HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2001 Env Bd Packet•
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
Lino Lakes City Hall
June 27, 2001
6:30 PM
Agenda
1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM
2. Approval of Minutes (6:30 -6:35)
3. Approval of Agenda (6:35 -6:40)
4. Citizen Comments (6:40 -6:45)
5. Project Review
A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/ Update/Brian Wessel (6:45 -6:55)
B. 8075 20th Ave N. (6:55 -7:10)
C. Pinnacle Towers Update (7:10 -7:15)
6. Environmental Board Business
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan (7 :15 -7:30)
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 (7:30 -7:45)
C. EAW Comments/Target/Ryan (7:45 -8:00)
D. Shade Tree Ordinance/Tree Preservation/Discussion (8:00 -8:15)
E. Introduction/Michael Grochala/New Community Development
Director(8:15 -8:20)
7. Program/Project Updates (8:20)
A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface
B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates
D. Other Discussion Items
8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE : May 30, 2001
TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 10:03 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott
Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus.
MEMBERS ABSENT : None.
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development
Director Brian Wessel.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 28, 2001— The following corrections r sted:
Pagel, ninth paragraph: "Page 5, insert aft
Lots 37 -42, Block 1 appeared to have a sto
buffering."
raph: Trehus Kukonen stated that
noff problem, and recommended
Page 5, fourth paragraph: "T = s i cate there was no preservation in the plans and
that the area was currentl
n responded..."
Page 6, sixth paragraph: "Asle '.n indicated a compacted 600 -ft. buffer does not reduce
nutrient loading bounce, unless other alternatives are included such as cater columning
water treatment train practices.
Page 7, seventh paragraph: "The recommendations included staff recommendations,
curbs, gutters, and swales in the cul -de -sacs, the fact that the area was a high ecological
zone, buffers as stated in the plan Handbook 7.12, the encouragement to open up the
angle in the swale area,..."
Page 11, sixth paragraph: "The Saddle Club would be permanently rural after the Plan
Trehus moved to approve the March 28, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above.
Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
B. April 25, 2001— The following corrections were requested:
Page 3, sixth paragraph: "Kukonen inquired whether Target would be willing to use a
non - backlit logo like the Shoreview store.
Grundhofer moved to approve the April 25, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above.
O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the meeting agenda:
• Discuss population caps under section 6D — Donlin.
• Discuss communications with other bodies in the City section 6E — Trehus.
• Discuss pond contamination section 7D — Asleson.
The agenda was approved as amended above.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Brian Wessel Community Development Director for t
retiring in four months and that Michael Grochala would b
month overlap.
No other comments were made.
PROJECT REVIEW
tifie the Board that he would be
arcing next week, leaving a four-
A. Ryan/Target/Target Su s for pdate — Wessel noted the official name was the
Market Place Project, with it _ operational July 2002. The City Council decision
would be on July 23, 2001, an would be breaking ground in September. The June 13,
2001 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting would make a recommendation. On July 11,
2001 the Council would approve the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and begin a
30 -day reviewal process. He reviewed that the project included a Target, Kohl's, several
small business pads, and the wetland mitigation was moving ahead.
Chair Lanyon clarified the project would go to the Planning and Zoning Board before the
next meeting with the comments from the Board.
Asleson pointed out that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet would be a large
document when it was completed with responses from other agencies included in it. Mr.
Payton indicated the Environmental Assessment Worksheet consisted of their answers to
31 questions and was ready for distribution to the 25 agencies for the 30 -day comment
period. All comments needed to be addressed.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Donlin noted that the timing did not allow for much time for review or response. Mr.
Payton explained the document would be sent to the Environmental Quality Board on file
for comments on June 4, 2001. The City had two weeks for comments.
Trehus questioned if the Council was scheduled to vote on June 23, 2001 could the
Planning and Zoning Board address the project at the July meeting. Wessel answered the
document could go to the Planning and Zoning Board, then go to the Council directly.
Chair Lanyon inquired how the Board should comment. Wessel responded that the
project was important enough that another meeting might need to be called.
Trehus asked if review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet in June was possible
in view of the permitting schedule.
Chair Lanyon inquired if staff could find out when the Planning and Zoning Board would
deal with it.
Grundhofer noted one of the small businesses was to b convenience store, and asked if
that meant a gas station. Wessel explained that one u e a gas station, one a fast
food, and the other a bank. The developer had re ivd stro,'� terest in all of the
locations, but had no formal acceptance.
Trehus indicated in past proposals there h
asked about the change. Wessel responded
Drive with no direct access to 77th
Mr. Payton stated that June 1
most comments coming i
prepared by the develo
ndary access on to 77th Street and
were now two accesses to Lake
e beginning of the comment period, with
Wessel noted the City's comments were to be
He reiterated that the document was the City's.
Asleson pointed out a change '; '` "the plan included vegetative islands scattered throughout
the parking lot for infiltration.
Donlin questioned whether a vegetative plan had been submitted. Mr. Payton answered
that the scattered islands would have various small shrubs and grasses, and noted that
they would be similar to the plantings in the other areas.
Grundhofer asked if the ponds in the East still existed. Mr. Payton indicated the two
ponds in the east were now depressions for infiltration.
Trehus inquired if the Environmental Assessment Worksheet addressed the impact of the
impervious surfaces on the Chain of Lakes. Mr. Payton responded that it dealt with
various issues such as habitat and vegetation among others, but not the water table
because it was so complex. The typical runoff would flow out of a two -inch pipe, with a
6 -8 inch pipe for overflow.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Trehus posed the question of green parking and asked if other alternatives to asphalt had
been considered. Mr. Payton pointed out that Target had denied them as viable
alternatives.
Donlin stated that the environment would be altered. Grundhofer concurred that the
impact would be farther reaching than the Environmental Assessment Worksheet would
address.
Kukonen inquired if the Watershed District had commented on the project. Mr. Payton
responded that a 404 permit had been submitted, but that they were waiting for a
response.
B. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition/preliminary Plat — Asleson reviewed the
background information on the project. He indicated the tree inventory was incomplete
relative to the survey map. The water elevations remained unknown. If trees were
removed, there might be tree replacement. It was reco ded that a different type of
housing be considered.
Chair Lanyon noted there was confusion with the e inven on the large map, where
the trees were labeled as retained, however, a e , was ocated on top of those trees.
Mr. Cooper of TSL Development answered that thane trees were to be relocated on
site.
Grundhofer stated 1,113 were sav
short when counted. One of th
available, and the discrepanc
ordi to the literature, but the number was 95
wered that an updated tree inventory was
exp` "ained by some trees having multiple trunks.
Grundhofer indicated s e d the property and noticed there were more oak than
were denoted, she asked the r of trees less than 6 inches. One of the developers
responded an estimate would ..= 800 trees.
Mr. Cooper explained the trees 6 inches and larger were tagged as significant by the
survey crews and the landscape architect. Because there was no ordinance, knowledge of
other cities' ordinances were used as a guide, resulting in 637 oak trees being identified.
Chair Lanyon noted only trees in groups were relocated, and posed the question what
percentage survive transplanting. Asleson answered the loss could be 10 %.
Mach urged the transplanting of Oak over Pine because the natural ecosystem is Oak
Savanna.
Mr. Cooper indicated that 2 -inch oak trees could be transplanted, but not 6 inch.
4
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Kukonen inquired if the runoff problem present on the old plan was no longer an issue on
the redesigned plat. Mr. Cooper stated the configuration was redesigned because of the
wetland being nonexistent where one was thought to be, and the presence of a new
wetland, with the new plan there was zero impact on the wetland. The present plan was
in compliance with subdivision ordinances, and no variances would be sought.
Asleson noted in terms of groundwater elevations, the FHA states the bottom of the
houses had to be at least 4 feet, but the City zoning says 6 feet.
Donlin submitted the development was against the vision of the City, with its cookie
cutter plan, and speculations concerning the water levels and flood stages. Schmidt
disagreed that the water levels and flood stages were based on conjecture, indicating the
groundwater was measured at seven locations on site, and the elevations would
correspond to those numbers.
Asleson stated more trees could be lost if the soil was compacted. Mr. Schmidt indicated
there was a cash escrow for the trees requiring 4 hardwoo per lot, and that he would be
willing to try to save the Pin Oak. The spade to be use as a diameter of 90 inches. So
far, 40 Norway Pines have already been planted on
O'Connell indicated she had visited another d
and asked the name of the development. Mr. Sc
Gerard's, where 500 trees were moved, an
oble and 97th Avenue N.
explained the name was St.
trees mostly to wind damage.
Asleson expressed concern over t a, cut :, and indicated other areas developed
without clearcutting were Park heasant Hills, and Clearwater Creek. He
asked to be shown on the ma s � a ees ' ere not to be removed. Mr. Cooper pointed
out two areas.
O'Connell stated she observe . d mover was parked over many small trees, and
inquired if those trees were co r idered saved. Mr. Schmidt responded the area would be
set aside, with no traffic.
Mach asked what were the expenses incurred by the developer that would make it better
to grade the land than to work around the trees.
Mr. Schmidt indicated the loss of lots was the issue, because the number of lots makes a
development economically feasible.
Chair Lanyon pointed out the Southwest cul -de -sac on the plat tree map had about 7 trees
not located where the pad would be, and asked why those had to be removed. Mr.
Cooper answered it was a drainage issue, where the water would be trapped and would
not flow.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Trehus stated that the original recommendation from the Board was to work with staff
using conservation practices. Donlin concurred explaining the zoning and ordinances
were not what they should be, and expressed concern over the area being of high
ecological value.
Mr. Schmidt indicated he was working with the present zoning and ordinances and were
compliant.
Trehus inquired if there had been a response from the Watershed District concerning
runoff and surface water. Mr. Cooper responded that the appropriate forms had been
submitted and rates for stormwater had been approved.
Asleson explained the rates were inconsequential, the greatest impact was the water
volumes. He indicated the City could go beyond the standards of the Watershed District
in terms of water volumes. Discharged water was regulated by the MPCA.
Mr. Cooper noted there were flatter swales in the backyar of the lots. Mach mentioned
the vegetation in the swales was important.
Asleson pointed out the Watershed District used F e umbe uncompacted sandy
soils, and had concerns over the compaction. le w that a bobcat compacted
the soil 18 inches, and urged the plowing to restor:e soil. Mr. Cooper indicated he
planned to disc the area.
Asleson stated using a disc would
will probably be reworking the
adding a maintenance plan.
h, and explained the watershed district
the next tree to five years in addition to
Trehus reviewed the fin .i that ; cluded:
• The proposed developm not using conservation development principles.
• Significant tree loss could e avoided.
• The developer had not provided adequate information on surface water management.
Donlin inquired about the swale in the Southwest comer of the property and the
feasibility of a swale with the trees present. Mr. Cooper answered the area would be left
as it is presently.
Asleson indicated the native grasses had deep roots, and there have been studies that it
takes 70 years for the plants to recover if the soil is compacted.
Chair Lanyon reviewed the soil needs to be loosened so that the numbers in the model
being used work.
Mach added there should be an attempt to preserve the trees unless it needed to be graded.
6
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Chair Lanyon called for a motion. Trehus moved a recommendation to the Planning and
Zoning Board, and to the City Counsel that the present plat proposal be denied, and a
conservation approach be employed. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry /Apollo Dr. /Site Plan Review — Asleson reviewed the
background of the plan. The Dental Office seeks to build an expanded building to be
shared with another business. All water leaving the site flows to a pond across Apollo
Drive. There are staff recommendations for native plantings and because of the
imperviousness of the soils, the need to uncompact them. The plan denotes the planting
of Maples, however they tend to be invasive. There was also a need to be more specific
in terms of the ground level.
Kukonen inquired about the specifics on parking requirements and the need for so many
parking spaces. Asleson concurred that the standard recommendation for decreasing
impervious surfaces applies.
Chair Lanyon stated the lighting used should have no spil e and be a shoebox design.
Trehus pointed out according to page 8, the water
will double the present rate. Chair Lanyon agree
the increase in runoff.
going into the storm sewer
very concerned about
Asleson indicated the rates should not exc sent °tes, but the volumes are the
greater concern.
Chair Lanyon summarized the :. • F • ts:
• Need for more specificit a •un. cover and swales, in particular the use of
native plantings and t xnmi:; u of turf grasses.
• Concern over an actu in water runoff rates.
• Minimize impervious su , specifically a reduction in the number of parking
spaces.
• No spill lighting, for example shoebox -style lighting.
• Minimize or eliminate soil compaction.
Chair Lanyon called for a motion to pass on the recommendations of the Environmental
Board as stated above. Trehus moved to pass on the recommendations. Kukonen
seconded the motion.
Trehus stated a desire for a response to the recommendations, if they were addressed
adequately or a way to flag it. Asleson answered the reports were flagged.
Rob Rafferty of the Planning and Zoning Board indicated he received tidbits from the
minutes of the Environmental Board, but there was little time for review.
7
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Donlin inquired who indicated whether the concerns had been adequately addressed.
Asleson pointed out before the Planning and Zoning Meeting, he prepares a 1 -2 page
summary report which is then attached
Chair Lanyon reiterated the Planning and Zoning Board received the recommendations
from the Environmental Board. Mr. Rafferty mentioned there needed to be flags on the
issues of great concern.
Donlin submitted the recommendations could use red, yellow or green flags to indicate
the overall response of the Board.
Mr. Rafferty described the constraints of the codes, if the developers were compliant, the
recommendations could not be enforced but only encouraged. Trehus explained
depending on how the recommendations are processed, the impact could be minimal.
Mr. Rafferty lamented poor communications between boards. Asleson explained that the
time between submittal and reviewal could not be increas -q
Mr. Rafferty indicated the recommendations of the
across to the Planning and Zoning Board with an
usually came from the staff. Asleson answere
could be used with the flags.
ental Board do not come
act, b e best information
as ore time to prepare, GIS
Mach mentioned it was difficult to rememb picture when the Board was asked
to comment on a project by projec
Trehus urged the members o
Handbook. Donlin agree
the document.
frig "' d Zoning Board to read the Environmental
City had spent considerable money to produce
Asleson suggested the Enviro ental Handbook could be summed up by remembering
the three- legged stool model. There are ecological, economic, and cultural impacts to the
community, and eventually all are affected.
Chair Lanyon stated there was a need to focus efforts on changing the ordinances.
Kukonen indicated the need to work together to get the ordinances. Mr. Rafferty
concurred there needed to be a minimal level of acceptance.
O'Connell inquired about the townhouses on a recent development project which were
encouraged by the Environmental Board, but were rejected by the Planning and Zoning
Board. She was at a Planning and Zoning meeting and wondered how to address the
issue on behalf of the Environmental Board.
8
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
The motion concerning forwarding the recommendations of the Environmental Board to
the Lino Lakes Family Dentistry carried unanimously.
D. Land Holdings Group /12th and Holly/Preliminary Plat — Asleson stated there was no
tree inventory in the packet, he had spoke with several representatives with no response.
Chair Lanyon strongly urged the Planning and Zoning Board not to act on the project
until the tree inventory was submitted.
Trehus indicated that earlier recommendations needed to be forwarded again. Chair
Lanyon agreed and explained the recommendations needed to be in the development
agreement.
Mach commented on the tree inventory, and suggested a vegetative inventory should be
considered to preserve the entire ecosystem.
Chair Lanyon stated there were ways to make an impact e n without ordinances in the
area of native plantings.
Trehus pointed out even though the Planning an. o ng B as more visible to the
City Council, it did not have any more authors "'" En ronmental Board.
Trehus asked staff to please summarize th
motion to not approve the plat:
• The Board had a chance to rev e tre inventory and proposed vegetation.
• The past recommendations . ,a s 0% essed.
• Strong consideration ne * o : iven to the developers' attitude toward fulfilling
past promises to the idents G." 'ni Estates.
endations with teeth, and made a
Grundhofer seconded the mo � _ s otion carried unanimously.
Mach excused himself at 9:10 p.m. He returned at 9:12 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review/ Update/DNR Comments — Asleson indicated the
comments made by the DNR had been forwarded.
Donlin pointed out the desire for linking the comments of the Board to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Trehus indicated favorable response by the DNR to the 50% open space requirement.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
Chair Lanyon questioned how to explain the comments, besides merely forwarding the
responses of the DNR and Environmental Board with a request from the Board to request
to comment. Asleson answered staff and individuals on the Board could write a letter.
Mach submitted the Comprehensive Plan was the response. Chair Lanyon expressed the
concern the Board was not convinced it was having an impact on the City, boards, staff,
citizens and ultimately the environment.
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— O'Connell indicated that by her presence at the
meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board addressed the environmental issues more.
Trehus stated the Board should lobby for change, the Comprehensive Plan needed to have
favorable language to address future ordinances. He inquired whether the City's boards
had ever developed ordinances. Asleson answered the Board could develop ordinances,
but the City Council would have to pass them.
Chair Lanyon asked staff what would be the first ordinanc to work on. Asleson
responded the first should be a Conservation Subdivisi. Development Ordinance, which
would be in conflict with other ordinances already i
Trehus excused himself at 9:24 p.m. He retu
Grundhofer inquired about goal #6 if the : •eve as ed an ordinance, where would it
be sent. Trehus responded it would be sent ouncil.
Kukonen pointed out that he h ordinances of North Branch and Elk River,
but that they needed to be re
Chair Lanyon comment . - a1 #9 ould be the Environmental will be involved in
helping Council with the Co ensive Plan.
Donlin excused herself at 9:28 p.m. She returned at 9:30 p.m.
Mach stated under goal #2, the lakeshore associations, were a great tool for education and
enforcement through peer pressure, and that the homeowner associations could be too.
Chair Lanyon called for a motion to accept the modified goals. Trehus made a motion.
O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Rules of Order — Kukonen distributed a summary of the Rules of Order commonly used
to assist the Board in clarifying procedures.
D. Population caps — Donlin indicated the March minute numbers were incorrectly
reported. At the present time, the population had exceeded the 2010 goal. She stated the
caps were like targets, and identified the need to implement moratoriums automatically.
10
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
There needed to be a mechanism to force the City to stay within the set numbers. If there
was a mechanism to limit development, it would aid the rate of project reviews. Chair
Lanyon concurred there needed to be a mechanism to enforce the caps.
E. Communications with other bodies in the City — Trehus requested E- Mailing the
minutes to Board members after the City received them from TimeSaver Secretarial.
Chair Lanyon agreed and asked staff to check into getting the minutes to the Board
members right after they were prepared.
Trehus suggested appointing a recommendation reviewer, who would oversee the word
usage in the recommendations prior to forwarding them to someone else. That person
should also obtain the Planning and Zoning packets regularly to make sure they addressed
the Board's recommendations adequately. He volunteered for the position.
O'Connell had volunteered to go to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, but in the
future would probably stay only for the project reviews.
Asleson indicated someone could attend the work sess ' s on the Wednesdays before the
City Council meetings. The Park Board has an ong
on the agenda.
Chair Lanyon asked staff to obtain schedules f nin _ and Zoning Board meetings
and the work sessions, and try to get the Board on : agenda for updates. In addition,
Chair Lanyon expressed frustration on beh . - .the : . d. He urged staff to invite the
new Community Development Director to t�e eeting.
O'Connell stated she would lik z' t e ` ap of the minutes before the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting.
PROGRAM / PROJECT UP
A. Grant Updates — This item w ` tabled to the June 27, 2001 meeting.
B. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface — This item was tabled to the June 27, 2001
meeting.
C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the June 27, 2001 meeting.
D. Pond Contamination — Asleson stated he visited a site where there was a failed septic
system. The land is sensitive, and a nearby pond lab samples were being taken, and
tested at Interpol. The watershed district sent their biologist to investigate the problem. It
is a surface water quality concern as well as a health concern, because of the possibility of
waterborne E. Coli contaminating nearby wells.
11
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001
CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on June 27, 2001.
There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. Grundhofer seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Brigette Blesi
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
12
AGENDA ITEM 5B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asieson
DATE: June 27, 2001
TOPIC: 8075 20th Ave North
BACKGROUND:
Homeowner at 8075 20th Ave N. has made application to build a detached garage in a
drainage easement. GIS photos are attached. The lot is in a Lake Protection Zone, and
adjacent to Hardwood Creek. There are no High - Priority Vegetation Types. Vegetation
consists of reed canary grass. Part of the property on this lot is in the 100 -year flood
plane. There appears to be no National Wetland Inventory -on the site. Although there
are no NWI apparent on the site, vegetation indicates there could be wetland present.
Anoka County Soil Survey indicates non - hydric soils on the proposed building site. Soils
shape locations can have a degree of inaccuracy. Topography slopes to the Northwest.
Suggestions might be to check with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure no
wetlands are impacted. Without knowing the exact size of the garage, there could be an
issue with exceeding the allowable fill for wetland (if it is present) before mitigation is
required. Since this is a sensitive area, a suggestion would be to landscape for surface
water management of the additional impervious. I don't think this would be a major cost.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve with listed suggestions /additional Environmental Board suggestions
2. Recommend not approval
RECOMMENDATION: Option 1
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
t% Variance $ 250
•
Property Address 'S a %SS 2 D 4-1 4 U R., T}_ L;, Leer+ /4//0 S S a 3 S�
PIN #
Legal Description: Lot 1 Block 1 Addition
Existing Land Use Existing Zoning
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: a ,.,t,; l nQ c, 60.r -a5 e, _ N o G. -41-e.c,L,
4- O 40,4.4c. ,
. Applicant: Owner (if different than applicant):
name 5c,t, S . L . name
address $ *0`73 Zo1-L. A- 4.t. "7 • address
L_;;,..)," L kts ,A1^) S■So3
phone 4bv- '7 d2--91-T4 phone
fax fax
m
to
IL
O
CERTIFICATE
�— lZ ON t JIy 31b1S 'OOR
•
en,
2 9100.10N
.00'0991 f
77
0
" \
\
x`7 \
7 / \
\ 8 yam'
��\
N \
(bbty,..
.£f,6L p —
S4'Sff - 1 o
3:row,soN -a.�, e
3.£S,ZOXON
1-
O
C
3
>T
0
3
U
0
0
N
.0.
LJ
W
0.
5 .0
P c
v�
W`
O 0
m m
w .
K p
a�
5 it
z
t.23
fic
Zz en
'O
wzn
v22N
�xam7
DOU
=mcc0
W _:ZOO
property line
property line
z
RECEIVED
JUN 0 6 2001
CITY OF LIDO LAKES
•
III MEEMBIFFIliiiniC;
ill •
ILI
Orgligfir. illirl _,,,.,
hi Eming.„,:lrogerr, e-''.
miim _
‘iiralliPN .1 L. III 0111111kTrwl
ICIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIFINIIII illaill1111E-L'';'',
Illiv111111111Ellip
riw,ri■ -11vommilir- 11111■111W1
..12,.....
InkTall ..........
Ail/ iillha 5111111.1=1167,41
'igkmtieZillei . . A- -111111
1W11144,61.7": illellaikill-1111:11111
4111 filaWiliEL - i-- ... EMIR
111 •Edisapri iiiiiarilailelimar
•..
!mar ini , JEW 'I !!!!!LIIII
aq:Iromm, initteasti4L;p741,40.1
, a
ni TV 41.11111P"- . An02111111i
l"
airr Alhe eir-' .mr mar
, . :
...: 1:=,,
.0 o '0 d 0 rD N M2tZ- V r 0M
'C 0 'O
r r r r N N N N N N N N N N 2 N N M C M M
11111111 1_
gt in In AD CD
1
111
0
N
ti
O
co
•
1
•
•
00
00
1
Lc)
0
00
i
CD
N (/)
ti
O
co
0
z
a)z•
›- .u)
" 0
(i)
� U
-L.
(n -0
U =
-0
o
Iz.
•
0
N
ti
O CO
.� s
U)
-
CD
0
43 >1
o v
CO INN
CD
>C1)
Environmental Board Goals 2001
GOAL #1. Educate developers about the benefits of including prairie gardens in
their landscape designs.
Potential Activity – Provide developers with the opportunity to see examples of
blooming prairie gardens and to talk with the people who "maintain" them.
GOAL #2. Increase citizen understanding and appreciation Lino Lakes' unique
environmental qualities.
Potential Activities — create a web site
Pilot Restoration Project
Update Environmental Board Packet
Encourage landscaping companies to advertise in city
Investigate possibility of using the "City Wagon"
Work with Homeowners Associations to educate and implement sound
conservation practices.
GOAL #3. Identify and pursue preservation of, unique environmental assets of
the
city.
Potential Activity -- Promote the preservation of the property located on the north
side of Lino Lakes Elementary.
GOAL #4. Restructure monthly meetings to preserve 50% (one hour) of the
meeting
to advance our proactive goals.
Potential Activity — assign responsibilities (e.g., tree preservation, buffers) to
individual board members
GOAL #5. Increase communication with analogous units in other metro -area
cities
to avoid "re- inventing the wheel" and to look for collaborative opportunities.
Potential Activity — develop a list of cities that have groups focused on the
environment
Host a social event that brings these groups together to share ideas, goals, and
experiences.
GOAL #6. Investigate and promote the possibility of developing a conservation
development ordinance for the city.
Potential Activity —get examples of such ordinances from other cities.
GOAL #7. Develop and implement a strategy to obtain more resources (staff and
financial) to enable' the city to establish itself as the leader in the metro area
in terms of development that is both economically and environmentally
intelligent.
GOAL #8. Communicate more regularly, and more directly, with City Council.
GOAL #9 Assist the City Council with the Comp Plan
•
•
Memo
Environmental
Agenda Item 6D
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: June 27, 2001
Re: Tree Preservation Planning
The purpose of this agenda item is to review past and recent tree regulation efforts in
the City of Lino Lakes. Included with this review are several documents.
Ordinance NO 15 — 90, City Of Lino Lakes 1007. Shade Tree Ordinance, was
approved by the City Council on March 25th, 1991. Staff member Marty Asleson
wrote Ordinance NO 15 — 90, with citizen input from a council approved Shade Tree
Ordinance Review Committee. The Shade Tree Ordinance Review Committee
consisted of one member from the Economic Development Committee, one member
from the Park Board, one member from the Design Review Committee, Staff
member Marty Asleson, and the Mayor. Ordinance 15 — 90 was one of the first
attempts in the Twin Cities at regulating development practices around tree and
forest areas.
After several Shade Tree Ordinance Review Committee meetings, the Draft Shade
Tree Ordinance and binding Tree Preservation Policy and Guidelines were
presented to the City Council on March 11, 1991 for consideration. Please note that
first reading discussion talks about section 1007.12, having to do with Protection of
Trees. This section refers to a tree preservation plan to be submitted by all
developers, builders, and soil disturbance project areas. This is the only section of
the ordinance that refers to trees other than public trees. This reading of ordinance
15 -90 was approved.
The second reading of Ordinance 15 — 90 occurred on March 25th, 1991. The
City Council approved the second reading of the Shade Tree Ordinance at this
meeting and the ordinance went into effect On March 25th 1991.
• Page 1
•
The same year, a "Builders Day" was held. All builders, developers, board and
elected officials, and staff were invited to this meeting. The meeting was well
attended. As part of this meeting, the new Shade Tree Ordinance and Tree
Preservation Policy was introduced.
The main issue in 1990 that prompted staff to pursue a Shade Tree Ordinance and
Preservation Policy was concern for tree disease control, and building and house
construction practices that slowly or sometimes rapidly killed trees on new
construction sites. Homeowners pay higher prices for wooded lots, and were rapidly
loosing their invested dollars because of construction practices. The secondary
reason for tree preservation was to, as best as possible, develop a plan that
maximized the overall number of trees in a development area in order to maintain the
cultural and environmental characteristics of areas of the City (neighborhoods).
Staff and the Shade Tree Ordinance Committee considered a Tree Preservation
Ordinance instead of a policy. It was decided the policy, bound into effect by the
Shade tree ordinance, gave the City the flexibility needed to effectively accomplish
the goals of Tree Preservation. Much concern was expressed for individual property
owner rights.
