Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/2001 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall April 25, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Citizen Comments 5. Project Review A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store /CUP /Site Plan Review/Preliminary Plat/Variance ( 6:35 -7:05 )/ Brian Wessel B. Spirit Hills Update (7:05 -7:10) C. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition (7:10 -7:30) D. Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street/Rezone /Amend Conditional Use Permit/Amend Zoning Ordinance (7:30 — 7:35) E. Heritage Development/Saddle Club/Preliminary Plat (7:35 -7:45) F. 64th and 20th/Variance Request (7:45 -7:55) G. 2088 80th St./Variance Request (7:55 -8:00) 6. Environmental Board Business A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review (8:00 -8:30) B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 (8:30 -8:40) C. Other 7. Program/Project Updates (8:40 -8:45) A. Grant Updates B. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates 8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: Ryan Companies US Inc., Target Superstore /Site Plan Review /Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND: Project Tracking Sheet attached. New staff issues are written on page 9. We are reviewing a new plan that includes a Kohl's building and different site layout. OPTIONS: 1. Continue to work to achieve a balanced approach to the development. 2. Incorporate recommendations of the Environmental Board for recommended conditions of approval. 3. Recommend denial of the project to be forwarded to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: 1 and 2 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21 -14 Target PROJECT: Target /Site Plan Review/Variance Request DATE OF ORIGIN: 4/25/01 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Information from previous meetings 1 PROJECT #: 2000 -1c... 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. 17apxc & Pepcariov_BoapS_ Xtri of Aavo Aaxscr 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. • large impervious surface/Lake water quality impact concerns. Oak- woodland to south and miscellaneous recently developed tree areas to north. Several prairie and savanna areas previously identified by AES on freeway side. 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 Ilapar & Pc pearaov_BoapS Xari oq Aavo Acmev I have attached the Draft EAW and photos depicting some of the issues. I have also included some of my initial' protection and management of the wildlife, habitats, and other natural resources, and to pass on to future residents a community rich in these resources. Future development is to include equal consideration of economic development and environmental protection. ". 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: The following is a summary of the comments made by the January 31, 2001 Environmental Board: Staff Update: No representatives from Ryan/Target present. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: the Board reached the following consensus: •Greensheet attached from January 31, 2001 Environmental Board Meeting. •No further comments at this time pending a Watershed Report. !Environmental Board Update 21- lc/February 28, 2001 reaction to the draft EAW. There is no further information at this time. Brian Wessel will be present to updatIO Tou on anything new.' DATE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES : January 3, 2001 (December meeting) A. Dellwood LLC/ N.E. Quadrant of 35W and Lake Drive Update — Wessel explained that Mr. Payton had presented this project at the last meeting. Since then, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council have discussed it. A neighborhood meeting has been held. The project is going through the informal discussion process prior to a formal application. He then introduced Mr. Payton and Mr. Palmquist the Vice President of Research and Development of Ryan Companies who was working on the SuperTarget concept. Mr. Palmquist explained that recently, there had been a neighborhood meeting where the primary challenge to the project was addressing the traffic needs. TKDA and Mr. Powell were dealing with the issue. The Environmental Board was assured that the traffic could be managed with lanes and signals. Also discussed, was adequate buffering on the northern part of the property. He noted an EAW would be done which would be finished in the first part of July. Mr. Payton presented several maps and explained that the final topographic survey has been completed so more of the spatial relationships have come together. He indicated that there was a small group of tamarack trees, which could be protected by a retaining wall in the west. Asleson explained that the area has been disturbed more than once. He noted a 1953 topographic map that showed tamaracks throughout the area. The freeway went through in the 1960's and greatly impacted the tamaracks. Donlin inquired what plans Target had to address the tamarack trees in the area. Mr. Payton answered that the standing water is only intermittent for 48 hours in a 100 -year event. He noted that there is an aquatic bench planned, with canary • grass plantings to reduce the presence of geese. He continued, they were waiting for the results of the soil reports to llamas &_Pepeaztov_Boaps Xtzt oefi Aivo Acmeo determine the size of the ponds. The maps presented showed them at the maximum possible size, but in all probability they would shrink. Target representatives were preparing to submit the plan to the City by January l5`h Mr. Palmquist stated that they were working with staff on the site design and architecture using prototypes on the elevations of the Target site. Describing the site, they were planning some articulations, bench plaza areas, and various plantings in front of the store. There are also planned bays in 20 -foot increments. The whole project would be of similar colors and materials. He continued there would be two doors, with the employee entrance in the center. As is typical, the eastern part would be the grocery, while the western part would hold the discount store. There are plans to screen the truck docking, and to bury the utility lines so that more plantings could be located there. He assured the Board that they would have the elevations available next time. Trehus indicated the land in the southern entryway that the City owns was mentioned last time, and inquired what were the plans for the property adjacent to it. Mr. Palmquist answered that there would be no grading in the area, and there were plans for a retaining wall to protect the trees. The specifics would be answered when the tree survey is overlaid with the aerial photograph. Trehus pointed out that it looked like a lot of parking and no trees, and suggested that a shift to the west may enable them to make it appear more nestled among the trees. Mr. Payton stated that the building was pushed as far to the west as possible within the required parameters because of site geometry problems. Mr. Palmquist note that there were stall groupings of 68, 644; and 910 parking spaces, and indicated that the users could share parking. Donlin mentioned that it did not appear aesthetic, and advised that vegetation, billboards, signage, and lighting would need to be addressed more specifically. Mr. Palmquist responded that there were no billboard requirements, and the lighting would be explained further in the plan. Donlin inquired about the role the Environmental Board would play. Mr. Payton answered that they wanted to know their recommendations. Wessel added that the proposal will be available at the January 31, 2001 meeting, and assured the Board that there were several open issues remaining. Donlin commented that it appeared the typical standards that Target was used to implementing were played out in this plan concerning lighting and signage. Mr. Palmquist answered that there were many parties' interests to balance, that of the City, the community, the developer, and Target which can be met to provide goods and services and civic pride. Mach advised that environmentally speaking specific recommendations include: • Increase the number of native trees in groupings not standing alone and decrease the number of parking places. • Smaller form of Target, not Superstore. • Location not so near the highway. • Ponds should be fruitful; the water levels need to be controlled so that they could sustain diverse life. • The City needed to set land aside designated as open space for every development approved. Mr. Payton asked if this project would be used merely to change zoning, ordinances, and laws. Trehus assured him that Target would be welcome in the community, then inquired about the percentage of impervious surfaces. Mr. Payton stated that if a Target would be on site it would be a Superstore, because that is the primary means of expansion. Other regional locations would be Rochester, MN, Rogers, MN, Lakeville, MN, and Eau Claire, WI. The reason given was economic, because it increased the store's bottom line by 50 %. Mr. Palmquist stated that at the neighborhood meeting, 135 to 140 invitations were sent out with 36 residents in 17apxo= &_Pezpeaztov_BoapS Xtzc oO Atvo Aarea 3 attendance. There was no opposition. He noted that the land was zoned commercial. Donlin commented that Vadnais Heights' residents protested Target with signs in their yards, and questioned the reason there was no opposition in Lino Lakes. Mr. Payton inquired, short of no development, what accommodations Target could make. Asleson noted that growing larger trees would be possible through the use of structural soils. Donlin offered that the wetlands needed to be more than a monoculture. Trehus added that the areas in the west needed to be preserved. O'Connell suggested bringing the building south and changing the configurations to make the building more narrow to allow for more parking on the side. Mr. Payton indicated that people did not use side parking, and restated that the size and shape of the building are configurations that will not change. • Mach asked about the possibility of removing a couple of the retail sites. Mr. Payton answered that Target needs a certain number of retailers and square footage to attract customers. He continued that there would be issues on Lake Drive even if Target would not be present, and Target would provide the funding and the tax base to initiate the upgrades needed. Mr. Palmquist assured the Board that the project would be worked out with staff. Donlin indicated that with each development, residents' taxes have increased so the businesses should have to pay more. Wessel answered that Target would pay over one million dollars annually for taxes. The area was zoned commercial, and would provide tax relief for residents. He indicated that Powell could also address the issue. Wessel excused himself to bring Powell to the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Donlin addressed the lighting, and stated that there should be an attempt to minimize the glare. She expressed her dislike for the cream color chosen for the building. Mach urged the Target representatives to use their services to improve other areas of the City. Mr. Palmquist offered that if some wetlands were affected by the project, Target could contribute money for preserving trees or wetlands in the City. Donlin noted that there were three school districts in the City, and submitted that Target could contribute money for environmental education, specifically the Teachers of Vision program. Mr. Palmquist stated that the contribution would flow from a financial model. Donlin stated that there would be a need for upland and wetland mitigation. Wessel stated that the discussion would continue and the specific recommendations from the Environmental Board were helpful. He indicated that the City Council would ultimately make the decision.. Asleson stated the question was how to mitigate environmental impact. Mach reiterated: • Move the building to the west • Avoid monoculture in the ponds • Reduce bounce in the ponds • Decrease the number of parking spaces and increase plantlife Kukonen explained that one way to increase the plantlife would be through buffering. Mr. Palmquist asked if a model existed, so they could work from that and put it into an economic model. 17ap ar &_Pezpeartov_Boap5 Xart o0 Aivo Awceo Donlin requested that minimal lighting be used, especially at night. Trehus agreed and asked if the lights would be turned off at night. Donlin inquired if the 38 -foot pole height was necessary, or if it could be reduced. Mr. Palmquist stated that if the pole height was reduced, there would be an increase in the number of lights. The Board was assured that the lights would be . shoebox lights, to aim the light down, not out. Mr. Payton noted that in the site plan, the nighttime team leader would have all the lights off, except for a corridor of lights for the employees. After the employees left, all lights would be turned off except for security lights. Trehus said that there should be a vote on the recommendations that include the following as well as the recommendations previously stated by Mach: • Set aside property off site for open space. • Lighting issues were a major concern. • Maximize the green in groupings, rather than in straight lines. Mach moved to approve the recommendations of the Environmental Board. Trehus seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : January 31, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target Project Submittal (Item 1 -01) — Asleson explained that the green sheet was to help recall previous information relevant to present discussion. There was no green sheet given for this item, because a formal submittal had been received. Asleson read the background section of the agenda sheet item 1 -01. Several plans have been submitted including formal project submittal, a grading plan, a tree inventory and preservation/restoration plan, surface water infiltration proposals, a landscape plan, and a lighting plan. No response from the Rice Creek Watershed District has been received. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) still needed to be completed and the wetland mitigation area is still yet to be determined. Asleson asked for comments or recommendations from the Board. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board did not know the recommendations the Watershed District had discussed. The tree inventory was the most important concern for the Board, specifically where the tamarack trees would be planted. Grundhofer asked if the size of the trees had been determined. Asleson answered that the trees would be two inches in diameter. Chair Lanyon noted that until the Board had comments and or recommendations from the Watershed District the Board could not make any recommendations. Asleson confirmed that no comments were received in his office from the Watershed District. Chair Lanyon pointed out that other species had encroached in the area. Hapco_ &_Pepsanov_Boapp )(In oq Atvo AaKeo- Asleson addressed the surface water flow, stating concerns about the efficiency of installed infiltration tubes in the low area before it leaves the site. Donlin inquired about the preparation of the area, if they were going to grade and drill. Asleson asked John Johnson if he could make some general comments about the subject. John Johnson, Civil Engineer, stated that the infiltration tubes were typically 15'x 2'x 3' and worked like a drain field in situations where there was above normal rain and below 100 year rain. The concern was that the ponds would not work as well over time, because of build up of sediment. The infiltration tubes are installed by building trenches with a backhoe, then covering them up. Donlin admitted that she had reservations with the tamarack plantings, if the cottonwood and the aspen were removed and the tamarack did not do well, it would be barren. She commented on the beauty of the cottonwood and aspen which were planned for removal. Asleson noted that the present state of the area was impacted, with most of the tamarack trees gone after 1967 when the highway was put in. This was an attempt to bring it closer to its original state prior to 1967. Donlin said that by removing the aspen and cottonwood 70% of the significant trees on site would be removed. She feared that if the tamarack plantings were unsuccessful, the area would remain essentially treeless. Asleson stated that the tamaracks were in a wet meadow before the highway went through. Chair Lanyon asked if the Board could make a recommendation not knowing the water impact. Mach stated that a restoration of the tamarack theme could be recommended, because aspen would probably encroach fairly quickly, and tamaracks grow more slowly than cottonwoods and aspen. Asleson noted that the Watershed District would probably not recommend the infiltration tubes. Grundhofer inquired on the lighting of the pylons, if they met the code standards. O'Connell mentioned that there was no reference to color in the ordinance. Asleson indicated the lights were high intensity in the center, but were quickly reduced to reduce glare. Chair Lanyon offered that there had not been a response to the recommendations of the Board at the January 3, 2001 meeting, and added the necessity of hearing from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Donlin agreed and asked if their responses to the recommendations would be at the next meeting, in addition to the proposed choices of vegetation. Asleson indicated that the architect had called to ask for the list of recommended plantings. Donlin urged that the plantings consist of those that would attract bird species, and have several textures and colors including prairie gardens, would soften the big box appearance. Mapco_ &_PezpeartovBoap5 Xtn oq Atvo Aaicecr Asleson noted that there were several lists, and assured the Board that the Ryan/Target representatives would receive them. Donlin indicated that the Board members would like the lists to be sent to them by E -Mail. CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE February 28, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target Project Submittal (Item 1 -01) — Wessel stated the application was incomplete and Ryan has asked for a respite. He advised that a staff review of the plan would be held the following day and the process would need to be renegotiated and the regulatory process reinitiated. The new plan was to be smaller scale and they still wished to break ground in July. At present the plan would be revised by April, with the Environmental Board reviewing it at the March meeting. The response from the community caused Target to drop the proposed three large commercial sites to the West. The Target building would be moved over to the West of the initial site. There would be six to eight smaller commercial sites with three to eight thousand square feet each. The wetland would be left alone, and a strip north of 77th Street would remain undeveloped. Wessel asked for comments on where to mitigate. Trehus arrived at 6:40 p.m. Donlin asked the number of parking spaces proposed, and was the swamp to remain untouched. Wessel answered the number of parking spaces would be reduced, but he was unclear by the number and did not know the plans concerning the area of the swamp. Donlin asked if the plan proposed in March would be considered finished and approved. Wessel responded typically a project similar in scope would require a year to go through the planning stage, but for this project, it is a few months. Chair Lanyon stated that they already know what to expect from the Board, but the Board could give additional comments. Wessel noted if the project did not break ground in July, the project would be discontinued. Asleson mentioned that the building was moved over and the number of parking spaces was reduced. Mach indicated that the plot was not protected and secure, and asked about the hydrology issues. Asleson explained the hydrological issues were unknown, but the Watershed District was dealing with them. Ilapxo_& PszpcarzovBoap& Xtrz obi Azvo_AaKeo Kukonen questioned if the business failed in the proposed location, what were their plans for the site, would the building be abandoned. Wessel answered the market studies were important to Target since SuperTarget would compete with other nearby commercial sites. Trehus asked what was the responsibility of the City if the site was abandoned. Wessel noted there were two more meetings on the Comprehensive Plan before the end of March. Donlin asked what the meeting scheduled for Saturday was dealing with. Wessel responded the meeting would address the Comprehensive Plan in the City Council meeting. CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : March 28, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target Update Review — Brian Wessel commented on the changes to the plan. The three 30,000 sq. ft. boxes were removed. The access remained the same with no access to 77th Street. The present conceptual plan was presented three weeks ago, and will not have an official plan until April 25, 2001. The plan included 86,000 -sq. ft. with potential to expand, and off site mitigation similar to the first plan. There was a meeting scheduled for Tuesday for staff review. Donlin noted the plan appeared essentially impervious, and considered the revised plan a step backward in terms of the goals of the Environmental Board. Chair Lanyon pointed out that there were enough accommodations in Phase II to gain support. He urged staff to address the runoff issues before the plans come to the Board. Wessel indicated there had been a change in the groundbreaking from July to September. Donlin expressed concern over the heavy traffic, which would be necessary to support a large Target store. Wessel assured the Board that the two co- anchors believed it was economically feasible. Donlin questioned if there was inadequate support and a loss occurred, would the building be abandoned. Wessel responded that not many Target buildings had been abandoned. Kukonen noted the store in southern Coon Rapids had been abandoned, and inquired if it was a terrible burden to the city of Coon Rapids. Wessel answered that Target had the most solid record of the big box stores. Chair Lanyon identified the role of the Board was the environmental focus, and in that Ryan/Target had backtracked, especially with the runoff mitigation issues. • Mach noted the off site mitigation which was proposed in the plan. The first priority is supposed to IlapKa_ &_Pe pearaov_BoapS Xirz o¢ Acvo Aarceo be on site mitigation, then off site mitigation. He then asked about the options they were considering. Wessel responded the County Board was discussing the options, but nothing was decided. Trehus asked for information concerning mitigation on existing park land. Chair Lanyon agreed that they needed to clarify that option. April 25 Project Continued 1 New site plan and application submitted. 1 No new EAW information 1 No new watershed information ie.wetland mitigation plan, surface water plan No petition for public improvements submitted yet. STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 Surface Water issue is still a very critical issue. Proposal shows a wet pond on the North side. There is no information at this time whether sequencing criteria will be met for proposed project, wetland mitigation, surface water management planning will be met. 1 Have requested the developer investigate vegetated depressional areas through the parking lots. 1 Grading on the project should direct water to infiltration areas • Have made a sugestion that the 6 foot walkway be changed to a vegetated infiltration area. This should be tiled to allow for excess water to pass on to the next sequential infiltration area 1 Lighting has not changed except for a change to less spill on the north Environmental ISSUES: 1 See attached reports ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Environmental Board: 1 17apxc &_Pe peazaov_BoapS Xin oq Alva Aaxs6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensulll was reached by the Board: 1.... FINAL VOTE COUNT: DATE : January 10, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED 9:39 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Lyden, Rafferty, Schilling, Schaps, and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane : City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell STAFF PRESENT Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Yes No ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the convents made by the Board: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus vas reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: Planning and Zoning BOARD ACTION C. Dellwood LLC CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES Mr. Smyser stated they were still talking with them and were expecting a packet possibly next week. So far discussions had been largely positive. However, there had been some concerns with the Environmental Board. Hapxa= &_Pepsa ri o v_Boap5 10 Xzrt o9 Aivo Aaxsa CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES B. PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target) Lake Drive, PDO Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use & Site Plan Review. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:44 p.m. DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT 6:30 P.M. 8:15 P.M. Corson, Lane, Rafferty, Schilling, and Schaps Lyden and Zych City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Planning Coordinator Wyland; Director Wessel; Planning Consultant Sherman Staff presented the application by explaining staff had been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development located in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive/I -35W Interchange. The main issue raised by staff and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board related to the site layout and design and the departure from the Town Center vision. The direction provided through the concept process was to incorporate special pedestrian- oriented design features, as well as some special architectural elements into the proposal with the goal being an "above average shopping center ". Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC Ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for buildings and parking as proposed. In order to accommodate the development as proposed, it was necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Access to the site was proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive from Lake Drive through the site to 77th Street. An additional access was proposed to Lake Drive approximately 520 feet north of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (County Road 23) were subject to the approval of Anoka County. The City Engineer was in the process of conducting a traffic study that would identify which improvements were necessary to accommodate the development. Improvements may include, but were not limited to turn lanes, by- pass lanes and signalization. Design alternatives to deter traffic from using Carole Drive needed to be examined and implemented if necessary. Hapx6 &_Psxpeartov_BoapS Xazt ogS Atvo Aaics6 Staff explained detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted. With respect to natural features, there was a large wetland located on the eastern portion of the site that was proposed to be impacted. