 . G o E-. 0 0 0 .O _ a) 0 as o o a ; 0 ' • 0 o = c o H c � N 0 U ' U L. 0 O s 0 .O U •.0 y H° C p Q p t vQ (1.) y O .p i ° = 0 4: ' a .� 0 0 . •- o U p R C -0 gy 0 �a) s ..0 3 'CS en w CI. --• r us a s X y b o 0 ' w : 0 C C y vy p N C j U 0 0 v1 0 F ° a X 3 I:: 0 O. A ° .1"7;' C° y ° o v1 d ao >` • a0 .aS b ' c° -0 ° o bn o 0 i so U y ° N 0 '0 ♦+ 2 8* ° by 0 'y > q E a) A Q y UH LO U °_ i•C a i. 0. ceti i. O y bU • •+ I-4 O " C y X 0 . W . Oy I-+ � O L O D 00 ' � N . N U V n U . o H 03Ou t•a M s H g C7 ai e es A.1 ai r; X ri CW U or', y of 0 01 13 o fi�o, ��0 h `'1 'ZS p a 0 0 S. y 41 s 4 cn C5 0 d .°'0 0 4 O 0 o00, Es-0 c`�b•-moo r r fi v o v fi 1, 00 $ . h 0 0) 0 0 00 O Zs ' 1 y o 0 •r Q L 0 0 0 0/Z 0 Q 0 42 al 01 `1 w cif c L. yy ti L. h 0 h N L L E S 'y w :: oa v � ofii •-• aj E o •y o o F 0 d bo fi0 O fi o O C r Ofii r is E.0 i o 4 i o� natural resources. 0 0 3 b 0 0 .0 0 0 _ 0 0 c tt d o .0 0 o 0, v •Zi �' y 1. v ." O •TS 01 d O fi y CS M U y o, y m CS o. -O • 'ZS w N '� +y. .�. 0 pQ O r 00 V 0 h O 0 0 x y Q L., -,,O fio .0 b O p .O C Ct ft, .... Fs +. v t. 2; �. a'. y 'Z, O 0, 0 Da `'d IS U L. y y y (,� o, fits fi fi 01 0 X d 0. y Oq 0 O 01 0 o 0 0 `o d y am - us 8" & 44 ° : - . . .,,,C29 4 . 1 . . ,!:• i . ,37 . . .. .`" i oza'4. ''ZS Z CI. ."S, TS •s.. ''. 0, 'r O h Z 01 �: O •� , Q ' 01 '� y 'r .� O U V 01 O 0 z .i 0 01 .`O., o c1 YO ,q •r O fi F. 0 .O y .fi y N 01 O O .�,' C .fi y'0 U 0 0 ••� y z C V +. L. too 0 d z o0i o '� 3 ) d fi b 0a oo o� fi ° o 0 `� o y t 0 .0 1. N v CS O '� V �' y O Q O O o'`i y 0 0 0 0 "O fi .y 0, fi t, O ZS V "fl 0 01 d A t t 0 O 0 fi N," y0 0 0 O -0 ■ u� o x '0 0 -1 C G• •4 "0 � q u i. t "S. h o 0 N c0i cts 0 C7 Model Sustainable Development Ordinances !.••i1110e111111•11i4111.141hA 11 11.1'1111 1! 1 S e •. v 0 yr G 0 = a) c Iii L. � O..= E 0a) O . y Oy L « ' .0 y 0 0 r j • V .f +, ate0 i 17; W 0 a -o 0. v c ° � 0 a 0 w b 0 n U � •y 0 y > 0 Cl. U 03 a _ '7 L b O La ••.■ > O a U b e-• U .0 CT. 