The Shade Tree Ordinance of 1991 has been enforced for 10 years. The
procedures are easy to understand. Developers must present a tree preservation
plan as part of the development approval process. Builders must submit a tree
preservation plan before they are issued a building permit. The process of tree
preservation planning must begin in the initial concept and grading plan
development. The same is true for any of the other resource and ecological
preservation issues. After an overall Tree Preservation Plan is accepted by the City,
Developers are not allowed to disturb the ground until all tree preservation plan
elements have been implemented, such as protective fencing installment.
Once a development area is roughed in, developers either start building houses
and /or business buildings themselves or by selling Tots to builders. In the case of
residential developments, usually there is a person (future resident) that has
purchased a lot and contracted to build a house with builder. The focus from this
point on becomes that of the new residents' investment. Builders are required to
submit a tree preservation plan before a building permit is let. The plan is usually
submitted on a certificate of survey. The survey certificates have elevations written
on them. Like development preservation plans, the builders must locate all
significant trees on the site, construction plans, an indication of tree save /removal
trees, fencing and signage areas, access points, utility access areas, other tree save
procedures that may be unique to each site, and most importantly the name and
phone number of the house buyer (new resident). Most important, because the
trees belong to the new resident, the resident has made an investment. Most
residents are unaware of what construction can do to their trees. Almost all of them
• Page 2
•
know which trees they want and which trees they do not want. All of them appreciate
the information given to them to ensure that the trees they do want stay healthy.
Developers are required to escrow dollars at the time of final plat approval for tree
preservation. This covers staff time for review and quality control inspection.
A few years ago, the City began working on Town Center and commercial
development. The McDonald's site presented the question of tree replacement
requirements. The nature of the McDonald's project and overall project in the NW
quadrant of Lake Drive and I -35W presented the loss of many trees on one part of
the development, and the desire to maintain the natural character of the area by
replacement tree requirements.
Tree replacement is not addressed in the 1991 Tree Preservation Policy, except in
terms of the replacement of damaged, killed, or irresponsibly removed trees in "save
tree" areas. Reasons at that time for not including tree replacement were those of
negotiation vs. requirement, the staff time needed to track tree replacement, and the
added costs to development (with the fear of property owners clearcutting their
property to avoid tree replacement).
The new Tree Preservation document proposed recently was initially intended to
take another look at incorporation of tree replacement as part of the requirement, and
update the language of the policy to that which would reflect the goals and polices of
the Handbook For Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. Keep in
mind that the proposal was to be in ordinance form. Our Management Plan for
conservation development consistently addresses the need to work with developers
in striking a balance between environmental, cultural, and economic issues.
Flexibility in planning is the only way this can be accomplished. Without a
conservation development ordinance, and under standard zoning rules, this was
thought to be a way to maintain the cultural nature of the natural environment. What
happened? Developers reacted negatively to a proposed forced cost. A legal
opinion was rendered concerning off -site tree replacement that advised against it.
Off -site replacement was considered because if in ordinance form, a developer was
required to replace trees with no room to do so, the trees would have to placed
somewhere.
The new ordinance does very well in lying out the elements of conservation
development in regards to tree resources. You will find flexibility in the language and
much work was done to incorporate the goals and polices of the management plan
into the ordinance. The procedures and philosophies of the original ordinance are
not changed in this ordinance in regards to residential property owner rights.
Negotiation, in regards to tree resources and all resources, may still be the best
approach to resource preservation /conservation regardless of whether we are using
PUD, a Conservation Development Ordinance, or Standard Zoning Planning.
• Page 3
Included here is the Administrative Section of the Zoning Code that states that
"Development shall be permitted only in such a manner that the maximum number of
trees shall be preserved. It shall be the duty of the person seeking approval to
demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees
on the site."
• Page 4
Effective May 1, 1991, The City of Lino Lakes has put in
place a Tree Preservation Plan designed to reduce damage and
the spread of tree disease through excavation and home
construction. The following are some guidelines to follow
before you start your construction:
1. A tree preservation plan must be submitted and
reviewed with the owner and City Forester at the time
of rough staking of the house.
2. Indicate significant trees or groups of trees (save
islands) .
3. Indicate fencing locations around tree areas to be
saved. Fencing must extend out to the dripline of
large trees.
4. Indicate the type of warning signage (tree protection
zone) that will be placed around the perimeter of the
tree preservation area.
5. Indicate where utilities will extend into the house.
The Forester would prefer that utilities are grouped
into one alley.
6. Indicate working "envelope" around house. Clear area
where equipment will be working. This should not
exceed 15'.
7. Indicate where stockpiled material will be placed.
8. Indicate the removal methods if during the months of
May or June, and indicate how Oak Wilt will be
prevented, if in the woods.
9. All protective measures must be implemented prior to
soil disturbance.
•
KEY
DRIVE
R.O. GROUP
- _T ' 6= V=F- - -
1 105.0C
10.0 DRIVEWAY
.17.0
GARAGE
24.
5
CH - CHERRY
R.O. - RED OAK
W.O. - WHITE OAK
A - ASH
ILO
8.0
15 FOOT WORKING ENVELOPE
FENCING & WARNING SIGNAGE
UTILITY ALLEY
STOCKPILE PERIMETER
TREE TO BE REMOVED
34.35
PROPOSED
HOUSE
40.0
24.0
W.O. GROUP
10.0
•
0130
COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 11, 1991
feasibility may be updated so that construction can start
earlier. However, it is necessary for the Council to order plar
and specifications this evening in order to move the improvement
along at a faster rate. Mr. Schneider recommended that the
Council order plans and specifications this evening contingent
upon completion of the developer's agreement and contingent upor
the developer providing a petition waiving 50 of the 60 waiting
day period.
Council Member Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 19 - 91 and
Resolution No. 24 - 91 as recommended by the Mr. Schneider.
Council Member Bohjanen seconded the motion. On a roll call
vote, motion carried with Council Member Kuether abstaining.
Resolution No. 19 - 91 and Resolution No. 24 - 91 can be found a
the end of these minutes.
PARK BOARD REPORT
FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 15 - 90 Regulating the Planting,
Maintenance and Removal of Trees and Shrubs in Public Streets an
Other Municipal Property - Mr. Volk explained that the Council
saw a draft of this ordinance on October 8, 1990. Basically the
ordinance describes what residents can and cannot do with trees
on public property. Mr. Volk noted Section 1007.12 PROTECTION C
TREES. This section refers to a tree preservation plan to be
submitted by all developers, builders and soil disturbance
project area facilitates. This plan must agree with the City of
Lino Lakes Tree Preservation Administrative Guidelines Policy.
This is the only section in the ordinance that refers to trees
other than public trees. A committee was formed to review the
original draft and a few minor changes were made.
Council Member Reinert referred to Section 1007.10 PUBLIC TREE
CARE and asked if any standards were being written regarding tre
care. Mr. Volk explained that prior to any tree care or
maintenance, a permit must be obtained. At that time the City
would review with the property owner how the concern must be
handled. Mr. Volk also noted that a Tree Preservation Policy is
being developed and this policy addresses maintenance of trees.
Council Member Reinert moved to approve the first reading of
Ordinance No. 15 - 90 and dispense with the reading. Council
Member Neal seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, motion
carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 15 - 90 can be found at the end of these minutes.
FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 05 - 91 Amending the City Code by
Changing the Park Dedication Fee - Mr. Volk explained that park
PAGE 8
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEETING REMINDER
THE LINO LAKES SHADE TREE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE IS
COMPRISED OF ONE MEMBER FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE - ONE MEMBER FROM THE PARK BOARD - AND ONE MEMBER
FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OF THE
CITY FORESTRY DEPARTMENT AND THE MAYOR.
THERE WILL BE A ONE TIME (HOPEFULLY) MEETING OF THIS NEW
COMMITTEE ON MONDAY NIGHT - DECEMBER 17TH - IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL AT 7:00 PM.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING.
****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Section 5. Administration.
Subdivision 1. Administrator. The office of the zoning official is hereby established; the zoning
official shall be appointed by the government body and serve at its pleasure.
Subd. 2. Duties of the Zoning Official. The zoning official shall enforce the provisions of this
ordinance as provided herein; in addition to the duties and powers of the zoning official under this ordinance, express or
implied, he shall have the duty and power to:
(1) Issue permits required by this ordinance.
(2) Conduct inspections of land, buildings or structures at reasonable times, to determine
compliance with and enforce the provisions of this ordinance.
(3) Perform annual and/or periodic review of all conditional use permits.
(4)
(5)
Maintain all records necessary for the enforcement of this ordinance; including, but not
limited to, all maps, amendments, rezonings, and conditional use permits, variances,
appeal notices, certificates of occupancy, and applications therefor, nonconforming uses.
Receive, file and forward all appeals, notices, applications for variances, conditional -use
permits, certificates of occupancy, or other matters to the appropriate officials or boards.
(6) Institute in the name of the city any appropriate actions or proceedings to enforce this
ordinance.
(7)
Serve as ex- officio, non -voting member of the planning commission.
(8) To perform all duties set forth in job description.
Subd. 3. Amendments and Rezonings. In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota statutes, the
city council may from time to time amend the zoning ordinance or zoning district map (rezoning). Amendments may be
initiated to the text by council, planning commission, property owner, or resident.
follows:
•
The procedure for an amendment to the zoning ordinance or zoning district Map (rezone) shall be as
(1)
(2)
Persons wishing to initiate an amendment shall fill out a "Zoning Form" and be
accompanied by a fee as required in Section 9 of this ordinance to be used for the costs
of processing the application. The Zoning Form shall be filed with the zoning official.
Property owners or occupants within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any property
proposed for zoning district amendment (rezoning) shall be notified in writing, although
failure by any property owner to receive such notification shall not invalidate the
proceedings. Notification shall be by registered mail.
(3) All requests for amendments shall be referred to the planning commission for review and
recommendation to city council.
(4) Site and building plans consistent with the requirements established in Section 5, Subd. 4
shall be provided prior to planning commission review. This requirement may be
waived if rezoning can be accommodated without review of a specific proposal.
(5) Upon review of the application, the planning commission shall make a report and
recommendation to the city council.
(6) A public hearing on the rezoning application shall be held by the planning commission
or council.
(7) Notice for the purpose, time and place of such public hearing shall be published in the
official newspaper of the city and mailed to the appropriate property owners at least ten
days prior to the public hearing.
(8) The city council must take action on the application within sixty (60) days following
referral by the planning commission. The person making the application shall be
notified of the action taken. Such action may consist of approval, denial, or referral back
to the planning commission. Any action should be accompanied with reasons for action
taken.
(9)
No application for rezoning which has been denied shall be resubmitted for a period of
twelve (12) months from the date of said order of denial unless all reasons for denial, as
outlined by the city council, have been satisfied.
Subd. 4. Site and Building Plan Review.
(1)
General. All structures, except single - family dwellings, two - family dwellings and their
accessory buildings, to be constructed in the city shall require site and building plan
approval by the planning commission and city council before a building permit may be
issued by the zoning official.
(2) Applications. Applications for site and building plan review shall be filed with the
zoning official and shall be accompanied by:
An application fee in an amount equal to that required in Section 9 of this ordinance.
Ten copies of site and building plans and supporting data shall be provided. The following information shall
be provided:
(A) A site plan at a suitable scale (no greater than 1" =100' or no less than 1/4" =
1'), and indicating:
(i) Existing topography having a contour interval of no greater than 2
feet.
(ii) Suggested plans for proposed storm water drainage system
sufficient to drain and dispose of all surface water accumulation
within the area, indication of sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric,
etc., easements, and written notifications that they have been
reviewed by the city engineer for feasibility purposes.
(iii) Clear delineation of all streams, water bodies, and wetlands
including depth of water, 100 -year high water mark and DNR
classification.
(iv) Landscape plans including species and size of trees and shrubs.
(v)
•
Locations of all buildings, recreation areas, utility and service
areas, access drives, parking areas, storage areas, existing and
proposed utility lines, and easements.
(vi)Soil type and soil limitations for the intended use are to be noted. If severe soil limitations for the intended
use are noted, a plan or statement indicating the soil conservation
practice or practices to be used to overcome said limitation shall
be made part of the application. (See restrictive soils ordinance)
(vii) Location and description of all other site improvements including fences, walls, signs, lighting,
walkways, patios, decks, and barriers.
(viii) A clear delineation of all areas to be paved or surfaced, including a description of
surfacing material to be used.
(ix) The planned use of all yards.
(B) Building plans for all structures including:
(i) The size, alignment and intended use of all structures.
(ii) Preliminary architectural plans for proposed buildings complete
with exterior finishes and including floor plans and elevations.
(3) Review.
(A)
(iii) These plans shall also indicate unit sizes, ratios of dwelling unit to
total lot sizes and parking spaces.
(C) The timing of the construction proposed.
(D) Any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of
the zoning official and/or planning commission determines is necessary for the
review of the project.
The zoning official shall forward copies of the application and site and building plans to
the planning commission, staff, consultants and governmental agencies for
review and recommendations.
The planning commission shall perform a review and recommend approval or disapproval to city council.
They may also suggest such conditions as they deem necessary to the approval
of the site and building plans. The planning commission review will then be
passed on to the city council for review and approval or disapproval.
(B) The report of the planning commission shall be placed on the agenda of the city council
at its next regular meeting following referral from the planning commission.
(C)The city council must take action on the application within 60 days after receiving the report from the
planning commission. All development, construction and use shall be in
accordance with the approved plan, unless a revised plan is submitted and
approved. Any development contrary to the approved plans shall constitute a
violation of this ordinance.
(4)Design Standards. Plans which fail to meet the following standards shall not be approved.
(A) The action shall be planned, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid
substantial probabilities of:
(i)Unnecessary detraction from the appearance of the surrounding area or the city as a whole.
•
(ii)Aesthetic incompatibility.
(iii) Noise incompatibility.
(iv)Traffic pattern incompatibility.
(v)Accelerated erosion.
(vi)Unnecessary loss of existing natural features (vegetation, steep slopes, wetlands, water bodies).
(vii) Increased flood potential.
(B)No development shall be allowed which will result in unusual maintenance or repair costs of roads, parking
areas or utility lines.
ORDINANCE NO 15 -90
CITY OF LINO LAKES
1007. SHADE TREE ORDINANCE
1007.1 PURPOSE
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE, AND
REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, AND OTHER
MUNICIPAL OWNED PROPERTY: ESTABLISHING A SHADE TREE BOARD
AND ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF FORESTRY AS THE AGENCIES
PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PLANTING,
MAINTENANCE, AND REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN PUBLIC
PLACES: PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUING OF PERMITS FOR THE
PLANTING, MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN
PUBLIC PLACES: PROVIDING FOR THE PRUNING AND REMOVAL OF
TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY:
PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ALL POLICY
CONCERNING SHADE TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, PROVIDING FOR
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF CARE PROTECTION POLICY
CONCERNING SHADE TREES IN SUBDIVISION PROPERTIES PROVIDING
FOR STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CARE PROTECTION POLICY
CONCERNING SHADE TREES IN LAND DISTURBANCE AREAS.
1007.2 SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Shade
Tree Ordinance of the Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of
Anoka, State of Minnesota.
1007.3 DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of the Ordinance the following terms, phrases
words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given
herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used
in the present tense include the future, words in the plural
include singular, and words in the singular include the
plural.
I. Municipality is the City, of Lino Lakes, County of
Anoka, State of Minnesota.
II. Forestry Department is the department of parks,
recreation and forestry.
III. Municipal Arborist is the Municipal Arborist,
Forester, Tree Warden, or other qualified designated official
of the Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of
Minnesota, assigned to carry out the enforcement of this
Ordinance.
IV. Person is any person, firm, partnership,
association, corporation, company, or organization of any
kind.
V. Street or Highway means the entire width of every
public way or right -of -way when any part thereof is open to
Page 1
the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
VI. Park shall include all public parks having
individual names.
VII. Public Places shall include all other grounds owned
by the Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of
Minnesota.
VIII.Property Line shall mean the outer edge of a street
or highway.
IX. Treelawn is that part of a street or highway, not
covered by sidewalk or other paving, lying between the
property line and that portion of the street or highway
usually used for vehicular traffic.
X. Public Trees shall include all shade and
ornamental trees now or hereafter growing on any street or
any public areas where otherwise indicated.
XI. Large Trees are designated as those attaining a
height of forty -five (45) feet or more.
XII. Medium Trees are designated as those attaining
a height of thirty (30) to forty -five (45) feet.
XIII.Small Trees are designated as those attaining
a height of twenty (20) to thirty (30) feet.
XIV. Principal Thoroughfare shall mean any street upon
which trucks are not prohibited.
XV. Property Owner shall mean the person owning such
property as shown by the County Auditor's Plat of Anoka
County, State of Minnesota.
1007.4 CREATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY TREE BOARD
There is hereby created and established a City Tree Board for
the City of Lino Lakes, State of Minnesota, which shall
consist of the seven (7) members - the Park Board.
1007.5 TERMS OF OFFICE
The persons to serve as Shade Tree Board Members shall serve
concurrently with their appointed Park Board Membership term.
1007.6 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The duties of said "City Tree Board" shall be as follows:
To study the problems and determine the needs of the
Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of
Minnesota, in connection with its tree planting program.
To recommend to the proper authority, the type and kind of
trees to be planted upon such municipal streets or parts of
municipal streets or in parks as is designated.
To assist the proper officials of the Municipality of Lino
Lakes, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, as well as the
Council and citizens of the municipality, in the
dissemination of news and information regarding the
selection, planting, preservation and maintenance of trees
within the corporate limits, whether the same be on private
Page 2
or public property, and to make such recommendations from
time to time to the Municipal Council as to desirable
legislation concerning the tree program and activities for
the municipality.
To provide regular and special meetings at which the subject
of trees insofar as it relates to the municipality may be
discussed by the members of the City Tree Board officers and
personnel of the municipality and its several divisions, and
all others interested in the City Tree Program.
1007.7 OPERATION
The Board shall choose its own officers, make its own rules
and regulations and keep a journal of its proceedings. A
majority of the members shall be a quorum for the transaction
of business.
1007.8 APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
FORESTER
The Municipal Forester shall be appointed by the City
Council, Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State
of Minnesota. Upon satisfactory completion of a six (6)
months probationary period the forester shall be appointed as
lone as he /she satisfactorily performs the duties of his
office. The forester shall be skilled and trained in the
arts and sciences of municipal arboriculture, and shall hold
a college degree or its equivalent in arboriculture,
ornamental or landscape horticulture, urban forestry, or
other closely related field.
1007.9 SALARY
The Municipal Forester shall receive a salary commensurate
with his training and experience as full compensation for all
services rendered and in lieu of all fees.
1007.10 DUTIES
The Municipal Forester shall have the authority to promulgate
the rules and regulations of the Arboricultural
Specifications and Standards of Practice governing the
planting, maintenance, removal, protection, fertilization,
pruning, and bracing of trees on the streets or other public
sites in the municipality, and shall direct, regulate, and
control the planting, maintenance, and removal of all trees
growing now or hereafter in any public area of the
Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of
Minnesota. He /she shall cause the provision of this
Ordinance to be enforced. In his absence these duties shall
be the responsibility of the Assistant Forester designated by
the municipality.
Page 3
1007.11 AUTHORITY OF THE MUNICIPAL FORESTER
I. The Municipal Forester shall have the authority and
jurisdiction of regulating the planting, maintenance, removal
of trees on streets and other publicly owned property to
insure safety or preserve the aesthetics of such public
sites.
II. SUPERVISION. The Municipal Forester shall have the
authority and it shall be his duty to supervise or inspect
all work done under a permit issued in accordance with the
terms of this Ordinance.
III. CONDITION OF PERMIT. The Municipal Forester shall
have the authority to affix reasonable conditions to the
granting of a permit in accordance with the terms of this
Ordinance.
IV. MASTER STREET TREE PLAN. The Municipal Forester
shall have the authority to formulate a Master Street Tree
Plan with the advice, a hearing, and approval of a Shade Tree
Board. The Master Street Tree Plan shall specify the species
of tree to be planted on each of the streets or other public
sites of the municipality. From and after the effective date
of the Master Street Tree Plan, or any amendment thereof, all
planting shall conform thereto.
A. The Municipal Forester shall consider all existing and
future utility and environmental factors when recommending a
specific species for each of the streets and other public
sites of the municipality.
B. Amend. The Municipal Forester, with the approval of
the Shade Tree Board, shall have the authority to amend or
add to the Master Street Tree Plan at any time that
circumstances make it advisable.
V. The Municipal Forester shall have the authority to
enforce ordinance No. 18 - 87 of the City of Lino Lakes
concerning Tree Disease Control.
VI. The Municipal Forester shall have the authority to
enforce the standards and specifications of care policy for
building sites.
1007.12 PERMITS REQUIRED
I. PLANTING MAINTENANCE. OR REMOVAL
A. No person shall plant, spray, fertilize,
preserve, prune, remove, cut above ground, or otherwise
disturb any tree on any street or municipal -owned property
without first filling an application and procuring a permit
from the Municipal Forester or otherwise specified municipal
authority. The person receiving the permit shall abide by
the Aboricultural Specifications and Standards of Practice
adopted by the Municipal Forester.
II. PLANTING
A. Application Data. The application required herein
shall state the number of trees to be set out; the location,
grade, species, cultivar or variety of each tree; the method
of planting; and such other information as the Municipal
Page 4
Forester shall find reasonable necessary to a fair
determination of whether a permit should be issued.
B. Improper Planting. Whenever any tree shall be
planted or set out in conflict with the provisions of this
section, it shall be lawful for the Municipal Forester to
remove or cause removal of the same, and the exact cost
thereof shall be assessed to the owner as provided by law in
the case of assessments.
III. MAINTENANCE
A. Application Data. The application required herein
shall state the number and kinds of trees to be sprayed,
fertilized, pruned, protected, or otherwise preserved; the
kind of treatment to be administered; the composition of the
material to be applied; and such other information as the
Municipal Forester shall find reasonable necessary to a fair
determination of whether a permit should be issued.
IV. REMOVAL REPLANTING AND REPLACEMENT
A. Wherever it is necessary to remove a tree or trees
from a treelawn in connection with the paving of a sidewalk,
or the paving or widening of the portion of a street or
highway used for vehicular traffic, the municipality shall
replant such trees or replace them. Provided that conditions
prevent planting on treelawns, this requirement will be
satisfied if any equivalent number of trees of the same size
and species as provided for in the Arboricultural
Specifications are planted in an attractive manner on the
adjoining property.
B. No person or property owner shall remove a tree
from the treelawn for the purpose of construction, or for any
other reason, without first filing an application and
procuring a permit from the Municipal Forester, and without
replacing the removed tree or trees in accordance with the
adopted Arboricultural Specifications. Such replacement
shall meet the standards of size, species, and placement as
provided for in a permit issued by the Municipal Forester.
The person or property owner shall bear the cost of removal
and replacement of all trees removed.
1007.13 PUBLIC TREE CARE
The City shall have the right to plant, prune, maintain,
remove, or perform any other Arboricultural practices as
decided necessary within the lines of all streets, alleys,
avenues, lanes, squares and public grounds, as may be
necessary to insure public safety or to preserve or enhance
the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds. No other
planting may be done without consent of the City Forester.
The City Tree Board may remove or cause or order to be
removed, any tree or part thereof which is in an unsafe
condition or which by reason of its nature is injurious to
sewers, electric power lines, vas lines, water lines, or
other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious
fungus, insect or other pest. The City Tree Board shall
Page 5
notify affected property owners of removal or trimming to be
done and give the property owner the option to complete the
work by contract with a City- approved tree contractor. Under
certain conditions, e.g., emergency situations, the City may
complete the work without prior notification to the property
owner.
Every tree overhanging any street or right -of -way within the
City shall be pruned so that the branches shall not obstruct
the light from any street lamp or obstruct the view of any
street intersection and so that there shall be a clear space
of eight feet (8') above the surface of the street or
sidewalk. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees, broken or
decayed limbs which constitute a menace to the safety of the
public shall be removed. The City shall have the right to
prune any tree or shrub on private property when it
interferes with the proper spread of light along the street
from a street light or interferes with visibility of any
traffic control device or sign.
The minimum clearance of any overhanging portion and twelve
(12) feet over all streets except truck thoroughfares which
shall have a clearance of sixteen (16) feet.
1007.14 ABUSE OR MUTILIZATION OF PUBLIC TREES
Unless specifically authorized by the Municipal Forester, no
person shall intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, or
remove any tree; attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising
posters, or other contrivance to any tree, allow any gaseous
liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to
come in contact with them; or set fire or permit any fire to
come in contact with them; or set fire or permit any fire to
burn when such fire or the heat thereof will injure any
portion of any tree.
It shall be unlawful practice for any person, firm, or City
department to top any Street Tree, Park Tree, or other tree
on public property without authorization from the City
Forester.
Topping can be defined as severe cutting back of a branch to
a stub.
1007.15 PROTECTION OF TREES
All trees on any street or other publicly owned property near
any excavation or construction of any building, structure or
street work, shall be guarded with a good substantial fence,
frame, or box not less than four (4) feet high and eight (8)
feet square, or at a distance in feet from the tree equal to
the diameter of the trunk in inches D.B.H., which ever is
greater, and all building material, dirt, or other debris
shall be kept outside the barrier.
No person shall excavate any ditches, tunnels, trenches, or
lay any drive within a radius of ten (10) feet from any
public tree without first obtaining a written permit from the
Municipal Arborist.
Page 6
All builders in new housing projects shall submit a tree
protection plan to the City to be reviewed as part of their
normal building permit procedure. This plan must be approved
by the City Forester or Assistant in accordance with the
standards and specifications for tree care section of this
Ordinance, and physical barriers installed before any
construction of said building or house proceeds. The tree
protection plan much cover all areas of preventing
construction dama7e including the designation of utility
alleys, cut and fill areas, tree felling, tree wounding, tree
protection zones, and disease control, and any other areas
thought to be necessary by the City Forester. No person
shall deposit, place, store, or maintain upon any public
place of the municipality, any stone, brick, sand, concrete,
or other materials which may impede the free passage of
water, air, fertilizer to the roots of any tree growing
therein, except by written permit of the Municipal Forester.
All development subdivisions must submit a tree preservation
plan in accordance with the City of Lino Lakes Tree
Preservation Policy adopted by the City.
All new building project sites must submit a tree
preservation plan in accordance with the Tree Preservation
Policy adopted by the City.
1007.16 VIOLATION AND PENALTY
Any person violating any provisions of this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
1007.17 LEGALITY OF ORDINANCE AND PARTS THEREOF
Should any section, clause, or provisions of this Ordinance
be declared by the Courts to be invalid, the same shall not
affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or parts
thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.
1007.18 EMERGENCY
This Ordinance is
necessity for the
safety, and shall
after its passage
hereby declared to be of immediate
preservation of public peace, health, and
be in full force and effective from and
and publication as provided by law.
Page 7
Passed this day of , 19
Signed this
day of , 19
Harold L. Bisel, Mayor
Attest:
Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer
Page 8
C IT'Y CE 'LINO
AIME
U R E3
TEMERV 'EON
ROMJC (
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this article is to preserve and protect
significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land
disturbances would affect the character of neighborhoods,
subdivisions, public or semi- public projects.
II. APPLICABILITY
This article shall apply to any person that would disturb land
areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in
neighborhoods, subdivisions, public and semi- public projects such
as streets, utilities and parks whether disturbed by a public
agency or private developer; except where the City council may
waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need
for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A
public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The
property owners within 350 feet of the site shall be notified at
least 10 days before the hearing. The terms and provisions of Tree
Preservation in the Administrator Standards section of the City
Tree Ordinance apply to all activity which required the issuance of
a Land Disturbance Permit.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. All words in these standards have their customary
dictionary definition except as specifically defined herein. The
words "shall" and "should" are permissive. Technical terms used in
this manual are defined in Appendix A.