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of those were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees for a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. The site design had incorporated a sidewalk layout along Apollo Drive and throughout the site along the storefronts. There were sidewalk connections shown at both accesses proposed with Lake Drive. Additionally, different pavement treatments were proposed at significant crossing points within the development. Green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan called for plantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall plan was well done and provided a variety of plantings. Some plantings were shown within MnDOT right -of -way, which would require cooperation from MnDOT. The critical portion of the landscaping proposed was along the northern edge of the site, which was adjacent to existing residential lines. The plan as proposed would provide a visual break, but it would not provide a complete screen. Staff explained the exterior of the buildings were proposed to be a combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decorative rock elements included standing seam metal that complemented the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. The Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rockface block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needed to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the buildingAft It would be very visible from 77th Street. There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, but materials to be used were not identified. This should be constructed of materials to match the building and should be of sufficient height to screen the dock area. Trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. The applicant had proposed the City accept outlots that included ponding and right -of -way in lieu of park dedication. This would not be consistent with City Ordinance or policy. Cash fees in lieu of land dedication should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. The sign Ordinance allowed one pylon sign per street frontage, up to 200 square feet, with 25% of the sign designated for the Center name. The applicants were proposing two pylon signs with a sign face of 285 square feet plus the center name, which was approximately 35 square feet in area. On the retail buildings, wall signs were proposed over each tenant space and on the rear of the buildings. Staff did not support signs on the rear of the building unless it was incorporated into some enhanced design. The Target facility proposed a number of signs on three sides of the building. There was no signage proposed on the rear of Target. The total square footages allowed were based on the wall area; up to 20% of the wall area or 100 square feet, whichever was less. In this case, the wall areas were very large and 100 square feet was not adequate area for signage. The front of the building was approximately 9836 sq. ft. in area, which allowed up to 1967 sq. ft. of signage. Target was proposed to have a total of 1320 square feet of signage on the front elevation, which was within the 20% allowed. Hapxa_& Psxpsaraov_Boap5 Xtri oqi Aivo Aaxso- 12 Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicant and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek. Staff stated the retail, other than the Target Store, would probably be downsized and the plans would be resubmitted once they were changed. Chair Schaps asked about the timeline for the closing of the public hearing. Mr. Smyser responded they expected this item to be back next month. Because of the size of the project, an Environmental Assessment Work would need to be done and that had to be completed before the City could approve the project. Mr. Corson asked if the EAW application had been made, or if that be applied for in the final process. Ms. Sherman replied the EAW had not been submitted or completed yet. Steve Baker, 77th & Carroll Drive, stated his concern was that 77th Street was going to be cut in half. Mr. Powell responded the City vacated 30 feet of right -of -way and had given it back to the property owners on the north side. Mr. Powell indicated the City was very concerned about the traffic patterns and Apollo Drive would not connect to 77th Street. Mr. Baker stated he had moved to this area to have quiet and now there was going to be a store in his neighborhood with bright lights. He also asked if there would be enough economic support for a Target Store in this area. Mr. Smyser replied with respect to the lighting, it was a very important concern and they were aware of the potential effects this project would have on the resident's near -by. He stated the lighting would only be on in the parking lot when the store was open. He stated this project was a huge investment on the part of Target Corporation. It would be a Target Superstore and that kind of an investment would not have been made lightly without a lot of market research. He stated Target Corporation would not invest that kind of money if they did not believe it would survive in this area. Resident, 874 Oak Lane, was concerned about the traffic issues. He asked what was going to be done about the traffic. Mr. Powell responded they were taking this development and assigning traffic generation to that use. He stated Lake Drive in its current state was not the future. He indicated there would be signals added, and they were in the evaluation process to determine what would be needed for this project. Sue Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated she came to this area for peace and quiet. She asked why they needed a Target Store in this area when there was one 10 miles down the road. She stated it did not fit with the City's concept. Tom Vacca, 77th and Lake Drive, asked if the City agreed with the Anoka County's findings on traffic with respect to Apollo Drive being the only entrance. Mr. Powell stated Target Corporation had proposed another connection to Lake Drive and that would be evaluated and discussed with the County. They had not received any answers from Anoka County. However, Anoka County had indicated Apollo Drive would be the main entrance, but Target Corporation wanted another connection, which the City would need to evaluate. Hamar & PexpeanovBoapc Xtrz o� Acvo Awcec 13 Dave Moss ( ?sp), 7785 Lois Lane, stated Target Corporation tried to build a Superstore in the City of Blaine, and the City of Blaine did not let them build in that City because of the grocery store. Mr. Moss stated he had a vested interest in this because he worked at Festival Foods and was in the union. He saw Target Corporation simply going up the freeway to build their store. He stated most stores stock their stores at night and asked that a curfew being put on the noise and activities at night. Mr. Smyser replied a curfew would be taken into consideration. John Herman, 7859 Lois Lane, stated another Target Store was not needed in the area. He stated he moved up here to get out of the City and get peace and quiet. He indicated he did not want this to become another Woodbury where there were stoplights at every corner. He stated he hoped the City would look at the traffic concerns the citizens had on Lake Drive. He indicated he did not want to see the City keep developing without looking at the traffic impacts that would be made. He stated the roads were not there to support this project, and he wanted to see improvements to the road before any construction would be started. He indicated Tanger Mall was a very similar situation, and they had only one entrance and did not have a problem with having one entrance. Wendy , 849 77th Street, expressed her concern regarding Apollo Drive. She stated she did not think people on Apollo Drive realized they had a stop sign to get on to Lake Drive. She stated this area was a disaster waiting to happen. She realized that something was going to eventually be put on the land that Target Corporation proposed to put their store on. However, she was concerned about the access off of 77th Street to the Target Store. She stated Target Corporation had indicated the City wanted the access. She indicated she did not want access off of 77th Street into Target. Mr. Powell responded the City wanted some sort of a connection from 77th Street to Target Store; not from Target Store to 77th Street. He stated they originally had discussions for an access for emergency vehicles only, not for traffic to go from Apollo Drive to 77th Street. He stated the way the development was proposed, they were looking at Target Corporation's proposal for another access, but the Target Corporation was still revising their plans and nothing had been decided on. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. 17apxa_ &_Pexpea rt o v_Boap5 14 Xast og5 Aivo Awcecr PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan-Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED : MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Corson, Lane, Lyden, Schaps, and Zych Rafferty and Schilling City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Wessel; Cindy Sherman (NAC) CONTINUE TO 4/11/01. Staff stated at the February 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the public hearing related to the proposal by Ryan Companies for a mixed commercial site located north of Lake Drive, adjacent to 1-35W. Staff recommended that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. Mr. Wessel presented a status of the project since the last meeting. He stated the site plan was changing and therefore, so was the schedule. He stated the problem was that the market did not support the building of the large three pads. He stated the development team had presented the three pads to the market, but could not get any interest in it. Therefore, one option would be to downsize the project to eliminate the three large pads. The other option would be the replacement of the pads and go with a development that was similar as to what they were originally looking at. He stated they could not respond until they receive something official. He indicated they did not expect a proposal until just before the May 2001 Planning &Zoning meeting. He stated more likely they would be breaking ground in the fall rather than in the summer, if this project received approved. Chair Schaps asked if there was any update regarding the road. Mr. Powell replied applicant still wanted two accesses to the site. They had prepared an impact study of that second access and how it would function and had submitted it to the County for initial review. He stated the plan would need to be reevaluated with the change of the site plan. Mr. Lyden asked looking at Plan A vs. Plan B economically, was there a more economic advantage to one plan over the other Plan. Mr. Wessel replied the plan with the three larger pads was a larger project and therefore, it Would a more economically advantageous project for the City. Mr. Lyden asked if they could allow the Target to be built and wait for the remainder of the development for sometime in the future. Mr. Wessel replied this could be a possibility, but Ryan and 17apxQ &c Pexpsariov_BoapS Xtn o0 Acvo Aarcecr 15 Target were committed to having this as one development and completing the whole project. He stated Ryan and Target were not interested in purchasing the land and holding it for future development. John Obrestad, 7738 Carole Drive, stated he was concerned where the two roads were going to be and where it would put the traffic. Mr. Powell replied the access would be off of Lake Drive. There would be no access off of 77th Street with the recent concept plan submitted. Tim Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, asked if there would be streetlights going from the new Target onto Lake Drive. Mr. Powell replied in the Lake Drive corridor there would be lights added once it was developed as warranted. He stated they did not anticipate lights on 77th Street, but there would be gaps in the traffic to allow traffic on 77th Street to get out onto Lake Drive. Mr. Graf asked about a buffer around Target. Mr. Powell stated there would be some type of a buffer, possibly some type of landscaping. Mr. Wessel reminded there was no official plan submitted yet. Deb Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, stated they had three banks and convenience stores within a few blocks and she did not believe they needed more banks. She asked if this was staying with the old town village look. Mr. Wessel replied the question of another bank and convenience store was a decision ultimately to be made by the Council, but the market supported another bank and convenience store. He stated the developer was looking at the architectural aspects of the Target and the developer was aware they needed to give it a "village feel ". There had been an effort made to put together something with the appropriate architectural design. Mr. Lyden stated Ms. Graf's comment about the bank was well taken. He indicated even though the market may absorb the bank, it might not be an asset to the City. Chair Schaps stated the architectural design they had seen did not look like the typical Target Store. Ms. Graf asked when they submit their final proposal, did Planning and Zoning have the final say. Chair Schaps replied the function of Planning and Zoning was to review the plan and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council could either agree or disagree with P &Z's recommendations. The final decision would be up to the Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001 to allow time for additional information to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. 'laps_ &_Pe pcanovBoap& 16 Xtzt o¢ Atvo Acacec PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive. DATE : April 11, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:23 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Lyden, Schaps, Schilling and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane STAFF PRESENT : City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser; Cindy Sherman (NAC) Mr. Smyser stated the design issues had not been resolved and recommended the public hearing be continued to May 9, 2001. They had received the plans this week and this would be presented at the May meeting. He stated Target would still be there, but instead of the smaller sites, this was proposed for a Kohl's store. He indicated he had received positive feedback with the proposed Kohl's store. • Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to May 9, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. DESIGN REVIEW HOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 1.... pending ... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending .... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Llama &_Pepeartov_Boap5 Xtrz of Azvo Awceo- 17 Jeff Smyser From: Bill Wittrock [bill.wittrock @rsparch.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:47 PM To: Jeff Smyser (E -mail) Cc: Thomas P. Palmquist (E- mail); John Payton (E -mail) Subject: Lino Lakes Marketplace Jeff, There is an error in the written narrative included in the package submitted for Lino Lakes Marketplace Planning Commission application. The Kohl's sign area is listed at 420sf per sign. It should read, 100sf per sign. Please note this correction. Thank You William I. Wittrock AIA RSP Architects Ltd. (612) 339 -0313 (612) 677 -7273 direct RECEIVED APR 0 9 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES re, 01'41011 '01 ;aim= al;117411. 44,310 ri7::711 '.1C117;-: t 1 %AA tAlti • _ ^ .; RR( 1,1 A UN9MMSEINE1OUn 89Eirl79\: LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE Lino Lakes, Minnesota PROJECT NARRATIVE Prepared for YAM Ryan Companies US, Inc. By SITE WORKS STUDIO PARSONS TRAMPCIFITATION CIROUP B.tr.•1 seksam • a Law, &stiff. • sl.... REVISED - APRIL 6, 2001 CYAN PREFACE This writing is a revision to a January 15, 2001 project submittal in connection with the applicant's ("APPLICANT'), Ryan Companies, US Inc., application (the "APPLICATION ") for approval of development of the retail shopping center development ("LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE ") a land parcel (the "PROPERTY "), described below and near the northeast corner of Lake Drive (Co. Rd. 23) and MnDOT Interstate 35W(I35W). The Application includes the following components: 1. Site Plan and Building Plan approval for construction of an 182,760 Sq. Ft. Super Target and eight (8) each retail buildings varying in size from 3,600 Sq. Ft. to 86,584 Sq. Ft. 2. Planned Development Overlay District Preliminary Development Plan approval. 3. Preliminary Plat approval. The APPLICANT has retained the following consultants to assist in preparation and processing of the APPLICATION: Civil Engineers /Landscape Architects Parsons Transportation Group 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 332 -0421 Environmental Consultants Peterson Environmental Consultants 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 686 -0151 Building Architects RSP Architects Ltd. 120 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339 -0313 Land Surveyors Westwood Professional Services 3701 12th Street North Suite 206 St. Cloud, MN 56303 (320) 253 -9495 PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barte•Aschman • De Lem. Cathay, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 1 - 04/09/01 YAN PROPOSAL /SUMMARY APPLICANT is requesting development approvals to allow for the development of the PROPERTY with multiple users that will include a 182,760 square feet SuperTarget retail store, 86,584 square feet Kohl's retail store, 2 Fast Food Restaurants, Bank, Gas Station /Convenience Store, and 21,600 square feet of flex -space retail shops for a total building area of 306,400 square feet. The existing property is zoned SC - Shopping Center. APPLICANT is not requesting the PROPERTY to be rezoned and that present SC zoning district meets developments intended usage. Applicant is requesting Preliminary Development Plan review and approval of a Planned Development Overlay District. Surrounding Zoning is as follows: 1. Abutting to the East and North - R- Rural 2. Abutting to the South - SC - Shopping Center and LB - Light Business 3. Abutting to the West — NB — Neighborhood Business and GB — General Business Commercial - CA - Central Area APPLICANT is requesting site, building and sign plan review for the new SuperTarget and Kohl's retail stores. The overall building architecture will be oriented toward some of the features already used to the south in the Village Center development as well as new features that will complement the site and provide screening and buffering to the rural neighborhoods to the north and east of the PROPERTY. The majority of site grading proposed is to facilitate the construction of the new retail buildings, modify drainage patterns, and provide for landscaped areas and islands. Storm water runoff will convey via the construction of new storm sewer lines under the proposed parking lot and outfall to a new storm water pond. A substantial number of new water infiltration methods have been incorporated in the preliminary plans to lower site total runoff volumes. The building and parking lot construction will require tree removal. The City Ordinance defines a significant tree as any h iardwood deciduous tree 6" caliper or greater, any softwood deciduous tree of 8" caliper or greater, and any coniferous tree of 12' height or greater. See Exhibit D Significant Tree Survey. The tree survey logged 752 trees however 566 are "significant trees" as defined by ordinance. The proposed grading activities will require the removal of 474 significant trees. In addition, the City has requested that all Aspen and Cottonwood be removed from the site. The total tree removal count planned is 495 significant trees. The City does not have a tree mitigation /replacement guideline. The site grading activities will result in the removal of 21 Tamarack trees from the property. Specific to this action, sixty - seven (67) Tamarack trees will be planted in the northwest and east areas of the site, surrounding and in the bio- retention basins. Some higher quality species will be added as well as coniferous trees to produce improved screening throughout the year. Landscaping has also been planned throughout the site. Planting islands will be incorporated into the parking Tots and along drive aisles to provide for PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barron•Aschman • De Lanw. Calker. • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -2- 04/09/01 CYAN parking lot definition. A variety of landscaping materials will be used to improve the aesthetics of the parking and drive areas. The site access points are planned via the extension of Apollo Drive at the southwest corner of the PROPERTY and a secondary access point midway between the intersections of 77th and Apollo on Lake Drive. The APPLICANT has requested the traffic and feasibility studies for roadway improvements to Lake Drive and the Apollo Drive extension. The City's Consultants and Engineer are conducting these studies and a portion of these costs associated with these studies is to be paid by APPLICANT. The City, County, and APPLICANT will be working toward an agreement on cost shares associated with roadway improvements prior to final plat and building plan approval. Hours of operation for the retail center will be seven days of the week 6:00 AM to 12:00 PM. The total square footage of retail space and total number of parking stalls has triggered state environmental reviews. The first is an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) and the second is an ISP (Indirect Source Permit). APPLICANT is preparing both documents for review and approval by the City, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Quality Board. In addition, APPLICANT will be submitting a revised application requesting approval for grading activities within the Rice Creek Watershed District. In conclusion, APPLICANT believes that the proposed development is in the best interest of the City. The proposal will allow for the upgrading of an agricultural parcel to commercial /retail usage. Further, APPLICANT believes that the addition of new retail businesses along with the SuperTarget Store will be an asset to the community. BACKGROUND The site has historically remained undeveloped largely due to access and earthwork activities necessary to develop the site. A number of proposed projects in the past have eyed the parcel as one that would be a part of major redevelopment of the area. However, lack of public support and financial backing of the developers have caused the past- proposed projects to not be progressed. A Neighborhood Meeting was held December 20, 2000 at the Lino Lakes Senior Center, thirty- six (36) Lino Lakes residents attended. A survey form was offered to all attending to provide written states about their concerns toward the project. Exhibit G has all surveys returned to the APPLICANT at this time. PARSONS_ GROUP Berton•Aschmen • De Lenw. Cathie. • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -3 04/ 09/01 • CYAN THE PROPERTY & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The PROPERTY is an irregular shaped parcel bound on three sides by abutting properties to the north, south and east. Lake Drive (County Road _No. 23) is to the west. Right of Way dedication for widening of Lake and construction of Apollo Drives is planned, with actual amount of lands to be dedicated to be determined later. PROPERTY description is as follows: That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, and Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision No. 134, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Section 8, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, and the Easterly right of way line of Old Minnesota Highway No. 8; thence Northeasterly along said Easterly right of way line of Old Minnesota Highway No. 8 for 444.0 feet to the point of beginning of this description; thence East and parallel with said South line of Section 8 for 413.00 feet; thence Southwesterly and parallel with said Easterly right of way line of Old Minnesota Highway No. 8 for 209.00 feet; thence East and parallel with said South line of said Section for 812.00 feet, more or less, to its intersection with the Northwesterly right of way line of Minnesota Interstate Highway No. 35W; thence Northeasterly along said Northwesterly right of way line of Minnesota Interstate Highway No. 35W to its intersection with the East line of said Section 8; thence North along said East line of Section 8 to the Northeast comer of South Half of Southeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence West along the North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter of Section 8 to its intersection with the Easterly right of way line of said Old Minnesota Highway No. 8; thence Southwesterly along said Easterly right of way line of Old Minnesota Highway No. 8 to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING 3 PARCELS: EXCEPTION NO. 1 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31 North, Range 2.2 West, and that part of Lot 15 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 134, Anoka County, Minnesota described jointly as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8; thence West along the North line of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1172.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing West, along the North line of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 208.7 feet; thence South, deflecting to the left 90 degrees, a distance of 233.00 feet; thence East deflecting to the left 90 degrees, a distance of 208.7 feet; thence North, deflecting to the left 90 degrees, a distance of 233.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTION NO. 2 That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter, of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter, distant 1587.48 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence South at right angles, a distance of 201.00 feet; thence West, parallel with the North line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter and to the Easterly right of way line of Old State Trunk Highway No. 8; thence Northeasterly on said Easterly right of way line to its intersection with the North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter; thence East on said North line to the point of beginning. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aachmwn • De Lwow. Lather, • Stdnman Town Center Narrative Page - 4 04/ 09/ 01 CYAN EXCEPTION NO. 3 That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31 Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South Half of Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 23 seconds West (assumed bearing), along the North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1380.70 feet, to the actual point of beginning of tract to be described; thence at right angle to the North line, South 00 degrees 18 minutes 37 seconds West, 233.00 feet; thence at a right angle, North 89 degrees 41 minutes 23 seconds West, 500.57 feet, more or less, to the Easterly line of Anoka County Highway Right -of -Way Plat No. 17; thence Northeasterly, along said Easterly line of a curve whose radius is 5641.85 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 21 minutes 52 seconds, a distance of 35.88 feet, more or Tess, to its intersection with the South line of the North 201.00 feet of said South Half of Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 23 seconds East, parallel with North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter, to a point of intersection, said point of intersection distance 1587.48 feet West of the Northeast corner of said South Half of Southeast Quarter, and 201.00 feet Southerly at a right angle to said North line; thence North 00 degrees 18 minutes 37 seconds East, on said right angle line, 201.00 feet, to the North line of said South Half of Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 23 seconds East, 206.78 feet; to the actual point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH That part of Lot Fifteen (15), Auditor's Subdivision No. 134, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, and the East line of old Highway No. 8 (now County State Aid Highway No. 23) as the same is now laid out and traveled; thence Northeasterly along the East line of said highway a distance of 235.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing Northeasterly along said East line a distance of 209.00 feet; thence Easterly and parallel with the South line of said Section 8 a distance of 413.00 feet; thence Southwesterly and parallel with the East line of said highway a distance of 209.00 feet; thence Westerly and parallel with the South line of said Section 8 a distance of 413.00 feet to the point of beginning. The proposed development includes a SuperTarget store of approximately 130,700 sq. ft. of retail sales area, 16,900 sq. ft. of front service, food service, office and restroom area and 35,160 sq. ft. of stockroom area. The SuperTarget is situated on the eastern 1/2 portion of the PROPERTY. The development also includes eight (8) retail shop buildings of various sizes on the western 1/2 portion of the site. Refer to the site and building plans for more specific information on location, building elevations, and floor plans. In addition, refer to Exhibit A — Design Standards for comparison of City Ordinance and Proposed building setbacks, floor area ratios and hard surface coverage. APPLICANT is requesting site and building plan approval for all retail shops north and east of the Apollo Drive extension. Description and graphics of the proposed site and building signage are submitted herewith the site and replatting application. Site utilities are proposed to connect into the existing city water and sanitary sewer mains. Proposed sanitary sewer connections are at two locations; one near the southwest corner of the parcel along Lake Drive and at Apollo Drive and the second at the secondary access point along Lake Drive. A new site water main with fire hydrants will be looped around the proposed PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschman • Ds Leuw. Lather, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -5- 04/ 09/01 • • CYAN buildings and tied into the city main near the two sanitary sewer connections stated above as well as connecting to the 77th Street water main. Refer to utility plans. Building down spouts and the majority of the parking lot storm water runoff is being planned to convey through a system of new storm sewer on site and connect to a new runoff and treatment pond located on the east side of the site. Storm water runoff calculations are included in Exhibit F of this narrative for verification purposes. Planned earthwork will involve the excavation, filling, export and import of soil materials. On site balance, without import and export of materials cannot be achieved due to the extent of organic soil material on the site. APPLICANT is intending to use BMP's (Best Management Practices) for storm water runoff that meet City and watershed district objectives. APPLICANT has incorporated depressed islands and areas to improve infiltration properties. Along the backs of curb and gutter section, where appropriate, infiltration trenches are planned to reduce storm water runoff. A bio -swale along the south side of 77th Street and north of SuperTarget will also be constructed. In addition, bio- retention basins in the northeastern and southeastern comers of the site aid to increase over all infiltration objectives. APPLICANT had a number of soil borings on the site. Refer to Exhibit H Soil Borings for additional information concerning site soil conditions. The APPLICANT also requests preliminary Development Plan review and approval of a Planned Development Overlay District. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aachman • Da Lauw, Lather, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -6- 04/ 09/01 YAN• PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT The Applicant wishes a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) District to be created inorder to allow more creative, economical, and efficient use of the land. The Lino Lakes City Council is required to review the plan to meet the Planning and Zoning Section 9 Subd. 3 Part D. Substantive Criteria for Review and Approval. The criteria and proposed finding in fact are as follows: 1. Density. The average density of the PDO shall not be greater than that which applies to the existing zone where the PDO is proposed as established by in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed development is in the Shopping Center Zoning District which has . a building coverage / green area requirement of 75 %/25 %. Applicant is proposing 71 %/28 %, which are within the Shopping Center Zoning District requirements. 2. Minimum Open Space. Ten (10) percent of the total parcel area. Finding: The Applicant has meet this requirement with 28% green space and in addition will pay the Park Dedication fee. 3. Height, Setback, and Lot Coverage Regulations. All such restrictions shall be waived in development of a PDO except along the perimeter of the development as long as the project complies with average density and open space provisions of this Ordinance. Finding: The proposed development does not have any buildings in excess of 45' tall, nor does it have any buildings or parking spaces in the required setbacks, nor does it have more floor area than allowed. 4. Environmental Design considerations shall be incorporated into the PDO process by requiring existing natural amenities, landscaping, and a proposed landscaping plan to be submitted during the review.process. Finding: The existing wetland basin in the northeast corner of the site is to remain in a natural state and untouched by the construction activities. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan in the review process and the City Council finds the landscaping plan acceptable and meets the environmental design considerations. Off site wetland mitigation is planned. Applicant is working on a proposal with Anoka County Parks and the Rice Creek Watershed District to construct the necessary newly created wetland requirements. 5. Traffic Circulation Finding: The City Engineer has prepared a traffic study for the project site and has included other projects and objectives of the City of Lino Lakes transpartation plan. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no objections with the access points or traffic circulation in and near the site. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Lww, Lather, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 7 - 04/ 09/ 01 • • CYAN 6. Parking Standards for the PDO are the same as for other similar uses as provided in the off - street parking section of the ordinance. Finding: The site plan meets overall parking objectives for Shopping Center, Fast Food Restaurant, and Motor Fuel Station parking requirements. The parking ordinance requires 1,574 parking spaces and the site plan incorporates 1,747 parking spaces, exceeding the requirement by 173 parking spaces. 7. Public Services. A PDO shall . not create a demand for public service which is normally provided in the zoning district of the proposed PDO. Finding: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans, made recommendations for necessary roadway improvements and concurs with Applicant that existing water and sewer services are readily available to site and that increased usages from the Lino Lakes Marketplace have minimal impact to these systems. 8. Non- Residential Structures. Non - residential uses, limited to those spcifically approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, are permitted in a planned development provided that such uses primarily are for the service and convenience of the residents of the development. Finding: This criteria is non - applicable for a commercial PDO. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Berton•Asehman • Oa Leuw. Lather, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -8- 04/ 09/ 01 CYAN PROTECTION OF WETLAND RESOURCES AND WETLAND RESTORATION AND FLOODWAY IMPACTS A portion of the PROPERTY consists of jurisdictional wetland; some or all of which is regulated by the Rice Creek Watershed District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Rice Creek Watershed District serves as regulatory function with regard to wetlands on the property. The Watershed District serves as Local Government Unit (''LGU ") under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA "), which regulates the filling or draining of all non- public waters wetland. The jurisdictional boundaries of wetlands regulated under the WCA were delineated using the methodology described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ("1987 Corps Manual "). The Corps of Engineers also regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands (again as delineated using the 1987 Corps Manual). Wetlands on the property were delineated according to the 1987 Corps Manual by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ("PEC ") in December of 2000 and documented in a wetland delineation report dated December 11, 2000. James L. Arndt, Ph.D., a licensed soil scientist in Minnesota performed the delineation. Refer to Exhibit E. There are approximately 4.87 acres of delineated wetlands on the PROPERTY. The Peterson report has labeled wetlands as Basin A (3.63 acres) and Basin B (1.24 acres). Due to the late season timing of the delineation a confirmation of the wetland boundary with the LGU and Corp has not occurred. APPLICANT will work with the City, County, Watershed District and Corp of Engineers as early as possible in the spring to confirm the wetland edge. All of Basin A wetlands will be impacted by the grading activities and by converting it to a site storm water treatment and retention basin. APPLICANT is pursuing of site wetland mitigation sites or an existing wetland bank to be debited for the project. APPLICANT's planned construction of the storm water pond and creation of bio- retention basins will have no impacts to existing floodways. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschman • Da Lauw. Calker, • Steinman • Town Center Narrative Page -9- 04/ 09/ 01 CYAN INTEGRATED BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN COMPLEMENTARY TO LINO LAKES VILLAGE CENTER The architectural design has been derived from the context of the Village Center. Building massing and materials similar and compatible to the Village Center are planned. Buildings on the site have been laid out with view corridors in mind and addressing the public pedestrian aths with articulated building entries and corners. Retail buildings A and B are designed to promote multiple tenants. A sign band of stucco and brick will organize individual signs at a consistent height. Signs will be individual 36" letters internally illuminated. See building elevations for wall- mounted sign locations. Building facades have three recognizable elements of base, middle and cornice. Corners of the east elevation (storefront side) are highlighted with brick pitched roof forms that repeat a vernacular common throughout the Village Center. Standing seam metal roofs are limited to end corners for visual interest and focus. Painted aluminum storefronts incorporate transom windows, canvas awnings and varied sill heights to provide facade transparency that strengthens the relationship of the buildings to the street. Brick and stucco piers with wall- mounted lights are spaced equally along the facade to provide for flexibility tenant configurations. The sides and rear of the buildings are integral - colored, rock face concrete masonry. Colors and accent textures reinforce the basic design concept of base, middle and cornice. All metal cap flashing and service doors will be painted to match the storefront color. The sidewalks along these buildings will be primarily concrete with a scored pattern. Intersections of roads or other sidewalks will be highlighted with decorative contrasting color and /or material. Planting areas will be located at the ends of the parking lanes to help screen cars and to visually soften the transition of sidewalk and roads. Lots with Retail C, a Bank, Fast Food A, B, and a Convenience Store will be designed with similar concepts as outlined above. Elevation and floor plans for these five buildings have not been developed, however they will have similar and tie -in feature detail. Sidewalks along these buildings will be primarily concrete with a scored pattern. Intersections of roads or other sidewalks will be highlighted with a decorative contrasting color and /or material. The SuperTarget building will have material and building theme to be compatible with the other buildings within the development. A pitched metal roof and stucco parapet will identify the main entrances of the building. Brick pilasters will articulate the base of the building using the same brick as occurs in the city hall complex. The main field material will be painted rock face CMU using Target retail colors. Accent bands and textural changes occur within the front facade and on the south facade. The north and east facade will be painted CMU. Target also intends to install wall- mounted signage. See building elevations for wall- mounted signs. The Kohl's front facade consists of brick with accent brick bands. The entry is highlighted with a stucco field scored pattern. Recessed entries are flanked with round columns. The east, north and west facades are composed of painted rock face CMU. The base is painted with an accent color. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Berton•Aschman • Do Lem. Whet. • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 10- 04/ 09/ 01 YAN• EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE As requested by City Staff, luminaries will be located in recessed or boxed fixtures to eliminate off -site direct views of the luminaries. Exterior lighting is designed to avoid glare on any neighboring residential parcel as demonstrated by the submitted lighting distribution plan. Lighting in the rear of the buildings will be limited to wall - mounted fixtures that will avoid direct spillover beyond the development's paved areas. Security lighting is also proposed in certain identified areas. An illumination plan has been submitted which depicts the projected foot- candle measurement on the Property. The following is a summary of the modifications the Applicant is proposing to deviate from the Applicant's standard lighting package to "soften" the site lighting plan as requested by the neighbors (see Exhibit G): 1. The pole mounted flat glass lenses in shoebox fixtures instead of the normal convex lens fixtures. This will lessen the glare from lamps being seen below the bottom plane of the fixture. 2. Applicant has eliminated the typical shielded wall packs from the northern drive's security lighting package, replacing the fixtures with shoebox style and flat glass lens. This change along the building's north, east and dock areas will have light only shining in a downward direction. The flat glass shoebox fixtures mounted on 6" arms at 20' above pavement will eliminate spillover light beyond the paved areas. Applicant's general site lighting criteria is as follows for the level of security specified: 1. Building front at curb 2. Entry drives 3. General Parking 4. Edges of Parking PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Asehman • De Lem, Cachet, • Steinman 5.0 foot - candles min. 2.0 foot - candles min. 2.0 foot - candles min. 1.0 foot - candles min. Town Center Narrative Page - 11 - 04/ 09/ 01 • Proposed signage for the development is as follows: SuperTarget All letters and logos will be individual aluminum cans, internally illuminated. Proposed Sign 30" Pharmacy 12' Bullseye 60" TARGET 72" Super 8" underscore 48" Expect More Pay Less 35" Archer Farms 26" Market 24" Tenant sign TBD Specifications Prototype red face, trim and return. Prototype red face, trim and return. Prototype red face, trim and return. Prototype green face, trim and return. Prototype green face, trim and return. Prototype red face, trim and return. Prototype green face, trim and return. Prototype Red face, trim and return. TBD Location front elevation South (front) West elevation South (front) West elevation West entry on front elevation East entry on front elevation South (front) YAN Square feet 56 sf 489 sf 365sf Combined 167 sf 143 sf Combined 100 sf maximum per tenant Retail Buildings A, B, C, Bank, Fast Food A and B, and Convenience Proposed Sign 36" Tenant Sign TBD Kohl's Proposed Sign 60" Tenant Sign PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Berton•Asehmen • Bo lsuw. Whet • Steinman Specifications Individual letters, internally illuminated Specifications Individual letters, intemally illuminated Location Signband above tenant entry(s) and corresponding street elevation Location South elev. Between main entries, North elev. NE corner Store Square feet 100 sf maximum per tenant, each side. Square feet 420 sf each Town Center Narrative Page - 12 - 04/09/01 YAN• Pylon Signs The pylon signs will have an 8' base of split face CMU, as used on the retail building exteriors. Project signage and logo will be mounted to the base and be externally illuminated. SuperTarget logo and sign will comprise the largest face, and a Kohl's sign of equal size will be mounted below. The armature surrounding the sign faces will be stucco to match the building architecture. See the table below for sign square foot summary and submitted sign graphics. Proposed Sign 14' -8 "x12` -0 "Super Target and Logo Three 3' -0 "x 12' -0" Tenant Sign TBD Monument Signs Specificati ns White Panaflex Internally illuminated with HO fluro. White Panaflex Intemally illuminated with HO fluro. Under development — To be submitted later PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Lem. Sather, • Steinman • Location Top of pylon (3) Three spaces below Target logo Square feet 177 sf per side. 108 sf each tenant, each side. Town Center Narrative Page - 13 - 04/09/01 YAH. SITE LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE AN OVERALL ATTRACTIVE VISUAL IMAGE The landscape plans submitted with the site plan :application combine natural and formal planting styles within the parking lot area. The objectives of the landscape plans will be to provide visual screening to of the parking lot and loading dock area, and provide shade and ornament to the parking lot area. Per the direction of the City, the plant pallet consists largely of plant materials that are unique to Minnesota and more native to Lino Lakes. In addition, plant materials were selected on their ability to survive the conditions of this development. The City Ordinance defines a significant tree as any hardwood deciduous tree 6" caliper or greater, any softwood deciduous tree of 8" caliper or greater, and any coniferous tree of 12' height or greater. See Exhibit D, Significant Tree Survey. The tree survey logged 752 trees however 566 are "significant trees" as defined by ordinance. The proposed grading activities will require the removal of 474 significant trees. In addition, the City has requested that all Aspen and Cottonwood be removed from the site. An additional twenty-one (21) "significant" Aspen and Cottonwood will be removed that would have been preserved during the grading process. The total tree removal count is then at 495 significant trees. Refer to Exhibit C — Tree Removal for more specifics on the common name of trees on site and those removed. The City does not have a tree mitigation /replacement guideline. In lieu of this requirement, the APPLICANT believes that the proposed landscaping plan meets the goals and objectives of the City's landscaping requirements. The site grading activities will result in the removal of 21 Tamarack trees from the property. Specific to this action, sixty-seven (67) Tamarack trees will be planted in the northwest and east areas of the site, surrounding and in the bio- retention basins. The City Zoning Ordinance requires the use of planting strips at property lines. Per the request of the City, berms have not been incorporated into the planting strips to allow the treatment of storm runoff in bio - swales. The APPLICANT will be proposing to meet and exceed all landscaping requirements. The perimeter of the property is landscaped with a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Landscaping will be incorporated throughout the site. Planted islands will also be incorporated into the parking lots and along drive aisles to provide for parking lot 'definition. A variety of landscaping materials the plant pallet consists largely of plant materials that are unique to Minnesota and more native to Lino Lakes to improve the aesthetics of the parking and drive areas. Minimum sizes for plant materials are as follows: Potted /Bare Root B &B Shade Trees: 2" dia. 2" dia Half Trees: 6 -7' ht. 1 1/2" dia. Evergreen Trees: 3 -4' ht. Tall Shrubs: 3 -4' ht. 3 -4' ht. Low Shrubs: 18 -24" ht. 18 -24" ht. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschman • De Lew. Cather, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 14 - 04/09/01 CYAN SITE GRADING AND NEW WATER QUALITY TREATMENT POND Site grading will occur to facilitate construction of the SuperTarget Store and other retail shops, construction of parking Tots, depressed islands, planting beds; one water quality treatment pond, creation of bio - swales and bio- retention basins. Existing site soil regime is of a naturally high infiltration media. The soil is classified by the Soils Conservation Service as Zimmerman fine sand and Category A soils. Drainage calculations (see Exhibit F) for the predevelopment 100 -year event computed a total site runoff of only 1.54 cfs. In order to maintain the post - development runoff rates at the predevelopment rates a storage pond with dry storage above the normal wet water level is planned on the site. Bio- retension basins are located in the northeast and southeast corners of the site. The storm water treatment pond is planned to have a. wet storage volume of 13.5 acre -ft (National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) wet volume required 5.5 acre -ft) and a dry storage capacity of 9.9 acre -ft and discharge from the site through one each 2 -inch and 6 -inch diameter pipes. The smaller 2 -inch diameter is to minimize storm water discharge for the one -year event to 0.05 cfs and the two pipes combined limit the 100 -year event to 1.21 cfs. The storage depth will bounce for each of the various rainfall frequency events with maximum depth of 5.0 feet in the 100 -year event. (See Exhibit F) Per communications with city staff and DNR Area Hydrologist, Mr. Tom Hovey APPLICANT understands that the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of the nearest lake (George Watch Lake) to the southeast of the site is 883.5 to 884.0 and has a regional flood plain elevation of 886.9. This brings the OHW into the northern shoulder right -of -way of I -35W. APPLICANT will progress with Rice Creek Watershed District approval of the grading, drainage, and wetland impact/mitigation plan. The project will require approvals from the watershed district and city. SITE ACCESS AND TRAFFIC The site will gain access from two (2) planned locations long Lake Drive. No access to 77th Street is planned. Apollo Drive is planned to be extend easterly into the site. A secondary access point is planned along Lake Drive north of Apollo Drive. • The City is conducting traffic and roadway feasibility studies for improvements necessary due to normal growth, other developments underway, and this APPLICATION. The City as to roadway widths, lane configurations, center islands, traffic signals and right -of -way requirements has not released preliminary design considerations. APPLICANT has provided all information it City as to projected traffic volumes and will continue to support the traffic and roadway study needs. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Asehman • De Lauw. Collier, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page -15- 04/ 09/ 01 YAH PARKING AND SITE CIRCULATION Parking requirements for the development are established per City Zoning Ordinance, Section 3 General Requirements, Subdivision 5 Off - street Parking. The site is zoned SC - Shopping Center and under Para. F - Number of Spaces Required item 16 states, "Shopping Centers. Five and one -half (5 1 /z) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor area (exclusive of common areas)." Para. F - Number of Spaces Required item 15 states "Retail Store and Service Establishment. At least one (1) off - street parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area." APPLICANT is proposing to provide 1,747 parking stalls for 306,400 sf of mixed use Shopping. Center or a parking ratio of 1 space per 175 square feet of floor area. Site internal circulation will be obtained via the Apollo Drive extension into the site and the secondary access off Lake Drive. Truck deliveries will be directed to enter and exit at the Lake Drive access points. Trash containers are proposed to be fully contained within the building footprints. The SuperTarget has an external cardboard bailer /trash compactor in the loading dock area. This area will be screened from the residents to the north by landscaping and a split face modular block screen wall. Pedestrian traffic between retail centers will be addressed by the installation of sidewalk along the front of each retail center and walkways will tie between shops and the SuperTarget Store. Applicant will continue to work with city staff to coordinate connections to neighborhood and local /regional bike trails. A regulatory sign package will be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES City services are available to the site. Presently, a sanitary sewer main parallels Lake Drive on the east side of the right -of -way. Applicant intends to construct manholes over the existing main and branch easterly with new 8" diameter main at two locations; one near the southwest corner of the parcel at Apollo Drive and the second at the secondary access point along Lake Drive. Existing city water main is also readily available to the site. A new 8" diameter site water main with fire hydrants will be looped around the proposed buildings. This new main will tie into the existing city main near the two sanitary sewer connections stated above along Lake Drive, as well as tie in to the 77th Street water main. City Engineer was contacted to provide hydrant flow tests near the site to APPLICANT'S engineer so that a determination on fire flow booster pumps will be needed for proposed building's fire protection sprinkler systems. Applicant will provide easements for the City over the new water and sewer mains. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton -Aachm o • De Leuw. Lather. • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 16 - 04/ 09/ 01 CYAN SUBDIVISION APPLICANT is requesting preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat addresses lot subdivision, right of way dedication, utility and drainage easements, and outlots. In accordance with City Zoning and Subdivision Regulations (Platting), APPLICANT intends to provide cash inlue of of land contributions to meet parkland dedication requirements. The proposed development is 306,400 square feet. The park fee is set at $200 per 1,000 square feet of structure or for the Lino Laked Marketplace project the APPLICANT will pay $61,280.00. APPLICANT will prepare all cross easements, ingress /egress easements and site maintenance agreements for all properties. EASEMENTS The following easements will be dedicated. a. Standard drainage and utility b. Cross access c. Ingress /Egress d. Right of Way REQUEST APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS 1. Building materials and colors for all buildings to be submitted for staff review before the issuance of a building permit. 2. APPLICANT maintains the water quality ponds. 3. APPLICANT obtains Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit 4. APPLICANT submits final drainage calculations to verify storm water runoff and catch basin numbers and locations prior to issuance of a grading permit 5. APPLICANT obtains appropriate demolition permits for building removal. 6. APPLICANT dedicates the following easements: a. standard drainage and utility b. ingress and egress c. cross easements d. right of way dedications 7. APPLICANT submits a grading bond before the issuance of a grading permit and landscape bond before the issuance of a building permit. 8. APPLICANT submits a site regulatory sign package for staff review and approval before the issuance of a building permit. 