'O ed E " * 0 a. � bi Ri C 0 _ O a 0 0 0 O ,U .... a. cd y p O i e� 'U 0 3 eel 4] + Q �, a`4 cd a. y . y •a+ > o cd 0 d E cpd a bo ect L O+ 7 C o ay °° ° ° L. CO ' a o. 4. .5. L o a cc.) O y it.; 1... p U p (I,) ai � � y • j U L En a) ni a y i.1 ' +' �% b C bp" p O O G r CU a ce N - ."O a) C a « y cC . .a aO ) 7 . - � ci 'L en •^ + ..0 4) ity ° • to G, � -a pp R •� Cn • 13 y a .a •v, 4-, a O C O E el 'b = � O U C - y C a› 'y' f 0 . 0 0 O " ~U "i C c 0 y •O �+ 0 1`3 0 a , 00 N �" • LI c ° U c p `" G 0 O 0 o 0 aao i o a 3 O '°$ w O\ 7 � d .o ti 0 ° y. a v ❑ U .a O wo a. ¢. - 0 a d ) C ^Q + 0 = G 3 "5 c .fl a c c �, o y ° 0 O `a' .0 ay y s N +� eo • = 0 s a o v O -o E C cs 3 • c° a. = ai an a .0 a U U ,.. , e� b .� O ' p a L. U 0 y 0 0 a o aO C ea U bA pp O. O ea x.01 CD 7 •� acL. rJ , - U =� a. a. a� 'v .. L iii gis >° a a a 8 0 N y o s. 0 . L y C y ) . •.. U % cnn ° "> v a th en U m U • EA a:1 Li U U U /1 a C y Ri 0) ) .. o U i U U a ° ° . ...bp .01 ° i ° >, 03 V) o. e; o Q a. Cz) .0 oo e U 0 a0 a ° k. -o � ° 0.2 .9. o a 0 a a o c d z 3 a a. b U O^1 N M ei vi vi, O•= g N • Q W Model Sustainable Development Ordinances >> .�.. M C 0 v_ a) 4. _ Ec0 -0 0 ti. 'O 0 O .—. _ 0 a) y b N cp O. — C.) .A 0 >1 ."'C0.. Q �+ 0 0 0 0:1 0 cad ...r c rA 0 .Q " o. 'C .0 •a) Abp >>' 'O 0.4) 4 'O C a. '�O O °' • o .c 0 v a� v ., a) c. c o o = a > E�.. ao aci ,o, c g O 003 o .= E a) >, 0 .0 `° O a) .� -o •• '� t~ ° ?• 0 c C 'O a) 'n N 0 'c 'C C :r y o y° a0i aa)i o O t: — c i 1' .0 c1.oc ac) E q= _ 0 is 0 c°.n'v C 0 o E a� c m H ,, a) — cc °_A 0 ,a c 0 0 0 i m000c g•W c oa '3H i v y. 0 ►- +' 0 bD 0 R} S Y rn aJ , 0 O s bA 0 a) .fl rn Cr ea) ..r...- Cr r0 i1 a) e� y , C]y, 0 a)�' Q • U 'C7 A 0 a) 0 rn 0 U O .�.+ 0 O U a) .-• 0 a) a) a) 0 ..O O 0 RS 3 y 0 O +ct+f 0 a 'C cL) 0> O O O ea 0 a) 0 .0 C .'0.+ u0i 0 0• O c� 'c,) 0 a) +"0•. N O ayi a) mo. c ..-5. o ?..s, >L o o= w ao) 6 w °. y ac°) 1, 0 .— c . -`30 = 0 00 0 o g c'� c.0— •- o > °,yw 0 a0i y'° c 0 ° ° a�i - •- i� v1 z O eQ 'S7 ++ + a) 3 Q CA O 0 '0 0 C 0 y '> p G ay) '� r0 a) a) o Ci a0. O 0 O py .a.; a ' 0 '... .0 V 0 4',.., 0 -0 0 0 .0 3 0 0 5= 0 c°) y c c c�o•> a� a) co ... Mt °, 3 S o a 3 v .c 0 3 n, o E c o. c a C , C > O O fy 0 ..+ .-+ ++ ..+ y .r 0 1'.. E .p • L, e.. O L'.. • g.