1. Buildable area - The portion of a lot which is not located
within any minimum required yard, landscape strip /area, or buffer;
that portion of a lot wherein a building may be located.
2. City Forester - The agent of the City of Lino Lakes
assigned to the Forestry Department and having the primary
responsibilities of administration and enforcement of the Tree
Preservation Guidelines.
3. Crown dripline - A vertical line extending from the outer
surface of a tree's branch tips down to the ground.
4. DBH - Diameter -at- breast - height is a standard measure of
tree size, and is a tree trunk diameter measured in inches at a
height of 4 1/2 feet above ground. If a tree splits into multiple
trunks below 4 1/2 feet, then the trunk is measured at its most
narrow point beneath the split.
5. Land Disturbance Permit - An official authorization issued
by the Forestry Department, allowing defoliation or alteration of
the site, or the commencement of any construction activities.
6. Protection Zone - All lands that fall outside the buildable
area of a parcel.
7. Specimen Tree or Stand - Any tree or grouping of trees
which has been determined to be of a high value by the City
Forester because of its species, size, age, or other professional
criteria.
8. Structure - Anything manufactured, constructed or erected
Page 1
•
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including
portable structures.
9. Tree - Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a
single woody trunk, and a potential DBH of 2 inches or more.
10. Tree Preservation Policy - Approved and adopted by the
City of Lino Lakes Council to regulate and provide standards and
guidelines for the preservation of trees through development and
construction process within the City of Lino Lakes.
11. Woodlot - A treed area of at least one -half acre of which
at least 25% of the area includes large trees.
IV. PROCEDURES. (Summarized in Figure 1.)
A. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must
save signified or specimen trees. The City Council may require
Rezoning and Special Use Permits.
1. The City Forester will conduct a preliminary review of all
Rezoning cases and Special Use Permit applications.
2. A field review of select cases will occur under the
following conditions:
a. For community unit plans, and major development cases.
b. Other cases as determined necessary by the preliminary
review.
3. Conditions to rezoning will be applied where determined
necessary by the preliminary review. These conditions may either be
general, or specific in nature, and will reflect the standards or
provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
4. The City may reduce the maximum allowed density on that
part only of the development that has significant trees, where such
reduction would save all or part of such significant trees.
However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the
minimum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67% of the
allowed density in the City's land use plan for multiple dwellings.
The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square
feet for single dwellings. Any Required Significant Trees: The
City Council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of
townhouses, quads, apartments or similar uses, where it is
necessary to preserve significant trees.
5. Compliance to these conditions will be verified by review
of a revised site plan prior to the issuance of a land disturbance
permit.
B. Developments shall be designed to preserve large trees and
woodlots, where such preservation would not affect the public
health, safety or welfare. The City may prohibit removal of all or
part of a woodiot or stand of trees subject to the limitations in
Section 3. In addition, nothing in this article shall prevent
building on an existing lot of record, provided that such building
shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. This decision
shall be bases on, but not limited to the following criteria:
1. Size
2. Species, health and attractiveness of the trees including:
Page 2
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
a. sensitivity to disease
b. life span
c. nuisance characteristics
d. sensitivity to site grading
3. Potential for transplanting
4. Need for thinning a woodlot
5. Effect on the functioning of a development
C. Land Disturbance Permit
1. A tree protection plant shall be submitted with other permit
drawings as part of the Building Permit process. An application fee
shall be established by the City Council by resolution from time -
to -time. This plan may either be a separate drawing, or part of the
landscape plan, and shall include the following information:
a. Definition of spatial limits
1. Limits of land disturbance, clearing, grading and
trenching
2. Tree protection zones
3. Specimen trees or stands of trees.
B. Detail drawings of tree protection measures (where
applicable)
1. Protective tree fencing
2. Tree protection signs
2. These plans shall be reviewed by the City Forester for
conformance with Tree Preservation Standards and Administrative
Guidelines, and will either be approved, or returned for revisions.
Reasons for denial shall be noted on the tree protection plan, or
otherwise stated in writing.
3. Issuance of the Land Disturbance Permit is contingent upon
approval of the tree protection plan.
4. City Staff may submit the plan to a consulting forester for a
recommendation. Any costs shall be paid for by the developer or
builder.
5. All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to land
disturbance, and inspected by the City Forester.
6. The City Forester will conduct follow -up site inspections for
enforcement of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and its
Administrative Standards.
7. If any significant tree in development or building site is cut,
damaged or the area within the tree's dripline has been encroached
upon by grading equipment without City authorization, the City may
require planting of two new trees. In addition, if the City
determines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it shall
be removed by the developer.
a. Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in
species, shall maximize the use of species native to the area,
shall not include any species under disease epidemic and shall be
hardy under local conditions. Trees shall be at least 2 1/2 inches
in diameter for deciduous trees and eight feet tall for coniferous
trees.
b. Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they
Page 3
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
die or appear to be dying within one year of planting by the person
responsible for the planting.
c. Before any construction or grading takes place, snow
fencing or erosion control fencing shall be placed around the
borders of woodlots of the driplines of large trees to be
preserved. Signs shall be placed along this fence line prohibiting
grading beyond the fence line.
SECTION V. TREE AND SITE RELATED DISTURBANCES
A. Tree protection zones, specimen trees or stands of trees
designated to be saved must be protected from the following damages
which may occur during all phases of land disturbance and
construction processes. Methods of tree protection and disturbance
prevention are provided in Section IV.
1. Direct physical root damage
2. Indirect root damage
3. Trunk and crown disturbance
B. Direct physical root damage most frequently occurs during -s -ite
clearing and grading operations, where transport or feeder roots
are cut, torn, or removed.
1. Transport and feeder roots tend to tangle and fuse among
the roots of adjacent trees. The removal of trees with heavy
machinery along the outer periphery of a tree save area.
2. The most substantial form of root damage for all root types
occurs in the form of cut roots. Roots are cut in grade reduction,
or from trenching for underground utilities, sanitary sewer, or
storm sewer lines.
3. A more subtle type of root damage is the loss of feeder
roots. Feeder roots normally occur within the organic layer, and
the surface four inches of top soil, subsequently, these roots can
be easily damaged by the track action from a single bulldozer pass.
The stripping of top soil within a tree's critical root zone can
totally eliminate its feeder root system.
C. Indirect root damage through site modification can result from
positive grade changes, temporary storage of fill material, the
sedimentation of erosion materials, soil compaction, and soil
chemical changes.
1. Positive grade changes from fill and sedimentation causes
a decrease in soil oxygen levels. An increase in soil carbon
dioxide and other toxic gases can also occur, leading to large
areas of anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic soil conditions cause a
decrease in the root respiration process which is essential for the
uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients.
2. Anaerobic soil conditions are also,produced by soil
compaction, the increase in soil bulk density with a decrease in
soil spore space. Compacted soil is also impervious to root
penetration, and thus inhibits root development. Soil compaction is
generally caused by the weight and vibrations of heavy machinery,
vehicle parking, and the storage of fill and /or construction
Page 4
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
materials within the critical root zones of trees.
3. Changes in soil chemistry will adversely affect tree
survival. The moist frequent occurrence is the change (decrease) in
soil acidity by concrete washout. Most trees native to Anoka County
area prefer slightly acid soils; concrete residues are highly
basic. The leakage or spillage of toxic materials such as fuels or
paints can be fatal for trees.
D. Trunk and crown disturbances are generally mechanical in
nature and are either caused directly by clearing and grading
machinery, or indirectly by debris being cleared and falling into
trees marked for protection.
1. Common forms of damage include stripped bark and cambium,
split trunks, and broken limbs.
2. Damage also occurs from the posting of signs such as
building permits, or survey markers on trees.
3. Indirect damage can be caused by the placement of burn .
holes or debris fires too close to trees. The possible range of
damages include scorched trunks with some cambial dieback, the loss
of foliage due to evaporative heat stress (leaf desiccation), and
completely burned trunks and crowns.
SECTION VI. METHODS OF TREE PROTECTION
A. Planning and considerations. Tree space is the most critical
factor in tree protection throughout the development process. The
root system of trees can easily extend beyond the dripline of the
tree canopy (Figure 3). The root system within the dripline region
is generally considered to be the critical root zone. Disturbance
within this zone can directly affect a tree's chances. With
reference to root zones, the following standards shall apply:
1. The use of tree save islands and stands is encouraged
rather than the protection of individual (non - specimen) trees
scattered throughout a site. This will facilitate ease in overall
site organization as related to tree protection.
2. The protective zone of specimen trees or stands of trees or
otherwise designated tree save areas shall include no less than the
total area beneath the tree(s) canopy as defined by the farthest
canopy dripline of the tree(s). In some instances, the City
Forester may require a protective zone in excess of the area
defined by the tree's dripline.
3. Layout of the project site utility and grading plans should
accommodate the required tree protective zones. Utilities must be
placed along corridors between tree protective zones.
4. Construction site activities such as parking, material
storage, concrete washout, hole placement, etc., shall be arranged
so as to prevent disturbances within tree protective zones.
5. No disturbance shall occur within the protective zone of
the specimen trees or stands of trees without prior approval by the
City Forester.
B. Protective Barriers
Page 5
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
1. Active protective tree fencing shall be installed along the
outer edge of and completely, surrounding the critical root zones of
all specimen trees or stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree
protective zones, prior to any land disturbance.
2. These fences will be a minimum four (4) feet high. Four
feet orange polyethelyne laminar safety fencing is acceptable.
(Figure 4.)
3. Passive forms of tree protection may be utilized to
delineate tree save areas which are emote from areas of land
disturbance. These areas must be completely surrounded with
continuous rope or flagging (heavy mil - minimum 4" wide). All
passive tree protection must be accompanied by "Keep Out" or "Tree
Save" signage. (Figure 5.)
4. All tree protection zones should be designated as such with
"Tree Save Area" signs posted visibly on all sides of the fenced
area. These signs are intended to inform subcontractors of the tree
protection process. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and
compliance with tree protection standards are recommended for site
entrances.
5. All tree fencing barriers must be installed prior to and
maintained throughout land disturbance process and building
construction, and should not be removed until landscaping is
installed.
411 C. Encroachment. Most trees can tolerate only a small percentage
of critical root zone loss. If encroachment is anticipated within
the critical root zones of specimen trees, stands of trees, or
otherwise designated tree protective zones, the following
preventive measures shall be employed:
1. Clearing activities: Roots often fuse and tangle amongst
trees. The removal of trees adjacent to tree save areas can cause
inadvertent damage to the protected trees. Wherever possible, it is
advisable to cut minimum two (2) foot trenches (e.g. with a "ditch -
witch") along the limits of land disturbances, so as to cut, rather
than tear roots. Directionally felling trees outward into
disturbance areas and grinding stumps is also acceptable.
2. It is very strongly suggested that all clearing in oak
stands be done before May 1st and after July 1st of each season.
This will help to keep the inadvertent wounding of trees with the
consequential spread of oak wilt. If clearing has to be done at
this time, all stumps and wounded trees shall have the wood areas
painted thoroughly with a tree paint. Should oak wilt get started
as a result of construction during the months of May and June, then
the developer /builder shall pay for all additional oak wilt control
measures needed to control the disease. This is in accordance with
the City of Lino Lakes disease control ordinance number 15 -90 •
5. Where the City Forester has determined that irreparable
damage has occurred to trees within tree protective zones, they
must be removed and replaced.
Page 6
•`�^.��
-°_ -
-_ • ''
Is%
•
•
- •c• •••••••-• •
••
-
/^CRlTlCAL ROOT RADIUS
�
~
'CRITICAL ROOT ZONE WITHIN THE DRIP-L{NE
ACTUAL FEEDER ROOT SYSTEM EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE DRlP-LlNE
FIGURE - TYPICAL CRITICAL ROOT 7O0�
' �. -_'^ ~.^^ `^^``- `"^". ^-".r_
�
^
•
•
TREE FENCING
Snow Fencing
4` High, Orange,
Polyethylene
Laminar
Safety Netting.
2" x 4" POST 1.
1 1" X 4" RAIL
FIGURE 4
ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING
MINIMUM 1 ", HEAVY MILL. PLASTIC, DARK LEE TER I NG ON BRIGHT BACKGROUND,
CONTINUOUS
PASSIVE PROTECTION WITH ROPE AND SIC -NAGE
FIGURE S. PASSIVE PROTECTION DETAIL
•
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
APPENDIX A. TECHNICAL TERMS
1. Cambium - Tissue within the woody portion of trees and
shrubs which gives rise to the woody water and nutrient conducting
system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees.
2. Cambial dieback - The irreparable radial or vertical
interruption of a tree's cambium, usually caused by mechanical
damage, such as "skinning bark "; or from excessive heat.
3. Coniferous - Belonging to the group of cone - bearing
evergreen trees or shrubs.
4. Critical root zone - The rooting area of a tree
established to limit root disturbances. This zone is generally
defined as a circle with a radius extending from a tree's trunk to
a point no less than the furthest crown dripline. Disturbances
within this zone will directly affect a tree's chance for survival.
5. Deciduous - Not persistent; the shedding of leaves
annually.
6. Feeder roots - A complex system of small annual roots
growing outward and predominantly upward from the system of
"transport roots ". These roots branch four or more times to form
fans or mats of thousands of fine, short, non -woody tips. Many of
these small roots and their multiple tips are 0.2 to lmm or less in
diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the
major fraction of a tree's root system surface area, and are the
primary sites of absorption of water and nutrients.
7. Major woody roots - First order tree roots originating at
the "root collar" and growing horizontally in the soil to a
distance of between 3 and 15 feet from the tree's trunk. These
roots branch and decrease in diameter to give rise to "rope roots ".
The primary function of major woody roots include anchorage,
structural support, the storage of food reserves, and the transport
of minerals and nutrients.
8. Root collar - The point of attachment of major woody
roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the groundline and
associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk.
9. Root respiration - An active process occurring throughout
the feeder root system of trees, and involving the consumption of
oxygen and sugars with the release of energy and carbon - dioxide.
Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport of minerals
and nutrients essential for tree survival.
10. Rope roots - An extensive network of woody second order
roots arising from major woody roots, occurring within the surface
12 to 18 inches of local soils, and with an average size ranging
from .25 to 1 inch in diameter. The primary function of rope roots
is the transport of water and nutrients, and the storage of food
Page 7
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
reserves.
11. Soil compaction - A change in soil physical properties
which includes an increase in soil weight per unit volume , and a
decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated
vibrations, frequent traffic and weight. As related to tree roots,
compacted soil can cause physical root damage, a decrease in soil
oxygen levels with an increase in toxic gasses, and can be
impervious to new root development.
12. Transport roots - The system for framework of tree roots
comprised of major woody roots and rope roots.
APPENDIX B
1. A tree's ability for adequate root development, and
ultimately its chances for survival, are improved with reclamation
of the growing site.
a. Wherever possible, the soil should be brought back
to,its natural grade. Unnecessary fill, erosion sedimentation,
concrete washout, and construction debris should be removed. When
machinery is required for site improvement, it is recommended that
a "bob -cat" or similar lightweight rubber tire vehicle be used so
as to minimize soil compaction.
APPENDIX C CHECKLIST FOR TREE PROTECTION PLAN REVIEW
CONTACT THE CITY OF LINO LAKES FORESTRY DEPARTMENT AT 464 -5562 FOR
A SITE INSPECTION UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION.
1. Tree Protection Plans
a. Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be,
as minimum, in conformance with the requirements of the City of
Lino Lakes Tree Preservation Section of the Tree Ordinance.
b. A tree protection plan shall be submitted either as
part of the landscape plan, or as a separate drawing to include the
following:
1.( All tree protection zones
2.) Approximate location of all specimen trees or
stands of trees
3.) Approximate location of all specimen trees when
their preservation is questionable, or might result in a change of
the site design
4.) Indicate those specimen trees to be removed.
Removal of specimen trees is subject to City Forester approval
5.) Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as
grading, trenching, etc. where these disturbances may affect tree
protection zones
6.) Proposed location of underground utilities
7.) Methods of tree protection shall be indicated
for all tree protection zones, aeration systems, staking, signage,
etc.
Page 8
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
8.) The plan should indicate staging areas for
parking, material storage, concrete washout, and debris burn and
burial holes where these areas might affect tree protection
c. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree
protection plans and grading plans in large letters:
A. Contact the City Forestry Department at 464 -5562
to arrange a pre- construction conference with the City Forester
prior to any land disturbance.
B. All tree protection measures shall be installed
prior to soil disturbance
Page 9
FILL
2:1 SLOPE
1
1
1
UT
DESIRED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE ;_,,,�,
CRITICAL ROOT ZONE
I TERRACING FOR
GRADE. CHANGES
1
EXISTING GRADE
r 1E
s I DESIRED GRADE aid' RETENTION W
nom" FOR GRADE CE
r. ` 7,51[ .rrp•�
CRITICAL ROOT ZONF
FIGURE 10 GRADE CHANGES
FIC-i1RE 12 FOR PPTECTIa1 FPM TREK D `"AGE
LAW OFFICES OF
Burke and }Hawkins
SUITE 101
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA 55433
PHONE (612) 784 -2998
JOHN M. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
August 10, 1990
Mr. Marty Asieson
Lino Lakes City Hail
1189 main Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Marty:
I have reviewed the revised Tree Ordinance, Administrative
Standards and Tree Removal Agreement. I find them to be in
proper legal form and would recommend their adoption if so
desired by the City Council.
cerel
iliam G. Hawkins
WGH:mk
CITY OF LINO LAKES
1189 MAIN STREET
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55014
464 -5562
APRIL 1990
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
BY
LINO LAKES FORESTRY
APPROVED BY THE. CITY COUNCIL
PART III
ARBORICULTURAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
I. ARBORICULTURAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE.
The Municipal Forester shall have the authority to promulgate
the rules and regulations of the Arboricultural
Specifications and Standards of Practice governing the
planting, maintenance, removal, fertilization, pruning, and
bracing of trees on the streets or other public sites in the
municipality.
A. Policy.
1. All work on public trees shall comply with the "Municipal
Tree Ordinance" of the Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of
Anoka, State of Minnesota.
2. The Arboricultural Specifications and Standards of
Practice shall be adhered to at all times, but may be
amended at any time that experience, new research, or laws
indicate improved methods, or whenever circumstances make it
advisable, with the approval of the Shade Tree Commission.
3. The policy of the Department of Parks and Street Trees
shall be one of cooperating with the public, property owners,
other municipal departments, and appropriate not - for - profit
organizations at all times.
4. No trees shall be removed from public places unless they
constitute a hazard to life or property, a public nuisance,
or because a revision of planting plans necessitates.
5. No trees shall be removed from private places in soil
disturbance areas for new development and building permit
ares without conforming to the Tree Preservation Section of
these specifications and Standards of Practical Portions of
the Shade Tree Ordinance.
B. Species, Cultivars, or Varieties.
1.' The Municipal Forester shall prepare lists of trees
acceptable for planting in the public sites of the
Municipality of Lino Lakes, County of Anoka, State of
Minnesota. Undesirable trees shall not be recommended for
general planting and their use, if any, shall be restricted
to special locations where, because of certain
characteristics of adaptability or landscape effect, they can
be used to advantage.
2. Only desirable, long -lived trees of good appearance,
beauty, adaptability, and generally free from injurious
insects or disease shall be planted in public sites. The
Shade Tree Commission, in conjunction with the Municipal
Forester, shall review at least once every two (2) years the
species, cultivars, and varieties included on the approved
list to determine if any should be removed for any reason or
if certain new species, cultivars, or varieties of proven
dependability and value should be added.
i
•
•
3. Where street blocks have been assigned a particular
species or variety on the Master Street Tree Plan, only these
shall be planted subject to revision by the Municipal
Forester and approval by the Shade Tree Commission.
C. Planting.
1. SIZE
a. Unless otherwise specified by the Municipal Forester, all
medium to large deciduous tree species and their cultivars
and varieties, shall conform to American Association of
Nurserymen Standards and be at lease 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches in
diameter six (6) inches above ground level, and at least
eight (8) to ten (10) feet in height when planted. The crown
shall be in good balance with the trunk.
b. All small deciduous tree species and their cultivars or
varieties, shall be at least five (5) to six (6) feet or more
in height and have six (6) or more branches.
2. Grade
a. Unless otherwise allowed for specific reasons, all trees
shall have comparatively straight trunks, well developed
leaders and tops, and roots characteristic of the species,
cultivar, or variety showing evidence of proper nursery
pruning. All trees must be free of insects, diseases,
mechanical injuries, and other objectionable features at the
time of planting.
3. Location and Spacing
a. Based on a 40 year cycle, no tree which will attain a
trunk diameter greater than twelve (12) to fifteen (15)
inches shall be planted in a treelawn less than three (3) to
five (5) feet in width. In treelawns less than three (3)
feet in width, or where overhead lines or building setback
presents a special problem, the selection of site and species
shall be determined by the Municipal Forester easement rights
to plant beyond the sidewalk on private property. Such
easements should contain provisions granting the municipality
permission to select, plant, maintain, and remove such trees
under the direction of the Municipal Forester.
b. Where there is a treelawn less than three (3) feet in
width, legal steps should be taken to obtain easement rights
to plant beyond the sidewalk on private property. Such
easements should be taken to obtain provisions granting the
municipality permission to select, plant, maintain, and
remove such trees under the direction of the Municipal
Forester.
c. Trees shall be planted at least thirty (30) feet from
street intersections and at least fifteen (15) feet from
driveways and alleys.
d. No tree shall be planted closer than ten (10) feet of a
utility pole.
e. Spacing of trees should be determined by the Municipal
Forester according to local conditions, the species,
cultivars, or varieties used, their mature height, spread,
and form. Generally, all large trees shall be planted forty
(40) to sixty (60) feet on center; all medium -sized trees
shall be planted a minimum of thirty -five (35) feet on
center; and all small trees shall be planted a minimum of
twenty -five (25) feet on center.
f. All planting on unpaved streets without curbs must have
the special permission of the Municipal Forester who shall
determine the tree's location so it will not be injured or
destroyed when the street is curbed and paved.
4. METHODS OF PLANTING AND SUPPORT
a. Most small deciduous trees may be moved bare - rooted
unless otherwise indicated. Roots of bare - rooted trees
should be protected against drying out.
b. All coniferous trees shall be moved balled and burlapped.
Balled roots should be prevented from drying out at the
surface of the ball and protected against injurious freezing.
c. Pits dug for planting of bare -root plants shall be a
minimum of twelve (12) inches larger in diameter than the
diameter of the root system so as to be of sufficient size to
accommodate the roots without crowding. For balled trees,
the pits shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches larger in
diameter than the diameter of the ball of soil to allow
proper backfill.
d. Plants shall be planted no deeper than previously grown,
with due allowance for settling.
e. In poorly drained soil, artificial drainage shall be
provided to properly drain the soil about the plant roots or
tolerant species selected.
f. Existing, indigenous soils shall be placed about the
roots or in the back -fill around the ball.
g. Postponed until the following growing season.
h. Trees shall be suitable wrapped and guyed, or supported
in an upright position, according to accepted arboricultural
practices. The guys or supports shall be fastened so they
hey will not girdle or cause serious injury to the tree or
endanger public safety.
D. Early Maintenance
1. General
a. Newly planted trees require special attention to
maintenance practices during one or two growing seasons
following planting. All maintenance practices shall follow
approved aboricultural standards.
2. Watering
a. Ample soil moisture shall be maintained following
planting. A thorough watering each five (5) to ten (10)
days, depending on soil type and drainage provisions, is
usually adequate during the growing season. A soil auger or
sampling tube is used to check the adequacy of moisture in
the soil ball and /or backfill.
3. Fertilization
a. Provision of good drainage and adequate moisture of the
•
backfill, and the soil ball of balled plants, is more
important than fertilization immediately following planting.
However, adequate quantities of the essential nutrient
elements should be available after new growth starts.
4. Insect and Disease Control
a. Measures for the control of insects and diseases shall be
taken as shown necessary by frequent and thorough
inspections.. Plants in a weakened condition following
transplanting are -often more susceptible to insects,
especially borers, and some diseases than are vigorously
growing trees. Where it is necessary to spray, insecticides
or fungicides shall be used that are recommended for safe and
effective control.
5. Pruning
a. Pruning practices to be followed the first few years
following planting shall consist of removing dead, broken, or
injured branches, the suppression of rank, uneven growth, and
usually the removal of water sprouts. Feather growth shall
be removed as it reaches pencil size in diameter.
b. Pruning shall be practiced subsequent to transplanting
and as necessary thereafter to assure sturdy crotch
development.
c. Tree heads should be raised as growth characteristics and
location dictates. Newly planted trees need not have lower
branches removed until they are well established.
Eventually, trees should, have the lower branches removed to a
height of at least seven (7) feet, unless in areas where
lower branches do not impede traffic.
E. General Maintenance
1. Pruning and Removal
a. No topping or dehorning of trees shall be permitted.
b. All large, established trees shall be pruned to
sufficient height to allow free passage of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic: ten (10) feet over sidewalks and twelve
(12) feet over all streets except those that are subject to
truck traffic which shall have a clearance of sixteen (16
feet.
c. It shall be the policy of the Municipal Arborist to
cooperate with the Municipal or Utility Lighting Engineer,
and vice - versa, in the placement and height of lighting
standards and the development of a system of tree pruning to
give effective street illumination.
d. All cuts shall be made with a saw or pruner and only at
the nodes or crotches. All pruning cuts shall be done
according to the National Target Pruning techniques. Whereby
a branch collar is left intact on the tree after cut out. No
spurs or climbing irons shall be used in the trees, except
when trees are to be removed.
e. All dead, crossed, and rubbing branches shall be removed.
f. All wounds over two (2) inches in diameter may be treated
with a suitable tree would dressing. Except where a disease
exhibits that would make it necessary. Such trees shall be
treated with a suitable tree wound dressing.
g. All tools being used on a tree suspected to be infected
with a contagious disease shall be disinfected before being
used on another tree.
h. Whenever streets are to be blocked off to public service,
police and fire departments shall be notified of the location
and length of time the street will be blocked. Notification
shall be given these departments upon the removal of such
barriers or if such.barriers.are to remain longer than
originally expected.
i. To protect the public from danger, suitable street and
sidewalk barriers, highway cones, or signs shall be used when
pruning a tree. Flashing signals or flares shall be placed
on all barriers or obstructions remaining in the street after
dark.
j. The stumps of all removed trees shall be cut to at least
three (3) inches below the ground, and soil shall be replaced
and the area leveled. If the area where the tree is removed
is to be paved, the tree should be cut or stump removed at
least six 6 inches below the ground.
2. Spraying
a. Suitable precautions shall be taken to protect and warn
the public that spraying is being done.
b. Spraying shall be done only for the control of specific
diseases or insects, with the proper materials in the
necessary strength, and applied at the proper time to obtain
the desired control. All spraying practices shall conform to
federal and state regulations.
c. Dormant oil sprays shall not be applied to sugar maple,
Japanese maple, beech, flowering dogwood, hickory, walnut,
and most crab apple trees. Dormant oil sprays shall be
applied to other trees only when the air temperature is 40 F
or above and when it is not likely to drop below this
temperature for a period of twenty -four (24) hours.
3. Fertilization
a. Fertilization of public trees shall follow the National
Arborist Association or other accepted arboricultural
standards.
b. Formulations, rates, and methods of application of
fertilizers shall be specified by the Municipal Forester.
4. Cavities
a. Extensive cavity work should be preformed on trees only
if they are sufficiently high in value to justify the cost.
All cavity work shall conform to the National Arborist
Association or other accepted arboricultural standards.