9. APPLICANT to petition for vacation of any obsolete utility easements PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aecbmen • De Lwow, Mier, • Steinman Town Center Narrative Page - 17 - 04/ 09/ 01 • Lino Lakes Marketplace -Lino Lakes, Minnesota PROPOSED PERMITTING SCHEDULE COMPLETED City Council Work Session Meeting - No. 1 Wed 11/22/00 Environmental Board Meeting - No. 1 Wed 11/29/00 City Planning Commission Meeting - No. 1 Wed 12/13/00 City Council Meeting No. 1 Mon 12/18/00 Neighborhood Meeting Wed 12/20/00 Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Start EAW Documentation Preparation Thu 12/28/00 Indirect Source Permit - Start 1SP Documentation Preparation Thu 12/28/00 Wetland Mitigation Start Plan Preparation Thu 12/28/00 City Council/Enviro Brd Work Session Meeting - No. 2 Wed 01/03/01 Rice Creek Watershed District- Meet with District Engineer Thu 01/18/01 RePlat/Site Plan Application Submittal to City & WSD Mon 01/15/01 Meet with Anoka County Parks Staff - Wargo Nature Center Tue 02/13/01 Meet with Anoka County Parks Staff - Wargo Nature Center Thu 02/22/01 Rice Creek Watershed District Meet ( TWAFAA - 90 days) Wed 02/28/01 Anoka County Parks Board Meeting - No. 1 Wed 03/07/01 APRIL Resubmit all Documents (RePlat/Site Plan) to City Mon 04/09/01 Complete Draft/Draft EAW comments from City Mon 04/09/01 Complete Draft Wetland Mitigation Designs and Permit Applications Fri 04/20/01 City Council Meeting No. 3 Mon 04/23/01 Order Lake & Apollo Drive Improvement Feasibility Study City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 3 Wed 04/25/01 MAY CPR Meeting - Ryan /PTG Team @ Target Tue 05/01/01 Lake & Apollo Drive Improvement Costs from Feasibility Study to be included City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 1 Thu 05/03/01 Obtained Wetland Comfirmation of Delineatons from RCWD & USCAE Fn 05/04/01 City Park Board Meeting - No. 1 Mon 05/07/01 Complete Draft EAW Wed 05/09/01 Complete ISP Documentation Preparation & Submit to MPCA Wed 05/09/01 City Planning Commission Meeting - No. 2 (Project Public Hearing) Wed 05/09/01 - . Recommend to Council - Preliminary Plat Approval Submit Preliminary Plat to County & MnDOT for Review Thu 05/10/01 Revisions to Draft Wetland Mitigation Designs and Permit Applications Fn 05/11/01 Submit Applications & Draft Notices to RCWD & USCAE Fri 05/11/01 City Council Meeting - No. 4 Mon 05/14/01 Accept Draft EAW and Authorize EQB Monitor Publication EQB Draft EAW Deadline for Submission Mon 05/21/01 End of Agencies Review Wetland Applications and notices (TEP mtg ?) Fri 05/25/01 First Printing in EQB - Monitor - Start 30 Day Comment Period Mon 05/28/01 City Environmental Board Meeting - No. 4 Wed 05/30/01 Rice Creek Watershed District TWAFAA 90 days ends Wed 05/30/01 JUNE Anoka County Parks Board Meeting - No. 2 Tue 06/05/01 Review Development Agreement w/ County reguarding Wetland Mitigation City Council Work Session Meeting - No. 5 Wed 06/06/01 Development Agreement Issues City EDAC Commision Meeting - No. 2 Thu 06/07/01 Resubmit to Rice Creek Watershed District Thu 06/14/01 City Council Work Session Meeting - No. 6 ? Wed 06/20101 Development Agreement Issues Rice Creek Watershed District Meeting approve Mitigation Wed 06/27101 EAW 30 Day Comment Period Ends Wed 06/27/01 Prepare and Submit response to EAW Comments City Environmental Board Meeting * Joint Mtg? - No. 5 Wed 06/27101 - EAW Negative Declaration Recommendation Revised 3 -31-01 Lino Lakes Marketplace -Lino Lakes, Minnesota PROPOSED PERMITTING SCHEDULE JULY Anoka County Parks Board Meeting — No. 3 Tue 07/02/01 - Approve Development Agreement w! County reguarding Wetland Mitigation USACE issues 404 Premit for Wetland Fill and Mitigation Plan Fri 07106/01 City Planning Commission Meeting * Joint Mtg? - No. 4 Mon 07/11/01 - EAW Negative Declaration Recommendation City Council Meeting - No. 7 * Joint Mtg? Mon 07/23/01 - EAW Negative Declaration - Approve Preliminary/Final Plat and Development Agreement Submit Plans to State Health Dept. — Sewer & Water Ext. Fri 07/27/01 Submit Grading Plans for Building Permit Fri 07/27/01 MPCA Approves ISP Mon 07/30/01 Install Silt Fence Mon 07/30/01 Prepare and Submit NPDES Permit Application Mon 07/30/01 AUGUST Begin Site Grading Activities Wed 08/01/01 * Special Joint Meeting for EB & CC improves Schedule 30+ Days Revised 3 -31 -01 EXHIBIT A Design Standards Rev. 4 /9/01 Buildin . Setbacks Front Side Rear Street 50' 10' 30' 50' 50' 10' 30' 50' Parkin . Setback Side Rear Street 10' 10' 15' 10' 10' 15' Hardsurface Coverage <75% 71.74% * Proposed only applicable near Residential Lot lines. Lino Lakes Marketplace EXHIBIT B Analysis of Parking Spaces Revised 4/09/01 Super Target Kohl's 182,760 164,484 5.5 905 1,000 86,584 Retail A Retail B Retail C Bank Fast Food A Fast Food B 8,400 9,600 3,600 5,000 3,432 3,432 77,926 7,560 5.5 429 520 5.5 42 38 8,640 3,240 4,500 3,089 3,089 5.5 5.5 5.5 48 18 25 56 26 26 15 15 47 47 34 34 Convenience Store' 3,600 530 See note 13 13 Proof of Parking Totals 306,408 _ 273,057 1,574 Convenience Store Required Parking Stalls (4 + 1. + (15/1000) *530) = 13 Stalls required Lino Lakes Marketplace 1,747 EXHIBIT C Tree Removal Rev. 4/09/01 Tamarack 6 "+ Diameter Trees Cottonwood 8 "+ Diameter Trees American Elm 8 "+ Diameter Trees Black Willow 8 "+ Diameter Trees Boxelder 8 "+ Diameter Trees Tremblin. Ast -n 22 1 8 "+ Diameter Trees Red Oak 6 "+ Diameter Trees 155 5 -5 White Oak 6 "+ Diameter Trees 3 Silver Ma . le 611+ Diameter Trees 18 2 Pa . er Birch 6 "+ Diameter Trees 89 20 45 16 -16 9 5 8 8 26 8 158 0 Black Cher 6 "+ Diameter Trees Red Cedar 6 "+ Diameter Trees Plum 611+ Diameter Trees 31 1 0 1 0 Total 566 71 -21 Total Tree Removal = 495 Significant Trees Lino Lakes Marketplace • INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21- 7A2/4/25/01.. PROJECT: Spirit Hills/Update DATE OF ORIGIN: 4/25/01 TO: FROM: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #:21 -7A PROJECT:Spirit Hills /Preliminary Plat Review DATE OF ORIGIN: 3/28/01 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes *FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: 'The following is the report from the March meeting: INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21- 7a/3/28/01... PROJECT: Spirit Hills DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Concept Plan Reviewed January 31, 2001 Environmental Board Meeting INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL "'PROJECT #: 21 -7 PROJECT: Spirit Hills DATE OF ORIGIN: January 31, 2001 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Located In the present MUSA 1 Immediately adjacent to a Natural Resources Lake 1 Shore Land Overlay District 1 Planned Greenway through this area STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: Sensitive Area 1 Buffering needed 1 Should be checked for rare and endangered 1.... Tree preservation plan needed • Ideal area for a PUD Environmental ISSUES: 1 Water Quality 1 Greenway /connectivness • Edge /buffering and rare and endangered ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the January 31, 2001 Environmental Board: No comments about minor subdivision. environmental Board had no concerns. Favorable first look on the expansion to the north. • questions and concerns about greenway /buffer around lake /and land trust and or conservation easement with covenants. • Shoreland overlay /and designated Lake Protection zone( Environmental Plan) Extra care needs to be instilled in development planing on thi410 site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: the Board reached the following consensus: 1....Minor subdivisionl.yes 1...,Favorable on initial look at expansionlsee comments above, IPFINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No 6 • FINAL VOTE DATE: January 31, 2001 Formal Application made Planned Development Overlay Maps and Drawings included in Packet • Open Space issue on Development sketch is indicated in gray. Mr. Goertz has indicated that he is open to a conservation easement with native plant buffers and signage. Landscape Plan indicates boulevard and landscape around the town homes. • Wetland delineation Completed • Natural Resources Lake /Shore Land Overlay District. • Trees on site • Future Commercial expansion area to south indicated. • Ordinary High Water elevation 883.1 ▪ Wetland mitigation needed • Infiltration basins indicated • Implied Trail through a proposed greenway area(1992 -2001) STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 Good idea to ask for a conservation easement with signage in the area directly east and west of the lake. Signage should be posted along edge reminding 1 no mow /disturb) For this to work, there needs to be covenants restricting use and providing for a management agency. A minimum association fee should be set aside for management of this area. A management plan should be developed. The management agency should be the local environmental review board. 1 A Tree preservation plan has been submitted. A site visit and a bit more detail may be needed. 1 .Shoreland Overlay district means that on a sewered lot, building setback must be 150 feet from the ordinary high water level. This needs to be verified. • City Engineering has shown concern for the house pad elevations. Soil may need to be imported to raise the pad elevations. Mr. Goerts has indicated to me that they will need to fill only on two lots if a lift pump can be installed near NE cul de sac 1 ... The trail proposal through the planned greenway area (conservation easement area) may have physical barriers at the area circled in red on • the enclosed GIS map. The county has indicated that they have abandoned this idea. ▪ Ilnfiltration areas are indicated on the North end, and a 1 Treed) swale overflow on the south central side will be preserved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the March 28, 2001 Environmental Board: Recommendations include all of the staff recommendations listed above in project trac report to The Environmental Board on March 28th, and in addition the Environmental Board made the following recommendations: • Those cul de sacs proposed by the developer to be devoid of curbing are allowed with surface water trained into retention swails along side of the road. • That the angle of the townhomes as positioned on the plan be opened up if possible in the area between the water /tree swaile area on the south side of the townhome area. • • That the Environmental Board advises that this is a High Ecological Value Zone based on the City Environmental Inventory, and that wetland should be buffered as much as possible. • That the Developer has agreed to involve the Environmental Board in the language of Homeowners Association Agreements to include issues such as zero phosphorous use and soil preparation. That the Environmental Board would be established as the City review Board for the future management of this area. • The use of native plants in drainage and buffer areas. FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: March 28, 2001 Yes No 6 ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date 1 Update Information: 1 Comments from the Planning and Zonning Board are in the attached draft minutes ( P &Z). 1 Planning and Zoning continued Spirit Hills and showed opposition to Townhomes. The Planing and Zoning Board directed the applicant to remove the Townhomes. The draft Comp Plan shows at least a portion of this area to the south zoned for townhomes. The developer stated that the 2,5 acres alloted in the draft comp plan was insufficient to make town home construction economically feasible. • Attached is the DNR report on this site. STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 I have no new plans to give you at this time. 1 • i Environmental ISSUES: 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Environmental Board: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: 1... 1.... ioFINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Yes No April 10, 2001 •.... ....., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793 Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977 City of Lino Lakes c/o Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 RE: Spirit Fills Rezone and Plat, Rice Lake (2- 0008P), City of T.ino Lakes, Anoka County Dear Mr. Smyser: Thank you for sending the preliminary plat and rezoning request (dated March 12, 200 1) for the Spirit Hills Development to the DNR (received March 26, 2001) for review. The Spirit Hills Development is located in the E% of Section 30, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, Anoka County. The Spirit Hills Development is also located within the 1000' shorcland district of Rice Lake (2- 0008P) which has a shorcland classification of natural environment. The 1)NR does not object to the approval of the rezoning request that would zone the Spirit l lilts Development as a Planned Development Overlay with the condition that the regulations for a Planned Development which arc found in the City of Lino Lakes Shoreland Management Ordinance arc; met. One of these conditions is found in Section 1102.13, Subdivision 4 which states that wetland areas should not bc included in the developed area of the Planned Development. We are concerned to sic that very large portions of the W CA wetland fringe of Rice Lake (which is above the ordinary high water level) have been platted as parts of lots 1 through 15. We request that the preliminary plat bc changed to exclude these wetland areas from being parts of the lots in question. We recommend that the wetland areas be included as part of the open space that is required by Section 1102, Subdivision 4,C, 1 of the City of Lino Lakes Shoreland Ordinance. In fact, the inclusion of these wetlands into the open space is required by Section 11(32.13, Subdivision 4,D,3 of the City Ordinance. In addition, Section 1102.13, Subdivision 4,C.2 requires that the Planned Development Association adopt conservation casements and association covenants that preserves the open space: areas that are designated in the development. These documents are required to bc approved by the City of Lino Lakes. Should the lots in question bc changed to exclude the wetland areas, then we recommend that monuments be placed at the wetland edge along each of the lot lines as a means of informing the lot owners of the location of the beginning of the wetland. We also recommend that the City of Lino Lakes require that the Spirit Hills development adopt documents that will preserve the vegetation, topography and appearance of the open space as required by Section 1102.13 Subdivision 4,F,4. The Spirit Lake Development should be required to preserve existing trees whenever possible, and to plant additional trees when necessary, in order to screen the view ofthe development frtrrn the users and other shorcland owners of Rice Lake. Not only does this screening benefit the neighbors (and thus is a great public relations tool), but it helps to preserve the privacy of the hearts in the Sp iri t Hills development. i)NR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- K88- 646 -6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1 -800- 657 -3929 An Piqua! Opportunity Employer `A Printed on Rocyebd Paper Containing a Whir Values Diversity "Ili Minimum ni 7r1'tt Pnar•r ,n, un+Rr W * i • ncrw • • ..tn. .. 1 u . . .....r1 m,. r.v .,- 1 Mr. Jell' Smyscr April 10.2001 Page 2 N. I w wt, u0I I I L I:7I' -- u:7I VOL 4•WW Finally, the Spirit Hills development appears to contain some areas of steep slopes. We recommend that construction in these steep slope areas follow the requirements listed in Section 1102.07, Subdivision 2, f3,5 in which work on these slopes is minimized and the erosion control plans for the work approved by the City Engineer. In addition to the cummcmts relating to the City of Lino Lakes Shoreland Management Regulations, we have the following comments to offer: 1 • We are pleased to sec that DNR Protected Water, Rice Lake (2 -0008 P) and its Ordinary 1 high Water (OHW) level of 883.1' (NGVD, 1929) are shown on the preliminary plat of Spirit Hills Development. Please bc aware that any work below the O1-1W of Ricc Lake (including stormwatcr outfhll installation) is under the jurisdiction of the DNR, and may require a DNR Protected Waters Permit. 2. While it is good to see that two sediment basins arc being designed for the Spirit Hills Development, other techniques that reduce thc amount of stormwater that needs to bc treated should bc incorporated into Spirit Hills because sediment ponds remove only a fraction of the pollutants in stormwatcr before it is discharged into Rice Lake. Whenever the curbs, gutters and stormsewers of a street should he replaced with wide, shallow swalcs because swalcs can remove some pollutants and infiltrate some water. Stormsowers simply funnel pollutants to the sediment ponds. Stounwater swages work best when they contain. native vegetation that' is mowed only once a year. in addition, Lino Lakes should consider the use of other low impact development techniques for dealing with stormwatt= including using rain gardens, dry wells, permeable pavements, infiltration trenches, and other similar techniques. The grading of the Spirit Hills site: should be minimized in order to avoid compacting the soils. In landscaped ercas where grading has occurred, a ripper should be used to loosen the soils and partially restore the infiltration capabilities of the site. 3. Rice Lake has a 1% (104 year) flood elevation of 8A6.0' (NGVD, 1929). In addition, the wetlands and sediment ponds of SpiritHills development will also have 1% flood levels of their own. We encourage the City of Lino Lakes and the Rice Creek Watershed District to take steps to ensure that the structures that are constructed in Spirit Hills development will not be flooded by any nearby body of water. 4. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day, or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. Applications for less than 50 million gallons may be approval under a general permit for dewatering and typically takes five (5) days to process. 5. if construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, the contractor must apply for a stortnwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agatcy (Keith Cherryhohnees at 651- 296 - 7036). 6. The comments in this letter-address DNR Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. I apologize: for thc untimeliness of these comments and thank you for submitting the preliminary plat and rezoning request of Spirit Mils Development to the DNR for review. We request that you send copies of the Spirit Hills development decision to Tom Hovey at the above address. We look forward to receiving other #3/4 Mr. Jeff Smyer April 10, 2001 Page 3 preliminary plats, variances, and conditional use permits from the City of Liuu Lakes. Please contact me at 651 -772 -7910 should you have questions about these comm. omments. Sincerely, • Joseph Richter Hydrologist c: Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District Rice Crock Watershed District, Kate Drewry U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tim Fell Glen Rehbein Companies, William A.T. McCully Rice Lake (2 -0008?) File Lino Lakes Shorcland File AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: Highland Meadows West, 3rd Addition, Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND: Project # 21 -13, Environmental Project Tracking sheet attached. The applicant presented informal sketch plan to the Environmental Board in March. New issues from staff perspective are presented on page 3 of this document. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend forward on to City Council for approval. 2. Recommend changes to design, and review again after an understandable tree inventory can be displayed, and a watershed report is available for discussion. 3. Recommend denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is number 2, with Environmental Board comments attached. INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21 -13 PROJECT Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition/Preliminary Plat DATE OF ORIGIN: 3/25/01 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Comments From the 3/28/01, Environmental Board Sketck Plan Review. 17aprcQ &_PspeartovBoape Xtzt oq Azvo Aaxsa • • Attachments: Concept sketch plans • STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:. •Protect Oak Woodland on. West side • •Site ideal for infiltration/maintain predevelopment water volumes as much as possible Standard Environmental Board recommendations including. Environmental ISSUES: Tree Preservation/Historic Oak savanna on West Side. Surface water to Marshan Lake / and and infiltration, surface water issues not settled. = - • Buffers/Oak Savanna and water drainage areas/use -of native plants- , . - - . . , , . • No greenway issues . . . _ Other than the Oak woodland, there are no known significant environmental features on this site, ENVIRONASINTTAL: BOARD COMMENTS The fo11oing is a swim .z;;Of the comments made by thL Board: . • ■.1\fottoncernecLabc.:tuvl?ine ``tree-say.p7,3,:ilssuo .• tralgt.gaigt!: • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTI tonseaus:f.:- • .- • . • • ttit!!.avl FINAL VOTE DATE: - - - Hamm- ct_Pszpeartov Boap5 2 ■■ ' Xin oq) Atvo Aarcecr Zoned R -1/72 Total Lots /Gross Acreage 33.68/Lot sises 10,800 40,595/... IWalk -out type houses planned... lextensive tree losses due to fill Isignificant vegetation(trees) on site Have not received a Rice Creek watershed Report o• STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: INo Watershed report I.Tree preservation plan submitted but no species list with it.... 1 Site is very poorly suited for walkout houses in terms of a major tree loss. Hardly a tree of any significance, including the Historic Oak remnants, will be removed. A suggestion would be to build full basement houses. Environmental ISSUES: 1 Major Tree Losses 1 Unknown surface water issues ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Environmental Board: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: the Board reached the following consensus: 1.... FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: Ilapxo=& Pezpeanov -BoapS Xizt oq Aivo Awcea 1.... • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT. The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Yes No DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): pending .... • COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 1.... pending .... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending .... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Hapx6 &_Pezpsarlov_BoapS Xiza o Atvo Aaxso- 4 Append= me∎dv d Applkedon ae■+nnc4 itinnplete Review period esteaded on _ to 14411estign vpMrod by city Cowmen on Appilwdoo Incomplete how s „ CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION ClSCKC APPROPRIATE BOX PEE ESCROW DEPOSIT Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 500 Conditional Use Permit $ 330 Interim Use Penult $ 350 Site Plan Review S 500 Subdivision: Preliminary Plat S 1.250 Preservation Development 1,250 Planned Development Overlay 1.250 Minor Subdivision/ 5 250 Lot Split Rezoning . $ 330 Vacation: drainage, street, udlity $ 250 Variance $ 250 Property Address PIN M — -- - Legal Description: Lot Block Addition. Existing Land Use Ealsdng Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Applicant Owns (if different than applicant): AMMO �.fh% Qrli� //+f•,. fJ� > pace address , a,?- 04'20 E address Po a ,1 ss 3 Phone fax 7403 ..(76. - " - i 76 3 7,L.. _ 9 at., pbone fax I RE ti: o APR 0 9 2001 CITY OF s t 9. LAKES rlighlandMeadWest3rd • Lino Cake i Ete enta, a d; freet Section 5 Section 8` a x ighla9d =Mdo" est 3rd Additio 0.6 0 0.6 Parcels.shp 1.2 Miles s HighlandMeadWest3rd Lakes LakeBoundry HighMeadW3rdHiEcoVal • • o. Lakes Elemen High Ecological Value Zone Remnant Historic Oak Savanna Highlandmeadwestzonel .shp Protrlsl I bn kedog4.sh p Parcels.shp Arcview3l • HighMeadW3rd Ecologic Delineation /Contours 0.1 • 0.1 0.2 0.3 Miles s • HighlandMeadWest3rd Tree Cover • 0.5 Contours.shp Arcview3l 0 0.5 1 Miles HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST 3RD ADDITION MAIN STREET —C.R. 14 SITE MAP (NO SCALE) LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBITS FOR TSM DEVELOPMENT 222 MONROE STREET, ANOKA, MN 55303 PHONE: (763) 576 -9121 FAX: (763) 576 -9122 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 Inch • 100 foot 000 — LL.v SHEET INDEX 1. TITLE SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PLAN 8. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 8. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9. EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP 10. PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP 11. DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS KR 'cm CAD FILE 20196TS PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 1 OF 11 COUNTY ROAD 14 Kn.N■ BOUNDARY. 10 K MIMED N 00 WINO .I>MeOK K4N KIMONO'. mecWPM O 00 3101010 0 MAR DON'ACRES • • 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 inch ■ 100 feet NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. WETLAND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED IN SPRING 2001. FEND 0 +moo SOIL BORING EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WETLAND DELINEATION EXISTING CONTOURS TREE LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE C) V/ � n W T CC v s e '� to b ■ w LJ z z z X ▪ o E . N /I�I� Zgv •V Z 33 ▪ CL rc DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 2 OF 11 <C 11) CJ C3 <C _J u_ r • .Ej ■ O C C) <C n 1 1 n 1, 1. in ; n n uv - -40- - 00 S89 °33'46 - 204.00 S00 °37'02 "W T1A /11 I /"I IT I VYIL.I \7x•11 730 OUTLOT 6.0 A ,01.54 MANAGE A ( D C ' r` `-,1 \ t__ 1 663.91 S00 °37'02 "W 164.7, f ` 304.x0 - - - - - T \A /II I/ \1 IT 1 VV1L_I \7rl 1 e60.00 r -1 r- / 11 II I / 38 °I I 39 I I 40 �I I 41 4. < -1 I „673 -I 7.46 676. FI I _,>, 676. mn u. & UnUTY 1.# ASEMENT •4= - ,-1,... ��� II II 11 ,y -� I I $ o I I 1 I 3419a sr. A - ' ")Nlr\ rlvI \ U MOO-1 I I 1 -- -- ^'h7 -�\ 30.00 1 ' ,0573 3.2. - 204.00 N00 °37'02 "E 40.65 W - I 60h -,O M ui i 0 60 V) 1 204.00 S00 °33'26 "W \ 26 \x \ mew u. \ 25 70299 _ °oo ,I) O oar O) co z A / \L)r-^ 1 S00 °37'02 "W 177.76 160.00 /3,� / \ $\ 3. 9 u.ya/ (/ / \ \\ nl I \� \ \ i \\ 34 60.00 1311 ) a\ / \ 17 \ ,3647 u. -24. 29 / y,\ o�'•i� \\ 33 \\ J I/ + 36 t3.R u. 81.J° �9 ' < 11 u. 81 \ `'/ o-\- '' 34'19 30 ' .\ 1731 u. ✓ / / G / 4,o \ / \y \ 35 ,6661 57. 120.20 '�;• v .55 145 .i3 3 ,� 6 / 0 SCALE IN FEET 60 120 180 / 1 inch " 60 het OUTLOT B 3174 62. 1 ,w4 Sr. I^ ID C� aI 0 a / ( �J7 i J 140764-_______ '31" / „ \�� -1 CD 45.53 / _ -45.53 (J; Seed Mixtures for Wet Areas Wet Gross mix Bigbluestem Indian gross Canada wild rye Cord grass Switch gross Giant Manna gross Softstem bulrush Dark green bulrush River bulrush Blue Joint gross Bottlebrush sedge Woolly Bulrush Giant Burreed Mud Plantain Water Hemlock Wildflowers Boneset Blockeyed susan Blue Vervain Culvers root Wild bergomont Flottopped aster New englond Oster Tall meadow rue White prairie clover Sneezeweed Joe Pye Weed Ironweed Purple prairie clover Golden olexander False sunflower Moximllion sunflower Proirle blazing star Great Blue Marsh milkweed Blue flog Iris Grey - Headed Conetlower Mountain Mint Panicled Aster Andropogon gerordii Sorgastrum nutons Elymus canodensis Spartino pectinate Ponicurn virgotum Clycerio grand's Scirpus validus Scirpus otrovirens Scirpus 6uviatilis Colamagroslls canodensis Corex comoso Scirpus cyperinus Sporgonium eurycarpum Allisimo subcordatum Cucuta maculate Eupotorium perfoliatum Rudbeckia hula Verbeno hostato Veronicastrum vlrginicum Monorda tistuloso Aster umbellotus Aster novae- ongiloe Thalictrum doeycorpum Dolea candldum Helenium autumnal. Eupotorium moculatum Vernonia tasieulata Defeo purpureo Zlzeo oureo Heliopsis heliontholdes Helianthus moximillioni Llairis pyenostochya Lobelia siphliticu Asclepius incarnate Iris versicolor Rotibida pinnate Pycnathemum virginiana Aster Lonceolotus Wetland Buffer Planting Plan Seeding and Early umagement Proeen Percent 20.0 19.0 25.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' 1.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 2.5 100.0 9.0 10.0 6.0 0.5 5.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 80 5.0 15.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1136-6 1. Mil the area to be seeded to prepare o seedbed and contra early spring .ands. 2. Harrow and pack the area to be seeded This w11 create an odequate seedbed tar final seeding. Pecking will be considered od.uote when only o slight 1*tprnl Is left n the sell alter walking ecru* the area 3. Proceed .Ith seeding n late May to mkt Jun. with the selected native seed ml.lure and appropriate cower crap. If the or.e le be ended h small a Irreg./0w In shape, broadcastn9 seed with hood broadcasting equipment is adequate. Equipment must be eopabh of broadcasting chaffy end light mot without plugging or stilling in the holding chamber. II the nee to be seeded is late. and regular in shape, sewing .0 be completed with a specially d.slgned native seed dal. 4. If the seed h Woodcut. the area will be harrowed and puked again. This .11 provide the best *6 to seed contact and mps1Mie IM certainty of sensing eslablhhm *t. 5. Clean native gross mulch .M be applied In moderate thick..... uwah b ed.ouolely applied when approximately 500 al the *1 4 w. ■Ie otter application. 6. The 0ednq .ile will be moved al Last one time during the ...dine yew wed 2 lines n the first year after sndng. Mowing will be completed when weeds are no mare than three 1*t tell. Mowi g height eM be opp*enotely six Inches. If the mewed mulch b heavy R should be removed to prevent 'smothering" the new s ..dikes. 7. Spot lrsebnenl .5th a herbkke le eliminate und*kabb weeds may be required Seed Mixture for Wetland Buffer Areas A seed mixture .4 be selected ham local seed sources. me seed mixture will include the following weeks In the approximate percentages listed or an a0lbble mkt.. with ekolar diversity. Grass mixture Canada Wild Rye 20 Little Blunlem 40 Switch gross 10 Prang 0repseed 5 Sldnot. granola 25 The gross mixture should be drW.4 at approximately 6 to 10 pound. (pure Live Seed bosh) per as •• or broadcast at approximately 15 to 20 Pannds per acre. Wildflower mixture Pole Gentian 0.5 Rough Potentlee 0.5 Missouri Goldenrod 1.0 Monkeyed Susan 5.0 Stilt Goldenrod 2.0 Way heeded ConeRower 4.0 Prokie Smoke 1.0 Toll Meadow Rue 5.5 Purple Prairie Clover 15.0 L *dplont 5.0 Mown.hon Sunflower 3 0 Prairie Blaengstor 2.0 Pole Purple Cone 20 Partridge Pee 10.0 Sky Blue Aster 4.0 Molds Sage Tarr. Showy Geld. nred Mid agreement Wood Belong Hoary Vermin While Prairie Clover Pogue rb.r False Cromwell Rough Blasngslor Heartl*f Geldenoster Coneda Tick Trefoil false Sunflower Wald Prairie Rose 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 5.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 30 3.0 6.0 1.0 The wildflower mixture should be broodcasl at approximately 3 to 5 pound. (715) per acre. We tecernrnend that a snort -lived cover crop of Regreen (10 pounds per one) be seeded rmn this mixture to help crowd out reeds and minimize risk of sail erosion. -'.J: Ile 7O.,Suf Y OW?' 18^MRT7,7 WL PRT 449 35- e; MUNI 751REEIrt;. jr. 'UMBER SKIMMER (SEE DETAIL) J m • we \v/ BENCHMARK FROM CITY OF LINO LAKES: 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. - 918.82 2.) TNH WEST END LINO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. - 914.96 WETLAND DATA: WETLAND FILL AREA 7,772 5Q. FT. = 0.18 ACRES MITIGATION AREA 8,959 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRES WETLAND BUFFER AREA 6,741 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES NURP POND NWL AREA 88,286 SQ. FT. = 2.03 ACRES r SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 300 1 Inch - 100 fset NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. WETLAND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIELD VISITS, AND WILL BE VERIFIED IN SPRING 2001. JFGFND • e 9 p �'wvwYVwvh � O t < 0 1000 105101 6400 ...OM. GAOL 11 fill;; EC; !610;:11::1 SECTION A -A MITIGATION SECTION li . 9050 EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX EXISTING AIR CONDITIONING UNIT EXISTING GAS MARKER EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WETLAND PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED WETLAND FILL PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER • 010 910 000 900 4,4 002 200 V cd (1) E x x DRAWN BY CMR/TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS pygyal 0.. 4401. A X01 9009 Ann CAD FILE 20196PG PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 4 OF 11 • LEGEND O - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN > ❑ >— EXISTING STORM SEWER • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER t I 1 PROPOSED WATER MAIN • PROPOSED STORM SEWER NOTE' ALL SANITARY SEWER IS 8" PVC. 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 Inch . 100 lest 300 C ▪ N p w Or z u • N d CC CC • LU LA-1 = �- W o E 1iJ • N . .7 a DRAWN BY TDL DATE 04/07/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196U PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 5 OF 11 1/ 1P— TP— TP— TP- 1P— IP -1P- 1000 NOTE: SICHNS SHALL BE PLACED APPROX. 50' APART ALONG TREE PROTECTION FENCE INDICATING IT IS A TREE PRESERVATION AREA. NO GRADING ALLOWED. EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER SCALE IN FEET 50 100 1 Inc . 50 feet 150 7 J co 1 I, 1 ! 1 91 ■ — ROCK,.CONSTRUCTION :.__ ENTRANCE /CONCRETE TRUCK — --a CLEANOUT AREA`. I I \ t ♦ I J "/ : \ / J • \ \ / / f .r • • ' 1 • I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1HLS PLAN. SPECIFICATION CR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMS10N AND THAT I AM A DOLT REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LABS OF THE STATE R' MINNESOTA, DATED TX6 oAY CF 2001 JAMES STURM, ASLA REGISTRATION NUMBER IB3a0 DRAWN BY TDL DATE 04/09/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 6 OF 11 • NOTE: SIGHNS SHALL BE PLACED APPROX. 