�b w° 0..,:d E��..,:a m.0. >' >:� g ��Q 3.nQ 6- . QS -E o a.aco co .c O g.2 ca .a c0•ci (Li F.. C3 Z to N ° Z ,� y N :, o cy NC 0 4,� N N 0 ... .. ^� o0i N O ' N N 'ZS �- ' 1 ca�� -E•a °. °'� N $ boa o N 0. z L, b o e .... m e e o o . , E r i y' t V r O c y >, d O O on b0 ���+ w O obi 0 II O V N "' E V ti h Oki bo d y [�. ° Sy N N y + N y ~ i 0011 01 d N L. Z O 01 -y s "pj° v o N,. z Z 4...0 0 .r O ,S N `'°1 b0 ,O O ti C 0 h O N V -z N .i, d N '� E nzt Q. 0 0 0 O Development Ordinances Model Sustainabl -- — taxes and assessments on any designated open space parcel. a) as 0 ' 0 „0 CC O cn C a) 0 y 0 0 .0 N en U 0 0 '� 6. 9 a) o =- CI W 0 Q) 0. -0 :- "G Cl. 0 U id 0. i. .:7 — o C ° C o 6 •U VI O 'C •b ch 0 CA •� c o N C L ° a) E C 0 0 0 . 0 U C 0O+ O •O 0 E O N U �, bD u E eCd H .0 U a) L as 0. a) �. r C o 0 y w C v 'C C 4.. o O a) ba�� O in en "O e0 0 L ° ° o• C s S 0 a) O U U 0 E-4 '0 ai °—' E o L (} 0 _ ,� U C a) �' 00 o E 0 aa)) o,- y y % C ° oth.O O c u) a,9 °i.a bA C +U t„' H C ,_ y y O - a) ,10 b U [A us y as y i ed .2 .� C O 'O rn E a En N E > E 'O ., 0 •r,,, o 0 b0 • c) b., U U +r C -C A ° 0 4, •5 0 0 'O C te) r 00 � c 3 i 5 ° y a 't w o 0 O .0 D y b4 C G .9 as U. a U ..a 0 N va • C.) L bo bo t3 "ts fi .E4 v o i Z` L p i � 0 4 L. o E v 6,7 E3 4 "ti 'b i E fi O > d y O V -p fi fi • •°-° o E r z b n fi o. E, y • h -o >' ° o CA y C'O 0 U -o C o 3 CA U O o 0 0 y 4r3 0 c, a -v E ° • L � '' 0. C) a c0 C a°) ° C O c��' b0 0 c 3 7, ) 0 '..,' U 0) C ° c# OD +�' on 00 C a) C CO .—° 9- 0 U a O ° qc o E c° co O a, 0 C vi ri Growth Management - 23 Model Sustainable Development Ordinances P rn C 0 4. 0 • . • '4")" •fl C .D 4 3 2 N L N 5 0 L L • •C) 4.9 . = >+ 4+ o .0 et 0. 4. y 8 > eC r+ k 7117, 4.11:n ) _ 0 o y .O 0 ^ 0 0. s O 0 O ) y C n 0 C) O En a an :c7.), > ' •°C c=C CSC E cod .0 > a�i I 3 3 a °4,� y, 0 y ▪ °a -. o • a -0 ° o 4 0 O o 0. 4) C Co G) b r o - ca C 0 � y cC O E.) 0 i ) U a' C . ' in" N c A 0 C 0 . C C = O , a �6 n U 46 I* ° � Ca ° a) CS RI' ID Q+ O «1 0. 4O i▪ ' " U O o c I. CD • y 2. H am ' - O 7 0.0 V N C 0 • 0 az N C O . V , ctuu as d- U C C C as al t = 4 0 � C O y N O O 0 �+ N C) ) y y n a t, •O =' s O O • •3 v • .. O O .0 •b v > ...r O 0 0 in O • C b F, ÷-3 .0 d y O = O 45 E • o cC • .i � 0▪ 3 � °) 2 C CU ct O . 2 • i ,. O E en • • o O � N • F t O y N C MO O i 0) C) N 0) 'S 0 U. • t w � • P tE a • C O • .