5. Cabling and Bracing
a. As a general rule, cables should be placed approximately
two - thirds (2/3) of the distance between the crotch and top
branch ends. Rust - resistant cables, thimbles, and lags
should be used. The ends of a cable should be attached to
hooks or eyes of lags or bolts, and thimbles must be used in
the eye splice in each end of the cable. In no instances
shall cable be wrapped around a branch.
b. All cabling and bracing practices with screw rods shall
•
follow National Arborist Association or other accepted
arboricultural standards.
F. Amend
The Municipal Forester shall have the authority to modify, or
extend, with the approval of the Shade Tree Commission, the
Arboricultural Specifications and Standards of Practice at
any time that experience indicates improved methods or
whenever circumstances make it advisable.
MAR -23 -2000 10:1?
b51 dye bba.s
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23/00
LINO LAKES — TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE
I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE •
Preservation of trees, woodlands, and the other significant natural resources within the
City of Lino Lakes is a stated priority of the community. The City Council finds it in the
best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural resources and
environment of Lino Lakes and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to
development of land. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City of Lino Lakes
has established the tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the
following:
• Natural Environment: Recognize and protect the natural environment consistent
with the City's mission statement and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development through
preservation and protection of significant trees and woodlands.
■ Protect Benefits: Maintain and enhance the benefits provided by trees and
woodlands including beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, enhancement
• of property values, air quality improvement, energy conservation, buffering of
cultural and natural resources, and protection of natural habitats.
■ Enhance Development: Encourage creative land use and environmentally
compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and damage
during development and enhances the natural aesthetics of the community.
■ Control Loss: Define standards to control cutting, removal, destruction, and
protection of existing trees on private property, particularly significant trees and
woodlands, as a result of land alteration or development.
■ Require Replacement: Establish reasonable requirements for replacement of
significant trees and woodlands lost on private property as a result of land alteration
or development.
• Administration: Provide for administration and enforcement of the tree preservation
regulations herein to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
community.
II. DEFINITIONS
Applicant means any person or entity who is required to submit and implement a city -
approved tree preservation plan under this section.
Builder means any person or entity to whom a building permit is issued for the
construction of a single - family residence.
MAR -23 -2000 10 :1Y
OJl 474 v OJ r.YJJ /11
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23/00
Caliper inch (Replacement Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at twelve (12)
inches above the ground.
Caliper inch (Significant Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height
(DBH). For multi- stemmed trees, the diameter shall be measured at the widest point of
the largest trunk stem between one foot and 4.5 feet above ground.
Canopy means the horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its
trunk.
Canopy coverage means the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the crowns of
all the trees on the site.
Coniferous (evergreen) tree means a cone - bearing woody plant which, at maturity, is at
least 12 feet or more in height, having foliage on the outermost portion of its branches
year- round.
Construction area means any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography,
soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change
in the natural character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading,
building construction or any other land disturbing activity.
Critical root zone (CRZ) means the circular area surrounding a tree trunk with a radius
distance of one foot per inch of tree diameter, measured at DBH (e.g. a 20 -inch diameter
tree has a CRZ with a radius of 20 feet).
Deciduous tree (Large) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is more than 30 feet in
height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Deciduous tree (Medium) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 15 and 30
feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Deciduous tree (Small) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 12 and 15
feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who
undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or
constructing or improving any building thereon.
Diameter means the length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree. For
multi - stemmed trees, the diameter is measured through the widest point of the largest
trunk stem.
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) means the length of a straight line measured through
the trunk of a tree 54 inches (4.5 feet) above ground.
2
rIHN- eJ -ebbb 119.l'f
•
OJl e7e YJYJOJ r. YJ'i/ l l
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23 /00
Drip line means an imaginary vertical line which extends from the outermost branches of
a tree's canopy to the ground.
Forester means a person designated by the City with specialized knowledge of forestry
and aboriculture.
Hardwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: ironwood, oak, maple (hard)
walnut, ash, hickory, black cherry, hackberry, locust, and basswood.
Land disturbing activity means any excavating, grading, clearing, filling, or other earth
moving and land reclamation which may result in movement of:
■ Five thousand (5000) cubic yards anywhere in the City;
• One hundred (100) cubic yards per acre, or more, anywhere in the City;
• Within a Shoreland Overlay District, ten (10) cubic yards on steep slopes or within
Shore Impact Zones; or
■ Within a Shoreland Overlay District, fifty (50) cubic years per acre.
Landscape architect means a person licensed by the state as a registered landscape
architect.
Significant tree (coniferous /evergreen) means a healthy evergreen tree measuring a
minimum of twelve (12) feet in height.
Significant tree (hardwood deciduous) means a healthy hardwood deciduous tree
measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein.
Significant tree (softwood deciduous) means a healthy softwood deciduous tree
measuring a minimum of eight (8) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein.
Significant woodland means a grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees
providing contiguous canopy cover over 1000 or more square feet of the property, which
includes hardwood deciduous trees over four (4) inches in diameter, softwood deciduous
trees over six (6) inches in diameter, and/or coniferous trees over six (6) feet in height,
and associated ground story vegetation. A woodland covering less than 1000 s.f. on a
property may also be considered significant if it is a continuation of a larger woodland on
an adjacent property, with a cumulative area of at least 1000 s.f., or if it is part of an
identified buffer area.
Softwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: cottonwood, poplars /aspen, birch,
boxelder, catalpa, willow, silver maple and elm.
Tree removal means the loss of a significant healthy tree as a result of:
• Land disturbing activity, whether temporary or permanent, affecting thirty (30)
percent or more of a significant tree's critical root zone;
3
MRR -23 -2000 10:18
b01 e e 17bb3 r.10D/11
REVIEW DRAFT
0323/00
■ Utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electirc, telephone and cable
TV and trenching) resulting in the cutting of thirty (30) percent or more of a
significant tree's roots within its critical root zone;
■ Mechanical injury to the trunk of a significant tree causing wounds or loss of bark,
which may result in tree decline;
• Compaction of thirty (30) percent or more of the surface of the soil within a
significant tree's critical root zone. This includes compaction caused by vehicle
movement, material storage, or similar actions;
■ The complete removal of a tree.
III. APPLICABILITY
A. Tree Preservation Plan Required:
1. A Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section IV herein, shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Council in conjunction with all applications for:
• Preliminary Plat
• Planned Development Overlay (PDO)
• Site and Building Plan Review
• Earth moving and land reclamation or other land disturbing activity
2. On individual single - family lots, a Tree Preservation Plan, as described in Section IV
herein, shall be submitted for review and comrnent by City staff in conjunction with a
building permit application. [process may need to be clarified]
B. Plan Review Process:
1. The applicant shall meet with City staff prior to submission of a Tree Preservation
Plan to determine the most feasible and practical placement of buildings, parking,
driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, in order to minimize loss and
damage to significant trees and woodlands.
2. Upon submittal, the City staff will review the Tree Preservation Plan to evaluate
compliance with the regulations and standards herein. City staff will notify the
applicant of any deficiencies with the plan or if additional information is needed to
complete the evaluation.
3. For any project that requires a Tree Preservation Plan, the City will make a
determination that the Tree Preservation Plan is acceptable for implementation prior
to issuance of any permits.
C. Performance Security Required: The applicant shall provide security for the
performance of its obligations pursuant to this section following City approval of the
Tree Preservation Plan and prior to commencement of any land disturbing activity as
follows:
4
I'Ih1IC'GJ- GYJUCI 1E1•10
IJJ4 GJG VVUJ 1 . GJC7' 11
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23/00
1. Amount of security:
a) Letter of Credit — A letter of credit equal to one - hundred fifty percent (150 %) of
the estimated cost of the required replacement trees and other elements of the
approved Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant shall submit a schedule of costs
associated with implementation of the approved Tree Preservation Plan. In the
event of any disagreement, the City will use the current Bachman's Wholesale
Catalog (published annually), or equivalent regionally -based wholesale nursery
catalog, to estimate the cost of replacement trees proposed in accordance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan.
b) Cash Escrow - A cash escrow equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the cost of
staff time associated with monitoring and enforcement of the Tree Preservation
Plan as estimated by the City.
c) Single Family — No performance security shall be required for applicants of
building permits for single - family units.
2. Release of security - The applicant shall notify the City when the planting has been
completed so the City can verify that the tree planting is completed, identify any
discrepancies with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, and establish the planting
completion date.
a) The security shall be retained for at least one year after the date that the Last
replacement tree has been planted.
b) Prior to release of the security, the City shall inspect the site to verify compliance
with the approved Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section V — Compliance
and Enforcement. If non - compliance is found, the City may retain security to
cover the cost of bringing the project into compliance.
c) In no event shall the performance security be released before expiration of the
one -year plant warranty period.
D. Relationship to Other Ordinances: The requirements of this ordinance are separate
from the City's Shade Tree Ordinance and Aboriculture Specifications and Standards
of Practice. Required replacement tree plantings may be used to satisfy other
landscaping requirements on private property, as defined elsewhere in the City
Zoning Code, however, they cannot be used to fulfill Shade Tree planting
requirements. [applicability of existing regulations to be clarified]
IV. TREE PRESERVATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
A. Submission Requirements: A Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following
components. However, the City can use its discretion to waive submittal of some of
this information, or to require additional information, if appropriate to the specific
situation.
5
MAR -23 -2000 10:18
E)1. dye eeti.s 1-%e17/11
REVIEW DRAFT ,
03/23/00
1. Tree Inventory: A tree inventory shall be prepared by a certified registered land
surveyor, landscape architect or forester and shall include:
a) The names), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners,
developers and/or builders.
b) The size, species, condition and location of all existing significant trees and
significant woodlands on the property.
c) The estimated size, species, condition and location of significant trees and
significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary.
d) Table summarizing the size, species, condition, and number of existing significant
trees and significant woodlands on the property. Table should list plants
individually and provide summary of total caliper inches.
e) Delineation of existing buildings, structures. and/or impervious surfaces on the
property.
f) Signature of person(s) preparing the plan and date inventory completed.
2. Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan: A tree preservation and replacement plan
shall be prepared by alandscape architect, forester, or certified registered land
surveyor knowledgeable in identification of tree species and shall include:
a) The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners,
developers and/or builders.
b) Delineation of all buildings, structures, utilities, or impervious surfaces to remain
or be built on the property.
c) Delineation of all existing and proposed grade changes and limits of land
disturbance.
d) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant
woodlands to be removed from the property.
e) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant
woodlands to be protected on the property.
f) The estimated size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and
significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary.
g) The size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on
the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. If all or some
replacement trees are to be planted off -site, a plan showing off -site planting
locations should also be submitted, unless determined unnecessary by the City.
h) Table summarizing total caliper inches of existing significant trees and woodlands
to be removed, percent ( %) of total caliper inches to be removed, and total inches
of replacement trees to be planted.
i) Itemized estimate of costs of replacement trees, protection devices (e.g. fencing),
labor, and other elements necessary to implement plan.
j) Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan and date plan prepared.
3. Tree Protection: The Tree Preservation Plan shall identify the measures that will be
used to protect significant trees and woodlands on the property or on abutting
property. All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to and maintained
6
MHk-2.S -d000 ib;1y
•
MD1 eVe eiiOJ r. YJC/ 11
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23/00
throughout any land disturbing activity and should not be removed until all new
planting is installed. These measures may be identified directly on the Tree
Preservation and Replacement Plan drawing and/or included in a companion
document. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the following protection measures
shall be required:
a) Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by protective tree fencing
(minimum four (4) feet high) or other means acceptable to the City. The
protective measures must protect the entire Critical Root Zone of the trees, unless
less protection is necessary due to the proximity of a structure, road or similar
obstruction to be a part of the development, in which case, at least seventy percent
(70 %) of the Critical Root Zone of the tree must be protected. No grade change,
construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this fenced area.
b) Where possible, a two (2) foot deep trench shall be cut around the edge of the tree
protection area to sever the roots between the trees to be saved and those to be
removed.
c) Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning as part of proposed land
disturbance activity. Any oak trees pruned between May 1 and July 1 shall be
required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound
sealant.
d) Identification of areas on property where soil chemistry may be altered due to
concrete truck rinsing and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or
paints.
e) Identification of areas on the property where tree debris will be stockpiled.
f) Identification of areas on the property used to burn tree debris.
g) Identification of areas on the property to be used for building material and
equipment storage and/or staging.
h) Identification of vehicle access points to the property.
i) Additional information, as requested by the City, to demonstrate adequate
measures will be taken to protect against spread of tree diseases. [need to
provide example]
7
1`IHk -� S -�Idbb 1U; VJ
bZl eVe UUOJ r. YJ7� 11
REVIEW DRAFT
03/23/00
B. Required Tree Replacement: The following table identifies the required amount of
tree replacement based on type of development.
Percent of Total
Significant Tree*
Caliper Inches
Removed
Required Replacement Tree Caliper Inches Per Inch Removed
Single family &
large lot residential
Multi- family
(medium -high
density)
Commercial,
industrial,
institutional
0 -9.9
--
-
--
10 -19.9
.4
--
--
20 -29.9
.5
.4
--
30 -39.9
.6
.5
.4
40 -49.9
.7
.6
.5
50 -59.9
.8
.7
.6
60 -69.9
.9
.8
.7
70 -79.9
1.0
.9
.8
80 -89.9
1.1
1.0
.9
90 -100
1.2
1.1
1.0
d l�
NOTE: The amount of replacement is to be measured in 'Replacement Tree cahper inches (measure
inches above normal'gradc) and the amount removed is measured in "Significant Trcc" caliper inches
(measured 4.5 feet above normal grade).
* Caliper inches of significant woodlands shall be based on the cumulative total inches of all trees within
the significant woodland.
C. Location of Replacement Trees: Replacement trees shall be planted:
1. On Site - Planting located within the subject property described in the application.
2. Off Site - If there is insufficient suitable area on the subject property to accommodate
all required replacement trees, the City may consider allowing planting on other land.
Priority will be given to public land owned by the City or other land (public or
private), to be approved by the City.
3. Payment to Tree Fund - The City may accept a payment for the required caliper
inches of replacement trees, if no suitable on -site or off -site location can be found to
accommodate the trees. The exact dollar amount shall be established by the City
Council. fmay want to more clearly specify where money will go and how it can be
used e.g. Street Tree Fund, parkland acquisition, natural resource protection - talk
to City Attorney)
D. Size, Type, and Quality of Replacement Trees
1. No more than one -third (1/3) of the replacement trees on a property shall be of the
same species, unless approved by the City.
2. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed
or of a species similar to the indicator species of the Ecological Prototype of the
8
ti
MAR- 23 -20t i 1U:"0!)
b51 € bbbs V.10/11
REVIEW DRAFP
03/23/00
property as defined in the City's Handbook for Environmental Planning and
Conservation Development, unless otherwise approved by the City.
3. Large to medium sized deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two and one -half (2'/s)
caliper inches at time of planting.
4. Small deciduous trees shall be a minimum of one and one -half (1 'h) caliper inches at
time of planting.
5. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height at time of planting.
6. Replacement trees shall be healthy stock, free of insects and disease, and meet the
guidelines set by the American Standards of Nursery Stock and/or Inspection and
Contract Administration Guidelines for MnDOT Landscape Projects. The City can
reject trees if found to not meet these standards.
7. The following shall not be used as replacement trees:
• Siberian Elm
• Norway Maple
• Amur Maple (A. ginnala)
• Cottonwood or Silver Maple (unless specifically approved by City)
V. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Compliance with approved plan:
1. Protection Measures: The applicant shall implement the tree protection measures
indicated on the approved Tree Preservation Plan prior to commencement of any land
disturbance activity on the property. The tree protection measures shall remain in
place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is
made to and approved by the City Forester.
2. Plan Implementation: Replacement trees shall be planted within six (6) months after
completion of site construction activities, unless otherwise approved by the City.
Failure to implement the plan within this time frame shall constitute non- compliance,
subject to the actions outlined in Section V.B.
3. Unauthorized Removal: If a significant tree(s) or woodland that was intended to be
preserved in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan is removed without
permission of the City or sustains critical damage, the applicant shall replace each
tree so removed or destroyed at a rate of three (3) caliper inches (replacement tree)
for each caliper inch (significant tree) removed. Replacement trees shall be of the
same, or similar species as the lost tree. The size and quality of replacement trees
shall meet the requirements of Section N.D.
9
MAR -23 -2000 10:20
1:01 e e 1616b3 r.11/11
REVIEW DRAFT 4 , •
03/23/00 4
B. Inspection and Enforcement: The City shall have the right to inspect the
development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved
Tree Preservation Plan.
1. Compliance Inspection: One year after all replacement trees have been planted the
applicant shall make a request in writing to the City for an inspection to determine
compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. Upon inspection, the City shall
determine whether compliance has been achieved and, if so, release the performance
guarantee.
2. Non - compliance: If the City finds that the property is not in compliance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan, it shall inform the applicant regarding the non-
compliance and describe, in writing, the steps needed to bring the property into
compliance within a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days.
3. Dead Trees: Any replacement tree that is not alive or healthy one year after planting
in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, shall be removed and
replaced, by the applicant, with a new, healthy tree of the same size and species.
4. Use of Performance Security: If after notification of non - compliance, the applicant
fails to achieve compliance within a reasonable timeframe, the City may exercise its
authority to use the performance security to complete the planting in accordance with
the approved Tree Preservation Plan.
10
TOTAL P.11
A Assessment of Important Wildlife Habitats in the
City of Lino Lakes
prepared for the Wildland Urban Interface Program,
MN Department of Natural Resources
June 7, 2201
An Assessment of
Important Wildlife Habitats
in the City of Lino Lakes
Introduction: The adjoining cities of Lino Lakes in Anoka County and Hugo in Washington
County are among the cities located in the urban fringe of the fast growing Twin Cities
metropolitan area. They, like other fringe cities, are experiencing difficulty in accommodating
development while also protecting their natural resources.
The City of Lino Lakes has articulated it's environmental vison and goals in its Comprehensive
Plan Update, still under review. The City visualizes "sustenance of the natural environment of
Lino Lakes through the protection and management of the wildlife, habitats, and other natural
resources and to pass on to future residents a community still rich in these resources." More
specifically, the Plan states: "Lino Lakes is a growing community that contains rural and
environmentally diverse areas. A priority of the community is to maintain its rural character
through preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive areas (including) the
establishment of greenways corridors ... the physical features of Lino Lakes lends itself to
greenway planning. The objective is to preserve large areas of open space as a means of
preserving the City's rural character. The establishment of linear greenways will serve to break
up the urban land use pattern and define neighborhoods. The City will establish greenways that
will connect the Regional Park with other natural open spaces in adjoining communities."
In 2000, these two cities sought the assistance of the Department of Natural Resources through a
program called the Wildland Urban Interface. The DNR agreed to assist Hugo and Lino Lakes
with an assessment of the location and management needs of important natural resources,
including wildlife habitat, within the Cities' boundaries and across their borders. It is the intent
of the Wildlands Urban Interface project to help Lino Lakes achieve it's natural resource
objectives by providing information to define some of the important natural resources within the
City.
Background: This assessment of important wildlife habitats in the City of Lino Lakes has been
prepared by staff of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The assessment is based on
field observations conducted May 25, 2000 by Joan Galli, Regional Nongame Wildlife
Specialist, Conrad Christianson, Environmental Review Program Supervisor and Bill Penning,
DNR Metro Greenways Outreach Coordinator.
Information to supplement the field observations has been provided by Mr. Art Hawkins, wildlife
biologist (retired, US Fish and Wildlife Service) and a resident of Lino Lakes for 47 years and
Mr. Jay Hamernick, (wildlife biologist retired, U S Fish and Wildlife Service and resident of
Shoreview). Additional data on colonial waterbirds and nesting bald eagles was obtained from
the MN DNR's Natural Heritage Information System and from the regular observations of eagle
and heron activity in the Lino Lakes area by DNR Nongame Wildlife Program personnel.
•
•
•
2.
Lino Lakes is located in the southeast corner of Anoka County. It encompasses 33 square miles
of land and water and entirely surrounds the city of Centerville. Lino Lakes straddles the
boundary (which runs diagonally approximately from the northeast to the southwest corners of
the city) of two Ecological Classification System subsections- the Anoka Sandplain to the west
and the St. Croix Moraines and Outwash Plains on the east edge of the city.
Classification of land cover using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MN DNR,
2000) has not been completed for this city. In 1999, Brauer and Associates Ltd in conjunction
with Applied Ecological Services Inc., under contract with the City of Lino Lakes, prepared an
ecological delineation and land cover type mapping effort for the entire township using a
somewhat different system. Their report did not include any identification of areas within the
City which deserve special consideration due to natural resources attributes.
A summary of research (Wovcha 1995) indicates that vegetation in Lino Lakes before Euro-
American settlement was predominately oak openings and barrens (oak woodlands and
brushland) on the uplands with wet prairie, marshes, and sloughs surrounding the many large
lakes. Big Woods, aspen -oak lands and conifer bogs and swamps were minor vegetative
components but important aspects of habitat diversity.
Research also indicated that the.large lakes and marshes in southeastern Anoka County have
attracted humans from the time since the glaciers melted. Archaeologists have found artifacts
indicating that Native Americans apparently inhabited the area for much of the historic and
prehistoric times. These people were sustained by the same natural resources - wild rice,
waterfowl, deer and forests - that attracted Euro - American settlers in the 1840s and 1850s.
These natural resources began to decline soon after Euro- American settlers arrived to farm the
land. Wovcha (1995) gives a concise description of the changes as follows. "The wild rice beds
disappeared rapidly around 1900 when the lakes became muddied, either by agriculture or the
introduction of carp. Ducks and geese became less abundant as the wild rice diminished. A
charcoal factory in Centerville placed such a demand on the surrounding oak forests that by the
1900s oak trees had been depleted... Much of the remaining upland vegetation in the area was
cleared for crop land ... and drainage ditches were constructed through the marshes."
At present, little native vegetation remains. However, significant remnants of presettlement
native plant communities have been identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey
including cattail marsh, shrub swamp and emergent marsh located in the northeast portion of the
city in association with the wetlands around Rondeau Lake, along Rice Creek and the northern
end of Peltier Lake (Figure 1). Small remnants of maple basswood (Big Woods) occur on the
islands in Peltier and Rondeau Lakes. A few acres of oak forest dry subtype occur east of
Rondeau Lake. Most of the present marshes and swamps are dominated by invasive species such
as cattail and reed canary grass and lack many of the native wetland plant species characteristic
of wetlands undisturbed by agriculture, drainage or other factors.
Fig. 1 CBS Ranked Natural
• Communities in Lino Lakes
•
CBS Natural Communities
3
•
4.
Most of the upland converted to farmland is now changing again to residential housing resulting
in further loss or fragmentation of woodlands and native grasslands due to conversion of
vegetative cover to lawns and pavement.
Information obtained from the City's Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation
Development (Braurer & Associates, 1999) defined the present cover types as follows:
• Developed Land - lands converted for human uses other than agriculture constitute
approximately 23 % of the land surface of the city
•
Agricultural Land- all lands cleared of native vegetation for crop or forage production
including fallowed fields and freshly tilled soils. The largest cover type in the city,
covering 28 %.
Forested Communities - largely deciduous forest type ranging from drier oak savanna to
sugar/black maple - basswood association cover approximately 16% of the city. White
pine is a minor component. Most of the forests have been fragmented due to agricultural
clearing and residential development.
Wetlands- wetlands associated with larger lakes, streams, and depressional features
constitute approximately 19% of the cover type. Tamarack occur at Rondeau Lake
and at a site along highway 35W near the junction with Lake Drive
Open Water - lakes, streams, creeks, drainages, and detention ponds cover 3,000 acres or
about 14% of the area of the City. Lino Lakes contains 16 lakes and two tributaries
spaced throughout the city. The lakes and National Wetlands Inventory delineated
wetlands comprise 8,670 acres or approximately 41 % of the City's total land area.
Peltier, George Watch, Amelia, Rondeau, Marshan, Rice, Wards, Sherman, Cedar and
Wilkerson are classified as Natural Environment Lakes
• Upland Prairie Remnants - upland prairie vegetation was once an important cover type in
the city, occupying drier ridge tops and integrating with oak savanna and mesic forest
communities. Very little remains of this cover type.
As the habitats have been altered from their pre - settlement condition, the composition of the
native fauna has also been changed. Species groups currently "losing ground" due to urbanization
include grassland birds (such as meadowlarks, bobolinks, and bluebirds) and mammal species
(such as fox squirrels and ground squirrels), forest interior species ( particularly birds such as
scarlet tanagers and wood thrush), colonial waterbirds (herons and egrets) which depend on
undisturbed terrestrial or aquatic nesting sites, amphibians dependent on fish free wetlands with
high water quality, and wide ranging species such as Blanding's turtles whose sandy upland
nesting sites have been degraded and disconnected from associated wetlands. Formerly common
birds such as American bittern and Northern harrier are now mostly gone from the City.
•
•
5.
Wildlife Habitat Assessment - Important Wildlife Habitats of Lino Lakes (see Figure 2)
Despite these losses, the City of Line Lakes still could sustain components of most native habitat
types and associated wildlife communities at a few remaining important sites such as:
A. Elmcrest Ave. pasture and wetland complex: this approximately one square mile of habitat
is located in T 31 N, R 22W, portions of Sec. 12 and 13. It is bounded by Highway 35E on the
west and Elmcrest Avenue on the east with County Road 140 as the northern limit. The south
extent of this tract is 1/4 mile north of Main Street. Most of the acreage is currently in extensive
hayfields and pasture interspersed with dozens of small, shallow wetlands. This mixture of
habitats is utilized by a variety of grassland and water birds that are currently exhibiting
substantial declines in Minnesota and nationwide. There are nine farmsteads, two large horse
farms and a recently opened commercial apple orchard. The area is currently zoned rural
agriculture.
The block of habitat includes a portion of a stream, Hardwood Creek. Similar habitat occurs
west of Elmcrest Avenue in Hugo Township where a new development is in advanced stages of
planning. Elmcrest Ave has severed the habitat continuity of this important wetland complex.
The proposed development in Hugo will increase the number of homes and traffic in the vicinity
of the Elmcrest wetland complex and would adversely impact this important wildlife habitat
complex in Lino Lake as well as in Hugo. While existing wetland laws may protect some
wetlands, the adjacent uplands constituting an important component of the habitat complex will
be lost when converted to residential buildings, lawns and pavement.
Species noted during recent reconnaissance of the tract included yellow- headed blackbird, marsh
wren, mallard, blue winged teal, great blue heron, red -tail hawk, great horned owl, barn swallow,
tree swallow, bobolink, meadowlark, goldfinch, common yellowthroat, red - winged blackbird,
grasshopper sparrow, savanna sparrow, coot, sora rail, and kestrel as well as a number of reptile
and amphibian species.
•
•
Management actions recommended to sustain habitat values and functions:
maintain existing habitat types and connections, recreate connections where necessary
maintain current zoning and protect existing pasture and other non -row crop agricultural
uses,
include area as part of a public open space greenway and wildlife corridor in both cites,
avoid converting natural wetlands to storm water retention basins (provide basins on site
as part of any adjacent development and manage those developments to retain water on
the development site, not draining into wetlands)
improve the waterway connection along Hardwood Creek by restoring vegetative buffers
along the creek and provide wildlife travel corridors such as underpasses along the creek
at Highway 35E,
in any upgrade of Elmcrest Ave. provide modified curbing or crossings for wildlife as
appropriate,
do not fragment the remaining habitat by constructing the proposed Otter Lake Road
extension through the Lino Lakes portion of the habitat complex,
6.