50' APART ALONG TREE PROTECTION FENCE INDICATING IT 15 A TREE PRESERVATION AREA, NO GRADING ALLOWED. RWr LEGEND e•IWWW .ww..+ 0 w— w— w— w— Ta —w—TP- 1000 < 6 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 1 inch . 50 1Nl 150 j1F)N I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEOFICARCN OR REPOT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SIAERNSION AND THAT I AY A DIA0 REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAMS CC THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DATED 1115 DAY OF 2001. JAMES 51URM, ASLA REGISTRATION NUMBER 13330 V *IN MA 1M a 0 E.g �WaF�W ° QVA-)ai wV ^ H W EN W " DRAWN BY TDL DATE 04/09/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 7 OF 11 1 5,f11151170:41Pili ►•ra .< , _,< kVANIVON-miN f)Ce roW ‘1°A;01/400-- a AO titia(4..41•ina inallittk WOO 1 � l 30 1trtift144 4 * � r�• AIM .te rr 1 i filitheV Sib 6 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 inch . 100 feat • . 300 EROSION CONTROL NOTE$ TOPSOIL: ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES or TOPSOIL PLACED. FERTILIZER: APPLY 400 POUNDS PER ACRE OF 20 -0-10 OR EQUIVALENT FERTILIZER. INCORPORATE IT 5410 THE TOP THREE (3) TO FOUR (4) INCHES OF SURFACE BY DISKING OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE MEANS. SEEDING: SEED MIX SHALL BE MrIDOT MIX N0. 500. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 3:1 SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A WOOD FIBER BLANKET. MULCHING: STRAW SHOULD BE SPREAD UNIFORMLY AT A RATE Of TWO TONS PER ACRE AND ANCHORED WITH EITHER NETTING OR A STRAIGHT DISC. ALL SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN TV/0 (2) WEEKS OF THE COMPLETED GRADING OPERATION OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SEEDING PERIOD PER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. LEGEND 1000 I I- C 0 SOIL BORING PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WETLAND DELINEATION EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS TREE LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER HAY BALE CHECK DAM PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE S' METAL OR 2',2"0000 FENCE 0001 BED TEXTILE *ENACT .ACK■IIG. CE'OTEXRLE TO OVERLAP THROUGH TRENCH. 101E : -SILT FENCE SHALL CONFORM TO MMDOT 3116• TYPE IL - 100600 SHAL BE PLACED ALONG 00610005 DR AS DIRECTED 6T ENGINEER SILT FENCE TWO 2' K 2' WOOD STAKES OR REINFORCING BARS IN EACH BALE AND IMBEDDED IN THE GROUND 10' MINIMUM STORM SEWER CATCHBASIN f`O,N o SILT FENCE INSTALLED AS �4 PER DETAIL HAYBALE BARRIERS WITH SILT FENCE FLARED END SECTION WITH-RIP- RAP ) Pte'• Vii'► ± #d• #i •#� •li Ili ::44:jt,ff:.7:Z!;;t;, � .' WASHED ROCK <i V,0 °1' 1B' MINIMUM CUT OFF BERN Zp TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. 6' MINIMUM DEPTH 1'- Z ,MOTH ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE , c ci) E N CC W W (11 W 0- f. 8 DRAWN BY DATE 02/12/01 �/ReIEVISS1uInONS 011)01 i R')A. 0011)• CAD FILE 20196EC PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 8 OF 11 4 POND AREA SUBCATCHMENT NOTES: 1. AU. EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. WETLAND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED IN SPRING 2001. 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch • 100 fiat H � Li a.g pik3i ogca r4 4 A w DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196ED PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 9 OF 11 slIca .151 Al VADVirti #1714 riatoommiliti 01.41,213i7 .vu Cc 1r ow ?/ • / LEND 1000 WETLAND DELINEATION EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS TREE UNE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE APOND AREA 250) SUBCATCHMENT NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. WETLAND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED IN SPRING 2001. 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 1 inch • 100 foot 300 IN V C N Lai - R O_' N \ • d' a L]C z LLJ r,. C z s CO VV/ W d °u V) • ~ A. � (, W • u a E._ z um , 0- 11 as d DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS Mania .1 UMW CAD FILE 20196PD PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 10 OF 11 • • 10. 5' -- • • • GENERA .GB-M NC ! ER090N CONTRO M01F5: 1. SPEOPICA1ONS 141404 APPLY ME THE MOST RECENT E0111174S OF THE CITY OF UNO LAKES AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF 1RAMSPORTATON SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH WAY CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MODIFIED HEREIN ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS L IT IS TE RESPON981UTY OF THE CONTRACTOR 10 UTILIZE THE 'GOPHER STATE ONE CALL' EXCAVATION N0110E SYSTEM AS REQUIRED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE CHAPTER 2180. 4B HOURS PRIOR 70 PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION (RHONE 851 -454 -0002 N 14E TAN CITES METRO AREA OR TOLL FREE 1- 800-252- 1188). 3. GRADING CONTRACTOR 91ALL VERIFY LCCAnONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UMOERCR0*M0 UTILITIES NTH THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO C0NS1RUCn01. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION AS CALLED F'OR ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED N ACCORDANCE NM ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS. 5. ALL LOT AND EASEMENT D1YEN90N5 ARE SUBJECT TO FINAL PLAT. L ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. M4104 MAY NCLUOE FILTER FENCESEDNENTATION BASINS OR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND Sq*CEABLL N 114E FOLLOW* % ORDER AS REWIRED. 6 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES 0. FILTER FENCE. • 1E1PORARr CULVERTS 4. TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AND OUTFALL FACILITIES. A. STORM WATER POND COIS1RUCBON. 4. COMMON EXCAVATOR AND E48I444WENT (GRADING CONSTRUCTION). 0. SEED 140 MULCH (SEE NOTE 14). L STRAW BALE BARRIOS N FNN5E0 GRADE° AREAS. L INLET AND OUTLET FAMINES SUBSEQUENT TO STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION. 7. CAWING C0I4OAC70R SHALL PROVIDE MID MANTAW ALL Soso CONTROL MEASURES AS SNOW ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPLEMENT ANY AD011ONL EROSION C0N1R0. MEASURES NECESSARY N ORDER TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY. L ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE NANT41NE0 BY 114C GRADING CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS ANY TEMPORARY FAOJTES THIGH ARE 10 BE 41404.10 AS CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE GRA0N0 CONTRACTOR AMEN DIRECTED BY THE ENONEER. 111E GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL TEN RESTORE THE SUBSEQUENTLY DISTURBED AREA N ACCORDANCE 4714 THESE PLAN5 040 SPECIFICATIONS. 9. IT 15 144E RESPON9BIU1Y OF THE GRADING CONIRAC70R 70 OISPDSE O4T -0TE ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRU54, OR OTHER DEBRIS THAT EXISTS NTHIN 114E GON5TRUCTIOH AREAS TREES 70 REMAIN SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER 10. 144E GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL 504E3II11 IRE SOILS ENGINEER 50 THAT CERTIFICATION OF ALL CONTROLLED FILLS CAN BE FURNISHED TO THE 0NNER DURING AND UPON COMPLETEM Cr 144E PROJECT. 11. DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN TO EVALUATE THE COMPACTION NTNN THE 5TREE15. TRAVEL wars 0.1 PARKING LOTS NTIM THE UPPER 3 FEET Cr STREET SUB GRADE THE CON1RAC108 SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MOLE 71404 ONE PERCENTAGE PONT OVER THE SOIL'S 57M$1AR0 PROCTOR OPTIMUM M0511RE CONTENT. AND THAT COMPACTION TO A MINIML84 OF 1009 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PRONGED. N AREAS B0.0w THE UPPER THREE FEET OF 9UBIRADE Cr THE SIEgLIo, TRAVEL WAYS OR PARKING LO15. THE CONTRACTOR SILL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER 14E SOLES STANDARD PROCTOR 0P11MLN M05TURE CONTENT. AN0 THAT COMPACTION TO A MNNU4H OF 959 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE FRONDED. 144E GRACING TOLERANCE FOR 1NESE AREAS SHALL BE NUN 0.1'3. 1L LOT GRADING AND/OR THE PREPARATION OF BUILDING PADS SHALL BE CONS14UCIE0 94 ACCORDANCE 1414 THEM PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE GRADING TOLERANCE SHALL BE 0.25'4. ALL EARTHWORK CPE9ATICN5 SHALL BE PERFORMED 94 ACCORDANCE 14114 THE N O -MA DATA SHEET 790 'SAND DEVELOPMENT MTh CONTROLLED EARTHWORK', MOWING FOR A MNNUM OF 859 STANDARD DENSITY, OR AS OTHERNSE SPECIFIED BY THE MO-TECHNICAL PIONEER. 13. BUILDING PADS SHORN ON EACH LOT ARE TYPICAL ONLY. 114E DEPTH OF THE PAD FROM FRONT TO BACK SMALL BE GRADED THROUGHOUT THE FULL WITH OF THE LOT OR AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BULLING AT THE MINIMUM 540E YARD SETBACKS (MOO TO 144E PLANS F'0R SPE0FI0 57840! DISTANCES.) r UNSUITABLE SOL CONDI710N5 ARE ENO:UNTOED M11404 A PROPOSED BUILDING PAD THAT CANNOT BE CORRECTED OR REMOVED, IT IS 144E RESP50M9BIUTY OF TIE CONTRACTOR TO 11014FY THE 04044EER OF THE COMNTI N5 AND TO LOCATE THE men a THE UNSUITABLE AREAL 14. UNLESS OTHER/NM SPEOFCALLr NOTED. TIE FOLLONNO SITE 91- VEGETATION TEDN4UES SMALL BE 9NPLEMENIED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS, EXCEPT STREETS. SMALL BE COVERED 8418 • MINMUI OF O• TORSOS AND SHALL BE SEEDED NT1 MOOT /500 TAX AT 100L35. /ACRE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED 7474 844001 1714E 1 AT 2 TONS /ACE AND DISC ANCHORED. SIDING AND NULLNNO SHALL BE COMPLETED N1704 2 WOO AF7p1 EARTH 14OVN0 OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 3(4):1(V) SHALL BE SEEDED NTH A WOW TIBER BLANKET. FERTILIZER SHALL BE 20 -0-10 DR EQUIVALENT AND APPLIED AT 400 POUNDS PER ACE. FER11l12ER I5 TO BE INCORPORATED INTO 114E TOP 3 TO • INCHES BY MOW OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE MEANS WEN SEEDING AFTER NOVEMBER 1, OR W4E4 TEMPERATURES 00 4407 EXCEED 40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DORMANT SEED ALONG ALL DISTURBED AREAS. DORMANT SEED BED PREPARATION. SEEDING RATES, AND MUL04 REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE THE SAME AS 11405E DESCRIBED IN 1185 SECTION EXCEPT THAT NO SEED SHALL BE RACED ON SNOW CR CE WHICH IS GREATER 114AR 2 NOIE5 IN DEPTH. ANY SEEDED AREAS WADI DO NOT BECOME ESTABUSNED SHALL BE RE -SEEDED AT NE CONTRACTOR'S 1*104SE 15. IT B THE Raw:NOBILITY a THE CONTRACTOR TO KEEP P48UC STREETS, TRAVEL RATS, RANKING Ian A40 TRAILS FREE OF DIRT AND 01«01 DEBRIS NICK RESISTS FROM SAID GRADING CONSTRUCTION. Blanc GRADING NOTES 1. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND CONTOUR ELEVATIONS ON MME PLANS WIRE PROMDED BY 541 05N15 ANO 1141 01Y OF LRO LAKES THE DECREE Of ACCURACY OF 114E 0057140 CONTOURS 540WN ON THE PLAN R Owl TO 3 ONE HALF 144E CONTOUR INTERVAL EROSION CONTRM N01FS TCPSCIL AU. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF B INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED. FERTILIZER APPLY 400 POUNDS PER ACRE OF 20 -0-10 CR EQUIVALENT FERTILIZER. INCORPORATE 17 INTO THE TOP THREE (3) TO FOUR (4) INCHES OF SURFACE BY DISKING OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE MEANS. SEEDNO: SEED MIX SHALL BE MnDOT MIX 140. S00. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 11 SHALL BE SEEDED WI111 A WOOD FIBER BLANKET. MULCHING: STRAW SHOULD BE SPREAD UNIFORMLY AT A RATE OF TWO TONS PER ACRE AND ANCHORED WITH EITHER NETTING OR A STRAIGHT DISC. ALL SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN TWO (2) WEEKS OF THE COMPLETED GRADING OPERATION OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SEEDING PERIOD PER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. PLAN VIEW �f I 4. r ,441N Imco PP T_,1 „r MT= 14.09 T• 961 Y rT441m T••K (4461 BANK 94T OM MOSLTAT • 494811. SKIMMER DETAIL SUBMERGED POND OUTLET FLARED END SECTION WITH RIP RAP 908.2 L.- -J L J i 10. 5' TYPICAL DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS TTP -[AA. 0•G Two 2' X 2' WOOD STAKES OR REINFORCING BARS IN EACH BALE AND IMBEDDED IN THE GROUND 10' MINIMUM STORM SEWER CATCHBASIN SILT FENCE INSTALLED AS PER DETAIL HAYBALE BARRIERS WITH SILT FENCE 1.0' MN. R/W 14' 16' 16' 14' -4' TOPSOIL & 50D (BY OTHERS) MAX. SLOPE 207E MIN. SLOP D412 CONC. CURB 4e GUTTER -1.5' -2350 TYPE LV • BIT. WEARING COURSE - TACK COAT 2' -2350 TYPE L1 2 OR 3 BIT. NON- WEARING COURSE 5' AGGREGATE BASE. CL. 5 (PLACED ON APPROVED SUBGRADE) 24' SELECT GRANULAR BORROW TYPICAL STREET SECTION R o4) / 47-0411;i} 4. , •!.i toJ do ti/ ti$. • :•149!..41...... w'• a. . 6' MINIMUM DEPTH •;rli:�i�iji }•Aq rdit•t t• #� c:!wA: Ntw�1w'l��l 1' - 2 WASHED ROCK 18' MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM STE FLIER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PRMOSED 1N10UR PROPERT'LNE SRIACE DRANNOE LowEST float (r 8PECBED) ELEV. 5500151115 GARAGE 540E �T LOT CORNERS"' CENTERLINE 5-86 920.5 LF 920.5 RWO LOT WAGER EOSINS CONTOUR FINISHED GRADE EIZVAIKN RECOMMENDED HOUSE 1114E 119IGL FRONT YARD p 8' SETBACK (H0551) 1- 928.50 3 +00 TYPICAL LOT 111,LOTAF FV45Mm E aaAOE loo' C STATION NOTE I -9L7 FENCE SILL CONFORM 10 MND01 3888. TYPE B. - FENDING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG COMOURS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. PROPOSED BUIL5410 911 .97 BADNILL • IY r) ■\ >s' SILT FENCE 4 ......... }- --1 A`Cw�77C/7T'F7fVI� NO4 -SELECT MORN AVOW. :Wl --i Tpe MRS OF 4NBAYa 4, 94404E a 40 GLACE 0. EF mist 94NAlfls4.) BUILDING SITE & STREET SUB -GRADE CORRECTION DETAIL RIO 5R. SEWS RECCUMINDED HOUSE TYPES 1.7%Z. St 4889 f44 841•4O.jMRAT rrnO°Mtva44 cT Aii TAVAr Am NR a 1MMOUE TI .BC °n'P�4 GcJ BwA EVE: PpMryp4TOWpn1Rf brt AY JA MOUZI4=i�•KY WM YMIDI v 1.1.71.1 'Ir°� Y4MO°Of`luW�1W .40. •140 MV:T IrY B4K ITS °ems �I�pR s.eic • RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPES SETBACKS FRONT 30 FEET SIDE (STREET) 30 FEET SIDE (HOUSE) 10 FEET SIDE (GARAGE) 10 FEET -R •1NrtT t4.nu. RAMBLER SECTION (R) aF IMMO REM M. 1F • -4' F R MDT ROOK 11111. RAMBLER LOOKOUT SECTION (RLO) -SEE STREET. SECTION 30 MAIM "°._°Ml 12 HOLD DORM 5C PAD ELEV. 30' 8' B'R44 U LOAM R9 ILLY r SPLIT ENTRY SECTION (SE) --R MEET A•T94A SP ABM MIX I MMO a4• 3. r 5.44. EFTA PM M. 0.O.131 THAN, QM) SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT SECTION (SEWO) LOT BENCHING DETAIL 41 4AA NO SCALE NOTE: 1. THERE SHALL BE NO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 BENCHMARK FROM CITY OF LINO LAKES: 1.) TNH 726 MAIN MEET ELEV. - 918.82 2.) 1NH WEST END LINO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. - 914.96 V cC C./7 m ° CC W W N s - W 1, d 114) 0_ e0 W v w z 4)) a co =z ag u4 (91S12 w„ W = W A rN F-4 x DRAWN BY CUR DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 201960 PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 11 OF 11 AGENDA ITEM 5D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: Pinnacle Towers Inc., 870 Birch BACKGROUND: A 510 -foot communications tower exists on the site at 870 Birch. The applicants are asking for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for a tower, to allow for construction of a tower 530 feet in height. In the opinion of the City Planner, the rebuilding of this tower will allow for additional, and multiple use of communication industry needs. This should confine all future communication tower needs to the three or four existing sites. If this site were not allowed, the industry would have to pursue an alternative site in Lino Lakes for this purpose. • OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the Pinnacle Tower conditional use permit to allow for the construction of the replacement tower at 870 Birch Street. 2. Recommend denial of the Tower based on Environmental Board stated issues. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommendation: approve. • CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX FEE 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/ Lot Split x Rezoning Vacation: drainage, street, utility Variance $ 250 $ 350 $ 250 $ 250 Property Address 870 Birch Street ESCROW DEPOSIT i-RECEIVED R 0 9 2001 CITY OF Liti PIN# - - - 0Dy TRACT A Legal Description: Lot x x x x Addition Registered Survey No. Land 112 Existing Land Use Wireless Existing Zoning R -1 (Residential) Communications Tower DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Amending Section 5, Subd. 1.H6 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance increasing maximum size of tower height to 530 feet Applicant: name Pinnacle Towers, Inc. address 301 N. Cattlemen Rd Suite 300 Owner (if different than applicant): name Leslie H. McDonald cite= Sarasota, FL 34232 fax (941.) 364 =8761 address 407 Audubon Street Riverside, IL 60546 phone fax • • • • 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 REcjq ED APR o92001 Property Address 870 Birch Street Ci PIN# 2t- 3/ -J2-J - t6011 TRACT A Legal Description: Lotsc x x x x Alec& Y OF IWO LAKES Addition Registered Land Survey No. 112 Existing Land Usew fi r e l e s s Existing Zoning R -1 (Residential) Communication Tower DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Amending existing conditional use permit to allow for construction of a tower 530 feet in height Applicant: Owner (if different than applicant): name Pinnacle Towers, Inc. nameLeslie H. McDonald address 301 N. Cattlemen Rd. address 407 Audubon Street Suite 300 Riverside, IL 60546 vim= 5arasoca, r L 342.52' phone l8 c (941). 364 -8761 fax 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 870 Birch Street PIN # 2i- 3L -,2Z - 23_ -iefq Tract A Legal Description: Licgx Blogk AdditionR e g i s t e r e d Land Survey No. 11l • I_ lii APR 0 9 2001 J-CTy OF Lilv0 LAKES Existing Land Use Wire less Communication Tower DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Rezoning of property to Rural Existing Zoning R-1 (Residential) classification Applicant: Owner (if different than applicant): name Pinnacle Towers, Inc. name Leslie H. McDonald address 301 N. Cattlemen Road address407 Auduhnn Strppt Suite 300 Riverside, IL 60546 phpiv Sarasota, FL 34232 phone fax (941) 364 -8761 fax APR () 9 2001 CITY 'Jr" LiN0 LAKES STATEMENT CAF ENCRQACHMEN'TS It. r: \our \o3oogwu r trrop r uwer3L3u i .uwg, u3 /YO/U i u3: i o:oo rive, (mew B: 8ITUAONOUS ROAD RUNS OVER THE NORM/ PROPERTY LINE. OYERH£AD MRES AND PONER POLES CROSS TH£ NORM AND NEST PROPERTY UNE TELEPHONE BOXS SIGNS ANO A FIRE HYDRANT ARE LOCA TED IN THE NOR TUEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY / /•2 L $/8915'03 -E 97 &11 PITMeligingt7 __ COUNTY STATE AIh`-'- b isuor mauve) 'ATM' a a �t eels ow -rte 113 NOTES CORRESPONDING TO SCHEDULE B i The property is subject to on easement for highway purposes contoined in Decree Document No. 144111.(plotted) ElThe property is subject to rights to enter the subject property in connection with radio tower guy wires contained In Book 1033, Pogo 376.(unploltoble) The property is subject to rights of the public for use of Old Birch Rood over the northerly boundary of the subject property.(unplottable) NOTE: OLO BIRCH STREET IS IN USE BY EASEMENT ONLY AND IS NOT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED RIGHT -OF -WAY NORTH UNE OF TRACT A•r 0 Car ,-.NE CORNER OF TRACT A, POINT Cc COMMENCEMENT FOR PROPOSED ACCESS , EASEMENT ANO EASEMENT TRACT %�, --BUILOINC 5ETBACN U605 -.. S11 . tad 6 iv._et 00 TRACT B ���.�'A1y�� /y.Yl .4.4 6SO• 0660 :04,395 I _ a+ ' wee, I 0 04a634 .3 Ix . a' I�,r,� f fY G. 4 1YF / 100% "i-5817 7 M PR e -1 1LEASE 1 1 /1 /v or menus lava / / Pq cm', GIN CENTER OF PROP5SEVt /0 MIRE ANCHORS b TRACT / ^. MIS ,'a-* 4. ,$ / / a, A 41 1 d E9 0 0 O 04011 0 .001•11° „cool 2576 -35 • 101141. V ZONE ZONE was y tN.c P.m?. L ZONE A - w •� A 5 046E0: N099B'So -w 976.90 --SOWN UNE OF TRACT A, R.LS. NO 112 A150 THE SOUTH UNE OF SEC. 24 TWO. 31, ROE. 22 A150 THE NORTH IRE OF SEC. 33. TINA 31 ROE 22 SEA LEIEt OA1Lw NY'IO 7987 Latitude 45 degrees 08 minutes 282 seconds North Lonp/tuae 93 deer.. 06 minds* 024 mower Mist Elerefies of four 894 feel SEA LEM. DAILY 6O NG 7929 Devedion at the t fbw - 1395 Mt &Notion al highest cpprte+exe on fors ee 7411 Asst 1 N C • 65 r 0 *SPECIAL NOTE* The both mop wets prepared and provided by Egon, Field gad Nowak, Inc, The proposed tower site was added to the base mop by Scholl end Madsen, Inc March 23, 2001 mt 1L MP RAD * 7M,6B07gnke, OM 555305 TMs (952) 548 -7601 E K VICINITY MAP NORM SWIM EAST REST DEGREES lM81105 SECONDS n POSER POLE TELEPHONE Box OKRtEA0 AMU TRANSFORMER r CLEAN OUT • 0. 07RIC METER - •ww•wFENCE • 9121 4 HYDRANT .- ANCHOR ■ 443 BOx o OEN01E5 SET Rt3v5 RLS 20281 • 00•0105 FLOW ROI 7706t'0ENTA1106 0 100 200 300 500 SCALE IN DENT FEET 1. T. orientation of this bearing system 4 Owes n the moth Am of Tract A. Regittered Lone Shay NM 111 ankh is Ossu*ed North 89 degrees 75 in:lutes CY wands East 2. Are al the poperty du#n0W hereon is 1.737.476 square Net er 28408.1 ovoa 1 &Mlie ull f es and sonic. slosh hereon new located either physic:es p446 from e4Sllrg record, made meiot7c to us ar by resident test:*..; Other .11114s and seniors may be present. Verification and lac Dee *f as ul*tle and .8 iess shoed be ab7a tad boo 6. ewers of the respective Waits prior le any des pn. Monni g or e ca.oliy. 4 The kgo1 46064770.. and easement infor*elion from presided by Odeege nix insurance Company C*.mitmm*N ler Tide beswoe F)e No. 1615020 doted Apra 4 1000 S Aeco -6q to the OIy of Lino Lain the property 4 Zoned R -7 (staple 4w7y). :W 04/44, Flood Zone A and C (mn4inal hosaM) per Federal iroura ., Rote sop Community renal Nee 170075 0010 8 doted Nay 17. 1981 our hes the faso.iq bulOhg *Oboe* rep.iwrwHc North - 30 Mt South - 30 kW East - 70 feet Most - 10 Mt 4 Ares pin the Flood Zones dwe.D.4 .bow ors 614 A7aorc Flood Sane A - 464.519 square Mt Food Zane C - 772.857 spas feet 7. the town moan hewn 4 Ncete4 h He Soumws( 1/4 of the Seul6..st 7/4 of Seed. 28 Tosenh• 31 98/16. Renee 21 Set FLOW NOTE: By graphic plotting anlri this property 4 in Zone C d A of the Flood Insuronce Rob Mop, Community Pond Na 170015-0010-8 .which bears an effective date of Uo: 17 1982 and is not in a Special Flood Hamra Area Coll doted _.(3/121/98 to the Notional Flood Insurance Program (800 -638 -6610) wee how learned this community does currently participate in the program No Field aur.eynry nos performed to determine this zone and on elevation certificate may be needed to verify this determination or apply for 0 variance bon the Federal Emergency Nonn9yment Agency E03abi FEL *Tt 7615 Yawn, t146 554.6 Talc 612) 546 -6837 ALL FIELD M£ASUREM£NIS MATCHED RECORD DIMENSIONS WHIN DIE PRECISION REOUI.REMEN7S OF AL TA /ACSia SPECIFICA BONS COPYRIGHT 1989 - 1999 by Bock d Cork This product s ty e d format is potected by *0 Copyagh7 and rests reserved. d The use of this style and famot is strictly prohibited rithout the mitten consent and permission of Bock 47 Clark. 6067 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 112., Flee of the Regl.lror of 170.4 Yoko Coonlri 0lnneaota Tyrone Certificate of Title No. 04780 PROPOSED EA EMENr TRACT OES'Cl7/PT/QN That part of Tract A Reglataad lead Surrey Ne 112. nen of the Registrar et naNS. Aheka Cont6 Minnesota desy000 fr aaws Commencing of Me northeast cagy of sod Treat A. Ilse. Nerth S0 Yonne. 15 mule. 03 mend. !.eel. eeserny bearing deoi IM north Nw el sore Treat A a dletan0. el 37111k theme Sole 10 degree 04 minutes 50 wend. Ella Altaw al 300.20 Net to the point -N beginning el the land le be day'ad, thence South 10 degrees OA minutes 50 seconds Elea diatonce el 20.00 feet thence South 50 degrees 03 *Mutes 03 emend. asst a dietary of 507.7$ x.0 thence North 70 degrees 04 minutes 50 seconds West o d410M. el 20.00 feet; thence North 10 4egnee Ce minutes 54 seconds Neal o dietary of 593.01 Net; thence North 49 degrees 55 *mule 10 saccade Fatal a delan0. of 20.00 feet; tM,ce south 70 degrees 22 minute 06 seamd6 East 0 dfetenee el 597,64 Awl le said point el beginning. 1 1. PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMEN I ESCRIP77Ol A strip el tend 15.00 feel N meth aw Tract A RedeteOd land Sung Ne. 112, nu. of the Registrar of ales. Yak. County. 04neeela. The center be 01 sae .a4 N eev0eel an 400* Co n*en*M el the no(.l corny of mew inset A there. North 89 degrees 15 minutes 03 .,tends Meet. creamed baying along the north Me el sea Tract A a distance of 421.08 feel to the semi of beginning of the center One to be desabeet lhne. south 3 asgrees 34 minutes 21 seconds best a dletanp of 202.87 fee0 (hemp South 11 degrees 22 minute. 43 mey.6 WWt a distance of 91.00 het and .die center IIM there lermkdlkq, The .kie INee of saki .tr4 shag be pralonged or 0wrtened 10 homkele on 1014 nog. tins CSM LAND TITLE SURVEY for PPSVACLE TONER; INC 8 t C Ste Ns 990476 -910 870 ORC N 57REET, LINO LASES. 466 AA. PoparaeCrannwel dent de 074*. for Ale /PAM seedw w axe.< taw. e/ Awe 4 I Jack Boths, o registered Lod Surveyor. N and ter the stale of Minnesota. and legoey doing busk.. in Andko County 6 hereby certify to Bon. of Amerie8 N.A. es Administrative Lender, Pinnacle Towers, MC., Locke Llddea a Sop#. ILP. Federal Aviation Administration, Olkogo cell* Insurance Company end Bock 01 gook Cooperation that the serum lap mode on Me ground under my personal supervNNn and that the pet 4 a true. correct and accurate representation of the lace es found of the 11*e of the nervy d more ep«IlkaN6 1 so hereby ...Ply that the survey nonfarm. to the co.Wlens and stipulations es 741.0 beer. 1. The boundary Mes and Mamma.. of the eve Indicated hereon end each indhedual pored thereof indicated hereen is camaet. 2. Ion pees are eel at each properly cony unless 57681.se Indicated hereon. 3. The 04lence from the nearest intersecting street, road end other point of reference is ea shown hereon. 4. Caaectlm shoe the location and dimension of all obeys, streets. roods, right -of -sow. easements and other molten of record stitch the surveyor has been advised affects Dm subject property (each hes been Identified by Instrument .okm. and page number it 0807004). 5. Except as shown, Mere ore no visible *moments. rights -of -say, party .4fe or Rkls. L The locally of m Melbas. structure and ether knproomenls of deble i4m.. I1 shay, ore Indicated hymn. 7. Except os shown there are no visible protruded. on adjoining premises, .hosts or mew by bupfiing, structure or other Improvements situated on the subject propeolx 0. Except as she.n, Mere ore no vis07. an800ehumnts onto Um subject properly by any building. sWo7re or other Inpravemnls situated on edjsbing premises. 9. CorrecUy snows the location and note the approximate yes in oyes contained In as potions of the subject properly chid ore located N on alp 6Wwled es Flood Zane C and A as defined by the U.S. Deportment of Housing and [Noon Development pursuant to the need D7osler Act of 19737 FIRM Community Pants the. 2700150010 8 es shay hereon. 10. We survey 4 not for canshu0lln 208100ee. 11. Correctly News the location of m streets and roods vii(y providing eve to and Irani the subject praperl} The rood /M.mi prodding access 4 ad B2,7, Street 12. Access ultlly and any guy wine faearnnta .sown hereon are contiguous villa the subject prep.rty wueit othemise noted. 13. The legal dyeripUOn depleted hereon 4 the some es that described in the current I79. report as noted hereon 14. Con.4Ny depicts the latitudinal and Ingiludtnoi coordinates of the loser(.) Iocotln(s), to the newest tenth of a second, the elevetbn above mean I6w1 of the bas. end 3.11 716 of . tower; plus or micas 20 best. the devotion of the Up of seen tower es measured from ground Owl and oddli7naay, the elvati of the tip of the highest tamer oppurinim ce . MOs *scoured ham ground lees. If such aopurtanowe 4 higher ighest point of the loser structure Itself, to the nearest foot. on the survey yawing. 15. Survey mete or eyelid the m9lmu., le6.nlcal standards for Lod Boundary surveys let forth by Minnesota Slab Loy. Dated this 11th cloy of Parquet, 1999. Reviled this 23rd day el March. 2000 Reviled this 4111 day of May, 2000 Reviled this 76th 6y al May, 2000 RevWd M4 20th day a1 .Imo, 2000 Reeled the 26th 6y of J•4 2000 E0.44 REED et 11001C 1 SURVEYORS by Jack Balks 07neso7, License NA 20281 SHEET ONE OF ONE:" eTh 25164,4 AGENDA ITEM 5E, STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: Saddle Club preliminary Plat BACKGROUND: See attached Tracform2l -5a. Developer submitted and applied for the enclosed preliminary plat request. Area to the South is shown as park. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat. 2. Recommend approval with recommended changes 3. Recommend denial to the City Council RECOMMENDATION: 1 or 2 1 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21 -5a PROJECT: Saddle Club Preliminary Plat DATE OF ORIGIN: 4 /25/01 TO: FROM: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: The Following information has been discussed presented to the Environmental Board ,�, u::-+ .V.. .,.w.'r. a .,.»z ,w..,.atcw.. «... A., re�. n. w,.* is .�,.vtw.a...aw,....�w...k..,�a; .�ri ..w.,."v, :.� >r�a:�.il.tw.,,,,..,,.. '." ".aa,.«,.Szk...,�:a,.......,, ti: .ux.w.,...,. ♦:.�... .,a..a: 1.PROJECT #:21 -5 PROJECT: Saddle Club Update DATE OF ORIGIN: 1/03/01 TO: FROM: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT : CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES and 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 1 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 17apxa_& Pexpeanov BoapS X:zt o6 Aivo Aaxs6 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 characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this site is half in MUSA and half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources, and conservation development . so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project. Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asleson stated he believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, it would create the desired buffers. Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and tree stands to strike a balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands. Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, uplands, and areas to be developed for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of areas to be developed and those to be conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the area of conservation. He pointed out areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and access points. Mr. Fairbrother addressed their intent to soften the hard surface areas and stated all areas not platted for housing would be deeded for a conservation easement, Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the roads would be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road width is negotiable, depending on what the City wants. Mach stated this plan is well thought 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 17apxo_ &_Pspsanov_Boap5 Xizt oq Atvo Aaxea 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. 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 • 17apico_&c Psxpsartov_BoapS Xtn ob_Aivo Awceo- 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. 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. IlapKQ &_Pepsanov BoapS Xin o_ Aavo Aaxe6 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 City to benefit and asked if a formal application has been made. Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made. Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive to older couples and empty nesters so there would be a lower population. To increase viewsheds, Donlin suggested Lots 7, 34, 35, 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 previousl considered. The area blanked out in the SW corner is an outlot. P &M, has asked for more open space and discussed trail issues. 17apicc &_PepeauovBoapS X111 o A1vo Aaxeo7 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: December Environmental Board meeting on 01/03/01 • The Greenway through this area has been planned since 1992. • Reduce the lot sizes to stay out of the wetland area indicated on the original sketch plan. • This greenway is an important Community issue • The Greenway is an important community issue and should be publicly owned. See above built points. Visual 0 e S•ace Saddle Club Greeb,vii a\ Possible Trail Position ��,II Infti� r[ �1 Greenway and spacial conections Trail Issues 1.... Buffering Issues 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. 1 Section 3 - Governing Polices 1. Action Step 3 1 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: 1) Establish and adopt the conceptual plan for an interconnected greenway system that serves to link key ecological communities together. 2) Utilize the greenway plan as the fundamental underpinning for land use decisions, which includes I7apx6 &_Ps%peaztovBoap5 Mil oq_Atvo AaKecr residential and commercial development as well as parks and trails. S3) Routinely update the greenway system plan as more detained information is gathered and inputted into the GIS system.. Section 4 - Environmental System Framework 1.. 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 areas as defined under various natural vegetative cover otypes, 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 of these 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 17apxa_ &_Pespeanov_Boap8 Xiri oq Atvo Aaxear 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 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 a 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... potential 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 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 17apxa_ &_PepsazaovBoapB Xtrt og Atvo Aaxsa high ecological value zone and the ecological enhancement zone are to become substantive parts of the greenway system. Conventional land eldevelopment 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 Alkexisting lOrplan makes numerous references to the development of a greenway system for its natural values as well as providing the conduit for a city -wide linear trail corridor system. In many respects, the existing park and trail plan was part of the community visioning process that manifested itself in the Integrating the Greenway System with the Park and Trail System Plan The 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 411system plan was overlaid on the greenway system map shown in figure 4.2. This combination illustrates how the linear trail corridors and Hapxo_ &_Pczpearzov- Boap5_ Xzrz_o0 Azvo AaKecr 10 individual park locations can be effectively intertwined with the natural areas contained /1k 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, and . 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 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 traiii, 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 - connectiveness 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 Ilapca &_PspeariovBoapS Xnzt o_ Atvo_AaK6cY 11 uninterrupted natural setting the leads from one park setting to another. Section 5 - Administration • i....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 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 Amhdevelopment II/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: E. 1 . Saddle Club Project Update — It was noted that the project went to the Planning and Zoning Board with recommendations concerning lot size, so the applicant came back with a new proposal. Staff talked with the DNR who indicated that hydroelectricity it could be restored. Greenways do a number of things like creating buffers, open space and most importantly connections between ecosystems and open space areas for wildlife and people. Staff requested comments on the latest proposal, which would be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board. The greenway needed to be preserved in the long term for the good of the public. Through private or public means, it needed to be managed. Donlin asked the number of houses in the latest proposal. Asleson stated that there were 40, which were more spread out than before. Trehus noted that the original lots were larger but the detached townhomes shrank the lots. Asleson stated that because they are considered conservation developments, the elements must take on long -term importance. Donlin expressed concern for the term "conservation development" because it implied that stringent guidelines were applied, when there were none. Asleson stated that Peregrine Pass needed a zoning variance, and part of the Saddle Club property was in MUSA. Ilapicc ct_PepeazaovBoapS Xari o9 Aavo Acucar 12 Donlin pointed out that Grant Township and other communities make it a requirement to follow the conservation models. Asleson noted that they have copies of the Surface Water Management Plan and the Conservation Planning Ordinance. He restated that he wanted recommendations from the Environmental Board concerning conservation and the greenway. Donlin stated that the traffic from the development would be about 400 trips/day. It would have a significant impact on traffic and the quality of life. Asleson urged the Board to narrow the scope to preserve the greenway. O'Connell indicated that the DNR study on greenway space could be used as a model. Trehus agreed that Saddle Club should correspond with the model. Donlin noted that historically, since 1992, the City has had a goal of a greenway project with a wetland border. Kukonen inquired how could it be approved with 50% of the property in MUSA. Asleson urged the Environmental Board to make a formal statement. He noted that most of the trees were on the greenway. The area may someday need boardwalks, if a trail is desirable through this area, because of the hydrologic conditions present. Mach suggested making the wetlands public property and to reduce the size of the lots. He continued that in the third plan, the lots went right through the wetlands. Donlin stated that it did not keep with the vision for the City and the City should not merely chose the least objectionable. She stated it should not violate the Greenway Project, had to be permanently conserved, and not privately held. Asleson identified that it could be out into a land trust. • April Environmental Board Continued STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 New Plat enclosed 1 Greenway area shown as park Environmental ISSUES: 1 Described in above history ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Environmental Board: 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensual was reached by the Board: 17apxQ &_Pepxaraov_BoapS Xirc o Atvo_AaKea 13 •I.... FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: Planning and Zonning REVIEW BOARD ACTION : 1.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 1.... pending .... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date flap ar & PeZpeanov_BoapE Xizi o_ Aavo Acucar). 14 WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES. CABLES, CONDUITS. PIPES. MANHOLE. VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING 171E CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR1 SADDLE CLUB PREPARED FORS HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC. CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 4R to PROJECT LOCATION CR 32 .:R 1 1'R 1 4..1E, Lab SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305 SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIP110N 1. COVER 2. EXIS11NG CONDITIONS PLAN 3, PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 5. UTIUTY PLAN 8. DETAILS 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1 NOOK cum 114AT NS MAK SPENFICA1I01l OR REPORT MFO PROMO R TIE OR A} am SEW ONE= 3UF(JRELON MO TNT 1 A OUICSTATE OF INIONSINA. 0011 ` OATS ` b REO. NO. wow M WWI9 IW! 011E i'C EIO APR 0 6 20(1 G.( r tF LINO LAKES 4-4-01 RF CITY h WATERSHED REVISIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 6-1-513-06 SI N 7 SHEET (IRATE REVISIONS 261, MV WARIERP EO V,ToN5 r 1 F 1 =OW Tiff MOS RIM. SRplC81 ), M 1 REPOW WAS PREPARED M I4 OR WOO I,/ ORECR 04 1A q 4HE 1%4; 03 ONtILT 4�7W[ 0F IEW[ SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 04100/EERS • SURVEYORS • P11M1WO SOL 1ES3140 • OAIRO$MO?N. SERVICES 10390 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUM I MINNETONKA. MN 50705 (552) 546 -7501 PAKt 545-9066 RIIRJDLIMEID W •PD11.DD14 OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651-481-0017 DATE: APRIL. 6. 2001 —853 n O so 120 ,eo LEGEND OEN= 00311110 004101* X 5363 001010E 0036610 SPOT 6E,66601 3 Nen a ODIORS 06715•5 SIOIUI soot ! *Mow LN 500910 053RN5 'M703M16, NM0N1T 66 OAT! VALVE r sMewgr 00401Q 003140 SANRARY 504011 MOTES DEWING TREE TAIL 0 001010 0531410 TREE 001003 05SIM0 441041 003007 004040 Fe 044009 OWING SELAN0 MOTES SOIL 4034440 74-1 N014t MENET WONT PERFORMED a EL1R0 LAM 7043!6440 66 0440440640; 1151- 700 -0102 NOLM10 aDwPAION PERFORMED a AMMO EC000WIIOICE 41h / 072 -646 -0919 1 ReGfAV Of k..11.140 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION UNO LAKES, MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET J 2 OF 7 SHEETS 4: BLOCK 1 388•50.7•11 1307.82 'DRAINAGE LMUTT e ROAD OFFSET swim R.O.W. ( A8f N LA 2 1� 3 - OUTLOT 210.0 04LINALE. U11411Y k CONSERVATION EASDID4T DRAINA00. UIRJIY k CONSERVATION EASO0DR 592 2 1308.98 1/88•44.01"Y II 180 FEET SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OOF�LFOUTLOT A. TOP OF WATERMAN PIPE. `(ASSUMED FROM TOPO PLAN BY OTHERS) NEILANOS n 0 00 110 160 scJ� -tTr- LEGAL DESCRIPTION( SE 1/4 OF 711E SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28. T0998{1P 31. 4840022. ANOKA COUNTY. N95BSOTA . LEGEND 998 E10SI1110 0000 t -• - • • -• -= N0 STRO o 601N0MET - - - - - - PROPOSED DRAINAGE k UMW 5471111ENT - • - • - • - PROPWED MAL EA0DLD4T TYPICAL ESMT. DETAIL. (DR0NACIE AND MUFF) TYPICAL SET -BACK DETAIL ■ LOT DATA BLOCK 1 LDT .w,.... .w. .ww 1 21612.4 0 216224 2 12800.4 0 12800.4 3 13120.9 0 131284 4 15789.1 0 15769.8 3 12661.1 0 12601.1 8 171 ..4 ..2 1 7.. 7 WIETTaiNERiar. marmun'rw37Br�'m E[117 a BD'TI77i1111EITISNfi1?*21 123694 9 15447.4 0 331s 10 11441.7 11570.8 - 11 1 :y. 1134 15 12 18 INETT,II 13 Mi=111111121rElff17707111 14 iT.*.gsMI mEFIF. 15 BfIDT1BB NNFM11 18 •^'±1T1BDMABIBlcutA. BLOCK 3 Zi-ANIII22=••:=MCIX=M1 .w sr. .w1.4 =MI IIIF A ' 11i B EMEA IMMOTEVEILMEI 08201 M2•••Wi.:1La/NME=EIIM=I1 2 BBc=WZMIMIEMEIBFTr o1MELSIS7BB) B•V i>•BBF TPEIM771FBNFZ1M151 Tl cll 0i TFOrii6117F1EFSR7 vB�rs�t7FiBBrZlF7BiFL*!IG7 4 S BiLMEN R7imBl•L4bs WITaiIsBB 70li4ERL.,>t B"TEB%SIZ:,08BB.^41 -I 1 ,4?SC71 BLOCK 2 REAR LOT UE LOT .w sr. .w1.4 ...w 1 228432 08201 32471.4 2 tee- 8549.6 45.- ik411Willl 4 S BE Sf7BE?;: En 7 112JA rill BIKOMIMI=111FIFLZTT1 .._L4IM.:tt *A.I marmun'rw37Br�'m EE1 123694 11 331s IFFAI ®OBQ 12 Bimmui'^zlik.,_r 15 18 .J 1111=11M=111•0= ERIIIINIIIFAI 17 1e AREA TABULATIONS TOTAL SIZE AREA 1 39.77 ACRE 1OTN.4015144 PROPOSED 6084? OF WAY NEA : 4.33 POE AREA WHIN P1ATTED LOTS 1 2547 ACIK AVERAGE LOT ARC 1 237332 S.F. AVENGE LOT AREA WAND) 1 ,80064 SP. AVERAGE LOT AREA : 57254 SF. OEIS1IY 1 0.55 U413/ACRE RECE APR 0 GiTY OF Li WED 6 2001 -0 LAKES 2 1- 4-0 -011 • RP REVISIONS Room PREUMNIAY P44U74 N 0 1141AI{7A1, 0(IY k WAT17094E0 RENSNN3 BOOK 6231. PAGE 46 (106/68) 1 NOES( CERTIFY THAT OM MIT. SPVrCAIpH. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED 87 110 OA 0000 87 OIRECT SUPERMAN MAO 644T 1 A4 A OW PROf@ON4L OWNED OR UWE Of MOMESOTA 001JQ gA"L l am-R 2*. R ROL RO. 19654 ROAMED MR 0A1c SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. • SURVEYORS • FINNING SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONNDRAI. SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SURE 1 UIOETONKA NN 93303 (952) 544 -7601 FAX. 546 -9065 R....ane.9,11a6•0R.00ln c OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 851- 481 -0017 • APRIL B 200 J J PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 3 OF 7 SHEETS 5 • rE 100 111 05t155.0 (Al PER 1105. STUDY) 1 BLOCK 1 WETANO ALTER FMACRES 8811110.1011 MAII410E. LIMY k CONSERVATION :EASEMENT ROAD OFFSET WI1105 RAW. it OUTLOT e --L -_ wu. 01114 DRAINAGE. UNLIT' k 00(0055141105 WETLAND WAFER 7305 MST. COQ 110 Al EASEMENT WILlIANO BUFFER 7355 SCUT. ammo anal 13055 0C • a»u DRAINAGE UTIUTY EASEMENT k mlm RERAN SUFFER "=:17 dit DITCH 550 SMUT 1' FILL W M P ORMULAR sale 11414 955 t.m1 BL01 -4511 44 00000000000000. X 905J x 555.7 wo SE 50-1 LEGEND =SW CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PERCENT OF CRASE ORANUa0 ARROW DOM STORM SEWER F R1P05m STORM SEWD! WAIT OF CONSTRUCTION MOON CONTROL SILT FOGS PROPOSED SPOT ELSVA710N COSMO SPOT ELEVATION MILANO AL3ENAMI IMAM IMAM YETARD WIN CEMENT ROOT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CRATE PAD ELOAT10W WALKOUT SPLIT OW SOIL BORING LOCATION EAv A 511'! k TON • >45.r •.. •*BEN .-4•• 1306.98 44 0F'1I JR 8 WETLANDS SOO 55111 SOIL WETLAND MITIGATION TYPICAL CROSS- SECTION 4 0 50 120 150 WETLAND NOTES 10TH. WEIIAAO A170FATION - 21225 5J. TOTAL a10gm 8500.. 42450 SI. TOOL 1101AN0 *11104105 - 21242 S.F. PUNIC MSS MOT (DUFFER) . 25255 S.F. (.75 x 30051 S.F. - 21255 5J.) 10114. WERAIG 01107004 - 50530 S.F. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 7. ILL PERIMETER SET FENCE 4G ROM CONSTRUMON ENTRANCES SILL SE INSTALLED PRIOR 10 CONSTRUCTION. 2. 114E COMMON WALL CONS11CCr DRAM= BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRAMME. 3. THE CORRACIOR 314L GPM STE MO INSTALL UTILITIES. 4. DS GCSOMMR MAUL INSTALL CAM SAM EROSION CONDO. 5. MOM WEEKS CO SIZE 0501940. ALL DONRSED ARCS SNAIL EE STALED WO 305 SOO OR ROTC SALE MONO MU. 3! N ACCORDANCE UM MOT SPEC. 2575. 9® IMP= saw. EE 551001 MOM= 505 ALL MUM STALL SE TYPE 1 AND SHALL EE 0190 50IO®. FORUM SNAL BE 10-10-10 COMMDTCW. ORIDE O SHALL BM ARMED Al' SEEING A RTE OF PER MM. O OO4 AL mar se NEMIRO 'S 00 SCOT 3575. ALL AREAS TO BE S500ED OR S ®ED SMALL OE C0401ED WRM 'maim OF POUR INCHES OF 101507. 0. ALL EL109OI CON1501 MEASURES MILL 1E NITTALL 7 MD 0 Osac Aa MM MINNESOTA Pau CONTROL (500 PEPY3 7. 11E CONTRACTOR WALL MNN0N ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. INCLUDING TIE REMOWL OF ACCUMULATED 35) K new sr SILT FONCES. DUIUN TIE DURATION OF TM WNSDDTCRON. 5. INV OWN SEDIMENT N PROPOSED MINE 911LL EE ROAMED BY THE 5. REMOVE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VE0EOTON S 10. THE CONTRACTOR MOLL R0/O.E ILL 3011J MD 401(1015 TRACKED ONTO COMPS 0(0(75 AG PAYED AREAS. 11. P (LOERG OUSS MOMS A NR WSW. TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WEER FROM A !MK 7111ICIT TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 12. SAEF7 moose SIIIFE0 N mamma MTH CITY PEOUMEMEN(3 Mixture 25A Modified (26B) Prairie Meadow & Streambanks Onwn Noon 511540* Nan. R M MM W ynn . 1115 Mka.or 55 4 SA Cond. -wren b..nr. aar0*f* 0.1 I4_ mNr.44 H.40pb Inman OA Nw Owned a* M0 •.50.•'5040. OA 57 sky NIA wino OA 5.5..0500 Inoue oft. 50 OSwpbA gran C*S• bnyth ..moron 0.2 Stray 0s -554.0 O010Man =Wow 0.4 Ulan ,ne. *5115 0(p1. 00/505555 b MVO ob. WSWe Sync *Onus OA dupe ...4 •••••• •••••• 0.4 0.055 07*MSn _.M. 0.3 N ow 6..w mil %own gym& 02 Worn Ae... Ion woody .Ha* 0.3 Bay .w*.a5 MOP* e.0505eIdr 0.7 Illuo4loo Hs 4 0ONpIor I Mb I A A5. w 005 hi 5105.!50 3.40* RSUabonY0 0.4 Ong blue *0.45 labia •571.1 41 Rye ASR 5505 loom Winn 10.0 Arley • 11005 I *Ion r* MI R.Onm 55 SSA S.5M on= Penney Annum 1A i-AO.. 1501 Pee phone 10.0 MW.-q_ Swann 0005.05. Into 0.5 lino MOW. Snp5 ab.4055 0.3 Wm inn Um... .Purl* 0.3 Onm- b.- d,WO.4 •. •1. aM40. 0.2 nem On. Ilerobonnon radon 3.0 balms. 5-n. 04540 .05544 30 an 0140 •11r AM*. 0.3 55004 Nina. tas4.4.M 0.2 Culmes not Oslo Amnon" 140 w ri55d.n.a 0.4 T.Mb 100.0 Robb 30 M /o. (33 Iy/M). • ytl5.btlww min b 45 bony*.ji4y um so ..Y In onion 55110505 Nabbed." n.wW perm and foal.• fan. one Mel bobbled Is 50040.11 NA moots Inn non po. 1N.. M 0SIF 115145 u*5 N PamR1a A4. mm 057 11 * ..Aadr none po- MaYwOu aNON. CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ENGINEERS WETLAND SPECIALIST PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION AREAS AT (852) 545 -7001 REVISIONS - -03 RF PREU RORY PUN SU. 1QEPORT ma /5050550 555 ME OR 111001 MY DIRECT SYPONOON AIM 1141 1 4n 4 0051' 0 PROFESS NN. END( UNDER 011E LAWS ATE OF WIN160A •0AD P� "UI Nn, N4 7055 551 CORNY 11MT 1105 F11W. 91DAG1tlR OR RENEWED 0W SCHOELL & MADSON. INC. ENGINEERS • SURSCTRS • FLAINEG SON. 1ESTN0 • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, sun 1 MINNETONK . MN 55305 (S52) 540 -7501 EMI 541 -5055 resuslw*bRRds.R.e.m OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651-481-0017 DATE: APRIL 6. 2001 1 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 4 OF 7 SHEETS ri APR 0 6 ZOO C.. in, OF LINO LAI • 4 • TRUTH SWART SEMER BY OTHERS -meig .40 1114 HY OTHERS COT. -114.40 130782 l/ j!; BLOCK 1 1 1911.1 I4 -•••.5 RANI -9029 9N 1923 Col: 03.0 ITV -B812 FOSSE -P 50835 19147E 1t BLOCK 3 M11 -001.5 ON ■001.5 1WLi -IP sOR35 00.7505 A 240E -9Y SOt35 •0.47E <.! BLOCK 3 INFILTRATION RECUT 1' FILL 9191 I. GRANULAR LAR SOILS 1900E -r SCR35 1NL4* AgeltUA. — 1 OUTLOT a WIND METING SAN 441f-S SOR35 110.48 RRa901.5 94■191.5 d • 80 120 180 LEGEND PROPOSED STORE SOWER COSMO w1ETWM PROPOSED %M RSA* WN1MY .ROVER PROPOSED SVNTART =ER PROPOSED MYCRMT W/ VALVE PROPOSOS ONE WYE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. REFER TO MC11TQ.16 SRC P1AN FOR BUILDING AND MONO moor, OOCTMONS AND LOCATIONS 2. TIE MITI CONTRACTOR MALI. VERIFY 11E LOCATIONS MO ClEVA11ONS O' THE DUILONE PIPE $1091 PRIOR 10 CONSm0CRNO 2EMICE CONECCONS, 3. ALL PPE CONNECTIONS ECTIONS TO 005M10 UTOLTE5 3DOC1U1E3 awl BC 10R -4-3040 OR CRY APPROVED BOON.. FOR CONCRETE B1OCE OR BRICK STRUCTURES. CONSTRUCT M @044 =AL 113 THE PPE 4.2E TROUT MOUND PIPE TO CLOSE OPINING MO REPAIR STRUCTURE 10 CTY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR awl VERIFY TYPE OF 07NNECI10* "pH CDY EN0IEERNRI CEPM1YENT AND COORORp1E MY IMMURED CITY CONFECTIONS PEE= TOR COY ACCEPTANCE. 4. STREET RISTOM100N RECAMOWTS. 1 -1/5' 811811 LS YIEM COURSE 3-1/5' BOU N= BASE CORSC 4.r CL 5 M0. (100 CRUSHED LIMESTONE) CO/MP/CIE m700RADE AGO TENCH BACK EEL. S PRIOR TO DORY CONSTRUCTION THE COMRNOOR MALL MO VERIFY 0705440 00000 LOG11ONS MO NITWITS MY OSCRFPNN.Y BEIVE9T PINS NO FIELD aORMON3 SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE 0011 9 WARNING THE CONTRACOI M•L CONTACT AIL max U10O93 FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL UNOWSROINO YRRER. CAR EL moons. RPM MONHOLIES. 0 OTHER RIMMING! BEFORE 1E 000940. HE SHAH- REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN OMeC9 DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO CAST TO OWNER. RECEIVE() APR 0 6 200 Mtn satr4+'orr I ciT OF L!NO LAS: DATE *1 REVRRE ON 2 -12 -01 PREUWNARY PUII suaM11TN 4-1 -01 RF CITY 1 WATEASNS E0 SION RF 1 /ROUT COTIWY TAY 0(1 PLO. F4*IC4l0A ON REPORT WAS PREPARE W Y[ CO D UNOIR w gNCY SUPERVISION /NO iyy1, /� TMuMw'1HE 111510 0! ETAOINI. moo • 14 'WRW. N6 1974 3 \RLMUm co. SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOIL 11:511N0 ENVEON ETTA1 SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SURE 1 MI NIETONKA. AO 55305 (102) 548 -7001 0911U 548 -90915 W W W.POIIOPYIIgdKNRM1 OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651- 481 -0017 DATE: APRIL 6 2001 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 5 OF 7 SHEETS 4 • • 5 METAL OR r12W000 FENCE POST HACKING OTECTILE WRN NET BA CE71E10EE TO OVERLAP IRE THROUGH 01)1 II W NOTE : -SILT MICE SHALL CONFORM 10 MOOT 3154. TTPE O. - FENCN0 SOW. 8E PLACED ALONG CONTOURS OR AS ONECT0 5Y ENGINEER. SILT FENCE 4 /23/17 STAND/RD DRAWING N0. 601 VARIES /' To W.61.4 Rook VARIES 16' I te• R/W VARIES 1.5.-235o TYPE LV 4 BIT. WEARING COURSE —TACK COAT 2' -2350 TYPE LV 2 OR 3 BIT. NON - WEARING COURSE S AGGREGATE BASE. CI.. 3 (PLACED ON APPROVED SUBGRACE) z4 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW 'TYPICAL SECTION (URBAN STREET /PERIAANENT SECTION) ri -RECEIVE-67 APR 062001 \CITY OF LINO LAKES GTE 0! REVISIONS -t -01 4 . -0 RE' su Z: :I1I3i:G1oL•31A. N .-EK;F 1 I1dFW! =WY 14447 7Wt FL" SYfJR 411*. 04. ROORT WA: PROMO W Id OL LOOM NIT 500E1T SUMMON 0141 1EMT 1 Al A DULY 41CFN1d PR0/F90WL EN:.IIEER l4lQ0 4 lC fl40 51720 OF 411NE4001. ' O IK6 M. 4N04 MOM 51R 0•10 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 0IOINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOL 11S11N0 • ENYWON INTAL SERVICES 10550 WAYIATA 6OULEVNIO. SUIT I MINNETONKA. MN 55305 (552) 545 -7101 F1* 545 -5015 NYR6CIo.IR1IN.RN.10m C OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651 -481 -0017 ATE: APRIL 6. 2001 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, UN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION DETAILS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEETS J 848 ran 3 80 ads_ . 1 OUTLO n 120 180 LEGEND p 001101ES TIME TO B( SAVED Q MOM THE TO 4M REMOVED nom 0014000 10S PENCE/ 024ES ar CONSTRU000N MAIM CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. PVC( !LT MCC PRORCIIION AT DC DIBPUNF OF TREES 009064 = TO FORM. FOR THOSE ASSOCIA1E) 004 TIM LRRI5 OF C@ODIRIOpN PRESERVE AND PRDTECf THROUGHOUT 00000KT os. TRH EidIND Number following abbreviation drpW wtlmat,d diameter Cam weed I.e4. The mend a.mb. any) dawt.. the numb., d truaa et that Ideation 1 denotes . dead tree). Number a.ue debt.. We Banda In ten. 0 Denotes deaidu.u. Meg C) Donates Muds. # Del.tee *0f.o . tn.. ' - 2 .2 0.not.. Ida. line. 5 PARK ins eo2 A Oeeaee Ma WA Denotes Mbar *a. IF Deans Solemn Fir OA Oaaat.a Sedan d d Denote Melt BE Denote. Bow Oder BN Donates Butternut R4 0.adr Bad CA Innate. Catalpa CR Can. Color CH Denotes Chary 04 De nn Cottonwood OC nw� EL Denote. F m FR Oman Fruit ON Denotes N D.netee IC O.ne1.. Herm Cheb.A R Denotes trammed Al Omens Juniper IC Ca Magnin CNN. Ulm U ID Oelate Lanni Y Oee4.e Maple 4 Pine 0.naW Oak Pl PI Deals Pine PO Denote. Poplar RO Dante Roan 01Wn SW Dante d4 r Maple SP Omens Spurge TD Omaha Tree Deeidus.. 1( Denotes Tree Ewrvr.n WA &mots. Walnut WARNING "E EF'VED AFR 0 6 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES THE CONIR6IOR ROLL CORACT N.I. PURJC LRCM FOR LDOUIOI5 OF ALL UNDERGROUND VdRES. CABLES. CONCURS. PIPES. YNMOLES. WOO. OR 011401 BURIED 01RUCN0ES BEFORE MOM HE OWL PEPIN OR REPLACE THE ABOVE TMEN OW= DURINO CONSTRICTION AT N0 COST 10 OWN01L KIM REVISIONS 2 -1 -01 RF PREUYaARr PUN SUBMITTAL 4- +-01 RF o1Y k WATERSHED REVISIONS ■ 1 I MOW =WY WAY 64 10 0R• IRIO iN 046001 Q SUPEJNISION MD OSS001 �(T MAT uwi of T E Iaa60 DOUG 3��„ 011E " -__ RCO. N . Ie64 RENEWED BED 061E SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENOMEERS • SURVEYORS • KAtINR40 SOIL. TESTING FNNRONMEt4101. SERNCES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SURE 1 MOAM1ONKA, H4 55305 (452) 548 -7501 Mt 549-9065 aww.eawalmad.ateam OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, lAN 651- 481 -0017 DATE; APRIL 6 2001 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN TREE PRESERVATION PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 7 OF 7 SHEETS • STAFF ORIGINATOR: DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: 64th and 20th AGENDA ITEM 5F Marty Asleson BACKGROUND: Applicant has submitted an application request to obtain a variance of setback due to hardship, i.e., wetland issues. The are is in a Lake Protection area, not in a flood plane area, in an ecological zone 2. Maps enclosed. Ecological classification lists this site with residential and recently developed forest in degraded condition. Applicant will need a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District. Approval should include some plan to contain water on the site. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Approval with suggestions of the Environmental Board and Rice Creek Watershed District permit (mitigation would be required) 2. Recommend not to approve to the City Council RECOMMENDATION: Option one if the applicant can be creative in surface water retention issues or provide significant surface water management plan and approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Application received Application determined complete Review period extended on to Application approved by City Council on Application in4ompfe ickiter sent,_ MAR 1 vj 2001 'vow - i.•,.lv _Cr y . ..G .yam.. CITY OF LINO LAKES - LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX FEE 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/ Lot Split Rezoning Vacation: drainage, street, utility ✓ Variance z-- $ 250 $ 350 $ 250 $ 250 ESCROW DEPOSIT Property Address /XjX X 444714 S!' , - 2E� r/ (w,y i /1) • PIN# 36_3/ - �2 27_ coo / — 5 6 s 7WP 3/, I4N4e" �- ,Wc'k. cunt Legal Description: Lot Block Addition cC q i /-/Ai 171 ' JB s'G�t 6t1'7— Existing Land Use VA-C*, -C ` Existing Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: IAA, A-NGE Q 5 Tl, 4CKS. 15- /EC 0.,57- "0 �iL 7T? Hal - OS1!, ,4A/4 ‘57Q/L)/4 j ?P 1°46fl . �'s e��7 �,� Owner (if different than applicant): AP7A- cr16 -;0) 4 AL.e7 T2 M name M4A4 -(A/ ,4J address 'p5 T / ae. '#c address 2-O6 0 017 L1•C DE. AMI 3:472_7_ L' /A/O 6.(e s' .' I Ai- S 7/O -30.c/ lvS / -41z�f' -(9107 I Z47 Zeff . 0)79 ,72 3Y.6 3/94/ C6«. Pco/©aa��J F/-"- Ae 4A/ Applicant: name phone fax phone fax a ei40046,t 3" r' et-/ V/672.. LUETZA-NQ r ,57e-t8y LAKE ,u" .T.T!'1 - 1. '.I• f 41i�i W1CrM Op en`G' /, e iu l =ir34 I Rler! cefelen i n. El NN� i , II r v i ► q` E��i:,�i �Ydl[ � V o A a�odooc" 4 C !7L v sties 14. se t:,'Rts 0 1 —1i l. ©OdaArQgl1 h i Inp), ee o ;14 wthvitattar �!� •av� �j0� �Al1y ©o od 1St AIM 64th and 20th Lake Protection Area Green.shp Parcels.shp Lakeprot.shp 64th Street and 20th • NWI/Flood Plane 0.3 0 0.3 Nwimet4shp.shp No Yes Section Lakebuffer.shp Lakes Floodplane 0 100 500 [ Parcels.shp 0.6 Miles 64th and 20th • Zone 1/2 1 0 1 Zone2.shp Zonel.shp Green.shp Parcels.shp Lakeprot.shp 2 Miles CEeTF1CTE OF We/WI' The NW 1/4 corner ;.of> Sec. 36, T.31N, Anoka County. Mlnnesoto.' ; ,929.87 926.! vI • � 9291 It 929.61 i 929.62 83 N 926.41 927.13)4 of Q 929.61X 1 926.78- 930.66 1Z i 4 ni 9 Ito/ 928.23 ' _ j N89 °26 40"W T FOR: • I e VENTURA HOMES, INC. 385.73 928.50 26.58 4.2 >(9 >28.3 4 n M 928.36 /926.53 6.88 • C925.91 926.49 X925.81 9314 9...76 927.71 ; Prop. • Hse 930.53 426.52 9 9.53 926.97 wA►, o., 930.5 4 13 4.4 26.07 QOM / 0930.80 929.60 - 930.68 1 - K931.314, 926.80 • Q�� 926.86 ▪ 931.40 11927.57 M Q• 4' Il L2._ --- N. line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 36. T.31N, R.22W. 4 33.00' Rood Easement -- j 339.20 64r1-1 STREET EAST S89°26'40 "E 4:1=1319 k927,79 N N z M TOP OF BLOCK GARAGE FLOOR = 9 3Li LOWEST FLOOR .=931, Edge of delineated S89°26'40 "E wetland 282.34 347.49 �ry co rJ Borings by System Solutions o"\ PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: / ,N .7 9 0� 3 b ° T O P O F FOOTING = °I 3 1 . c /%o'osep l ar4ES r Fi ao2 Ser y FEET 48 vvE • 4vegacE MlorfE S' t/4 Tioi/_ � /North 100 Co 00 700 "V Scale 1 '= 50' 22.33 8 GARAGE 9.67 314.00 N J PROP. HSE 5 CRS BSMT WALKOUT Detail 1"...30' 46.00 A DIAGIONAL: 48.33 X 68.00 = 83.43 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION / Note: No title work provided That part of Goverment Lot Z Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting the easement to the to of Minnesota for Highway purposes. RecEIVED MAR 1 9 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: • License No. LEGEND ® DENOTES 11 FOOT OFFSET ® DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVA T /ONS x 863.24 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVA TIONS. .� DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. • DENOTES FOUND /RON Q DENOTES BORING 0- DENOTES FOUND C. I. M. EA.RUD 4 SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS else LEXINGTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA TEL. 163 - 186 -EEfi6 FAX 163 - 186 -6ee'1 JOB O11J3hs AGENDA ITEM 5G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: 4/25/01 TOPIC: 2088 80th BACKGROUND: Resident wants to obtain a variance to build a polebarn on site. Areas indicated as "lowlands" are wetlands. Adjacent to a lake protection area, not in a flood plane, not in a high ecological value zone, land cover consists of mowed field with no significant vegetation features on site. OPTIONS: Approve /with suggestions of the Environmental Board Don't approve RECOMMENDATION: Approve with any suggestions of the Environmental Board Application received Application determined complete Review period extended on to Application approved by City Council on Application incomplete letter sent 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 (466.c1") Property Address Ro.94q kitAyo iviA/ PIN # - Legal Description: Lot Block Addition Existing Land Use Existing Zoning DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: k)/11,11/1A/Q Ppe■ laGtild, Applicant: , n Owner (if different than applicant): name \ //V < name address TYF Q. address / phone fax phone EC fax .il/E.13 MAR 1 9 2001 CITY OF LINCi LACES C 0 u1/4"/Cil m e#✓ OR._ -716 (•J1#(dM 1 f' 1/ @ot/t ei r, k S O l l4 W,y^ i 12 td01/. 7174-- C: fi°/11 e. cvi e + ; Qk. a wq koW 6 -F- W. �-� Q,e,4 A MO d„r 151' • /41 I's "1"1 (A AA d ft.Ariik49 t. 6; 40 r-4 A )V0 01),/%91 c2-/ '7‘) $. lJ r 4t mY Mfrrrc ib.zw9 O4 79h. c cy m. fted-kwil r c. oaf 791;% U$N.4 I: mek r u,.✓ ,.1\4/ q. 11.k, 4,1 )ou; a aA- ` o x 74' /39 Abu,' Id, , ',jt u II �tnti "t_+ 14 U 044'AA,%e- c. RECEIVED MAR 1 9 2001 WY OF LINO LAKES cs.P(S EAU :4� "�'�'N aoei :;71:17-1:E:::!:P.712+1 �, °� ,. 1ognT: d� 11 1J,115100:11;1 .r �.oa0coo�C..��, OGO �° '� ��LGZ�r:F ■ :i�UU.nLG �w.:�•�,.. man Qfry i�ruuF: rjiaH • \\ • en.s'T,p. • . _ ,� „,• -•Y y., Reny � 2088 80th 444 4 ''''rfitOreirY/Y4Irr/ r .404.0 '1Or' )40/4004. / 'API" 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Arcview9 Section HighEcoValZone.shp Lakes Arcview21 Parcels.shp 0 00 CO 00 0 N CERTIFICATE OF SUF(EY For: ....hr1 Carfier a08• ?De ode s x 90 7. orlo /f s peno //r Q) ,Deno /es 3/.0. 6aarge /5.5 14.0 10.0 J proporec/ Noose wo /kouI ea.() DETAI • Proposed e/eva /ion e Xis / /.-1 e /eva/ion svr/ rce dra,2 c . soil boriq Proposed Elevations: Top of Block = 9 /4i Garage Floor = 9/o.7 Basement level = 907.9 (5cs w/ ) - North / /r1� of NW % of Section /2 • rI 24'I Bi,/u,"inous Ro.d c ,•�5 h `I1� A. Easement as shown on Anoka County Section Maps. Y, Jr /Pow of power Poles w /overhead wires - 658.00------------------ --------- ----- --- - - - --. GRos tc'l = 435, 971 fQ• t- x 907.7 10.0091 Pe. -Sench Mark: 4- v. = 908. tit, 7. See X 9o9.5 d e for house vlinenrionr. I' -South tine. ofN%zof N %zc,f NWA- ofSe.ction12 658.03 S 89 °46'/7"14/ Bearings shown are assumed. 0 Denotes iron monument set. /V 00° /6'45"E M ° rRECFWFD 1 MAR 1 9 2001 ICM' Uk: k_ .r L, iCEs Property description: The east 658 feet of the west 1314 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to roads. No re'_ /io as eon �E--�e vo�!a $ 4 U 7 �v«e es7o 14 J/ 6r owpe'. ,ro e /ra.� �rp /�aCr o�i,a /wa e s' Wou /a7 ... ,9w,y,9es;" ra/sii�y r :e 9 raa✓e. AaWed Proposed /%case Cier!a,/'o,?f (x/7/96% Scale: 1 "= /oo' Book 24 /krje 42 Tob No. 9c I hereby cer /q that /his plan, survey or report was prepared bb�yy me or under rn--yy direef supervision and /ha/ I am a dully Reislered Land Srirveyor uer /he /aws or /he Sfale of M/nnesola . Dated this 41 day or 19 9/ . Rej111,111. on No. 7f'8 E. Ci. RLID / SONS, INC, LAND SURVE YoRs 9180 Lexinoflon Ave. A/. CirL' /e Pins Mr). 556 7e/ . 786 - 55.576 Memo City of Lino Lakes RECEIVED ED APR 1 7 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES The Uno Lakes City Council Rana The Envirormerdai Board CCs Unda Waite-Smith, Jeff Smyser Date: 04/11/01 Re Comments on the draft Canprehensive Plan Development Framework On April 11, 2001 the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board approved a resolution to forward the following comments on the rate of growth to the City Council. OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN IS THAT THE CITY'S RATE OF GROWTH IS TOO FAST. WE ARE MAKING THIS POINT IN A SEPARATE MEMO BECAUSE THIS POINT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME OBSCURED! We understand that the growth rats of 147 homes per year was arrived at after some discussion. The Board unanimously agrees that this rate is too fast and would encourage the Council to revisit that growth rate. Regardless of whether or not the Coundl is willing to consider modification to the growth rate, the Board also unanimously agrees that It is absolutely essential that the Comp Plan be explicit about the mechanisms that will be used to insure that that the growth rate Is not exceeded. The Board recommends that the City adopt a procedure whereby a building moratorium kicks in automatically when the number of housing permits issued over a two year period reaches the maxknum allowed (twice the annual growth rate). City of Lino Lakes Memo To: Lino Lakes City Council From: The Environmental Board CG Linda Waite - Smith, Jeff Smyser Date: 04 /11/01 Re: Comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan Development Framework IN GENERAL: • On April 11, 2001 the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board•approved a resolution to forward these comments on the draft comprehensive plan to the City Council. • Please take note of our other memo on the rate of growth, dated April 11, 2001. Together, These two memos comprise the complete listing of the comments by the Environmental Board to date. In addition to .discussion and issuance of recommendations at the regular meeting on March 28, we have held special meetings on the comp plan on April 4 and April 11. Maps were obtained on March 28. The earlier recommendations contained in the 3/30 memo by M. Asieson were rushed and should be ignored as they are restated in this document along with additional recommendations. • The Environmental Board anticipates that the following comments and recommendations will be well received by council and staff and incorporated into the comprehensive plan. Should any questions or concerns arise we expect a dialog to ensue, as we are offering our services to staff and Council to that end. • Lino Lakes is a city blessed with more natural resources than surrounding communities. As such, our city warrants comparatively more predervation, yet we're poised to fall far short of what other metropolitan communities are doing. Lino Lakes' natural attributes, open space and rural character are what attract developers and residents to the city, but.the ensuing development erodes these attractive qualities. All measures of public opinion show very clearly that the residents themselves demand preservation from the adverse effects of urbanization. This is even stated in the framework on page 45 and elsewhere, yet the document, with its huge growth zones and its loopholes and inconsistencies, fails to address the very issue it cites —it fails to provide for the preservation of our natural attributes, rural character, and open space. If we lose these, we also lose the very identity of Lino Lakes itself. • Page 1 • The proposed urban growth seems highly aggressive and unwarranted when compared to other cities. Lake Elmo, for example, is under development pressure on both sides— from Stillwater /Oak Park Heights and from Oakdale/Woodbury—yet there is no MUSA expansion in its draft comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo has 120 total sewered acres and will stay that way. • There are seven municipalities in Washington County alone that are actively seeking to preserve open space through a very useful tool commonly referred to as "duster housing," yet the framework intends to use this tool, not for open space, but as a staging tool for "future development when utilities become available." Lino Lakes is an ideal candidate for permanently preserved open spaces via clustered development. • During the development of the comp plan and its subsequent revisiting by city council, how much effort has been made to understand the philosophies and approaches used in other cities, or other states? Observers have commented that it seems as though only one source of information and advice has been considered in Lino Lakes, that being the team who drafted the plan, the consultant NAC and the economic development department. Has there been any planning information under any kind of consideration that hasn't been filtered through this team? This is like the person who is considering buying a home, and only looks at one house before making the decision. • Because the proposed framework defers the issues of upland and open space preservation while carving out huge growth areas for urbanization, our rural character and nearly all our open space are in jeopardy. In addition, the framework has no binding plan to prevent the continued degradation of our lakes, wetlands, and wildlife. • It is clear that the framework was developed in top -down fashion. At the top was the vision of the development of the entire city, and the underlying details appear subordinate to that vision. Economic concems have been given precedence over both environmental and cultural aspects. There are statements on environmental issues, but adequate remedies are not borne out in the substance of the plan. The plan was essentially completed before the environmental inventory occurred, not the other way around. The growth areas were drawn up before the forecasted land demand calculations were agreed upon, not the other way around. The plan was submitted for approval in 1998, yet how much acreage and of what types are in the growth areas was unknown until August 1, 2000. Amazingly, most of the important numbers in the plan, such as numbers of homes, populations, and acreage simply do not pan out. We are concerned about these inconsistencies. A bottom -up approach is the key to any truly effective management plan. A sustainable community is one where the three legs, economy, ecology, and culture, form the basis upon which the city is built. The blueprint for such a community should be a comprehensive plan built on valid information that is cognizant of our resources and utilizes a realistic strategy for giving the residents what they want and what they need: a sustainable community. Much assistance in this area has been provided to the city as a result of the environmental inventory and associated efforts (see appendix 1). These Environmental Board comments are intended to transform (or replace) the top - down comprehensive plan into more of a bottom -up plan to provide for a sustainable community. • Page 2 APPENDICES: Appendix 1: City of Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development (hereafter referred to as the "handbook" or the "HEPCD "). It has been agreed to append this document to the comp plan, but this idea will not yield the appropriate results, since these documents are not consistent with each other. In these places the framework will by law have precedence. To adequately provide for greenways and the protection of our natural resources, and as a result maintain some of our rural character and open space, our current development practices must be reevaluated as per the handbook as soon as possible. The proposed Comprehensive Plan must be made consistent with the handbook prior to comp plan adoption. Appendix 2: This chart was a part of the Aug 1, 2000 memo from Alan Brodus (NAC) to City Administrator Linda Waite - Smith. The data in this chart should be updated where needed and included in the framework. A huge discrepancy exists between the 359 additional acres the framework states are needed to accommodate growth through the year 2010 (see page 67) and 2,504.55 acres in the 2010 growth area shown in the chart. Another discrepancy is that our stated annual demand for Commercial and Industrial is 20 acres per year (page 66), or 200 total acres through the year 2010. Yet the Appendix 2 chart shows 46725 acres being added as part of the 2010 growth area for C &I when we already have 450.42 undeveloped acres available inside the MUSA. A total of 917 acres is set aside by the framework for C&I urbanization through 2010, 717 acres (or more than 450 %) above and beyond this calculated land use demand. To be accurate in the projected MUSA expansion calculation for the year 2010, the 200 C &I acres and the correspondingl9% overage should be removed from the land demand calculations, as this is more than covered by the 450 we already have set aside. Subtracting the 238 acres from the 359 acres the framework is asking for on page 67 leaves us with a need for only 121 more acres to get us through 2010. This also leaves us a 200+ acre excess for C &I. The relatively small 121 acre land demand should be taken from the C&I excess or out of the 19% overage, eliminating the need for MUSA expansion. Moreover, all these calculations assume that no homes will be built outside the current MUSA line, which certainly won't be the case. Bottom line: Unless the intern is to disregard a controlled growth approach, there is no justification for urban growth area expansion until sometime after the year 2010. So why would we add another 2,504 acres right nova Appendix 3: These announcements made by the city in the Quad Community Press in • September 1998 indicate the information that was distributed by the city during the comprehensive plan's development. Here a picture of Lino Lakes at "full growth" is depicted, with 12,530 acres of open space (year 2010 ?) and a population of 20,500 (year 2020). Lino Lakes, the eighth fastest growing "city in the state, had a census population of 16,791 on Jan 2, 2000. This population is achieved with a MUSA of 4,321 total acres (appendix 2), much of this as yet undeveloped. The two growth areas proposed more than double our current MUSA with an additional 4,626 acres, half now and half in 10 years. If you double the urban area, how can you limit population growth to 22 percent? Why double the urban growth area when no more than a 22% increase in population is to be allowed? The "proposed land use" map on page 75 shows that by 2020 there won't be much of any open • Page 3 • space remaining outside of the 2,621 acre county park except a few small tracts of land. Our rural charm and open space are in jeopardy. It should be emphasized that the economic development department advises that "the city has set its population limit at 20,500 by 2020" and that "the city decides its own future with the comprehensive plan." The framework needs to be redone to reflect that. Appendix 4: A letter from Art Hawkins, designated Environmental Board Advisor and Lino Lakes Citizen of the Year, 2000. Appendix 5: This was an intended communication from the Environmental Advisory Group to the Growth Advisory Group during the 20/20 vision project that unfortunately was never received by the growth group. This visionary document has some very insightful ideas for determining the direction of the city and some far - reaching statements that are as relevant today as they were 6 years ago. This is the type of thinking that would help make for a good comprehensive plan. Its still not too late to compare where we're headed and where we perhaps ought to be headed as outlined in this writing. MODIFICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: Due to time constraints there are no specific suggestions for the "inventory" section of the comprehensive plan. The environmental board feels that this entire section needs to be revisited to be of any value now that a more recent environmental inventory has been completed. In general, the language throughout the framework is repetitive through all the various sections, from "issues" and "policy plan through "planning districts "" and "implementation. In recommending the modifications below, it was assumed that. related language elsewhere in the framework will be modified in likewise fashion to maintain consistency, even if in a specific location in the framework no specific change has been recommended. We feel our recommendations as to what needs to be done are sufficiently explicit to provide for this. • The table on page 3 should be updated to current census data. • The paragraph at the top of page 167 (framework) should be moved to the introduction. • Page 20 #2 add "Promote biodiversitv throuah the use of native plant materials and other appropriate means." • Page 20 #3 add "Keep open communication between the county park and the city. Promote biodiversitv within the park and adiacent areas? • Page 20 add goal #7 in planning development consider possible effects on the natural flora and fauna. particularly species of special concern." • Page 20 add goal #8 "strive to become a city known for its success in promoting both economic development and the maintenance of high environmental standards." • Page 4 • Page 21 #3 should read "Require the integration of all new development to the natural characteristics of the land to maintain environmental quality and enhance the development through the preservation of attractive amenities (i.e. wetlands, waterways, wooded areas, slopes, etc.) Adopt new development regulations that serve to preserve unique natural areas. Require open space developments that conserve at least 50% of the upland areas in and near greenways and other suitable locations in the city. Adopt development regulations consistent with the Citv of Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development fHEPCD) wherever it pertains to buffering. lake protection areas, high ecological value zones, and high priority protection areas." • Page 21 #4 should begin: "Require low impact lighting with new development." • Page 21 #5a. should read " Greenways shall be those areas identified in the HEPCD as buffers, lake protection areas, high ecological value zones. and high priority protection areas, plus enough additional incentive zone as is required to achieve open space preservation of not less than 50% of the upland in any impacting develoment. A map will be developed delineating these areas in the Comprehensive Plan prior to its adoption. To implement these policies a special greenway or preservation zoning district shall be' established." • Page 21 #5b. should read "Greenways shall be of a size and configuration to protect the natural amenities within the greenway without intruding into areas where building should be discouraged as per the HEPCD. Greenways shall be of a size and configuration to provide wildlife corridors and provide linkages the the Chain of Lakes Regional Park, other designated greenways, natural areas, and other cities. Generally. this means that the areenwav will contain an incentive zone consisting of a buildable area 1.5 times larger than the upland in the areenwav that is guided for protection under the HEPCD." • Page 21 #5c needs to be evaluated as it pertains to the modified #5a. • Page 21 #5d. should read "At least 50% of uplands within greenways shall be preserved through voluntary donation, conservation easements, park land dedication, or the transfer of development rights to the areas of the city more suitable for development." Page 22 #h/g add "Some areenways will not have trails. Trails other than paved trails will be encouraged." • Page 22 add greenway policy #5j " Greennways will be designed to connect natural areas wherever possible." • Page 22 add policy #6 "Review city regulations and assess their implications for the citv's environmental services and amenities. Modify where these services and amenities are unnecessarily compromised." • Page 22 Vegetation #1 should read "Require the preservation and management of natural vegetation including plants of Oak Savannas, prairies, woodlands, wetlands and aquatic vegetation to be a design imperative for new subdivisions." • Page 22 soils #2 should read "Development in soil areas characterized by moisture retention, high water tables, or perched water tables will be strongly discouraged." • Page 5 • Page 23 #2 should read "Restrict or prohibit development on wetlands, floodplains, and other natural features that perform important environmental functions in their natural state. Protect such natural features from excess storm water or other hazards generated by development by restricting the use of storm sewers and utilizing surface water treatment trains as described in the "Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development or by restricting development? ' • Page 23 #4 should read "Restrict subdivision plats so that wetland boundaries are not changed to accommodate buildable area and usable yards." • Page 23 #8 should be deleted because it can lead to lawsuits. Page 24 and 25: The growth management goals and polides are only respective of financial concems. Equal consideration must be given to environmental concems and responsibilities. Modifications should not be limited to the following recommendations. • Page 24 goal #1 add "Avoid the adverse impacts of fast growth by spreading growth out over a 20 year period." • Page 24 goal #2 add 'Recognize that taxes received from most residential developments are insufficient to cover the cost of city services. Therefore limit residential growth and type to minimize the financial burden while permitting appropriate environmentally friendly business development" • Page 24 goal #3 add "Insure the integrity of open space in making development decisions." • Page 24 add goal #5 "Manage growth and land use development in an environmentally responsible manner with the goal of maintaining the open and "green" nature of the city that its citizens prize so highly." • Page 25 #6 should read "Disallow leapfrog development pattems that expand the city's service delivery areas and prohibit urban encroachment into designated rural areas." • Page 25 #8 should read "Disallow premature subdivisions in areas that lack adequate infrastructure such as streets or utilities." Page 25 #9 The 147 needs to be revised downward to a number consistent with stated city quality of life goals. A regulatory mechanism to keep growth at the appropriate controlled pace is needed. This must be determined before the adoption of the comprehensive plan and described in detail herein. • Page 26 add general goal #7 "Maintain and enhance Lino Lakes' environmental amenities and services." • Page 28 add rural policy #7 — "Devise and adopt an open space conservation development ordinance to be used as a development tool." • Page 30 add goal #4 "Avoid destruction of natural features and enhance them wherever possible." • Page 6 • Page 32 add goal #2 "Avoid destruction of natural features and enhance them wherever possible." • Page 34 add goal #8 "Develop ordinances that serve to enhance transportation and minimize negative consequences for water quality." • Page 34 add goal #9 "Develop a city trail system that supports the development of greenways." • Page 35 # 7 should read "Improve street safety through the appropriate use of street lighting and sign control. The street lighting will be of the "boxed" type with little or no spillage. The height shall be no higher than 16 feet." • Page 36 Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails #3 should read "Provide adequate lighting and outdoor fumiture in all areas of heavy pedestrian movement The street Iightinq will be of the "boxed" type with little or no spillage. The use of "Bug Away" light bulbs or another similar subsitute will be required? • Page 39 #7 should read "Design and maintain parks with proper landscaping, shelter design, etc. to-ensure a high degree of public and property safety. Proper lighting will be the boxed type with little or no spillage and "Bug Away" type or similar light bulbs will be used where appropriate." Page 41 #13 The highly important local water management plan should be given more prominence in the framework than merely this one reference. • Page 42 #3 add the words "and residents! • Page 43 #10 add the words "Take advantage of special projects such as the DNR's Wildlife Interface Proiect and the DNR's data base in flora and fauna." Page 45-47 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PLAN needs a total rewrite. Some suggestions are offered, but more time is needed to do this right. • Page 46 change the title "VEGETATION" to "PLANTS AND ANIMALS" or "FLORA AND FAUNA? • Page 46 add #4 "The city will procure and maintain public canoe accesses to all lakes. • and public accesses•for larger watercraft on all recreational lakes" • Page 47 #5 should read The city has identified some and will continue to identify areas of unique natural vegetation and areas of critical habitat and endangered species that should be preserved. Detailed inventories of proposed development sites will be conducted prior to development approval which will identify habitats of special value and the native birds. mammals. amphibians and reptiles and plans for mitigation subject to city approval. In addition, the city will consult with the DNR and other informeed sources." Page 48 #1 The handbook gives us guidelines to develop our own management plan. This needs to be done before the comp plan is approved. • Page 7 Page 48-57 "GREENWAYS" This entire section needs to be reworked in accordance with our recommendations stated elsewhere and as shown in the HEPCD. Page 64 The table provides us with an excellent reason to abandon this comp plan in favor of a new plan with realistic numbers that better controls growth and protects the environment and open space, as we have already surpassed the 2010 population goal! The plan projected growth out 12 years and missed the mark by more than nine years, an error factor upwards of 300 %! Also shown is a 2020 goal erroneously labeled "2010 The figure 7,900 homes in the year 2020 is incorrect also; the approved number is 7575, as shown on page 65 #1. Page 65.After reading all the previous'comments on growth and growth rate etc., does anybody actually think we really need more urban service area? • Page 73 add criteria #9h "The subdivision fails to meet city open space preservation goals, which except in special cases is a 50% minimum dedication of permanent open space exdusive of slopes, wetlands. drainage ways�floodplains etc. Unbuildable areas, wetlands. and wetland mitigation are not counted in the 50% calculation." •• Page 79 #2 should read "To preserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas of the city from the (delete "premature ") encroachments of development using all measures feasible. An open space conservation ordinance shall be drafted and adopted" • Page 80 (near bottom) sentence should read "Rural residential uses will continue to be permitted (delete as an alternative housing choice") within Lino Lakes under (delete "three ") two development design scenarios.". Page 81 There shall be no staged clustered subdivision. No community we know of does this. This would hinder the city's expressed open space and growth limit goals. Due to its physical makeup, permanent open space development/clustering should promoted throughout most of the city. Clustered subdivisions must not be excluded from the 2010 and 2020 growth areas, and should be allowed in all areas currently zoned rural to provide for the city's stated open space preservation objectives. Further emphasis on rural clustered subdivision Will be a part of the greenway concept. In addition to these recommendations, this section should be checked to insure continuity. • P.81, under Clustered Subdivision: Eliminate the first paragraph. • P.81, under Clustered Subdivision: Eliminate the second paragraph. • P.81, under Clustered Subdivision: Eliminate points 1 through five. The next paragraph should then read "Clustered Subdivision. Outside the MUSA boundary effective prior to the adoption of this comprehensive plan. the city will promote rural • residential cluster subdivision. This shall be required within and near greenway corridors. By so doing, the city will accomplish the following land use objectives:" • Page 82 #1 should read "Fifty percent or more of the buildable land exclusive of slopes, wetlands, drainage ways, floodplains, etc. within the subdivision will be preserved as open space. The open space will be protected by a conservation easement that defines • Page 8 the range of open space uses. The range of open space use may include agricultural production, recreational use, or passive unimproved natural open space. Wetland and • wetland mitigation does not count in 50% open space calculation." • Page 82 #3 should read "The cluster subdivision design will promote the concentration of lots into a neighborhood in an effort to create a sense of community. The lot configuration and orientation will establish an interrelationship with adjoining homes, the local streetscape, and common open space. The development shall be designed to direct noise and light pollution toward the center of the development and not into neighboring areas? Page 168 #1 needs to be more explicit and binding. Detail a regulatory mechanism here. Page 169 #1 a: Much work must be done in this area. This rather generic sentence defers the matters that will determine the success or failure of the greenway concept, rather than addressing them as a part of the comprehensive plan. In conjunction with the magnitude of the proposed growth areas, this strategy favors complete urbanization with little to no additional preservation. • Page 170 #1d2 (top of page) should read "Develop standards for green parking lots." • Page 170 #2g1 add "Establish and define the scope of "estate" lots in the city." Insert language elsewhere in the framework where appropriate to insure that the estate lot concept will become a reality and specify the parameters under and areas in which this type of development will occur. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) infrastructure: One of the many undesired byproducts of rapid growth is that it can have major negative impacts on the infrastructure. in the case of schools, rapid growth brings in families with school -age children, overloading school districts and straining their resources while forcing new buildings to be built. Then 15-20 years down the road the student enrollments fall off sharply, forcing schools to dose in a cyde that has wasted untold billions in bricks and mortar in affected school districts across the country while producing impervious surfaces and lawn and ball field chemical usage. We are seeing this trend in all three school districts in Lino Lakes. A controlled growth approach that anticipates what the school district enrollment will be once population growth has leveled off and regulates growth so as not to cause an enrollment "overshoot" and corresponding overbuilding of schools would be appropriate. 2) Staged. Growth: The Met Council has asked cities for growth plans that are tightly staged. The framework is anything but that. Is this wise, not only in terms of gaining Met Council's approval of the comp plan, but also for our own precautions? We think not. The greater the growth area, the greater the development pressure, and the less control there is over the growth that takes place. Whenever it is decided to move the urban growth boundaries, this should be done in 2 -3 year increments, and each expansion must be evaluated against city objectives before any further expansion. The environmental . board unanimously agrees that there should be no urban growth boundary expansion until after 2010, if at all. • Page 9 3) Timing: Many of the goals and policies in the framework are subject to interpretation. As it stands, it is likely that the adoption of the related ordinances that will interpret and implement these policies and goals will not occur until well after the 2001 elections. The eventual adoption of land use ordinances are apt to involve more discussion and negotiation. As a result, it may happen that the comp plan is adopted with a certain understanding that is not followed through in the ordinances. Greenways and Estate Lots are prime examples of where this potential exists, though there are many such instances in the framework, and very possibly some that we may have missed. To avoid this, we advise to make the framework more explicit and/or require that certain ordinances be drafted and then adopted at the same time as the comp plan, or that the comp plan be adopted contingent upon ordinances being adopted bran appropriate specified date. 4) Wooded areas. Forested areas in the city must be protected, as these enhance the value of our community greatly. The handbook contains some advice about this, but . there needs to be more language in the comp plan as well. Language in the document should reflect a wide variety of wooded areas, both of hydric and non -hydric soil types. Forested areas must be a part of a "Preservation Zoning District' (see recommendation #9) or similar protective land use strategy. The environmental board simply cannot accomplish these objectives adequately prior to the April 18, 2001 deadline, and advise an extension of this deadline to work on this and othercrucial areas following incorporation of these recommendations into the framework. 5) Transitions. Special consideration should be in the framework regarding interface areas (transitions between different land uses), particularly pertaining to cluster developments. 6) 50% upland preservation. Open space development that permanently preserves at least 50% of upland must be allowed in all rural areas unless there is a conflict with a stated city need or goal. In this case, residential development or the overall density thereof shall not be considered a city need or goal, meaning that the 50% open space requirement shall not be relaxed simply to accommodate more housing units. As we've stated elsewhere, this type of development is well suited near environmental features that need protection, but is also needed in other areas if we are to address the city goals of maintaining "rural character" and open space. 7) Wetland Protection. This matter needs additional support in the framework. More references to the city's "Local Water Management Plan" of 1994 should be incorporated. 8) Greenways. Greenways are not adequately defined in the framework. The framework itself states in several places that the greenways will be further defined when the environmental inventory is complete. Because this has since taken place, the greenways must be further defined immediately or it is highly unlikely that a meaningful and useful greenway system will ever become a reality. The framework does not call for upland preservation, excludes permanent open space (cluster) development from both the 2010 and 2020 growth areas, does not provide incentive to preserve any lands not already preserved by statute, and treats the greenways as merely an overlay district. Additionally, the framework's handling of the greenways defers all responsibility for establishing a greenway system to the creation and adoption of related ordinances, which would then be a contested issue of questionable outcome most likely not decided until after the 2001 elections. Also consider that recent projec' • Page 10 reviews have shown that the expense of providing both urban utilities and open space preservation has been perceived as objectionable by developers. The framework does allow for zoning of greenways, but in only one place (page 21 #5c). As the greenway areas depicted in the framework are overwhelmingly wetlands, the framework fails to address the city's needs for buffering, establishing "lake protection areas" (see handbook), protecting "high ecological value zones" (handbook), or preserving upland habitat. The Environmental Board advises the establishment of "The Preservation Zoning District" 9) The Preservation Zoning District The Preservation Zoning District will be created to address the city's needs for; • greenway corridors (depicted in the framework and in the handbook), • establishing "high ecological value zones" "high priority protection areas," and lake protections areas" (see handbook), • providing buffering around wetlands and other areas needing protection (see handbook), • upland habitat preservation, • diverse housing (as addressed in the framework on p4 #3). The primary land use within the Preservation Zoning District will be residential, of which 3 types will be allowed: a) Open space developments (possibly named as the "Conservation Cluster Development" zoning district, or CC), with a maximum overall density of 4 homes per 10 acres of upland. These will have a minimum of 50% of open space exdusive of slopes, wetlands. drainage ways. floodplains, etc. permanently preserved under a conservation easement or similar device, or as public park land, or both, b) Rural R , c) Estate lots (ES), permissible within the Preservation Zone only Within the current MUSA boundary. These developments must also set aside open space, but if a project meets a list of criteria (to be developed), the open space requirement may be less than 50%. Makeup. The Preservation Zoning District shall consist of two areas, the Protected Lands and The Incentive Zone. The Protected Lands. The Protected Lands shall consist of all areas exclusive of existing public lands that are slopes. wetlands, drainage ways, floodplains, etc., "high ecological value zones," lake protections areas," 200 ft wide buffers for wetlands, and other appropriate areas (see handbook for further clarification). These "protected lands" are vitally important to the ecological health within the city and shall not be developed. The Incentive Area. To make this a reality there must be incentives to developers, therefore an incentive area will be established. The incentive area shall be of sufficient size to contain • Page 11 an amount of upland equal to1.5 times the amount of upland in the protected lands, and should be placed so as to connect the protected lands. Boundaries And Configuration. The boundaries and configuration of the Preservation Zoning District are arrived at by simply combining the protected lands and the incentive area and then multiplying the combined acreage by 1.19 t� achieve the samel9% overage typical to other land use calculations in the framework. Preservation Mechanism. Development will be kept outside of the protected lands and confined to the incentive area via the purchase of development rights (PDR) or transfer of development rights (TDR,) also called for elsewhere in the framework, on page 21 policy 5d. Development Standards. In accordance with the lower densities in the Preservation Zone, as an aid to developers by reducing costs and making open space requirements more readily attainable, and to minimize impervious surfaces, a rural type road design will be utilized with a narrower width, narrower R.O.W., and no curbs. Ditches and surface water treatment systems (handbook) will be used in place of storm sewers to further reduce developer costs as well as minimize surface water degradation of our lakes and wetlands. Sanitation. The Preservation Zoning District will not require city sewer and water utilities. Alternatives to private septic systems such as are gaining prominence in conservation developments in Washington County (one type is the community wetland treatment system) will be encouraged. Housing Types. The Iots.within the Preservation Zoning District will be prime lots suitable for upscale housing should the city elect to bring housing diversity (as addressed in the . framework on p4 #3) and tax base relief to the city. Of course other types of housing could be built here as well. Implementation. Since most of these areas are currently zoned rural, the Preservation Zoning District (PZD) is quite simple to implement, and follows the RBR precedent. First, immediately rezone all these areas to PZD. Subsequently, the only rezone from PZD allowable outside the current MUSA boundary would be to CC, and the only rezones from PZD allowable inside the current MUSA boundary would be to CC or ES. Areas within the PZD that are within the current MUSA boundary and not zoned rural will keep their current zoning classification, and will be subject to a greenway overlay district, for which a set of requirements will be developed. The urban growth area will not intrude upon the Preservation Zoning District, and transition area standards will be developed within the urban growth area so that it is compatible with the Preservation Zoning District. Development within the Preservation Zoning District should be promoted by the city. • Page 12 Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 2 P9' A W N • • C Et • 0a t° a o,n' m a " 0 3 W D� o < n�i.i4 ro w m Q94 en C0 H m �� �3�0 2K. moo? a` 5m co i o. o to co 3o coa'OO in �"1 mc;c E mw ata'},-• 3 co c. a -7o K•7' 4r 8?? m a in m m o m 7^.. crawl S� 0 03 ��b a H m t° 00� -+ :m r mn gyms O = in = 9 m O to o O Z m .-. W 19 w N H m • in m a - ^ • d ^ _▪ . DI 7' 7 C 0 ■ .0. 7� OLaH d. Ct. in c = a 5-" 0. ft 0 9.1. -i 7 ? Z w X3°1 IcSoc- c 30 o.m m ? w ..... co cn El= o C? p ,11 S3 3 a' m w 0 go w O O 7 0 Ix a = a, s • m r'•0 'c o aw m m c'n m•0 g,O 13 0 m a w 9 m Pm a am q • n a r.�m m D - C (Dx a m �.a a1w. • 0)) * N �. O N 0. 0 7• =.. • cmQ =Lt m m m =.1n ao . m cm ;%• o en n: m % N Other (6) xi G Undeveloped Commercial and industrial (41 Developed Commercial and Industrial Residential Lots Less Than 5 Acres Parks C z a• VI 1 i 228.58 -a. 1-1 as En 6 4. N 301.45 -y aco N N N y N+ 1 830.10 0V p !D CI) v 9) W 01 ) CO 0 N 0 0) N 1,860.07 N ID 0)) to ~ - 0) W • N 7,721.22 Outside MUSA OD N J f0 Qom) O A O -.4 of W to 263.99 48.09 J D 0 -1 ui 492.31 C •••1 I1,774.58 00 ( 0* N 188.12 0, J C O on 0 532.88 • O) W N 01 (7* 14 V W - 0 11 0)) N V -► at V1 N :4 p. ...1 N O) W 96''S0'd ' 4286 S6S ZT9 JUN OE:9T 000Z- TO -01 -it ..1•• lite'1 • • Comprehensive Plan: it Plauacts and figures The proposed Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan update lias,prompted lively debate, and many questions. ' '., lithe weeks to come, the Lino Lakes Conununity Development staff will address some of the concerns. LN KES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MYTH OR REALITY? MYTH Residential :growth will eventually use up all the open space in Lino Lakes. MEL The proposed plan calling for "moderate" growth of. 147 .new homes per year would slow growth in Lino Lakes by 70 percentover the growth rate of the past seven years. The • population is now approximately 15,000. At full growth it is expected to be 20,500. Lino Lakes has 13,370 acres of land that:is open space (63% of the land area), and 5,827 acres are residential. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates using an.. additional 840 acres for new residential development over the next : 12 years; That leaves 12,530 acres that would still be • farms,,wetlands, parks and other types of open space. Writ The City.. has nothing to say about its future. The Metropolitan Council has already planned the city's growth. MA 1 ' The Metropolitan Council made forecasts for. • regional population growth and predicted that Lino Lakes • would'have25,000 people by 2020. The city decides its own future.; wiUi the'' Comprehensive Plan. The city has set its • population limit at 20,500 by 2020. • t ..1 . .:44;,•4,4 s+FN t.. J.., • .. . WM Residential growth will eventually use up all the open space in Lino Lakes. 4/27 -/Q B REALITY :, The Comprehensive Plan anticipates using an additional 840acres for new residential development over the next 12• years: That leaves 12,530 acres (60 %) that would still he farms, wetlands, parks and other types of open space. 1-144,4 p 3i / (4» I Q6tpt ouf.'(tate;fh Gyve el L :, Wie ` ` c ' 0 tin icto t z, j? 4 - ct)L Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 3 POPU LAT10N GROWTH 1SSU E The following quotation appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press dated April 9, 2001: "The map is familiar by now: census figures for the Twin cities shows a thin band of fast growth ringing the core cities and inner ring suburbs, cutting through communities such as Woodbury, Lakeville, Chaska, Maple Growve and Lino Lakes." Lino Lakes, of all places, the City that three years ago firmly rejected being told by the Metro Council what our share would be of the Metro's burgeoning growth. Instead, we chose to set our own pace and limits to growth. Perhaps no other Metro city worked harder to draw up its own guidelines. Finally, after a long and often contentious debate, city officials compromised on a scenario called "moderate" growth rate although some considered it to be too fast. This indecision caused the Comp Plan to be delayed long after the deadline set by the Metro Council. It still is unfinished and confusion over the growth part of the plan still lingers. There should have been no confusion as to the terms of the "moderate" growth rate because they were published by the City in the Quad Community Press in September 1998 (attached) . In brief, these figures claimed that by cutting back to 147 new homes per year the resident population by, the year 2020 would not exceed 20,500 and the open space so highly esteemed by most residents would be preserved. How then could a city so anxious to control its own destiny now be among the top five in the category of explosive growth in the 7- county Metro area? The official year 2000 census showed the Lino Lakes population to be 16,791 and still growing at a rate far in excess of the 147 stated in its growth formula. Now we have a new set of figures for "Myths and Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 4, page 1 of 2 • Reality ". The Myth is that we still can use the figure 147 homes per year and still come out according to the stated goal. The fact is that these two figures can not be used together. Simple Arithmetic shows that if the population was 16,791 in the_year 2000 and was growing at a rate.of -about 750 per year, you would have a population of about 1.7,550 one year later, 18,300 two years later, etc. The closer this figure comes to the goal 20,500, the fewer homes you can build per year and still stay within the goal. By next year, at the rate we now are growing, only 2,200 more people can be added before the goal is reached. Spread over the 18 years left before the year 2020, only 730 homes can be added (at 3 per home), an average of about 40 homes per year. • If the figure 147 units per year is used (441 new residents at 3 /home) and the number of people left before reaching 20,500 is in the order of 2,200, it would take only 5 more years to reach the stated limit. It is not good city management to reach max population too quickly and we believe much better, for many reasons, to spread growth out over long periods of time, thereby relieving stress on schools, transportation and other services. If the City authorized the building of 147 residences per year (the addition of 441 people annually at 3 per residence), the city would grow by 7,938 people in 18 years (by 2020) . If the City's . population were 18,300 in 2002 (as apparently it will be) then by 2020 the city's population would be 26,238. That would be 1,000 more people than the Metro Council had a ked for and the City objected to (4,500 more than found acceptable in 1998. This growth dilemma is self- imposed by the City. How to switch gears from fast to slow growth in time to preserve the stated goal will, we think, require a moritorium. We strongly oppose changing goals to a 110 higher level. .-10--0/ Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 4, page 2 of 2 May 3,1995 To: Growth Advisory Group From Environmental Advisory Group Subject: Midterm Forum, Your Questionnaire, and Which Way From Here? The mid -term forum presentations brought out a remarkable convergence of mission statements and goals, and a composite vision points at nothing less than a model city. Question: Is this vision attainable, or only a dream? Answer: Without controlled growth, the vision becomes only a dream. That is how our group sees the picture. While the five groups have been busy visioning, City officials have not been idle. They have made commitments with developers that will prevent the growth curve from leveling off for the rest of this century. By the year 2,000, instead of the 13,000 plus residents we now have, there will be several thousand more, crowded into our finite space called Lino Lakes. If economic development and infrastructure needs keep pace with residential development, questions about space become even more critical. Sustainability will become an early casualty; other visions will follow unless there is some way to stem the tide. The way to do so is recommended by our group: Don't expand beyond present MUSA boundaries or encroach on rural areas—at least until we know what we are doing. Your growth plan vision calls for "careful consideration of the costs and benefits to the citizens of Lino Lakes ", and we agree that this is a must. However, is this being done? Is your group or anyone else really probing in depth the costs and benefits to the average resident under various growth scenarios? Some people still believe in the formula "more roof tops equals lower taxes," despite studies in the Twin Cities area that refute this claim. Some of us can vouch for the fact that while roof tops in Lino Lakes have doubled, our taxes have climbed even faster. Others claim that you need more people to bring in more economic development. Undoubtedly that is true for some kinds of economic development, but is that the kind of industry or commerce.compatible with our visions? Furthermore, should taxes be the controlling force on how far we go toward fulfilling visions? ' Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 5, page 1 of 4 • May 3, 1995 To: Growth Advisory Group From: Environmental Advisory Group Subj: Mid -term forum, your questionnaire, and which way from here? Page 2 We agree that all groups must consider cost/benefit ratios in their planning, and we in the environmental group have done so. We think our goal of environmental sustainability falls well within fiscal restraints and that the limiting factor to success relates more to growth than to money. In your visioning statement under "Goal — Open Space," you ask "What's the real issue...do we want 25,000 people ?" We couldn't agree more. Everything we have seen where residents have responded to that question in one way or another indicates that residents want a small -town atmosphere. "Small town" doesn't translate to a certain number, but does convey the vision of most residents. They want lots of open space close to home. We think that's clear. Lino Lakes has a head start over most communities when it comes to open space. Large chunks of terrain already are dedicated to open space within our borders, through no acts of our own. Much of it would be built up by now, were that not the case. Regarding these open space "freebees" (to the City), the largest and most significant is the County park system, which provides many environmental features with little or no cost to the City. If Lino Lakes can define its own needs regarding open space, and the County agrees and cooperates, we are a long way along the road to sustainability.` The second major "freebie" comes in the form of wetlands, which are under State jurisdiction. Our challenge is not to shell out money, but to use the wetlands wisely and for the purposes for which each body of water or wetland is best adapted. Some wetlands would be excluded from public use. In others, motorized vehicles should be excluded. Knowledge, resolve, and rules—not money—are the ways in which to use such open space most efficiently. The third major "freebie" is the land zoned rural. If we stuck by today's zoning regulations, much open space would be preserved. The catch here is that developers shower farmers and other large landholders with incentives to put Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 5, page 2 of 4 May 3, 1995 To: Growth Advisory Group From: Environmental Advisory Group Subj: Mid -term forum, your questionnaire, and-which way from here? Page 3 pressure on City fathers to Ioosen:zoning regulations, bring in sewer and water, etc.—and City actions to date tend to support the developer. Instead, the City could recognize rural areas as an asset and attempt to retain them through appropriate incentives. If this is not done, the sustainability principle starts to fall apart, because without the city buying more land from neighboring communities there's no way to mitigate for the loss of rural open space. One type of incentive for preserving large blocks of open space on private lands for perpetuity is under the Statewide Land Stewardship Program. This provides attractive benefits which most of our residents *probably don't even know about. This program encourages people now on the fence about keeping their property intact an incentive to do so. The City's Park Program is primarily to serve recreational needs, but also provides open space free from development. Some industrial development, H. B. Fuller in Maplewood being an outstanding example, prides itself on the amount of open space it has preserved. Such industrial development should be encouraged. There are places that should be off limits to most people. Areas having rare fauna or flora and are sensitive to intrusion by people should be reserved for special studies or supervised visits. Likewise, certain archeological sites. Such areas need to be identified and clearly marked as off - limits to development. There will be cases where corridors not designated as official trails link key pieces of natural habitats, and some of these should have restricted access. Last, but not least, are the small open spaces along highways and among buildings. These are the places where residents spend most of their time, and hence are an important part of the landscape. This is where cluster development of businesses and residences comes into play. Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 5, page 3 of 4 May 3, 1995 To: Growth Advisory Group From: Environmental Advisory Group _ Subj: Mid -term forum, your questionnaire, and which way from here? Page 4 We believe that the following approach might have merit in deciding how growth of our City affects the average resident. As a starting point, assume conditions as they exist today. Then ask the question: "Would increasing the population level be a plus or a minus, so far as the average resident is concerned ?" In one column list factors that should be considered (such as life style, taxes, transportation and roads, open space and wildlife, crime, schools, etc). In a second column score the degree to which, in your unbiased opinion, the average citizen would be harmed or benefited using this rating system: 1) major benefit; 2) Minor benefit; 3) Little or no effect; 4) Minor harm; 5) Major harm. This analysis should indicate whether population growth—all things considered— is desirable or undesirable so far as the average resident is concerned. If costs (monetary and otherwise) exceed benefits, then the obvious direction to take is away from population growth to the extent possible. Another way to look at the problem is to look backwards and ask the question, "Am I better off today than I was ten years ago when the population was half as large," using the same items and rating system. Our dream of the future is for sustainability; i.e. no net loss of the desirable features of our environment. We hope that is your goal, too. Details on how to ' accomplish this need to be worked out, but we think we can see a cost - effective way of doing so. But the key is population growth, and whether the City is ready and willing to make commitments to the future that will make sustainability more than just a dream. We will consider the points raised in your questionnaire more carefully as we proceed, and would welcome, closer communication with your group. Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 5, page 4 of 4 • • Division of Forestry 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 (651) 772 -7925 / F: (651) 772 -7599 March 30, 2001 To: Fire Chiefs and Fire Marshals, Seven County Metro Area. From: Peggy Sand (Metro Region Forestry Manager) i Lillian Baker (Fire Management Specialist) _ �- 4T Re: Burning Permits for Prescribed Burning during D ' ' es N do eno This letter is to encourage you to issue a burning permit to qualified professionals for legitimate prescribed burning this spring. We acknowledge the local fire authority's right to be more restrictive than the Department of Natural Resources in issuing open burning permits on private land. We also realize that allowing some burning and not others, can create confusion and a large volume of calls to your city hall. However, because controlled burning is critical to certain vegetative management and can be done safely by qualified professionals, we encourage you to issue burn permits for this work, even if DNR spring restrictions prohibit debris burning and other burning by the general public. We are taking this position for the reasons and with the expectations listed below. Because natural fires no longer occur in suburban or urban areas, controlled burns are necessary to replicate the process. The prairie and savanna ecosystems that once covered about half of Minnesota have now been reduced to small fragments scattered throughout the state. Prescribed, or controlled, burns play a significant role in the development and long term health of these native plant communities. Under the right conditions, fire can improve wildlife habitat, reduce competition caused by volunteer trees and shrubs that are capable of invading prairie areas, and convert dead plant material into usable micronutrients in the form of ash. However, prescribed burns must be conducted by qualified professionals who use proven techniques, proper equipment, and adequate notification to local government. Professional prescribed burning requires that there be a) substantial experience in the safe and proper use of controlled burning for vegetation management, b) crew leaders who are trained and qualified, c) appropriate personnel protective equipment utilized, d) appropriate fire control equipment on site, e) effective smoke management, f) neighborhood notification, g) timely notification to local government offices and Fire Departments, h) a call to the Metro Forestry number one hour before lighting any fire and i) an annual report provided to Metro Forestry which includes at least the numbers of prescribed burns conducted and their acreage. Very few private companies meet these expectations. All state agencies are required to meet them. As always, in the event the DNR imposes an outright ban on all open burning including • campfires, even professional prescribed burning will be prohibited.