� . ) O N SO O . O � O • •° O • 0 0 O A O N 0 L • C O C.) .0 r • = 3• C y w * 0 O • O y rn a+ ^ . • 0 w00) a ~C J 40 N ? cC y vN w0 O ° - y c AO rn N 0 0 a 4. N 3 0 > ° O ,U �, � O ° N N i • bA CA V 2 .� o .3 2..) . c •O A y .0 .i •> C -, O 'O et V • � o4 en O C• C ›1 G C 0 .O ,0 A 3 0 0 0 H 0 0 O v y N > o O to a' N y tC rA N ' G � m O L bA 0-* 0 0 0 .r. .4-. + "C y� w + L c+C a) ) • • 0 a 4 + ^O O 0 .0 4•= C •> 4 a+ O U. 4 ••• O = = .0 tC b rn > > L O y , w h F+ Q - ti IC i Z 'O N U U V) O O r- • h .� O A y tp 4 Ct: i• 0. N -0 3 4-• >> I' CCs > -- c.; c^ d v7 Gn ►r ti Model Sustainable Development Ordinances `A Alb irk Alb ®1 .l gib Allk at Alb • Alt All * All 4111 *Mk Alb III 4111 C% '� — = y ed 'b O 7,3 U ' 41 .= '13 a) O O LL o ' ° 0. 'y 6 °° ° 2.° 6 3 C ° _ o E .° c = C c •E ° . a 0 _ V VJ .� CQ d d _ b = 0 a ° 3 5: c° =E cd0 � c ;� ° o0. L s V c) . = ' cd w 'p op c3 c o v °0 ° v .0 o v er U a ci " = •c 0 O E , ". 9 = . C ° o " ' o cl 0.— 0 a O 0 U, co U p a U Z O c -p 4.. ., = ° 3 •=I 0 b ' O ° "' O 0 U b d 0.y b '= e C v ._ 0 U = i : :IA • O •� L A .+ i .d .� – U iO tO 0 t C O d O = o ''. v ° o �o E U . co :41 Fa ° ° y � � _ E o _•0 c. E o � a) o ' 0.0 i c ° E _ 3 .5 a ' ° ° y . . • CA ° 0 ° w = a) -ti 8 g . 0 a.2 . ° ° a.) a) a.) FA' E �. o) o U U y ' H H H y • 5 i Q E p Q ._ : :E .� . Q ._ . : • > 0 0. c .mac Q .c c.; 'C ai V) c i .a 6 v) c c i `0 m b0 C N C y 'D "� Q h• O O a Z.; h '� 0 of j` p a .r - V§ p� h V d r .� O 24 `..t b y ts y a Q .0 .) 'ZS :a O O O F V O .r v L. fl Zs - M h? O ZS Q .%0. o I. O yy m O Q o v o) v o) c x y 0 0. o1 "O , ,'a Q` h C CS 'Ci ,7,r. �S Q V N b d O O b0 ` a Wry O N a 0' 'Zl v ;s. 0y L. 0 C 0 d Q O� 0 d Q b L t ,\ y h Z i ;b c1 bO O i y y a m o 0 o 03 E ---N, C o+ d %> a d o o •s its 1,1 0 O 'O r ?�? -0 0 'C y.. 3 y h C 0 '.. o d Ol r z) v p .. �c mac" 'O C o fr, O y •0 0 0 0 b0 l �O b0 C 0 O COO O 41. O C 0 . R O • S. ti .. �' y b0 '' Z LZ •�, 0 O Q 0) Z O ii O d : Z d CS C O y ... CS Cs v O �. c0i 0 C ts 'la ~ t O Ct y 0) d y ti 'Zj y h 0 O -o d VJ > p C y 0) y fi V V L 0 •Z+' 'ZS Q y• . `. • O 0 i• h • 0 construction process. • • 0 c TA 0 b 0 g 0 a a a. c 0 -0 'V 0 C, 0 U A ".