East Hugo Wildlife Corridor
Hardwood Creek WMA Connection
Chain of Lakes Regional Park Corridor
,w. Rondeau Lake Corridor Connection
Everton Wetlands and Woodlot Complex
Oneka / Hardwood Creek Wildlife Corridor
Elmcrest Pasture and Wetlands
East Hugo Wildlife Corridor Connection
Country Lakes Park
•
•
7.
provide landowner education through outreach and land registry, facilitate site protection
through conservation easements and other financial incentives for landowners, provide
habitat management assistance to interested landowners with a focus on rare grassland
birds and wetland resources,
follow DNR guidelines for residential development in areas of Blanding's turtle habitat
(A copy of the Contractors' version and of Homeowners' version of the guidelines are
provided as attachments A and B).
conduct wildlife surveys in area to document use by wildlife species and develop habitat
management plans
in order to enhance public safety, as needed, facilitate safe movement of wildlife across
roadways such as Elmcrest Ave. and Highway 35E.
B. Rondeau Lake, duck pass, bald eagle breeding territory and Rice Creek Corridor:
Rondeau Lake (594 acres), located in T 31,32 Range 22, Sec, 2,3,10 34 and 35 , is situated
predominately in Lino Lakes. The lake water drains through a ditch midway on its east side into
Rice Creek. The shoreline is undeveloped and the lakeshore is owned by the Rondeau Lake Gun
Club.
Vegetation along the lake perimeter includes a significant stand of tamarack and maple
basswood forest on the island. Wild rice (introduced by the club) production in the lake is
intermittent and can be excellent in some years. The lake is connected to and contiguous with
Rice Creek to the east. Rice Creek flows south under Highway 35 to empty into Peltier Lake. An
extensive, high quality shrub swamp and emergent marsh complex exists along the Rice Creek
corridor upstream of Rondeau Lake between Rondeau Lake and Lamprey Pass Wildlife
Management Area three miles to the north in Columbus Township. It receives water from a ditch
that joins it to Tamarack Lake from the north and another ditch which enters from the northwest
and along which Blanding's turtles (a state listed Threatened species ) have been found.
Waterfowl use, especially during migration, is noteworthy at Rondeau Lake with large numbers
of birds flying regularly between Rondeau and Tamarack Lake to the north. This traditional
flight corridor, referred to as a "duck pass ", has been utilized for decades with more then 2000
waterfowl counted during evening flights across the pass. The duck pass and its adjoining lakes
are a significant natural feature now rare or absent from the metro area.
Loons have nested on the lake. In recent years remarkable concentrations of migrating bald
eagles (100 +) have been observed in spring foraging on winter kill fish and roosting on the island
and along the shoreline. A bald eagle ( federally listed Threatened species) breeding territory
encompassing Rondeau Lake has been active for a number of years.
Management actions recommended to sustain habitat values and functions:
• offer private landowners conservation easements for habitat protection around the Lake,
• designation of a greenway corridor of public and privately managed and protected habitat
connecting Rondeau Lake to Lamprey Pass and the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management
Areas.
• develop a long range plan for permanent protection of the corridor
•
•
S.
C. Rice Creek Chain -of -Lakes Park Reserve: The Rice Creek - Chain -of -Lakes Park Reserve
occupies 2552 acres within the Lino Lakes city limits. The park includes all or a part of the six
largest lakes in the city and remnant examples of some of the presettlement native plant
communities. It features Wargo Nature Center, one of the largest such facilities in the Twin
Cities area.
A review of the DNR's colonial waterbird data base for past occurrences of nesting colonial
waterbirds revealed historic records on Peltier, Rice, Marshan, and Baldwin Lakes within the
Park . Recent surveys for wildlife use have not been conducted at these lakes, and the only know
and currently active waterbird colony in Lino Lakes is the Peltier Island heronry located in the
Park Reserve. It is the second largest heron/egret rookery (nest site) in the Twin Cities metro
area and a natural resource of regional significance. The colony contains approximately 600 nests
of four species - great blue heron, great egret, double- crested cormorant, and black - crowned
night heron. In spring 2001, an active bald eagle breeding territory was established in the Park
Reserve.
The Blandings' turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) is a State listed Threatened species. Historically,
the many shallow wetlands and grasslands of the Anoka Sandplain region have provided some
of the best habitat in the state for this species. This turtle was once abundant on the extensive
sandy outwash areas of Lino Lakes and adjacent communities in northern Ramsey County and in
Anoka and central Washington Counties.
The Blanding's turtles declining abundance is attributable to habitat alteration due to conversion
of it's preferred nesting sites (sandy, south facing grasslands) to residential developments with
associated degradation of shallow wetlands through drainage and storm water runoff. These
turtles will travel considerable distances from wetlands to reach traditional nesting sites. This
behavior makes them different from most freshwater turtles which usually nest close to their
wetlands. It also puts them at risk when they are forced to cross roads and other human barriers
on their seasonal travels between wetlands and nesting sites.
A number of areas have been identified in the northern tier of metro counties where sufficient
habitat to sustain viable populations of Blanding's turtles may yet be protected. One of these
important Blandings' turtle habitat areas extends from the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
in Arden Hills north along Rice Creek to encompasses the Rice Creek - Chain -of -Lakes Park
Reserve corridor in Lino Lakes. Blanding's turtles have been reported to occur in the wetlands
along Peltier Lake Drive just outside the boundary of the Park Reserve.
Recently, recreational development has occurred along the northwest shore of Centerville Lake
where Anoka County Parks has remodeled the lake front, picnic and camping area and connected
roads and parking lots. New impoundments have been created and much of the woody cover,
once used by woodcock, has been removed. This part of the park is permanently changed to
benefit increasing numbers of people to the detriment of some wildlife.
9.
In relation to the fast pace of urbaniziation in the area, the establishment of the county Park
Reserve has been a wonderful accomplishment. It can preserve for the future many natural
resources which, even now, would have been lost. However, continued development without
regard to natural resources could greatly increase human impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat
even within the Park Reserve. The ecological delineation and land cover type classification for
Lino Lakes prepared by Brauer and Associates Ltd. and Applied Ecological Service Inc.
conducted in 1999 includes the Regional Park. Much of the greenways and trails system proposed
for the City are related to the Park Reserve.
Management actions recommended to sustain habitat values and functions:
every effort should be made to protect the rookery wherever it occurs by protecting the
woodlands chosen by the birds.
human activity should be restricted to avoid disturbance to the heronry and the eagle nest
site during the nesting season. The woodlands used by the nesting herons should not be
logged or in any way fragmented (reduced in size or extent of canopy cover)
an inventory of potential wooded nest sites might be prepared and action taken to protect
these potential suitable heronry sites, should the birds be forced to relocate in the future
annual monitoring of the heronry should be conducted
• a comprehensive management plan for the Park Reserve should be based on an up -to -date
natural resource inventory and the goal should be to sustain natural resource values and
functions such as wildlife habitat and water quality
• distribute Blanding's turtle habitat guidelines to Lino Lakes landowners and developers,
• encourage citizen reports of sightings of Blanding's turtles by distributing " turtle wanted
posters" as part of a homeowners education campaign in order to document more turtle
records in the city limits
• refrain from converting wetlands to storm water retention ponds or draining shallow
complexes in the Blanding's turtle habitat areas, require that on -site storm water retention
basins be included in each development parcel.
• protect sandy uplands adjacent to known Blanding's turtle wetlands in order to protect
potential nesting habitat.
D. County Lakes Park: This small park of approximately 25 acres ( Figure 3) is owned and
managed by the city of Lino Lakes. It is adjacent to and east of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes
Park Reserve.
The most noteworthy feature of this park from a wildlife habitat perspective is its use as a
stopping place for neotropical migrants (songbirds and other bird species), including at least 20
species of warblers, during spring migration. Experienced birdwatchers consider this small area
on the south side of Rice Creek as it leaves Reshanau Lake near its southwest corner, one of the
best birding areas in Lino Lakes.
West Shadow Lake Drive bounds the west side of the woods which attracts the birds. A black -
topped bike trails which passes through the area is used by students traveling to nearby Rice Lake
Elementary School and by hikers. A swimming beach attracts shorebirds in early spring and
concentrations of ducks, gulls, and other waterbirds on Reshanau Lake contribute to a long list of
bird species recorded for the park.
Fig. 3
Country Lakes Park
•
11.
Where Shadow Lake Road crosses Rice Creek, an extensive marsh extends westward to Rice
Lake. The view northwest from the bridge overlooks the wooded point where a heron rookery
formerly occurred during the 1980s. In the culvert under the road, fish running up stream to
spawn can be seen when the water is clear enough. Wood ducks frequent the bridge area and the
nesting boxes provided are being used in the absence of natural tree cavities.
In the summer, the dozen or more picnic tables, the swimming beach and the fishing pier receive
considerable use by park visitors. Additionally, the proximity of the site to the local elementary
school makes the park a potential area for nature study by the school classes.
Management actions recommended to sustain habitat values and functions:
• reduce mowing and brush cutting to maintain the understory vegetation and canopy cover
important as foraging habitat for warblers and other songbirds during spring migration
E. Cedar Lake , Holly Drive grasslands and Lake Amelia: Cedar Lake lies north of Ash St.
(County Road J), a mile west of Centerville Road in Lino Lakes. It covers about 200 cattail -
choked acres and is surrounded by 5 or 6 small farms of mostly open land with small patches of
timber including oak . Housing development is occurring along Holly Drive west and north of
the lake.
The National Wetlands Inventory classifies the lake as "irregularly flooded ". When water levels
are high, it empties into a small ditch along the southwest side thence into the Rice Creek system.
From a distance, only small openings are visible in the cattails. The lack of openings greatly
reduces the potential value to wildlife. This fault has been recognized for many years and
representatives of the DNR, Mn. Waterfowl Association, and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) have visited the area with city officials in hopes of
finding a way to put this sizeable wetland to better use by waterfowl and other marsh dwellers.
They found that raising the water levels appeared to by the best solution (Hawkins, pers. comm.)
but this would require a small dam at the outlet. So far, the landowner has objected to this
approach because it might flood the hayfields. Also, at the north end of Cedar Lake, a property
owned by a church might be flooded (a survey is needed to determine whether or not this would
be the case).
Meanwhile year after year, this potentially valuable wetland serves only as a wintering area for a
few pheasants and deer and nesting area for blackbirds and marsh wrens. Jack Anderson, a local
resident remembers that in the 1930s, when money was scarce, he trapped several hundred
muskrats on Cedar Lake which brought a good price at a time when money was short.
On the northwest side of Cedar Lake, east and south of Holly Drive, a few acres of open field
consist of grassland bird habitat and farm fields where meadowlarks have been noted.
Lake Amelia is a 178 acre lake situated east of Centerville Road and west of Highway 35. The
411) natural drainage is through an outlet on the west side of the lake. The water currently passes
•
12.
under Centerville Road then flows west and south through a series of wetlands to Wilkerson
Lake in the city of North Oaks.
In the 1950s, the lake was dry or nearly so, due to the presence of an illegal drainage ditch. In
1954, the Art Hawkins family purchased a 50 acre farm on the southeast shore of the lake with
the intent of restoring the land to wildlife habitat. At that time, they persuaded the then MN
Department of Conservation to plug the ditch and restore the lake to it's original water level. In
addition, with the help of various government landowner assistance and incentive programs, they
planted trees, created and restored small wetlands and ponds and most recently are attempting to
establish native prairie as wildlife habitat on their property.
The restoration work has been successful with nearly 200 species of birds, 37 species of
mammals, and 17 different reptiles and amphibians recorded to date on the property. Four
species of plants and animals are on the State's Endangered and Threatened Species List
including the Blanding's turtle (a Threatened species reported from both the east and west sides
of the lake) and the Forster's tern (a special concern species ) which occasionally have nested on
the lake along with a pair of loons.
The family has recently decided that all the effort at habitat restoration should not be lost through
future development of the land. In 1995 they entered into a conservation easement with the
Minnesota Land Trust to assure that the wildlife habitat values would be maintained, should the
ownership change.
Management actions recommended to sustain habitat values and functions:
• it would seem worthwhile to determine if and how Cedar Lake could be restored to a
more open marsh
• the City's "Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development"
published in 1999, show that the Cedar Lake area, because of its lack of development,
should be incorporated in to the City's park and trail system.
• large lot residential zoning (10 acres) should be retained along the Lake Amelia shoreline
and landowner incentives pursued to encourage further wildlife habitat protection and
restoration along additional portions of the lake shore.
Literature cited:
Brauer & Associates, Ltd., 1999. Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation
Development: City of Lino Lakes.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2000 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
Training Manual. St. Paul, MN.
Wovcha, Daniel S., Barbara C. Delaney and Gerda Nordquist, 1995. Minnesota's St. Croix River
• Valley and Anoka Sandplain. Univiersity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 234 pp.
June 7, 2001
•
•
Appendix A Contractors' Version of Blanding's Turtle Guidelines ( see reverse side)
also
CONTRACTORS VERSION
CAUTION
BLANDING'S TURTLES
MAY BE ENCOUNTERED
IN THIS AREA
The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State
Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened
and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. Turtles
should be moved offsite to the nearest wetland. Information and recommendations on Blanding's
turtles can be found on the back of this notice. Additional information on turtles can be obtained
from the Nongame Wildlife Program, Box 7, DNR Building, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155-
4007. (612) 297 -4966.
June 1995
LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION:
The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle with a black or dark blue, dome - shaped shell with
muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third enabling the turtle to
pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when
threatened. The head and appendages are dark brown or blue -gray with small dots of light brown or
yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. Adult Blanding's turtles have an
average shell length of 9 to 10 inches.
HABITAT:
Shallow, slow- moving water with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation are preferred by
Blanding's turtles. Extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. In Minnesota, Blanding's
turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants but may also be found in streams and lakes. They are
frequently found with snapping and painted turtles. Blanding's turtles hibernate on the bottom of marshes
and ponds. Undeveloped sandy grasslands are vital for nesting sites. Without appropriate nesting habitat
populations gradually decline through lack of recruitment of young turtles into the population.
LIFE HISTORY:
Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late April on warm, sunny days.
Nesting occurs during June in Minnesota. Females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. After
traveling up to 1 mile to lay eggs, females may hide near a bush and return to the marsh the next day,
especially in the early morning. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area where 6 -15 eggs are
laid. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid - August
to early- October. Often, they must make a long overland trek to find water.
Blanding's turtles are mild mannered and do not attempt to bite. If molested or threatened they
simply pull into their shell and wait for danger to pass. Eggs and young Blanding's turtles are eaten by
raccoons, skunks, and predatory birds. Adults are particularly vulnerable to being struck by automobiles
while crossing roads.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The DNR offers the following land use guidelines so that as little harm as possible comes to these rare
turtles.
• Workers should be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area.
• Roads should be kept to minimal standards on widths and lanes.
• Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used 4" high curbs at a 3:1
slope are preferred. Blanding's turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs. Curbs and
below grade roads trap turtles on the road increasing road kills.
• When working near wetlands set up silt fencing to keep turtles out of construction areas, it is critical
that silt fences be removed after the area has been revegetated.
• Ditches should not be mowed until after October 1st.
• Culverts connecting wetland areas should be over -sized and elliptical or box to facilitate turtle
movements between wetlands (contact the DNR Nongame Specialist for additional information).
• Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum.
• Vegetation management under power lines should be done mechanically and between October 1st
and June 1st. Chemicals should not be used.
• Below ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade. Erosion should be
prevented from reaching wetlands and lakes.
• Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. Use of fertilizers and
pesticides should be avoided.
All wetlands should be protected from road run -off, lawn and other chemical run -off by a vegetated
buffer strip. We recommend a minimum buffer of 50'. This area should be left unmowed and in a
natural condition.
Shallow, vegetated wetlands (Type 2 & 3) should not be dredged or deepened.
Landscaping should be left as natural as possible, trees should not be planted in known nesting
sites.
• Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible.
• Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent uplands and should avoid
bisecting wetlands.
• Report sightings of Blanding's turtles to the DNR Regional Nongame Specialist.
•
•
Appendix B: Homeowners' Version of Blanding's Turtle Guidelines ( see also reverse
side)
-CUE CW NE.RS • EP S,C
CAUTION
BLANDING'S TURTLES
MAY BE ENCOUNTERED
IN THIS AREA
The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State
Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened
and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in home sites. Turtles should
be moved offsite to the nearest wetland. Information and recommendations on Blanding's turtles
can be found on the back of this notice. Additional information on turtles can be obtained from the
Nongame Wildlife Program, Box 7, DNR Building, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 551554007. (612)
297.4968.
June 1995
LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION:
The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle with a black or dark blue. dome - shaped shell with
muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third enabling the turtle to
pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when
threatened. The head and appendages are dark brown or blue -gray with small dots of light brown or
yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. Adult Blanding's turtles have an
average shell length of 9 to 10 inches.
HABITAT:
Shallow, slow- moving water with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation are preferred by
Blanding's turtles. Extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. In Minnesota. Blanding s
turtles are pnmanly marsh and pond inhabitants but may also be found in streams and lakes. They are
frequently found with snapping and painted turtles. Blanding's turtles hibemate on the bottom of marshes
and ponds. Undeveloped sandy grasslands are vital for nesting sites. Without appropnate nesting habitat
populations gradually decline through lack of recruitment of young turtles into the population.
LIFE HISTORY:
Individuals emerge from overy intering and begin basking in late April on warm, sunny days.
Nesting occurs during June in Minnesota. Females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. After
traveling up to 1 mile to lay eggs, females may hide near a bush and retum to the marsh the next day,
especially in the early morning. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area where 6 -15 eggs are
laid. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid - August
to early- October. Often, they must make a long overland trek to find water.
Blanding's turtles are mild mannered and do not attempt to bite. If molested or threatened they
simply pull into their shell and wait for danger to pass. Eggs and young Blanding's turtles are eaten by
raccoons, skunks, and predatory birds. Adults are particularly vulnerable to being struck by automobiles
while crossing roads.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The DNR offers the following land use guidelines so that as little harm as possible comes to these rare
turtles.
• Workers should be informed of the presence of Blanding's turtles in the area.
• Roads should be kept to minimal standards on widths and lanes.
• Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used 4" high curbs at a 3:1
slope are preferred. Blanding's turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs. Curbs and
below grade roads trap turtles on the road increasing road kills.
• When working near wetlands set up sift fencing to keep turtles out of construction areas, it is critical
that silt fences be removed after the area has been revegetated.
• Ditches should not be moved until after October lst.
• Culverts connecting wetland areas should be over -sized and elliptical or box to facilitate turtle
movements between wetlands (contact the DNR Nongame Specialist for additional information).
• Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum.
• Vegetation management under power lines should be done mechanically and between October 1st
and June 1st Chemicals should not be used.
• Below ground utility construction sites should be returned to original grade. Erosion should be
prevented from reaching wetlands and lakes.
• Graded areas should be revegetated wttth native grasses and forbs. Use of fertilizers and
pesticides should be avoided.
• All wetlands should be protected from road run-off, lawn and other chemical run -off by a vegetated
buffer strip. We recommend a minimum buffer of 50'. This area should be left unmowed and in a
natural condition.
• Shallow, vegetated wetlands (Type 2 & 3) should not be dredged or deepened.
• Landscaping should be left as natural as possible, trees should not be planted in known nesting
sites.
• Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible.
• Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent uplands and should avoid
bisecting wetlands.
• Report sightings of Blanding's turtles to the ONR Regional Nongame Specialist.
•
•
Environmental
Memo
To: Jeff Smyser
From: Marty Asleson
Date: May 30, 2001
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /May 30, 2001
Ryan Target Project
The Environmental Board would like to review and comment on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet after the agency review information is submitted to the city.
Staff will work to create an opportunity for further review and comment by the
Environmental Board. Brian will look into the feasibility of moving the items currently
scheduled to be reviewed in the June P &Z meeting to the July P &Z meeting.
Land Holding Group /12th and Holly /Preliminary Plat Review
Recommendations:
1. Do not approve this project until the Environmental Board has seen and reviewed
an adequate tree inventory and vegetation management plan.
2. This and any subsequent development projects by this developer should not be
given consideration by the city until such time as the agreement made in the
Gemini Estates development to replace trees has been fulfilled (see letter,
attached). If this tree replacement does in fact take place, the city is still advised
to act in accordance, and to take appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of a
future repeat of this undesirable situation.
3. January 31st Environmental Board recommendations on 12th and Holly
project proposal are restated. (below):
• Environmental Board regards this development proposal as a step backwards
in terms of the city's efforts to preserve and conserve open space and
• Page 1
environmental amenities. Conservation development principles are not
employed. They should be.
• It does not seem to be good planning to have lots with driveways on the
collector streets (12th Ave. and Holly Dr.). Removing those lots would better
allow for conservation of open space and desirable attributes within the
development.
• The street appears to be longer than needed. Make it shorter.
• Include the standard recommendations as listed on the developer check list
from the EB.
Environmental Board member Trehus made a motion to deny approval of 12th
and Holly project until the Environmental Board has had an opportunity to
review an adequate tree inventory and vegetation management plan.
Motion 2nd by Connie Grundhofer
Motion approved /All in favor.
Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition
Findings:
1. Highland Meadows West 3rd addition is not a Conservation Development.
2. The Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition development proposal plans for a
significant tree loss.
3. The Oak Savanna on the west end of the parcel should and many other trees on
site should be preserved, and this could be made possible through utilization of
conservation development principles and a P.D.O.
4. The Environmental Board did not have adequate information on surface water
management.
Recommendations:
1. If this proposal moves forward essentially as it stands, this developer should
satisfy the city that all steps possible have been taken to preserve trees. To
accomplish this with the existing plat, it seemed appropriate to reduce the scope
of the grading plan, which may dictate the building of structures without walkout
basements. The developer has objected to this suggestion, but has not
demonstrated that satisfying the city's concerns about the trees constitutes a
hardship.
Motion by Mike Trehus:
• Page 2
Recommend denial of this plat, and promote development of a plat in which a
Conservation Development approach is implemented in Highland Meadows
West 3rd addition.
2 "d by Connie Grundhofer
Motion approved. All in favor.
Lino Lakes Family Dentistry
Findings:
1. The surface water information supplied by the applicant is cause for concern. It
seems that it is planned to double the rate of water flow from the site.
Conditions for approval:
1. Surface water questions must be satisfactorily answered.
2. Minimize parking areas.
3. Low - impact lighting must be used.
• 4. Standard recommendations that include:
• Use City native vegetation schedule use in surface water drainage areas,
• Use native plants as much as possible in "cultured landscape" areas of building
frontages,
• Subsoil compacting must be corrected in landscape areas after construction and
topsoil mixing incorporated into the sub -soil,
• Irrigation to be supplied to cultured landscape areas,
•
Motion to approve subject to conditions stated by Mike Trehus
2 "d by Rod Kukonen
Motion approved unamiously.
• Page 3
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE : March 28, 2001
TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 9:17 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen,
Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and
Mike Trehus.
MEMBERS ABSENT : None.
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Economic
Development Director Brian Wessel.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 28, 2001— The following corrections were requested:
Page 3, twelfth paragraph: "Kukonen assured Mr. Schmidt that the critique of old
all development practices were not aimed at him, but that the goal was 50%
conservation development."
Page 5, ninth paragraph: " Donlin had some questions'about the location of the
infiltration ponds.
Page 5, insert after tenth paragraph: "Kukonen stated that Lots 37 -42, Block 1
appeared to have a stormwater runoff problem, and recommended buffering."
Kukonen moved to approve the February 28, 2001 meeting minutes as amended
above. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• Discuss Open Space Conservation Ordinance.
• Discuss upcoming Land Use Planning Workshop.
• Discuss Environmental Board activities for Earth Day.
• Discuss information on Wood Duck houses.
The agenda was approved as amended above.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
CITIZEN COMMENTS
No comments were made.
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 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.
2
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
B. Spirit Hills Subdivision Application — Asleson read the background from the
tracking sheet, which discussed a formal application submitted to develop Spirit
Hills under a Planned Overlay Development process. Mr. Goertz was at the
meeting to discuss the application. There was a conservation easement in the
West, and the open space was set back 150 feet.
Mr. Goertz indicated that shifting the cul -de -sacs moved the two closest lots to the
open space to 160 feet away.
Chair Lanyon inquired of the meaning of the dotted line running from north to
south across the map. Mr. Goertz answered that it was a remaining topographic
line.
Donlin questioned the meaning of Type B Soils. Asleson responded it was a wet
hydrotype soil.
Trehus asked about how many acres of wetland were present in the area. Mr.
Goertz answered there were 9.4 acres, and the higher site was just less than 10
acres.
Asleson explained that the area could be maintained for a 100 -year event. Mr.
Goertz added there were only two fill areas planned, which added up to less than
7000 sq. ft. Mitigation was expanding and indicated a desire for a lift station in
the northeast.
Asleson noted the degraded forest had recently been developed. Donlin
concurred the whole area had been degraded, and the plan was much improved.
Chair Lanyon commented the southcr,i,s. ection had been moved to the southeast
to keep the ditch from being fid i He added there was no known burial site on
the property.
Donlin indic ated the plan had vision, but urged Mr. Goertz not to build on the
floodplain. Mr. Goertz assured the Board that there were no plans to build on the
floodplain, and explained the fill areas were pits that may have been for garbage.
Donlin inquired about the meaning of the 3A inch hundred -year event. Mr. Goertz
responded that the watershed engineers defined it, but it dealt with controlling the
runoff.
Donlin presented that the Environmental Board had been considering increasing
the water level in the wetlands around Cedar Lake by building a dam where
Highway 49 crosses the creek, and inquired about its potential impact on the
development. Asleson noted that a dam was located on Baldwin Lake.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
Mr. Goertz indicated the development area would have a three -foot bounce, with
a two -foot bounce in the upland areas.
Donlin asked for clarification that the water could increase three feet before it
would affect the proposed development. Mr. Goertz responded that most
developments in the area would be affected, especially the golf course.
Mr. Goertz mentioned there were two lots, which would require a considerable
amount of fill in the northeast. He received permission from the County to dig
into the river. A conservation easement runs across all the lots in the west.
Asleson explained that the area was a planned greenway, however, the County at
present has not needed it.
Trehus asked if there was a trail planned with a boardwalk through the wetland.
Asleson noted that the County planned on paralleling Birch Street to connect to
the County park.
Trehus inquired where the upland was located. Mr. Goertz answered that most of
the upland had wetland vegetation on it.
Donlin inquired if the language in the owners' association accounted for a scenic
trail. Asleson noted it was beneficial to have guidelines for the association.
Trehus identified the area to have a high ecological value according to the maps,
and requested bigger buffers. Asleson concurred, and suggested creating swails
in the area He explained that Mr. Goertz' sr engineers were meeting with the
Watershed District tonight.
Mr. Goertz explained that the Watershed District's recommendations were four
pages long, but none of them required difficult changes.
Chair Lanyon commented he was encouraged by the plans proposed, but
mentioned the buildings come quite close together, and urged opening up the
views. Mr. Goertz responded noting no buildings were closer than 70 feet.
Asleson mentioned they had submitted landscape plans with native plantings in
the natural areas.
Trehus questioned the number of units in the townhomes. Mr. Goertz identified
49 units, and 31 single homes.
Chair Lanyon stated that although the distance between the houses was no closer
than 70 feet and trees were present, the connections were too narrow for wildlife.
Asleson offered there was escrow money for trees.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
Trehus indicated the total area was 40.5 acres except for the area in the southwest
which had been set aside for future development, and would create an outlot of
77,000 sq. ft. Mr. Goertz explained this was a minor subdivision off of the area
for a store and would be kept at 2.32 /acre density.
Trehus stated that the total area of the parcel to be developed was 34.4 acres. Mr.
Goertz pointed out 80 units on about 30 acres, and explained in the past they had
never subtracted the wetland areas. He assured that with the present spacing, the
site would remain low density.
Kukonen submitted it was encouraging to see the plans for the open space, and
asked about the staff recommendation for signage.
Trehus indicated there was no preservation in the plans, and that the area was
currently zoned R -1. Asleson responded the buffer would have infiltration ponds,
and that there was a considerable amount of upland.