° O o C.. C rn 0 C 0 0 ,� c v O y C. y 01 75 y .0 E. O U a w o .; 0 . Lc a - 3 0 0 0 a 0 O O r -Q 0 0 T'^.. -. V 0 0 bA 0 0 bA cd tat) 0 L 0 -a -0 a 0 0 c a) cs a '5 ghgs .. 0 ca r� cn ,p 0 iii ++ .a C H 8-0 -C w y y ,00 s"" 0 O 0. cs O O 4 .5 5 0 y .9 RI n3 CO o 0 -0 .� 0 0 ^° v 0 B -p 'a'o C 'n .0 'o > Z$ i V !d :r y .� .y. O �v�v�coa0Z...a �A °E E( O . n -0 a; c4...1 bb ..O ... —Li .l-4 <Vn0c 0 XX.04 Permitted uses. The following are permitted uses in the CS Conservation Subdivision District: cl 0 � L v al x 41 0 :v .n vi - c7 i ' c.° 017 ,, a L 0 - O.. a3 Q- el cd 'vi 0 p .0 Si v0, 0 E cis 0 " T3 0 =s?c a0i c 2 oa 0 O o Oa 0 ti 0 o «f 'U o IX .0 a h °° ° ' � 3 z -• CLv W • • • =-Ecw 2 >, go a ° L -p O to O O E 0 Q >,.� ` v `' '3 v w -0 y 4 CC V) i. alt Z N 3 C �+ tV. 0 o -O Oa 0 L -o ° 0 - 4- o -o 0 w o D o c 0 N v ti .' 'O L W 1 y _ y L .0 c� .!G .0 = .0 0 0 dc O to L c`e cv o pi;) °' 0) CI) .�' ai 3 v Cti) ,.) 0 0 O° C 0 L C� O¢ 0. 0 0CIIW 0 0 O. N M 4 vi \d r- Q O O 4 Cs at l 0 a C gi 0) y d L 0 4 R, v V �a �� y 0 0) of " o e a • r U Growth Management - 26 Model Sustainable Development Ordinances Sal Itatta ! Mara* at la atsas ®Alb 41 at Alb ilklb r:®ft0 WV .Or 4111W VIP i VP VP IP w• 411IP s I VP 11W all a i .i i- Wei 4, k 0 "y y y L .. as y O turs .c o U C •O ° �+ , V‘ O w O . y y y C ° V bA L L in' (4.. C y O U UC 0 w > - IIO'°L C ° 4r L O c V) ° ° L 0 t3 c '' "_ 4-=, E q ° 0 ,cu E u = o tu 0 U U E o 3 0 c "o . tu ts. ° >1 y 'b 01J L 3 ° .0 R% E y N v°i U 1.. O�'y N C C '0 W U � !S 0 0 .0 L. , 0 ' "0 1„ LbA p . y O 0 ,� « a. y ' 4. � b flU! va L. i... • • U • 0 .V 0 ^ ¢ w � �d R � � 1:3 ,i . w -. •y Ub b, '° c v us i N E 3 1 ad a... a) O �' o b o aE 3 0 w 0 N G w y c U y at • o o U E • � L c -0 U ♦+ •b E E v C O o �/ y o .0 7 n C c O E � ° "o C • C 0 ,E y 7 V > O L Rf ... .-. y cn Ep U U y 0 P p C U afl U i. 'E C o L U 0 0 U ° � = 0 CS. O f° 0 E y O L = p, •y ,tz o w 0 3 ,i. L = , "p .0 itc O y. 0 ,2 47 •O y c0 U wo L V y Z°o ° co • r s 4. c O C 4U, _ .c � U 0 ° E. c 3� V r 0 w � L U y ° > V "Q N t C " 0 . '7 o ' a t 0 . i o 0 . , O p cn o U S E E �. c , C L '~.�.> 0�O veO. ,O U a 0 V) .0 ea3 .