Trehus noted a 200 -ft. buffer was recommended for wetland. Mr. Goertz
explained the 30 -ft. setback left 60 ft. for the owners to work with before the
conservation easement. The houses would be located at least 150 ft. from the
open water. He stated that he could get an exemption for the ditch and wetland.
If they were single family homes they would have 80 foot lots with 10,000 sq. ft.
Chair Lanyon stated Mr. Goertz had responded to the Board's recommendations,
and that he was comfortable with the changes.
Donlin indicated that in the project review the 100 -year flood level was a 2 -foot
difference, not a 3 -foot difference. Mr. Goertz explained the watershed district
deals with those numbers.
Donlin identified less than 200 -sq. ft. fill if not on the floodplain. Mr. Goertz
indicated his workers dug holes in the area, and only encountered old tires.
Donlin explained that the language made the Environmental Board skeptical
because other developers had misled it. She then asked about the purpose of the
weir.
Mr. Goertz answered that it skims sediment out of the water runoff. Asleson
added infiltration ponds also had weirs.
Chair Lanyon stated there was only half the allotted time to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan.
Donlin indicated in addition to staff recommendations, buffering should be
addressed, and the area should be inventoried for potential rare and endangered
5
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
species. Asleson assured the Board he would go on site to check for plant
associations when the growing season had begun.
Trehus asked if he had the actual lines of the conservation easement.
Asleson stated that the area was interesting in its biodiversity.
Mach explained that they did not want developments so near the water, and used
the townhouses on the south side of the road as an example. Asleson noted the
structures needed to be 150 ft. from the open water, and that number is increased
to 200 ft. in unsewered areas.
Chair Lanyon stated if the Environmental Board wanted to make that
recommendation it would need to go to the Planning and Zoning Board at that
level.
Asleson indicated a compacted 600 -ft. buffer does not reduce nutrient loading,
unless other alternatives are included such as water treatment train practices. He
asked where the water would go. Mr. Goertz explained the water would flow to
the front of the houses, and that there was up to 60 ft. of sod in the back of the
house.
Kukonen asked if it was up to the builder, what type of driveway they could have.
Mr. Goertz answered that it would ultimately be up to the builder, and commented
he was trying to create the cul -de -sacs without gutters or curbs, so the runoff
flows into the sodded yards. He was waiting to hear back from John Powell in
regards to this issue.
Trehus advised that because the area was considered a high ecological value zone,
a 100 -200 ft. buffer was needed around the wetlands, and other boards needed to
be aware of this number.
Chair Lanyon asked for a formal recommendation, not approval, but support or
non - support. Trehus concurred the Board votes on the recommendations because
the Council wanted to know the aspects of the proposals which are good or
unacceptable.
Chair Lanyon reviewed recommendations in addition to staff recommendations
included the curb and gutters, re -site the cul -de -sac to change the angle, and the
100 -200 ft. buffers.
Asleson mentioned a 50 -ft. buffer was required around isolated wetlands and 100
ft. around lakes.
Trehus expressed concern for the land because according to the map, it was a high
ecological zone. Asleson agreed and urged an informational sheet be distributed
6
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
on fertilizer and landscaping of back yards, specifically no phosphorus use, which
would be a great benefit. He posed the question to Mr. Goertz, how the
associations would deal with these issues.
Mr. Goertz assured the Board that the people in the associations were the people
who cared and the homeowners would need approval to trim a tree.
Trehus stated the townhomes weren't bordering the lake. Mr. Goertz indicated
the single- family homes had their own association.
Chair Lanyon asked if staff could relay the information. Asleson explained these
recommendations needed to be stated.
Mach mentioned that in Fisheries at the Department of Natural Resources, the
associations used peer control for aquatic plant removal.
Donlin expressed appreciation for the response to the Board's recommendations.
Chair Lanyon made a motion to pass on the recommendations with the
understanding that it was not an affirmation or denial of the project. The
recommendations included staff recommendations, curbs, gutters, and swails in
the cul -de -sacs, the fact that the area was an high ecological zone, buffers as
stated in the Handbook 7.12, the encouragement to open up the angle in the swail
area, and educational packet to be given to the homeowners. Motion carried
unanimously.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review — Chair Lanyon stated the need to prioritize
the other agenda items. Asleson noted that specific recommendations were
needed tonight.
Chair Lanyon stated that concerning the Comprehensive Plan, the number of
houses per year would be 75 according to 20/20.
Donlin explained the growth rate needed to be controlled, with 175 stated in the
Plan. By the year 2020 the goal was not to exceed 5000 people, which meant the
rate must remain 60 houses /year. With the present number of 240 units /year, the
City would exceed the population cap in 6 years.
Chair Lanyon asked where the statement was located in the Plan. Asleson noted
the numbers were located on page 9.
Grundhofer expressed concern that in several instances, the math was incorrect.
• Donlin agreed it was troubling that the figures were completely off.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
Chair Lanyon stated the Metropolitan Council forecasts the numbers the City
Council may report.
Trehus noted an inconsistency on page 64 of the framework with the number
7,900, while on page 65 the number was 7575.
Chair Lanyon urged the Board to make specific recommendations. On page 25,
number 9; limit growth needed a not to exceed clause, otherwise the City could be
built up in 5 years and be finished. Trehus agreed there had been more than 150
homes in four months before the Board.
Asleson reviewed the concerns of the Board already stated were inconsistent
numbers, and the need for a "not to exceed" clause. Chair Lanyon urged a
number be proposed for the latter.
Donlin mentioned the projected cap from the 20/20 was 20,500 and should be a
cap for the year 2020. Chair Lanyon indicated the cap was 20,500 for the year
2010.
Donlin noted the above quote was a typographical error.
Grundhofer addressed community growth as described on page 3 were 259, but in
reality added up to 288. Trehus agreed the math was incorrect.
Donlin offered the number 20,500 people as the maximum carrying capacity for
the City, and suggested a moratorium may be needed. Chair Lanyon suggested
the number 180 /year.
Trehus mentioned the number should decrease the following year to compensate
for the higher growth in the previous year Chair Lanyon added that it should not
exceed 300 in a two -year period.
Donlin asked how the City was going to respond when the maximum population
is reached. Chair Lanyon inquired if it ever stated a maximum population.
Trehus responded that there was never a maximum number given, and there was
no statement or vision after 2010 or 2020. In addition, no maps were given to the
Board with the Comprehensive Plan.
Donlin questioned the urgency to give recommendations within the month on the
Comprehensive Plan, when there are no finished maps. Trehus indicated the
Council was planning to proceed without comments from the advisory boards.
Asleson stated the comments needed to be written down. Chair Lanyon reviewed
there was no cap for any given year, 180 was suggested with 294 in a 2 -year
period. He also noted the presence of a policy plan with growth management, but
8
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
an environmental goal needed to be stated within each category, and not have its
own. Examples of categories that need environmental principles stated within
were land use and transportation.
Kukonen questioned page 40, #6, the reference to community -wide drainage,
surface water management or treatment trains.
Trehus referred to the existing land use map and urban expansion map with the
MUSA lines. (These were borrowed from a councilperson and copied for the
Environmental Board). The maps show the northeast had a rural business reserve,
and would not be developed. In reference to the chart, the total acreage outside
was 12,000 acres. The plan was to add 2500 acres to the MUSA, and there was
no provision for denial. The stages should be in 2 -year intervals. Chair Lanyon
inquired the origin of the chart, because theoretically the table and the chart 2010-
2020 should have matched. Either the numbers mean nothing, or there are a lot of
wetlands.
Trehus explained the areas were considered unable to be developed, but they were
adding to the MUSA. Asleson added that there was upland scattered throughout
the area
Trehus indicated the total acreage of 2504 was 2000 acres exclusive of wetland.
Chair Lanyon stated if the numbers were accurate, then recommendations should
be made by the Environmental Board to the Council.
Trehus asked for clarification on the meaning of hydric soils. Asleson explained
the definitions were from the National Wetland Soils, and these were often found
to be inaccurate on the field.
Trehus stated that with 2500 acres only 900 acres were available for development.
Asleson submitted when the City was inventoried, an accurate appraisal could be
made.
Trehus indicated the general rule was hydric soil could be built upon. Donlin
indicated that if the City determined it could be developed, massive growth would
take place. She urged the maps be redrawn with the rationale to support the
vision of limited growth.
Chair Lanyon mentioned there was an overlap of hydric soils and wetlands.
Trehus asked if all hydric soils were wetlands. Asleson responded the GIS
classifications of red were not hydric, but were the Hydrological Association
Classification.
Chair Lanyon advised the Board to put forth recommendations, with the
understanding it was impossible to give good feedback with the numbers
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
inconsistent, and several pages missing. Trehus noted all the necessary maps
were missing.
Trehus continued, noting that page 67 stated the City needed 359 buildable acres
to allow for growth for 2010. As of August 2000, the projected growth zone for
2010 showed a difference in the numbers.
Chair Lanyon asked staff to review the guidelines on pages 20 -23 and make sure
all the guidelines were incorporated.
Asleson identified that the forested areas were scattered throughout the City, not
in dense woodlands. Chair Lanyon stated the inventory needed a map.
Proactively speaking, this was the only way to compare classifications.
Asleson stated there was a time lag between the map inventory and the field
research to confirm the map.
Chair Lanyon admitted that was true, however, the learning would be a process
with the mapping. Trehus commented the map would give the City something to
work from.
Donlin noted interference with the rural goals as stated on page 28. Chair Lanyon
added that 25,000 population conflicts with them.
Donlin suggested removing #2, because it was a loophole for unlimited stage
growth.
Trehus indicated page 4.2 of the handbook had a conceptual greenway planned,
however, the greenways need to be zoned as such so there would be no conflict.
Asleson explained the grant would allow for a better definition of the greenway.
Chair Lanyon stated goal #5 should have separate zoning. On page 26, under
Land Use, a section on greenway goals and policies should be added.
Trehus noted section 2.22 in the handbook describes lake protection areas, but
nothing addresses those in the Plan. He asked how the conflict should be
addressed. Chair Lanyon suggested a specific statement stand alone in the Plan,
followed by an example.
O'Connell stated on page 29, #7, promote community education and information
to local property owners on home maintenance, repair, and assistance
opportunities, should have landscaping added to it
Chair Lanyon indicated the more the City could work with homeowner
associations the better the planning.
10
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
Kukonen referred to page 81 under the clustered subdivision the rationale given
was to provide for more orderly development preserved for future development,
which is the exact opposite of the goals of the Environmental Board. He
suggested inserting an open space conservation ordinance, and then rework the
paragraphs following it. Chair Lanyon asked Kukonen to rewrite the page and
submit the amended page to Asleson.
Kukonen suggested specific changes to the clustered subdivision section. Line 5
change the word reserving to "preserving." In addition, making #1 read "50% or
more of land must be preserved as open space exclusive of wetlands."
Chair Lanyon stated the section was unacceptable in keeping with the framework
of the goals of the Environmental Board.
Kukonen indicated the 3`d paragraph #1, should be "to create an open space
conservation ordinance."
Donlin noted the three points had unclear wording, the goal of #7 used the words
flora and fauna, and were not representative verbiage.
Trehus stated ordinances needed to be developed to enforce the policies. He
recommended a moratorium be put in place until the ordinances are formed. The
resources would then be available for the ordinances.
B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 — This item was not discussed.
C. Board Member Information Responsibilities — This item was not discussed.
PROGRAM /PROJECT UPDATES
A. Conservation Partners Grant — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001
meeting. Asleson indicated the Conservation Partners Grant Program for
Buckthorn control had been approved by the Council. The grant was dependent
on community involvement. The project duration was 3 -5 years.
Donlin asked if the posts were available. Asleson responded some of the plants
were three inches in diameter, and would be treated with chemicals. The
branches would then be chipped. Roundup would be used on the stumps.
Donlin stated the City of North Oaks had Buckthorn pullers available to rent at
city hall, she recommended they be available through the City.
B. Minnesota DNR/ Wildland Interface — This item was tabled to the April 24,
2001 meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MARCH 28, 2001
C. Solid Waste/ Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001
meeting.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Open Space Conservation Ordinance - Kukonen stated that conversation needs
to begin on the open space conservation ordinance.
Chair Lanyon inquired whether other staff members were notified concerning the
work on the ordinance. Asleson indicated they were not, but assured the Board he
would distribute copies of the other cities' ordinances to them.
B. Land use Planning Workshop — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001
meeting.
C. Environmental Board activities for Earth Day — This item was tabled to the
April 24, 2001 meeting.
D. Wood Duck Boxes — This item was tabled to the April 24, 2001 meeting.
CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on April 24, 2001.
There being no further business, Chair Lanyon moved to adjourn at 9 :17 p.m.
Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Brigette Blesi
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
DATE : April 25, 2001
TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 10:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Dave
Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus
MEMBER ABSENT : Scott Lanyon
Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Director of Economic
Development Brian Wessel, and City Planner Jeff Smyser.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lanyon was not present, so Vice Chair Mach called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 25, 2000 — Trehus moved to postpone approval of the a March 25, 2001 meeting
• minutes. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
•
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the meeting agenda : :`
• Discuss meeting minutes — Trehus.
The agenda was approved as amended,
CITIZEN COMMENTS
No comments were made.
PROJECT REVIEW,„
A. Ryan/T,arget Superstore /CUP /Site Plan Review/Preliminary Plat/Variance — Wessel
gave a preview ,qf the ubmissions. He noted the timeline was intensive. The second
proposal was4sma ler scale, with the most recent plan on a very intensive timeline given
the specifics. He introduced Dick Ryan the retail contractor and John Payton from the
design teamnfor Ryan/Target. Wessel reviewed the most recent plan went to the Planning
and Zoning Board, with a public hearing scheduled for the May 9 Planning and Zoning
meeting.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Trehus questioned the status of the Environmental Audit Worksheet. Mr. Payton
responded the draft went to the City Consultant for review. He noted the square footage
of the building would be revised and stated the project would be published in a
professional journal in June as a forum for response and comment. Mr. Payton added
there was a 3.62 wet and fill mitigation underway near the golf course. The surveying
areas have been delineated for the expansion of the wetland areas.
Trehus stated that the Board wanted to preserve upland, and he sees the mitigation plan as
a net loss for the City. Mr. Payton responded the site was a part of the Anoka County
Park System so the question was posed to the County for options on wetland mitigation.
Vice Chair Mach inquired if it was common practice to go to the County level. Mr.
Payton answered the wetland impact and mitigation was all under the jurisdiction of the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Trehus questioned the number of acres in the proposed expansion. Mr. Payton pointed
out the basin was 3.62 acres at the Target site, so they were working with the watershed
district to complete up to 25% of the park. He indicated that 2.5 to 3 acres were fairly
small and there were other potential sites for mitigation. Mr. Payton advised that rock
finds results found arrowheads in the motocross area and shovel samples confirmed 1977
or 1978 field review reports noting the area for the potential site
Donlin agreed the findings concluded there was archeologcal'signifcance because it was
a travel path for Native Americans through the Chain of Lakes. She inquired about the
7
consultants who obtained the records from 197 or 1978. Mr Payton answered they were
acquired by the document team.
questioned the validity of the findings because of their bias implied by the firms'
funding. Mr. Payton explained the consultants were a reputable and well known
company that would not falsify informat? r
Donlin asked for confirmation tit Ry wtuld be up front with the City on the results of
the study. Mr. Payton assured the Board that it would be honest with the findings.
s k ti4 .ry
Trehus inquired about thew^water volumes of the basins. Mr. Payton noted the red areas of
the map were,e infiltration areas. He noted that John Powell suggested depressing the
Southwest and Northwest areas, because the numbers would remain the same. The
Southeast pond had been removed in the newest plan.
Trehus questioned he size of the site, and the movement of the water as to where it was
going and the volumes. Mr. Payton responded the site was a little less than 48 acres. The
storage volume for the wet component was 13.5 acre feet. The requirement is 5.5 acres.
Any two inch rainfall events would be able to go out of a two inch diameter tube.
2
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Donlin expressed concern over a 500 year event, and wanted to know where the water
would go in those instances. She noted there had been three such events in 10 days in
1992. Mr. Payton indicated a 100 year event of 5.9 inches would discharge over a 48
hour period. Emergency overflow would move toward Highway 35W, the flow direction
would not change.
Trehus indicated the water would eventually flow into George Watch Lake, and in an
event over two inches would move too quickly. Mr. Payton explained he did not have the
numbers for the water volume. The total capacity of the pond was 9.9 acre ft. of storage,
however, all surfaces receive water. He explained the flow will either go over the land or
underground.
Trehus urged a reviewal of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet by the Board
before the City Council approved the project. Asieson noted the proposal was to be
submitted after the present meeting and it would receive approval before the next
meeting.
Wessel stated final approval was to come in July.
O'Connell inquired about the treatment of oils and gases in the water. Mr Payton
explained that because petroleum products float, there would be a skimming feature.
The Board discussed lighting and signage. Kukoneninqui:red whether Target would be
willing to use a non - backlit logo. Mr. Payton answered the sign should be visible to the
East and West where there were mainly busine es..
Vice Chair Mach asked if all the stores had -filar lighting and signage. Mr. Payton
responded the store plans accommodate the requirements of the planning and zoning in
each city.
The issue of parking spaces was discussed in 'relation to the ordinances and the
requirements of the stores. 'iffiin Grundhofer :noted the City requirements were exceeded by
103 spaces.
Mr. Payton address edtthe green space in relation to parking. He explained that questions
remain as to where the green space is distributed. If within the parking lot, they could
create visual barriers causingxaccidents. If it were a block on the side, it would create an
unbrokenpavement.
Trehus urged Target/Ryan to reduce the number of spaces and explore green parking,
because ofie potential degradation of George Watch Lake. Mr. Payton answered
impervious of green parking was difficult to maintain with shopping carts, and dirt mud
tracking in the stores.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Trehus stated some of the area could be green, because there were no carts from Kohl's,
and in the winter shoveled snow needed to be piled somewhere.
Asleson indicated staff would review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet followed
by the Environmental Quality Board.
Trehus asked who comprised the Environmental Quality Board. Smyser stated the
Governor appointed representatives of the DNR, MPCA, as well as others. They set rules
for how the worksheets are completed. The developers fill out the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet, the City reviews it, the Environmental Quality Board does not
review it but files it and copies it for 27 other agencies, as well as publishes it for
comments for 30 days. He explained that the City owns the document.
Asleson inquired about the grading of the parking lot and the method of getting the water
into the ponds. Mr. Payton responded slipform paving was the method that would be
used, where the back curb would be removed to allow flow into the catch basin behind
the store.
Asleson noted the tree and plant species lists were included in the packet'. He explained
phosphorus loading was a water quality issue, not limited to aesthetics, but
bioremediation was also important. There would be a yearly fee, which would be used to
reduce phosphorus in the system. Mr. Asleson explained that the cost for bioremediation
with the monthly fee would be less than the cost of mowing.
It was discussed that because motor oil would be sold, it was also necessary to provide on
site recycling to the public.
B. Spirit Hills Update — Asleson stated the Planning and Zoning Board had objected to the
townhomes, so they have been removedk Staff head no new recommendations.
Trehus noted his concerns were the wetlan d buffering, the lake protection area, and the
fact that the property has high envifo' ntal value.
The Board discussed the letter from the DNR and chose to forward those comments.
C. Highland MeaowsWest3'"dAddition — Mr. Cooper stated that the submitted plan was
being withdrawn'due 'to a needed plan modification. The wetland delineation showed
wetlandyere there was none noted previously, and the area thought to be wetland was
found to notb ,He indicated there were six existing homes on the plat, the newly found
wetland would affect 4 -5 lots, and a new access road would be necessary. The Wetland
Conservation Act would no longer be applicable to the site.
=ate
Asleson noted a tree inventory submitted needed the species and the impact on each tree.
The trees would be lost because of the walkouts but if the houses had full basements,
most of the Historic Oak Savanna trees could be saved.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Mr. Cooper indicated 75 -80% of the trees would be saved. Asleson stated most of the
trees would be lost. He disagreed with the number of trees saved until the tree inventory
was completed.
Grundhofer submitted that people were attracted to homes with trees on the lot. Donlin
concurred and discussed the vision was created to save the trees.
Asleson identified there were young oak woodlands throughout the site. If only the oldest
trees were to be saved, pine beetle issues and issues with the Fire Department would
probably result.
Mr. Cooper noted that to the consumer, graded elevation was desirable with walkouts and
trees. Most were split entry with drainage, so it would be above a 100 year flood and
have an emergency overflow.
Trehus asked how much of the site was wetland. Mr. Cooper answered there was .78
acres in the middle, and .25 acre in the corner.
Vice Chair Mach stated significant trees did not mean old trees, �a.,diversi
needed.
of ages was
Donlin explained that the plan appeared to be a cookie cutter approach and the Board
wanted to encourage conservation planning. Mr. Schmidt responded there were six
houses on 28 acres, and the development hadooccur� round ti ose. He noted there was
no tree preservation ordinance.
Asleson indicated there was no ordinance, but to was a policy. Mr. Schmidt responded
his goal to keep as many trees as possible was acceptable to the City, and to the potential
residents. He agreed with the age diversty conpt and explained he wanted to work
te. ;�.� .
with people. Bluebill Pondsswas graded, but`he did not want to match it because he will
lose trees. Mr. Schmidt noted that ` iany species could be relocated.
A discussion of the concept of conservation subdivision was discussed, with various
members holding-differing, definitions of the concept. Asleson recommended the Board
begin with w the site could;support and go from there.
Mr. Schmidt suggested the City make an ordinance. He predicted trouble with developers
if 50% or.iWtiipxyl, was'to be saved and cited the housing shortage. He believed the large
areas needed to s, preserved, not the small areas. Donlin pointed out that both could
occur if thedevelopment was reconfigured.
Mr. Schmidt stated the fire department did not want narrower streets and the City
Planners did not want smaller lots. Smyser confirmed the statement.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Mr. Schmidt urged the members of the Board to visit his past sites in St. Michael and in
Brooklyn Park. He noted the St. Michael site was the most successful development
except for one other with houses priced $150,000 and higher. The Brooklyn Park site
moved 450 Spruce and Norway pine, and planted hardwoods and wildflower gardens.
D. Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street/Rezone /Amend Conditional Use Permit /Amend
Zoning Ordinance — Asleson reviewed the background and reported there had been
concerns over towers covering the landscape. The request was to increase the height of
the tower from 510 to 530 feet. Key West Microwave Telephone could also use the
tower. Staff recommended to approve the plan.
Donlin asked if there would be any additional guide wires.
Trehus recommended a City -wide plan to address the need for communications towers.
Asleson responded Smyser was working on that.
Trehus moved that until such a time where a City -wide plan for communication towers is
developed, there should be no further tower construction. Grundhofer seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously.
E. Heritage Development /Saddle Club/Preliminary Plat - ,Asleson indicated the
greenway option did not apply to the park.
Kukonen mentioned the MUSA might be approaching the deadline in reference to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Asleson noted a trail was being planned and a entire Southern portion was greenway.
O'Connell stated it appeared the entiretsite was lowland. Asleson presented a map
depicting red areas that were highluplan
Grundhofer indicated the same tern n e�'legend was used for trees to be saved and trees
to be removed.
Asleson agreed theap needed to be redone. He noted the number of lots had not
changed, however, there was new open space with a park linking to the greenway system
connecting Birch Park with Birchway. He suggested the trail could also be linked.
Donlin inquired whatv`amount was not in the MUSA. Kukonen explained the southern
part of the' parcel
Asleson indicated it was a good way to have the greenway with a trail.
Kukonen expressed concern due to the dual MUSA status, and suggested if there was a
proposed trade, it would set a bad precedent for MUSA.
6
•
•
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
Trehus inquired about the conservation easements in light of the large lots encroaching on
the wetlands. He asked if the Planning and Zoning Board was going to see this plan.
Asleson answered the greenway with the trail was the change in the plan, at one time the
area was biodiverse.
Trehus questioned the location and type of the path, and whether it was going to be on the
ecotone. Asleson responded there was a way to put a paved path through the center of the
ecosystem, and not the edges to minimize the environmental impact.
Vice Chair Mach submitted that if the trails went through nice areas it could raise
environmental consciousness.
Grundhofer indicated the tree legend needed to be clear, and asked staff for his
recommendations. Asleson answered no changes, and advised that because of time
constraints, the Board would probably not be asked to comment again.
The Board discussed the population growth and traffic concerns. If a hold on new MUSA
would be recommended, the greenway would probably be lost.
Trehus mentioned reducing the size of the lots to preserve open space. Asleson
responded that Planning and Zoning Board objected to it, and so he negotiated the
greenway.
O'Connell recommended approval but with strong reservations. about the number of
homes being built in one year in light of 147 homes as an annual total. In addition, the
number of trees saved versus lost neededito beclarifie on the plat map.
Grundhofer moved to recommend approval with e reservations. O'Connell seconded
the motion. Motion passed 5 to Trehps) f
F. 64th and 20t "/Variance Request ,= r. Valentine introduced himself as the project leader
and Tom Carlson as the new owner. Mr. Valentine had known the original owner for 10
years.
Trehus noted¢tle need for an alternative site for a septic tank.
Mr. Valentine stated:it was a 2.82 acre triangular site, where he tried to stay out of the
wetlands''-and`preservethe trees.
Grundhofer indicated her concern for the mound septic tank, where any pollutants would
go directly into the wetland.
Asleson recommended Mr. Valentine work with the Vadnais Heights Watershed District.
Mr. Valentine reported speaking with them and noted the delineation report indicated
7
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
reed canary grass and a sledge called carrats, with a dual classification of non - emergent
submerged most of the season. Asleson pointed out that the site was in the lake
protection zone with hydric soil. The requirement was a 30 foot buffer around the
wetland. He stated the application was the setback from the road variance.
Vice Chair Mach concurred that a variance was acceptable if the property would be
improved for the natural habitat.
Donlin stated that with one unit the road becomes less of an issue, however, how would
the property impact the phosphorus levels in the runoff. Mr. Carlson indicated there were
no plans for a lawn on the property.
Mr. Valentine pointed out the house could be moved back with a longer driveway, but
then it would be encroaching on the wetland.
Trehus noted there was a misalignment in the white triangle, and the wetland ended at the
lot line.
Smyser indicated Planning and Zoning could make a recommendation to the City
Council, but it is contingent on the watershed approval.
Donlin stated the watershed district might not deal with septic tank issues in relation to
Lake Amelia.
Mr. Valentine mentioned there was no tested alternativ a site for the septic system, but he
could obtain a statement from the septic analyst
Smyser stated the mound system was above grod, so rainfall and groundwater did not
affect it.
Trehus suggested the City not approve the project with relevant questions pending.
O'Connell indicated after the watershedldistrict comments, there would be more answers.
Smyser noted the request was for a variance, the Board had questions about the septic
system location, but no specifics were stated.
Asleson indicated there were environmental issues.
There was discuss ionsof the issue of the upland requirement. Recommendations were
concerns fortie impact of the septic system on the wetlands, and the location within the
lake protection area.
G. 2088 80th St. /Variance Request - John Cartier was requesting an outbuilding variance
for a pole barn. It was noted that four years ago he built his home on the site and is now
8
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
planning an organic vegetable garden since his grandfather had one in that location. The
property had been family owned since 1840s, and there were no plans to move.
Donlin suggested there could be problems if neighbors thought it was not aesthetic. Mr.
Cartier indicated there were no close neighbors, the closest were extended family
members.
Kukonen moved to pass the variance request along with no recommendations. Donlin
seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Trehus moved to take a 5 minute break. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS
A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Review — Asleson asked for final thoughts on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Trehus expressed concern that the growth zone was larger than the previous plan as
compared to the 1997 land use.
Grundhofer addressed need for more accurate and readable tha
Kukonen indicated a concern over the yellow areas offexpansion outside the MUSA.
Ms. Sand had forwarded information to staff addressing lighting pollution.
B. Environmental Board Goals is item as tabled to the May 30, 2001 meeting.
PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES
A. Grant Updates — This item was tabled to the May 30, 2001 meeting.
B. Minnesota DNRNVildland Interface — This item was tabled to the May 30, 2001
meeting.