� Ncnci kri1ct� oo u woo CCi d o G U E. Ca Private garages, parking spaces and car ports for licensed and operable tso as rCi Model Sustainable Development Ordinances • Q w 9 cn -0 — • N y wa 5 N• d U C O y a a vs • ° a •O a•= L L )t 0 U ..O y . O 0 O C 0 D c Ec "z ° o '1) i as a a N o 3 p .. O ° o 0 9 o O 4 = o " 0 c0 ••'= ui o -O } •Q ▪ "a on 0 CA '0 E a O 9 -c v N ? a y c 3 a .= N I, > w 0 `3 by O 4. O • y C bA .0 O U p O. 0 a G 1:1 • is Cr) w O .� ) C '0 C 44 CI C c = C 0 y 4 v 0 y bA 0 c O 0 O vi, 0 no .�.. N V k i O >l co a) •..., 4r V Q) -o .0 o �., 0 y.c Y 4 . E. o $ • a 2 ., : en _ y O 0 a.0. • >+ i 0 c C C a ^. 7 ' O • Cr = 3 O C • 9 0 .O 0 C q U a ' cd • e3 • °° > a o ° y' N a k o ° v ° U° a -c a i 6 a o b � a._, • o. 3 O o • c Q Q • b V O r L Q a a! y ,L ,� V r. ° 4... y. y 0 t7 ° y y =O y C y . _ •O :. y E 'Cy U C --61— y . ed • .Q •y d Q a ' w ,, •fl N Q .: "G � Q O c d c U O = n gy ' ' a + . y - s. 'i i.. O Q �C • a) y, o o o V () y � "3.. rOi� � a 0 O ) � . 3 `% y •a y 0 y R ) > 0 . o y . y i.. • (& • 0 a2 > > l 0 '= 3) > • ' y Q U w !7 0 � c 7 ° 0) >, O Q, .o = i s ? y o O O L. O 0 .0 C O 01 = = a o '_ O a U E 2 O . 6. on °'cd ' a o ° a c ao -o ° o o`a • ob �y y . . -Opp ,v ° c ca 0 O = y w y o O a ; o4) E t' b ° y= CA U p' oa) o o o o O } a ,c13 . y ° s�� C O y y Q ° t' ° G ed fa• L U i. • OD ae E o 0 a b ; c i � Ow ) 0 0 0-. >QQxUZ . ) O.a> .a o o o c�a) c Q G�UAti] ;C • -•± r—; — s conditional uses. Model Sustainable Development Ordinances •MPssars ive s `POONSOOSSISSIII W cc' y WO U c y o �_ oo N 03 E • c a a c L. N 0 3 E > c c a0i .o d0 ca E c "d =' O G y b t% -o ed aU c • by ...0 C ' V ' y a) a.. ... tb bAC 3 y c 0 O i w o .1-• + O a % o L. Cl.) y y W O 4w -ti o y 9 9 N � a $ bCI) � . � t.... 0 c) c N y ao c cf) IC ` '7 te 0 = = .73 „ o CID '0 = c G i) C c, t. Ed 9 .= C ' w :. t -0 . o -v w o a) c c N o L. . "p a. ,n OW � .- c �C td ed y O z c S cA .c O aoi W w E 0-0 9 .c y 3 'C p o 'C '^� 0 0� Lid. Oc -0 %r i. L.. ^ C cc N L o 2 0 .q ice. .� 4 cd .c U f3. o C.) cat bc0 c cad y " ..cocw as" as mi., .. -•�UU" .0 %. •o Q 2- N M 043"'CNi Q H CCi ° w Q m U x Model Sustainable Development Ordinances • I. 5 0 0 O 00 w °A 0 ° °"a E .0 $ F`... 