C. Solid Waste cling Updates — This item was tabled to the May 30, 2001 meeting.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Discussion of the March 28, 2001 Minutes — This item was tabled to the May 30, 2001
meeting.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING APRIL 25, 2001
CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on May 30, 2001.
There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Grundhofer seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Brigette Blesi
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
10
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
: June 13, 2001
: 6:30 P.M.
: 11:12 P.M.
: Corson, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych
(Arrived at 9:50 p.m.)
: None.
: City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser; Al
Brixius (NAC)
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning
p.m., June 13, 2001.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May '! 01
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to a . prove
Lino Lakes Planning and Zo oard, d was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion
carried 4 -0.
meeting to order at 6:35
es of the May 9, 2001 meeting of the
III. APPROVAL OF
The agenda was app�`'ed as esented.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m.
Teresa O'Connell and Connie Grundhofer of the Environmental Board summarized their
goals of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and
Zoning Board may have regarding their goals. Mr. Lyden and Ms. Lane asked for a copy
of the written goals.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m., and was supported by
Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 2
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
required setback from a collector road. The site lies between I -35E and 20th Avenue (Co. Rd.
54). Most of the site was wetland. Only a small portion of the site was upland: the area along
the 20th Avenue. Variances from required road setbacks would be needed if a house and
driveway were to be built. Some wetland fill would be required.
Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining in the R -X Rural Executive zoning
district, the City's zoning ordinance required a 40' building setback from a collector road such as
20th Ave. This site had only a small area of upland. Some wetland fill would be required if a
home was to be built. The greater the road setback, the more wetland fill would occur. The
request was to allow the structure to be 10 feet from the right of way of 20th Avenue.
Staff stated the driveway must be at least 30 feet from the intersection, measured from the corner
of the property (Sec. 3 Subd. 5.C.8.f of the zoning ordinance). However, this would require
additional wetland fill for the driveway. Therefore, a variance ; . needed for this as well. The
driveway as shown on the submitted survey was 10 feet fro • Y e intersection.
With respect to future right -of -way, staff explained
foresaw the need for an additional five feet of right
occurred, the garage and driveway would be only we
undesirable situation, it was a trade -off betwe,,n being c
wetland. The City could not simply prevent t
oun ®t. d 'nformed the City that it
n each s e of the road. If this
from the ROW. While this was an
t• the road and filling more
er from using the land.
Staff stated the site was located withi
Management Organization (NLA
WLAWMO was pending. The loca
needed. The plan showed ju
Increasing the road setbac
juris . °tion of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed
ecaus f the wetland impact, a review by
se would determine the amount of wetland fill
sf of fill, as noted on the attached VLAWMO notice.
the wetland fill
The VLAWO staff recomme
as to approve the plan.
With respect to a septic system, staff explained any new home on well and septic must have an
alternate drain field site designated. This was to ensure that a new drain field could be
constructed if the first one failed.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall
make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff pointed out that the site was extremely restricted because of the wetlands. Without
variance from setback requirements, the property could not be used. The physical circumstances
were not created by the landowner. The hardship was not due to economic considerations. No
special privilege was being granted. This type of hardship was the reason for the variance.
Staff recommended approval of both variances to allow structure to be 10 feet from the collector
road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 3
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Ms. Lane stated some lots were not build able lots and indicated this lot appeared to be one of
these lots. She asked what was the City's responsibility. Mr. Smyser replied the Courts had
stated the landowner must be allowed reasonable use of the property. He indicated this property
was very difficult to deal with. He stated they could not prevent somebody to reasonable use of
the property.
Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification of Anoka County's right -of -way. Mr. Smyser stated the right
of way would bring it to within 5 feet of the garage.
Mr. Rafferty asked how long had applicant owned this piece of property. Mr. Valentine
responded he was not the owner of the property, he was the builder and he had been working on
it for 6 months to get something build able on it. The property was closed on May 20, 2001.
Mr. Rafferty stated there were certain guidelines that had been in place and he believed those
guidelines were such to protect the people who were being grand fathered in. However, he stated
they were speculating on the use of a property on guidelines th e, ad been in place. He stated he
was leery of this request because the buyer should have bee are of the condition of the
property prior to purchase, and this would not fit into a gr ing clause.
Mr. Valentine replied the previous owner had this 1
regardless of the owner of the property, the same situa
recently purchased the property did not chan _ the fact
reasonable use to the property. He stated the
and the Ordinances had changed over this perio
never occur under today's Ordinance
in 197 d ` Mr. Smyser replied
would exist. The fact that somebody
oever owned the property had
e lots had existed for some time
He stated this type of platting would
Mr. Corson inquired about the septi
wetland was being impacted
system did not impact the
Ham Lake and Hugo ha .
designed, built and maintaine
He stated the septic system wou
secondary system and expressed concern the
tem. He asked if they could ensure the septic
d if it was possible to look at a septic system, such as
at this be considered. Mr. Smyser stated a properly
system, treated wastewater better than a treatment plant.
of have any impact on the wetland if it properly built. He
indicated the systems Mr. Corson was referring to were considered experimental, and at this
point, there were no regulations by the City, which required this type of a septic system.
Mr. Powell stated he was familiar with these types of systems, and encouraged the applicant to
consider a design of a wetland treatment system. He stated he believed this type of a system
would be appropriate.
Mr. Lyden asked about the status of the watershed. Mr. Smyser replied the Board would make a
decision on this tomorrow morning. He stated he had received a copy of the text for this project
and the Board was recommending approval of the wetland mitigation plan.
Mr. Lyden asked if staff had had any concerns. Mr. Smyser replied they had been working with
applicant and had worked out all of the concerns.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and
reasonable manner.
Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had
been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen.
Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to
complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road.
Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the
collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection,
with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and was supported by Mr.
Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane).
B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was to r- ove a portion of land from one
parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action woul ve the lot line ten feet. The
existing property line followed the' /41/4 section line. The .tph o Lion was to move that property
line ten feet to the east. The reason was to increase the of the es rn parcel to make it a
full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for the par „ , (Pa "gel B) w h o wanted a full 20 acres.
Staff explained the action would combine int • p p along he Baste �r,-1 a narrow strip of land alon I-
35E, which currently was a separate tax parce the d involved was under the same
ownership.
Staff indicated currently, a private
private easements, not City roads.
public roadway, that would
that location and there w
did not obligate the City in
nt and the proposed access easement were
t intended the new easement to be a future
ed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in
ey a road to the City at this time. The new easement
Staff stated though the City's su + vision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a
public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision
would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any
future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public
street.
Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend
utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres.
No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel
sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He
explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 5
informed that the City was requiring the 65 -foot roadway easement. He asked when the
purchase agreement was signed the agreement stated if the roadway was ever to be used as a
dedicated public road, then they would give up the 65 -foot easement, but until that time, it would
remain as it was. He stated Mr. Iverson had agreed to that and had signed the purchase
agreement. He indicated now Mr. Iverson was asking for a 66 -foot easement. He stated if this
did not get resolved, the property might be not closed on.
Chair Schaps stated it appeared Mr. Walton and Mr. Iverson did not see eye to eye and the
Planning and Zoning Board had no authority to enter into this type of a dispute. Mr. Walton
replied he understood that and he requested the 66 -foot easement be struck from the
recommendation to the City.
Mr. Brian Iverson stated he had not figured anything out yet, but whatever the City wanted to do
was fine with him.
Mr. Powell noted that if Mr. Iverson wanted to develop it in the future, a right -of -way easement
would be required.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision, A out any additional easement
other than what was already platted, and was supported by li sd yden. Motion carried 4 -0.
C. Item Deleted
D. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, Apollo ve, Site Plan Review
Staff presented the application by explaining a o had bmitted site and building plans for
construction of a 5,067 square foot medical of
g on property located on Apollo Drive.
The subject site was approximately 6 feet in size. The property was guided for
future commercial development b ; prehe E. we Plan and was zoned GB, General
Business District. Medical office u �� ���" ed within this District as a permitted use.
Development of a commerc a y as e. t to site and building plan review as provided for
by Section 2, subd. 5 of omng" din ce.
Staff presented its analysis o re ' est by explaining the only issue was that the drive aisle on
the west side of the building wa t on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This
driveway was within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property
to the west and was indicated to be temporary.
Staff indicated the footprint was approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building was a single story
structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high.
Staff stated the elevations featured cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a
lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides
and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents were provided at the corners of the
building. The peaks of the pitched roof also used the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B
allowed for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement
boards" were consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 6
The site plan included a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The
trash enclosure was 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would
complement the principal building design.
With respect to the landscape plan, staff explained it proposed a mixture of trees, shrubs and
bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan
were consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping had been
provided for the portion of the property designated for future development. This area should be
seeded to control erosion. The utility plan indicated a sprinkler system was to be provided that
would serve the front portion of the lot. The system should be expanded to serve more of the
property or additional measures made available for watering plantings. The landscape plan was
subject to further review for compliance with CPTED standards.
Staff explained the site had one access to Apollo Drive, which overlayed the west lot line
providing for a shared driveway with the abutting property. Access to Apollo Drive was subject
to approval of the City Engineer and Anoka County under a joint power agreement.
Staff stated in addition to the shared access, the site plan provided a 12 -foot drive aisle abutting
the property line on the west side of the building, which accessed the trash enclosure and interior
storage area As noted above, this drive aisle was within an �eascment overlaying the west
property line to provide for shared access and was intende "to mporary. The applicant was
therefore requesting that this section of driveway be al Area asph curb The parameters for
the temporary allowance of the asphalt curb should
Staff indicated circulation around the site was de
12 -foot access aisles (24 foot two -way) for the
Backing out of the north stalls in the parking ar
shallow. If possible, the parking stal uld be
backup lane to improve access.
pecQed as part of the site plan approval.
quate °r. P26 -foot wide driveway leading to
and rear trash/storage area.
e difficult because the backup lane was
hifted south to increase the depth of the
Staff explained the total req
building. If the calculatio
23 spaces, of which three
allow development of the eas
mind, accommodation should be
parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the
e " rage area, 22 spaces were required. The plan showed
o be removed to provide an extension of the driveway to
the property. With the potential full use of the property in
ade for 26 parking stalls on the site plan outside of the area
necessary to extend the driveway. The site plan should also be revised to provide sufficient
surface width such that the disability accessible stalls are van accessible.
Staff stated the signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits were required for
all signs. The site plan indicated the location of a monument type business sign measured 40
square feet. The sign was located to the south of the parking area approximately one foot from
the lot line. Freestanding signs were required to be at least five feet from the lot line, so the site
plan must be revised.
With respect to lighting, staff indicated the site plan did not identify exterior light fixtures. Any
light fixtures to be installed must be shown on the site plan and accompanied by a photometric
plan.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 7
Staff stated the proposed site was to be served by sanitary sewer and water services located
within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Service to the future development of the eastern portion
of the subject site would have access to the planned connection lines. The submitted plans
included a grading and drainage plans for review regarding runoff control and water quality. All
utility and grading plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Staff indicated park dedication requirements for medical offices were $200.00 per 1000 sf of
commercial building. Based on a 4,792 square foot building, the park dedication requirement
would be $958.40.
Staff stated the proposed site plan for Family Dentistry was generally consistent with the
performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes to the site plan were
required to provide required parking stalls, improve parking lot circulation and comply with
setbacks for the west driveway.
Staff stated provided these issues were addressed, staff recommended approval of the application
with the following conditions:
a. The site plan is revised such that all driveways dparking areas
Mr. Lyden read the Environmental Board's concerns rega
Powell noted this site was served by a regional pond,
system was routed to this pond.
ter flow from the site. Mr.
to the storm sewer
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make com _ n
Mr. Scott Maurer, Progressive Architecture, 27 •' "'m Street, Suite 530, St. Paul, stated he
represented the owners of the prope e gave brief history of the property. He stated this
building was a rural design. He a larific on regarding the easement. He stated they
were trying to respond to what was s a�K b,; ` veloped on the west side of the development.
He asked there be no curb o *de, that it be flat asphalt. Chair Schaps replied he
had understood that and
Mr. Maurer pointed out wher
lot to the east. He asked if this
irrigation to the site to the east.
ting would be located. He asked about the irrigation of the
Id be irrigated. Mr. Brixius stated they were not looking for
Chair Schaps asked for clarification on the parking stalls. Mr. Maurer replied right now they
were just building the clinic portion of the building and not the storage area, and they had
adequate parking spaces available with just the clinic. He stated they wanted to leave options
open for any developments to the east and west. He asked it be approved with the stipulation
that the additional stalls would be required once development occurred.
Mr. Brixius stated one of the things they could look at was the rear of the property providing
some additional stalls.
Mr. Smyser stated on the western side of the property staff was comfortable with the driveway
back there, but it was normal to have a full curb and they needed to find a reason why this would
not be required for this development.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 8
Mr. Powell stated at many times, the concrete curb was replaced in past developments once
further development occurred. He stated the reason they required this was for a finished look.
He recommended there be a concrete curb placed in the area.
Mr. Smyser indicated the standard lighting was to require a photometric plan with a shoebox
type fixture with lighting directed downward. Mr. Maier replied they had no problem with this
requirement.
Mr. Smyser stated the future development area could not remain dirt and weeds. With respect to
the parking, the City had to plan for parking for the entire building. He stated this had to be
handled now. The parking could not be addressed in the future. He stated the area used as
storage needed to be included in the parking requirements at this time. However, the Board
could recommend a variance from that.
Mr. Maier stated if the trash could be relocated, they may have enough room for more parking
spaces in the back. Mr. Smyser expressed concern about parking in the back with trucks coming
in and out. He recommended the variance of the three stalls.
Mr. Lyden asked for Mr. Brixius' recommendations. Mr. Brixius replied the standard parking
arrangement for professional offices, and staff realized sortie professional offices required more
parking and some less. He stated granting a variance : +uk not be:e imental to this site, but
any change of occupancy would require them to met m he : king standards. He stated if parking
needed to be accommodated into the future that coul'' ccomplished because there was
sufficient room for additional parking.
Mr. Corson asked the storage be buffered from A {ta north. Mr. Brixius replied this had a
very residential feel and with additio • dsca •ng, there would not be a problem with this
Mr. Corson asked about the design o
designed, it was designed fo
any additional water.
r. Powell replied when the pond was
accommodation, and this project would support
Ms. Lane made a MOTION t srpve the site and building plans as outlined in staffs report for
Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, e pt item F would allow a variance to allow for 23 off street
parking stalls as opposed to 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden.
After further discussion regarding the parking requirements, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and
Mr. Lyden withdrew his second.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for
Lino Lakes Family Dentistry subject to staff's recommendations with exception of item F which
required 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION for a variance of 23 parking stalls instead of 26 parking stalls
referred to in Item F of staff' s report, and in the future, if there were any changes to the property,
all City codes shall be applicable, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 9
E. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone
Chair Schaps declared the public hearing for both Item E and Item F opened at 8:00 p.m.
Staff presented the application by explaining that ISD 12 requested to locate a new elementary
school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hoped to sell its existing
vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District had requested that their
38.29 -acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi - Public District to R -1X, Single Family
Executive District.
Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following:
Staff explained ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility
adjoining the existing middle school would best serve its current and future enrollment
population. The Birch Street site was seen as a duplicate site for Rice Lake Elementary School
and Centerville Elementary School.
Staff stated the 38.29 acre site was zoned PSP, Public /Semi- Public Zoning District. This zoning
district was limited in the range of uses that were allowed. To arket the property for sale, this
range of use was very limiting and in some cases the uses e of be conducive or compatible
with the adjoining residential properties (i.e., clinics, nursi g h. s, public buildings, hospitals).
0 Staff explained the applicant was proposing to rezo ® e ...erty to -1X, Single Family
Executive District. This was a low- density urban resit' al district.
Staff indicated in consideration of rezoning re • 1 e p •� sible adverse effects of the
amendment should be considered. Generally s �" . , ng,le City Council and Planning
Commission's judgment of the rezo ; ould based upon, but not limited to, the following
factors:
1. The proposed action' en th the specific policies and provision of the official
City Comprehens
2. The proposed use's co'�i_-t'blity with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e.,
parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks,
schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity.
5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Staff stated while zoned PSP, the 1990 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family
residential and includes the area in the existing MUSA. The Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan
showed the property as public /semi - public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning.
The 2020 plan also included the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 10
Staff outlined the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to the zoning request, and
stated the zoning change would be compatible with the current 1990 Land Use Plan and would
be consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policies.
Staff stated to determine the appropriateness of the proposed use it was beneficial to examine the
adjoining land use and zoning.
Staff explained the proposed zoning from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with the R -1X
zoning of the Pheasant Hills subdivision that adjoined the site on the north and east. The
property laid within the existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area presents a logical extension of
the existing sewered single - family neighborhoods.
Staff indicated the rezoning application was not accompanied by a subdivision request. Any
future development must be compliant with the City zoning and subdivision regulations. A
survey delineating wetland in the subject site had been submitted. Based on our calculation, the
site contained approximately 10+ acres of wetland, leaving 28 acres of build able acres scattered
through the site. The amount and configuration of the build able acres would limit the
development of the site.
Staff stated the site lies within the City's existing M
residential development of the site should be within "the
area.
Staff indicated access to any future develop
and local streets in adjoining subdivisions.
Highway Department must comment to th
accommodate residential developme
site.
d Phase 1 growth area. The
„existing utilities serving the
ent woul eliant on access from Birch Street
Strep" was a County road. The County
of Birch Street and its ability to
8 developable acres within the 38.28 -acre total
Mr. Corson asked with staff • fortable for a decision to be made tonight. Mr.
Brixius stated anything t would ®e "would still be contingent on a site plan review.
Applicant tonight was atte to ,''e what the thoughts were of the City at this time
Mr. Corson stated there would b a= ` ore bus traffic through the Middle School and asked if that
was an issue. Mr. Brixius stateddthere would be more traffic, but he believed this was a good
land -use fit.
Chair Schaps pointed out the traffic would be at different times. Elementary Schools started later
than the Middle School.
John Christensen, Superintendent Centennial School District, clarified the schools had staggered
start and stop times and there were buses running in that area now. He pointed out an elementary
school in this area would be a good fit to serve the western part of the District. He stated they
would be conscientious about starting times, ending times, and event times.
Mr. Lyden asked how many other PSP sites they had available. Mr. Christensen stated they had
none.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 11
Mr. Christensen stated the particular site became part of the District in 1959 and it had not been
deemed as an appropriate site when Rice Lake Elementary School was built.
Mr. Lyden asked if this would be the last elementary school the school district would build. Mr.
Christensen stated it depended upon the density in the next few years.
Mr. Lyden asked if this would come on line in the 2010 growth zone or in the 2020 growth zone.
Mr. Brixius replied this land was in the MUSA and was in the 2010 growth zone.
Chair Schaps asked about consideration of a Kindergarten center. Mr. Christensen stated the
public sentiment was not positive and this project was proposed to be K -5.
Mr. Lyden asked how closely these two items related with respect to action items for the school
district. Mr. Christensen stated if this was not approved, there were no other options for property
at this time and they needed the additional space. Mr. Christensen stated there would be budget
considerations regarding this.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a net gain in money based on the land that was trying to be
rezoned. Mr. Christensen replied there was a potential net gai' ;
Mr. Rafferty asked why there was only a possibility of a n
difference was that light industrial zoned property bro
industrial property was more valuable than resident). ropty.
r. Christensen replied the
t price structure. Light
Mr. Rafferty stated he had a concern with thi : .roject be m edn May, 2000, it was the proposal
to take 7.5 acres and trade it for 3.5 acres of itch d at the time he struggled with that
decision because it did not make any sense. He problem was that they took light
industrial land that would never be P A. d was aded for L -1 and now they were trying to get it
changed again and they were now mg have t . ay a premium price for something that was
already there. He did not believe tha e taxpayers. Mr. Christensen stated he was
not a part of those discussio of comment on what was requested in the past.
Lee Farmer asked in the ar -they wetle trying to rezone where would the access to the
development be Chair Schap= lied there was not any site proposal prepared yet at this time
Mr. Farmer stated he lived one lot away from the development and expressed concern about the
traffic increasing in front of his house. He stated Birch Street was a busy road and if the access
was off of Birch Street, this would greatly impact him. Chair Schaps stated this could happen,
but there was no proposal now.
Mr. Powell stated that was a dead -end street with a temporary cul -de -sac. He stated they were
concerned about accesses on Birch Street. He stated they needed to consider the bus traffic that
might be coming down into this area to pick up children and take them somewhere else.
Paul Seiferts stated his property backed up to the present school property. He expressed concern
about the taxpayers having to purchase more property for schools. He asked if this would be
rezoned, could there be a covenant regarding adding parkland dedication. He stated he had paid
a premium from his property and parkland would be much appreciated. Chair Schaps suggested
he attend Park Board meetings first and express his concern about parks in his area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 12
Mr. Smyser stated with the re- zoning request, they could not ensure a park in that area.
However, if a plan came in the future, the Park Board would compare the proposal to the existing
Park and Trail plan. He stated the Park Board made the recommendations as to where the parks
should be located, which then came to the Planning and Zoning Board and then went to the City
Council for consideration.
Gary Trettel stated his concern on the proposed plan was the sharing of facilities with the middle
school. He stated there were wetland mitigation issues, as well as elementary school children
sharing facilities with older children. Also, he would also like a park in the area.
Branden Curtis stated he was not opposed to the development, but his concern was a safety
factor. He stated the traffic on Birch Street needed to be addressed and slowed down. If a
school was proposed to be added, they had to look even more closely at the traffic issues.
Ken Wagner stated he had also paid a premium for his lot and stated he did not see the value of
selling the land at this time. He asked the School District wait on the sale of the land until they
knew what they needed in the future.
Mr. Christensen gave some of the advantages of sharing the
larger events that were too large for one facility could be
inconveniencing anyone.
lilies. He stated some of the
d Mahe other facility without
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public heari� < � Items E and F at 8:46 p.m., and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny rezoning fr o R -1X, and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0.
F. PUBLIC HEARI ,' « « School District, New Elementary School
Site, Rezone 'vision
Staff presented the applicai by ex ®'aining ISD 12 had a letter of intent to purchase 15+ acres
of industrial zoned land locate 4 t, northeast corner of the existing Centennial Middle School
site for the purpose of building gym elementary school. The site was currently zoned L -I, Light
Industrial and would require a change in zoning to PSP, Public /Semi - Public District to
accommodate the elementary school.
The School District had requested consideration of the following development applications to
facilitate a new elementary school at this location:
1. Rezoning from L -1, Limited Industrial Zoning District to PSP, Public /Semi- Public
Zoning District.
2. Subdivision to create a parcel to be conveyed to the School District.
Staff presented its analysis of the request stating upon investigation of the needed elementary
school, the School District had selected the proposed site next to the Centennial Middle School
for the following reasons:
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 13
1. In review of the School District's enrollment distribution and forecasts, approximately 60
percent of the present and future enrollment population lived west of Lake Drive and
County Road 49. The proposed site provided a centralized location to best serve the
School District's population.
2. The current vacant Birch Street location laid in close proximity to the existing Rice Lake
Elementary and Centerville Elementary. Construction of another school along Birch
Street was seen as a duplication of facilities.
3. The proposed site's proximity to the Centennial Middle School allowed the elementary
school to share facilities with the middle school (i.e., play equipment, play fields). This
allowed the elementary school to be located on a smaller site thus reducing the School
District's investment in land acquisition and development of on -site recreational
facilities.
Staff stated the 15 acre site was zoned L -I, Limited Industrial District and existed as part of the
Lake Business Park subdivision. The L -I Zoning District did not allow elementary schools as an
allowed use therefore mandating the rezoning request. The proposed site lies within the Lake
Business Park preliminary plat, which was approved in 1998. he,site being considered by the
School District was isolated on the far west end of the Lake siness Park preliminary plat by an
existing wetland. This end of the preliminary plat was int de ain access to Lake Drive via
a 1,150 feet long cul -de -sac. The rezoning and subdivisih would 'ficantly reduce the
needed cul -de -sac length for the industrial park.
Staff indicated he requested zoning for the 15., acre parc PSP, Public /Semi - Public District.
The purpose of this district was described as fd..
This district was designed an
fulfillment of the Compre
ded t aid in guiding development towards
lan an 6 serve the following functions:
1. To provide t ��un w'th properly located schools, colleges, and
health inst
2. To provide the "stmrtnity and properly located public services, and
utilities.
3. To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks,
playgrounds and recreational facilities.
4. To relate public and semi - public locations with thoroughfare system.
Staff stated the PSP Zoning District allowed for public and private schools by conditional use
permit. At this time, only the zoning and subdivision requests were being considered. The
conditional use permit would be processed as a separate application with the site plan details.
Staff explained in consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the
amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning
Commission's judgment of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following
factors:
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 14
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the official
City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e.,
parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks,
schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity.
5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Staff stated due to the limited application of the PSP Zoning District, the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan seldom applies this land use category except where the use existed or where there was
public ownership of the property. Recognizing this condition, the 1990 Land Use Plan and the
Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan guides this site for industrial useThe Planning Commission and
City Council must therefore determine the appropriateness qf*s zoning change on the
applicable policies of the 1987 Comprehensive plan and the proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan
policies that relate to the rezoning request.
Staff explained the School District's interest in creatin
campus did economize an existing investmen . . romote
and was located in a manner that best serves t
proposed land use and zoning change is consist
hared elementary and middle school
eater utilization of existing facilities,
Dian ct's residents. In this regard, the
e Comprehensive plan policies.
Staff indicated within the 2020 pr sive Plan under Staged Growth Area Rules,
the following recommendation was
"In considering 1 • ®`trades CI will discourage the exchange of developable
commercial or indus zone land for a proposed residential development."
Staff stated while the rezoning of e industrial land would not directly accommodate residential
growth, the School District, in a related application, was requesting that the existing Birch Street
parcel be rezoned from PSP to R -1X, Single Family Residential. The City must determine if this
requested zoning change was inconsistent with this recommendation. It should be noted that this
was a unique request in that it was driven by the facility needs of the School District rather than
private development.
Staff indicated industrial zoning would adjoin the site on the east and southeast. This area was
preliminary platted in 1998 under the name of Lake Business Park. This preliminary plat
revealed that storm water drainage ponds and a wetland physically separated the proposed site
from most of the industrial area. The Lake Business Park preliminary plat relied on a 1,150 -foot
long cul -de -sac to provide access to the westernmost lot. Long cul -de -sacs provide poor street
access for industrial traffic and site access.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 15
• Staff stated the School District would need to submit an application for conditional use permit to
allow a school in the PSP District per Section 9.I.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance.
Staff stated applicant had submitted a survey and concept plan with the subdivision request. In
review of this information, staff offered the following comment/suggestions:
1. The site exceeds the lot area for a PSP lot.
2. The site fails to provide for adequate lot width, frontage on a public street, or setback
from the south and west property lines.
3. A wetland delineation is necessary for site development based on information submitted
with the Lake Business Park preliminary plat. The eastern portion of the site had wetland
constraints that must be addressed in the site design. Any wetland filling would require a
wetland replacement plan.
4. The survey indicated that only the eastern half of 4th Avenue has been vacated. To
accommodate the proposed development, the balance of 4th Street through the site must
be vacated.
5. A utility easement following the 4t" Street alignm nt t be established and recorded.
The subdivision should also show ten -foot dr6 • ge andy easements along the side
and rear property lines.
Staff indicated to avoid the need for lot widt
creation of a new lot, staff recommended tha
middle school site to create a single parcel. Co
to utilize middle school land to meet ,�_ ity's p
d build : etback variances associated with the
os site be combined with the existing
e lots will allow the elementary school
ormance standards.
Staff stated Section 3.C.3 of the
building on PSP lots provid
met.