0 >, CA a0i�0. o a. •E c.0 ) 0 o L "Q 0 "O to 0 0 .L Q ++ 0 3 y 0 en .0 0 CS' 0 O t ed 0 0 0 ►= o c b E > o . o a E o E 0 a+ E '_ O C 4. 0 W 4—, ° � 4. 'E P N E , , s cd > > OE - c 0 = V W C 0 3 0 3 0 y i .1 "° O 'v .0... 03 O W 0 To .5 .o g E a0i 0 0 3 0 .0 "0 ° 46 4, �a U o E• - ti as Fo �� U 3 �• 0. N 67. y "-. • N M XX.08 Yard, Area and Building Size requirements. '� -o 0 CA E L 3 n r) a us 33 w o e.0. �i 'y 0 C 0 0 0 ,0 0 O 0 O _ cn 'C E o1" O . o A y 0 i E .�. oA O 0 0 0 �+: s 0. a) L ,ti p 00 L 0> i 42 E c i E a. N 'o «t 0 E Za+ 0 W 0 0 H M 6" id O E U et p b .to vi > "O i cd v, 0 e ' O s y 4 O .0 O W 0 0 0 +' U y 0c°�� .EU- .= 49 a i,i s sU. !'UI o O' .fl 0 0 >,.0 c4 E .E E y E a'y -g 3 0).__" 0-00 3 c E E -o o 5 3 1 w v� 3 -o E- E E0 'y4E 3 0 g ;n o o ta 'E 0 > .a a ?, cv .c CA cei y E "o 40" •E — NM eri 0 0 F -oo • 0 M cu it Model Sustainable Development Ordinances at Mk 41. Alb Ili at 411! Ilb IOW allk AI IR Ala Alb Alt alb at AI Alb Al■ Aft lib Alb Alb All■ /Oh /Oh /Oh Alh /Ilh y w 0 iii _ cd 4 o 0 o = 4. XI 3 .0 o v0 cn �v i Q k y = m cd O . 0 0 .F,) E > IT.0 ° al - yQ 3 c,, a 0 A s' b L. bA i o 0 cd 0 N y , w U 0 bA 2 C 1 0 L. v•A'o oA CI) 0 1.1 Cr til o yo�° ° > �° ww o ° ° 2 o � E •; O .N N V 0 0 4-, 4_, Q C iV. E 5 H 0 o s0. 't7 a'; ° E g . N 0 • •x oE E i E aE E 'EE � od o E-.4 vs E-1 w 4 rn 4 o a, Tct Q ci" ran ,--, CV M W XX.09 Landscaping requirements. N _ b4 0 V1 O . i �. .o.0 O °A nQ E Cti . a ° " —c C 0 a "> b0 v .c L z.., v; 6.) aC % � a ' y 0 ••• o > 0 = • bA p, E - 0 0 0 4. o a 3 130 o 2 o = 0 o '- ° 4_, d d w v o .i 4. ° o U Tai a = c 0 0 ° e a• 3 •o - o w 0 a) 4,, •-C o OA l3• N O O C .Cy 5 O O Cr w bA 0 V O O C G .5 •5 :4 '4g• 13 E y .o bA p- • c - a) c j � . a C. br, L. - O �a��oo� 49 I a 8� "° .0 A. 2 r ;. c 0 2 y C � ' i. c 0 3 e O 0 E V a. c 0 0 ° 0.0 0 0 E N a�i 1 E 3 ° = o n 0 ° 0 �o f 0a) E aw IP, - d 0 .0 ° .0 al 4 o o E O 'fl R7 E t3aE — °'E 0 O as .0 • a o b ° yE QoE�Ea)33UQto Ai 0 . < CO U b d XX.10 Off - street Parking and Loading. 3 "O 4 C) 0 0. •0 G) V1 0 .°c a. y U O a E cdLE o >; O E b°A o w —' bA C y ;.n. 2 , w O ) a 2 ate, o ^ 0 C E Growth Management - 31 Model Sustainable Development Ordinances •