Staff indicated the site lies vO'
anticipated to overburden exist
ing Ordinance allowed more than one principal
rformance standards of the Zoning Ordinance were
e existing MUSA. The proposed site and school was not
in -place utilities or municipal services.
With respect to transportation, staff explained the elementary school would gain its site access
via shared driveways with the middle school accessing Elm Street. The combined campus would
allow the middle school and elementary school to share bus service. The elementary school
would be designed to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students, resulting in staffing of
approximately 75 people. Bus traffic, staff and visitor traffic would be the anticipated traffic
generation. This traffic was not anticipated to overburden existing streets serving the site.
• Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the requested rezoning from L -I to PSP
based on the following findings:
1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 16
2. The applicant pursue a conditional use permit and submit detailed development plans for
the site. The site plan should illustrate how the plan will be integrated with the middle
school.
3. Wetland replacement plans will be required and subject to the review and approval of
Rice Creek Watershed.
4. Vacation of the west half of 4t Street through the proposed site will be required.
5. Appropriate easements must be established over all existing utilities and along side and
rear lot lines.
and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty).
Mr. Corson made a MOTION for the minor subdivision, as outlined in staff's report and was
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty).
Chair Schaps called for a recess at 8:50 p.m.
Chair Schaps reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
mR n
G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, lhland A eadows West 3rd Addition,
Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9. 0 p.m.
Staff presented the application by explaining ap submitted an application for a
preliminary plat entitled Highland M s 3 ddition. The subject site was located south of
Main Street and west of Lake Driv :`'.rope as planned for low- density residential uses
and was zoned R -1 /PDO and R -1 Di
The proposed prelimin at was -p of Highland Meadows 2nd Addition and incorporated
an additional 25 acres as p if the . j ect. The Highland Meadows 2nd Addition included both
single family and townhouse dwelling units in a subdivision based on coving design principals.
The present application includes ly single - family residential lots.
Staff presented its analysis of the request explaining the subject site was guided for single - family
residential used by the current and draft Comprehensive Plan (1 -3 du/ac.) and it was included
within the current MUSA. Consistent with the land use plan, the subject site was zoned PDO/R-
1 and R -1 District. The PDO Zoning was applied to the site to facilitate a previous subdivision
concept based on coving design principals with flexibility on front yard setback standards. No
such flexibility was being processed as part of this subdivision design. Single - family lots and
uses were a permitted use of these Districts.
Staff stated access to the subdivision is provided via Maryland Drive from the south and Arlo
Lane from the west. Traffic from this neighborhood must use these routes to reach collector or
arterial streets due to access limitations onto Main Street to the north.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 17
Staff indicated local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 -foot right -
of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the
project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 -foot
radius as required.
Staff explained the only issue with the street design was the 105 offset of Street A and Street D.
The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A
and Street D should be given further consideration.
Staff indicated the subdivision included 70 single - family lots with an average size of 16,150
square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than
1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development,
wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street.
Staff explained the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 square feet of build able land. The
lots listed below did not meet the minimum lot area requirement. The preliminary plat must be
revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of areas exclusive of drainage ways,
wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way and steep slopes.
Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14.
Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20.
Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5.
Staff stated lots within the R -1 District must also have
corner lots) and minimum depth of 135 feet (5 feet for
meet or exceed these provisions.
State stated there were four existing s,
submitted plans did not identify
proposed subdivision design had
individual lot within require
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 tha
right -of -way.
inimum width of 80 feet (100 feet for
e frontage lots). All of the lots
- famil „dwel ings within the project area. The
ain or those that may be removed. The
ch that each dwelling would be located on an
e was a detached accessory building in the area of
as it overlayed lot lines and encroaches into the
Staff explained the subject site i`x' uded several large stands of trees throughout the property. A
tree preservation plan had been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be
removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved were a large stand in the southwest
corner, a stand in the northeast corner and a small stand in the northwest corner of the property.
All other significant trees were to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the
grading plan and development of the site.
Staff indicated the existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 -acre wetland in the
center of Block 2. This wetland area was not to be disturbed as part of development of this
project. The wetland would be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covered
drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland.
Staff stated the applicant had submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision.
The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 18
Staff indicated Outlots A and D were proposed to be dedicated as partial satisfaction of park land
requirements. Outlot A provided a desired trail corridor from Main Street to the neighborhood.
Connections to the park abutting the southwest corner of this parcel would be provided over the
local streets. Outlot D was land dedicated to add to the existing park.
Staff explained the amount of the land required to be dedicated was 10 percent of the gross area
of the plat or 3.37 acres. An additional amount of land must also be dedicated to offset the loss
of existing parkland caused by the extension of Arlo Lane to serve the plat. The area of Outlots
A and D were 0.72 acres, from which the replacement park land must be subtracted. The balance
of required park dedication would be required to be satisfied in the form of a cash fee in lieu of
land based upon the formula outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff stated the preliminary plat included Outlots B and C, in addition to those being provided for
park dedication purposes.
Staff explained Outlot B was a parcel of land fronting Street A that was intended to provide
access to a land locked parcel to the south east. This land locked parcel was also intended to
have frontage to 79th Street via a reserve strip that was to be dedicated to the City. Staff would
need to follow up on resolution of this matter.
Staff explained Outlot C was a 0.07 -acre parcel of land th : ab the expanded park. The Outlot
was being conveyed to the abutting property to the eas in'order to "crew to a buffer between that
lot and the parkland.
roposebe provided to serve the single -
h owns 'thin the rights -of -way. Storm
had been provided at the perimeter of
plans were subject to review and approval of
Staff stated water and sanitary sewer were bo , pr
uses. Sanitary sewer and water servic
sewer facilities were also shown on the plan.
each lot and over all drainage facilitie X11 utili
the City Engineer.
Staff stated comments from t 'ro Xental Board had not been received.
Chair Schaps asked if th
Mr. Brixius stated this woul
rprehe ive Plan had addressed this area with respect to parkland.
an ektension to the park area already in existence.
Mr. Lyden asked if it was too late to make this R -1X. Mr. Brixius stated there was no
application before them for R -1X zoning.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Ms. Gail Judd, 670 Arlen Lane, stated she was the person who Outlot C was being dedicated to.
She asked if this was on meeting in a series of meetings, or if this was being approved tonight.
Chair Schaps replied this would go to Council for their decision eventually.
Ms. Judd asked if Outlot D was parkland because they were purchasing Outlot C. She requested
it be residential. Mr. Smyser replied her purchasing Outlot C, did not have any effect on the
decision to make Outlot D a park.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 19
Ms. Judd stated she did not want a park next to her. She stated she had expressed this concern
since the beginning. Chair Schaps replied the Planning and Zoning Board knew about her
concerns, but there many people who did want a park.
Chair Schaps asked why she was opposed to the park. Ms. Judd replied she did not have
children and wanted the peace and quiet she had now. She felt very strongly about not having a
park next to her property.
Mr. Smyser stated usually a park was not drawn up until they had obtained the neighborhood's
opinions.
Ms. Judd asked how much did her opinion carry and what where her rights. Chair Schaps stated
she needed to go to Council with her concerns, but the Planning and Zoning Board did realize
and acknowledge her concerns, but they did not make the final opinion.
Ms. Judd requested the Board not approve this until Outlot D became residential.
Mr. Lyden stated there were other substandard lots, and it might make sense to continue this and
take Ms. Judd's concerns into consideration.
Steve , developer, stated there was no discussion re
for the proposed plat. He stated they originally had a c
was upon the Park Board's recommendation that th'
some issues with Outlot D being made parkland. He
to be grading and redesign of the land. There; as a sign
park not being big enough
of D being residential, but it
e a paf . He stated there were
it was integrated into a park, it had
grade change.
Mr. Rafferty asked how large was Outlot D curt
acres and Outlot D would be in addi that utlot D would make an appropriate sized
residential lot, approximately a 1/2
e developer replied the park was five
Teresa O'Connell and Conn vironmental Board, stated Outlot D did not have
oak trees on it so they we not than nce ed about that They did have concerns about the
water level however. Mr. ell corected an error made at the Environmental Board meeting
regarding water levels. He s = d the ground level varied from year to year
Ms. O'Connell asked how open was the Board to having the streets narrower to accommodate
more green space. Mr. Powell replied in the past the City had allowed the streets to be narrowed
to 28 feet and the City could live with a 28 -foot street. However, if they wanted to go further
than that, this would have to come under much more consideration.
Mr. Lyden asked why the City did not have a tree Ordinance and when was one expected. Chair
Schaps replied they were unable to resolve many issues involved with the tree ordinance and
there was no set timeframe for when this was expected.
• Mr. Lyden requested the tree ordinance be brought back soon.
Ms. Lane asked if the Park Board had seen this. She stated she had no objection to Outlot D
being a residential lot. Mr. Smyser stated the Park Board had made a recommendation for a
park, even though it was not specifically noted in the staff report.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 20
Ms. Lane stated if this was not part of the park, it would increase the developer's donation.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Corson asked about the 28 -foot streets with respect to parking. Mr. Powell replied staff was
comfortable with 28 -foot streets. It would not pose any maintenance or parking problems.
Mr. Powell indicated the right -of -way did not change. The right -of -way would stay at 60 feet.
The pavement would be narrower. They were not proposing to reduce the right -of -way, only the
paved surface.
The developer stated he did not object to the 28 -foot streets.
Mr. Smyser asked what the anticipated home price range would be. The developer stated it
would be similar to the first addition. He estimated it would be $189,000.00 to $219, 000.00.
With respect to the substandard lots in size, he stated he did not believe the lots were substandard
in size, but there still had to be some issues worked outregardinthose lots. He stated this was a
preliminary plat and these issues would be worked out priorny decisions. Chair Schaps
stated they still wanted to see it ahead of time.
�r.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table to July, 2001 ixi etin e Pre1 urinary Plat of Highland
Meadows 3`d Addition. Motion failed for lack of a
Mr. Rafferty asked what type of hardship wer
this. He asked if the 13 lots in question were
that the Board take action on this ton
upon the developer by delaying
lay the process. The developer asked
Mr. Lyden asked if Ms. Judd's conc ilk addressed. The developer stated he had no
problem having Outlot D be _ , sid= al . ea. This was a decision of the City. It made no
difference to him either w. . He . wil dig to have more discussions with Mr. Degardner
regarding making this a o versus parkland.
Mr. Smyser stated he would speak with Mr. Degardner about this and raise these issues with
him.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3`d Addition
subject to the following conditions:
a. The preliminary plat is revised to align Street A and Street D, subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
b. The preliminary plat is revised such that all lots have 10,800 square feet of build
able area, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Any existing structure not located on a proposed lot within required setbacks is to
be removed at the time of final plat approval.
d. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 21
e. Outlots A and D, minus the area of land necessary to replace existing park land
lost with extension of Arlo Lane, are dedicated in partial satisfaction of park
dedication requirements. The balance of required parkland dedication will be
provided in the form of cash fee in lieu of land as prescribed by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
f. Outlots B and C are conveyed to the appropriate landowners for access and a
buffer strip, respectively.
and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden).
Mr. Zych arrived at 9:50 p.m.
The developer stated if this did stay parkland, he would plant additional pine trees between the
Judd property and the park.
AMENDMENT to the first motion as seconded and approved to recommend a 28 -foot street
width within the subdivision as opposed to the 32 -foot width. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden) -1
(Zych).
H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan ompanies UD, Inc. (Target),
Lake Drive
Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:51 p
Staff presented the application by explaining,taff had
Inc. on a proposed retail development locate
Interchange. The Planning and Zoning Board r
of 2000 and opened the public he _ n Feb
initial hearing.
Staff stated the main issues
Zoning Board at the cone
Town Center vision.
orking with Ryan Companies, US
ast quadrant of Lake Drive /I -35 W.
e concept plan for the site in December
13, 2001 with periodic updates since the
d discussed by the City Council and Planning and
the site layout and design and the departure from the
Staff indicated the direction prided 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 stated the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 had been modified; this review
was based on plan submittals stamped received by the. City on May 18, 2001.
Staff indicated many outstanding issues remain related to the site.
• Staff stated the property 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 parking or lots without frontage
as proposed.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 22
Staff indicated 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 and
for the private roads proposed. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more
creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in
parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this
size and scope.
Staff explained access to the site was proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive. This access
was located on an adjacent parcel and would require acquisition from the owner or
condemnation. 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. A petition for public improvements has been submitted in order to
pursue some of the design solutions regarding access.
Staff stated 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 are not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization.
Staff stated earlier plans proposed a connection to 77th' eet.
eliminated.
It is staff's opinion that circulation on the site was or ithat theAnternal intersections did not
line up, spacing of intersections and intersection Jo ay create conflict and confusion, the
Target lot forces circulation into the main • 've aisle, parking was designed to directly
back into primary drive aisle areas, and gener to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites
was poor. It appeared with some modification o' could be addressed.
This connection had been
Staff stated the site design did not
the public roads or to the residentia
ination of pedestrian access between uses, to
orth.
Staff indicated while it . not in ed` I' at the design incorporate all elements of the Village
concept it was staff opinto at pediatrian circulation could be better addressed and encouraged
both within the site and arou ; hedge of the development. At a minimum pedestrian access
should tie into the proposed pa "` proposed along Lake Drive. This would include sidewalks
along the extension of Apollo Dr. with extensions north to the storefronts of the major stores and
an access out to the northerly access that also ties into the sidewalks in front of the major stores.
In addition, an access should be incorporated to the north on the east side of the development
adjacent to the ponding. Some consideration should be given to internal access within the
smaller retail area. The design as it currently existed was geared toward vehicle access and was
unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use.
Staff stated detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water
management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his
memo was attached for reference. The issues raised by the Engineer were based on the plans and
information provided. Revised plans or additional information may result in additional
comments.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 23
Staff indicated there were two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one was
proposed to be impacted which required approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There were 752
trees on the site and 566 of these were significant based on their size and species. The grading
proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees and 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.
Staff indicated wetland delineations had been completed but had not been confirmed. There
were two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area was approximately 3.63 in size
and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland was proposed to be totally eliminated and
replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Specific mitigation plans had not
been submitted for the site however, all mitigation was proposed to take place off site.
Staff stated the ability to fill and replace wetland area could have a significant impact on the site
design therefore any final action by the City would be premature until the wetland issues were
addressed through Rice Creek.
Staff stated green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and
surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping pla calls for plantings within parking
lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overa plan was well done and provides a
variety of plantings. Some plantings are shown within MDOT right -of -way, MnDOT had
P�3�4
• indicated that they would not allow any work within their right of
Staff indicated the critical portion of the landscape p was along the northern edge of the
�:.-
site, which was adjacent to existing residential uses. 8 m lan as proposed would provide a
visual break but it would not provide a comp en. , articular attention should be paid to
fully screening points where headlights wou `e. ssues and where loading docks were
proposed. In some instances, fencin be th • ost appropriate screen.
•
Staff stated no exterior details had b for the small retail buildings or other
freestanding uses. The appl d that they would commit to a certain design
concept as previously pre ha not received specific language that addresses this
issue. Previous discussion ere tha ;exteriors of the buildings were proposed to be a
combination of masonry mate ri s including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign
bands and accenting. The decor" ve roof elements include standing seam metal that
complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over
the storefront areas.
Staff indicated because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished
with equal quality and attention to detail.
Staff stated the Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which
transitions to stucco and rock face block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be
painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needs to
be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street.
There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face
modular block. The wall did not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading
dock doors or the trucks that were often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of
sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 24
Staff stated trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. The narrative states that all
trash dumpsters should be within the building footprints and that a trash compactor for Target
was within the loading dock area and was screened.
Staff indicated Target often used sidewalk space in front of the stores for cart storage. A full
screen wall should be provided if the intent was to store carts in the front of the store. No
outside storage was permitted without proper screening.
Staff stated Kohl's was proposed to be constructed of masonry materials that include
predominantly brick on the front with a stucco accent pattern at the entrances. The sides and rear
of the building transitions to block. As stated with the proposed Target elevation, the rear of the
building was very visible to the area to the north and more attention should be paid to the design
and materials used.
Staff indicated the applicant had indicated that decorative lighting was intended to be utilized in
the development. No details have been provided. Consideration should be given to utilize the
same fixtures throughout the Town Center areas. All lighting shall meet the lighting level
restriction which is 1.0 foot candle reading at a public stre a d 0.4 foot candle reading on
adjacent residential property.
Staff stated park dedication would be cash fees in lie didiand an - Quid be provided at the rate
in effect at the time of the final plat.
Staff stated a total sign package had been , ro
freestanding signs. The narrative and the
consistent. The signs were subject to a separat
the PDO staff would anticipate flexi in the
total package. No signage shoul a ed on
residential area.
posed 'ncludes wall signage as well as
itted for the pylon signs are not
d sign permit through the City. Under
lowable signage as long as it is submitted as a
e rear of any businesses facing the adjacent
Staff indicated the appli
proposes nine lots plus o
proposed user. Several of
easements regarding access, par
preliminary plat for the site. The plat as submitted
The lots are created to provide individual lots for each
do not have frontage on a public road so appropriate
and circulation will have to be provided. The minimum lot
size in the SC zoning district was 3 acres. Under the PDO this provision would be waived.
Staff stated based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects
that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement.
Staff stated based upon Chapter 4410.3100 of the administrative rules governing environmental
review, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant
a permit, approve a project or begin a project until a negative declaration on the need for an EIS
was made. While a draft EAW document has been submitted, the document had not been
processed through the City or Environmental Quality Board. There was a comment period
currently in effect that runs until July 11, 2001. Until the process was complete and the City had
determined that an EIS was not necessary the City should not take final action to approve the
project.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 25
Chair Schaps asked what the staff's recommendation was regarding traffic flow on Lake Drive.
Mr. Powell replied staff's recommendation would have been to have one access on Apollo Drive,
but the developer wanted a second access. He stated the traffic study was that both accesses
would function sufficiently, but they would need to be signalized, as well as the interchange
being redesigned. He stated the County still had to approve the access and as far as he knew,
applicant had not submitted this request. With respect to the traffic flow, he had received a new
site plan late last week, but had not had a chance to review it.
Chair Schaps stated this was a major issue that the County had not acted on this yet. Mr. Wessel
stated this was a key issue. He indicated right from the beginning applicant had been made
aware this was an essential element. He stated this was normally down the list of things to do,
but it would need to be acted on soon. He stated Target still intended on having the project
completed by July, 2002 and if this was to be accomplished, this had to go to City Council at
their July meeting.
Chair Schaps asked if staff would support this second access. Mr. Powell replied from an
engineering standpoint, this was a very bad idea. He stated his recommendation would have
been that applicant made this request some time ago. He stated applicant should pay for all costs
of the access, including the signal.
Mr. Rafferty asked about the design issues for the Ko
getting design criteria from Kohls. He stated what
The bituminous pavement was not acceptable; he wan
Kohl's follow the Target design on the parki lot. He
bank in the development. His criteria was gre
the Kohl's building and find someway to deal
them comparable with other recent d- , . ment
building F strongly recommended
bear '. propo ''d now was not acceptable.
o see green space. He suggested
d e was against the idea of another
the parking lot, design criteria for
e other small developments to make
Mr. Wessel replied Kohls had made
meeting with Kohls in the n
Mr. Rafferty stated he wan
the parking lots. He strongly
er the City's suggestions and they were
hat their new proposals were going to be.
avily landscaped, treed facilities all of the way through
ended bringing trees into these areas.
Mr. Lyden agreed with Mr. Ra erty regarding the issue of the bank. Aesthetically, he stated he
had no issues with Kohls or Target. He stated the issue of green space in a commercial center
was not a huge issue for him. His major concern was the traffic layout within the system and
outside the system. He had suggested a two -lane in and a two -lane out which would serve the
front business along Lake Drive versus bringing traffic all of the way in and then back through.
He stated he expected to hear feedback from staff at some point regarding his suggestion.
Mr. Corson suggested tying in the theme from The Village. He stated how the project looked
from Lake Drive was important. He suggested having pedestrian access to the area.
Mr. Lyden stated he did not see this as a pedestrian friendly plan and had no issues with the site
plan, other than the traffic and the specifics of the bank within the plan. Mr. Corson replied they
needed to make the determination as to how they were going to integrate it with The Village.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 26
Mr. Rafferty reiterated his concern regarding having more trees within the development. He
asked staff what they would like to see. Mr. Wessel replied this was a commercial center and
heavy landscaping was not envisioned for it.
Mr. Rafferty again strongly recommended heavy landscaping, especially trees. He believed trees
could do a good job for masking the large parking lots.
Chair Schaps agreed with Mr. Rafferty with respect to green space in the parking lot. However,
he could live with a mixed concept. He also agreed it should be visually congruent with The
Village. Mr. Wessel replied staff was very aware of making this development connect with The
Village.
Ms. Lane disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestion about the landscaping. She stated if they did
a good job with landscaping along the outside businesses, the parking lot would not need
excessive landscaping. She did not have a problem with a large parking area.
Mr. Lyden suggested breaking up the parking area and putting some retail in the middle.
Terry O'Connell asked if it was possible to have a parking r
which would leave more open space. Mr. Wessel replied a
contemplated for this project. There was adequate surface{,
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue to public arin
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HE
Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps reopened the public
Staff presented the applicati
northwest corner of 12th
concept plan of the plat on
preliminary plat on February
preservation plan and grading su
part of the Kohl's parking,
mg structure was never
available.
the Ju , 2001 meeting, and was
olding Group, 12th &Holly{
applicant had submitted a preliminary plat for the
ve. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a
2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the
and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA, tree
ittals. The additional information had now been provided.
Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development.
The site was within the existing MUSA.
Staff stated the R -1X minimum lot size was 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots met or exceed
this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a
width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth was 135
feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which
required a variance.
Staff indicated the ordinance stated that in considering requests for variance the City shall make
a finding of fact that:
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 27
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use of used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstance unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any
special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district.
5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board may consider that the site was impacted by wetlands
and it was located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a
basis for granting the variance.
Staff indicated the applicant had submitted grading information that was subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer.
Staff stated an existing shed and pole building were located e in the new street right -of -way
and must be removed.
• Staff indicated utilities existed in both 12th and Hol , d extension of utilities down the
proposed cul -de -sac was proposed. The water main n : to be looped to 12th Street. The
utilities plan was subject to City Engineer rev w and ap ��. . Holly and 12th were both major
collector roads. The purpose of major collect.. o ch "� el traffic, and direct access from
lots was discouraged. The number of lots front n `' Avenue had been reduced from five
lots in the concept plan to one lot in • 4 elimin ` plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly
Drive had increased from zero to s rest o e lots were proposed to front on a new cul-
de -sac street. Based on modificatio which reduced the number of accesses staff
supported the layout.
•
Staff stated a trail was env t t ed al • Rg Holly Drive, but had not been designed yet. It had not
been decided whether the train . ul W''bbe on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within
the road right -of -way. A trail e ed on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass.
Park dedication for this new development would be cash.
Staff stated wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site. Although the
boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report had been
submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for
administrative action) for the development.
Staff indicated the site was a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been
submitted. The Environmental Board had suggested that some of the trees might be moved.
Staff stated because the site was located at the intersection of two collector roads staff would
work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right-of-
way and the homes to be constructed.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 28
Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The
Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments.
Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating Lot 8 as opposed to a
variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs of this project the developer
had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the road. Staff worked out with
them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot 2 go onto the cul -de -sac, then only
Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the other lots would meet the
requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed also. Because of the safety issues that
were addressed with this design, staff was supportive of the variance than the other designs that
would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indicated this had been negotiated with the
developer.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 and 8 were not a part of the neighborhood. He
suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 and 9 and incorporate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the
cul -de -sac. This would make a neighborhood.
Mr. Lyden asked about the Gemini Estates tree issue and state that issue needed to be done
prior to any approval of this development.
Jeff Ruus ( ?sp), developer's representative, replied the, ere requ w' °Y g they proceed with the
variance request. He said if they combined lots, the our end up avith crooked lot lines and
this was not desirable either. With respect to Gemini : es, he had no information regarding
this.
Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in deve` g' ghborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and
Lots 1 would become part of the nei oods `aMong side of them and may not specifically be a
part of this neighborhood.
Mr. Zych agreed that Lots i n M o ` ® e combined because of their size, but had no opinion
about Lot 8.
Mr. Corson agreed that Lots Ind .'should be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated
lot designs did not create neighboods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one
dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but
believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City
wanted.
Mr. Lyden asked if the cul -de -sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had
not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or
not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by
doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by
Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood.
He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul -de -sac. Mr. Ruus
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 29
• stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was
more workable.
Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8. Mr. Ruus stated if that
was the direction, they would need to start all over. He indicated the economic impact would
affect them and they would need to redesign this area. Mr. Rafferty expressed his concern about
them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He stated this was very close to being a
very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area.
Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was what the City was looking for.
Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about Lots 1 and 8, but did have concerns about the
access on 12th and Holly and would not support this because of that.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny the preliminary plat application, and was supported by Ms.
Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Chair Schaps stated the reasons for denial were as follows:
1. There was a reasonable use of the property in qu on.
2. There was no plight of the landowner due to p sic rcumstances unique to this
property.
3. There is an economic consideration.
4. Not applicable.
5. The Ordinance did allow for reaso ble use re was also a question of access
and safety.
With respect to the preliminary plat, , - Cason denial was because of access and safety
issues; no neighborhood consisten an• vew located on the cul -de -sac.
J. CONTINUED,
Rezone, ended
This item was withdrawn by ��licat.
EARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street=
Amend Zoning Ordinance
Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m.
There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan
Staff presented the application by explaining the City Council approved a minor subdivision and
site and building plan for North American Composites on November 13, 2000. One of the
conditions of approval was:
4. The precise concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C.
with smooth concrete cattails design, or similar design. Decorative concrete
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 30
block on the office portion of the building shall be either smooth burnished
concrete block or rock -face block.
Staff stated this originated in a request by the Planning & Zoning Board to revisit the building
elevation along the freeway. Because this was a very visible location, the P & Z asked for some
additional attention to aesthetics. In response, the applicant then submitted a revised south
elevation that included a custom "cattail" pattern in the concrete panels. Though the P & Z did
not see the new pattern, the revision was included in the project review by the City Council and
was specified in the condition of approval listed above.
Staff indicated North American Compsites had asked that this condition be deleted because of
the cost of the custom design. Instead, they had submitted a design that included a four -foot blue
stripe across the top of the precast concrete panels. The panels had a raked finish, just like the
original submittal. In addition, the design of the building had been reviewed somewhat. The
office portion exterior would still be decorative concrete block. However, the standing seam
metal roof on both portions of the building had changed in the new design. Instead, the new
proposed design had a flat roof for the warehouse portion. The office portion also had a flat roof,
but the east elevation incorporated a peaked facade.
Staff stated the footprint of the new design increased the footp t by about 500 sf, about a 2%
change. Staff considered this a relatively minor change.
Staff indicated because the cattail design was a con • 'on oapprovaf it would require action by
the City Council to change it Staff discussed the req ith the City Council at the June 6
worksession. Council directed staff to bring the request e P & Z for a recommendation. It
would then to go the City Council at its June 2
Staff recommended approving the ne
delete the sentence regarding the c
4. The warehou e
the buildm shall be
exterior eleons by
lading ;±- sign and revising the condition of approval to
"dition number four would thus read:
b„,e precast concrete panels and the office portion of
we concrete rock -face block as indicated on the
tiglich Construction, Inc., dated 5/1/01.
Chair Schaps invited applicant t hake comment.
Ivan Levy, presented a history of the project and thanked the Board and staff for all of their
efforts.
Mr. Zych made a Motion to approve the new building design and the revision of the condition of
approval, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Rafferty applauded applicant's efforts.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr. Smyser stated the draft Comprehensive Plan was available for review and copying.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 31
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Corson. Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.