Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/29/2001 Env Bd Packet
• City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall August 29, 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 -7:55) B. Centennial School District/New Elementary School Site Plan Review /Conditional Use Permit (7:55 — 8:15) C. Saddle Club/Preliminary Plat Review (8:15 — 8:25) D. Molin Concrete /Site Plan Review ( 8:25 — 8:35 ) E. Market Place Update (8:35 — 8:45 ) 6. Environmental Board Business (8:45- ) A. Comprehensive Plan Update B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 C. Xcel Energy/Tree Trust/ "Trade A Tree" Program. D. Special Council Meeting with the City Council/Environmental Board E. Resignation/Dave Mach F. Surface Water Management Plan G. Project NEMO 7. Program/Project Updates A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates. C. Spirit Hills Update/O &M Plan 8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : June 27,2001 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:41 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Chair Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : Dave Mach. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon presided and called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 30, 2001— The following corrections were re Page 10, eighth paragraph: "Kukonen pointe copy ordinance of needed to be reviewed. he with Elk River, and had a but that it Page 11, third paragraph: " The Board unanimously agreed to appoint Trehus to the Kukonen moved to appro 01 meeting minutes as amended above. Grundhofer seconded ro! hot o`�n carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGE The following items were adde •.1 e meeting agenda: • Discuss Pond contamination under updates. • Discuss resolution under Draft Comprehensive Plan. The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comments were made. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/Update/ Brian Wessel — Wessel reviewed that on July 11 the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and Preliminary Plan was going to the Planning and Zoning Board in its complete form. The wetland mitigation process was going to be discussed at the July 25 Watershed District meeting. Donlin stated the project had been a package from the beginning, so it had been difficult to have effective comments. Wessel answered the developers' response was it was the only shopping center zoned in the City, so the developer wanted to maximize the use of the area. The Council would make the final decision if the project is appropriate for the City. Chair Lanyon indicated that there have been no major changes, so there was no need for further discussion. He summed up that the Board wants Ryan/Target to maximize the environmental amenities, and that the Board wanted to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet when the comments were in. Trehus asked the reason for putting the project on the ag da twice. Wessel indicated that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could eanmented on in this section if the Board wished. Trehus stated the Board could comment on itself. Wessel submitted that it would go t Trehus pointed out that the taxes for would now be deferred. Wessel stated quarters of a million with options to pay would be deferred. ronmen ssessment Worksheet n July `23, 2001. Donlin noted it is $450 increment was invo because the mark was seeking tax aba promised, one million dollars, public participation project of three - atement, and only the City's portion ent yearly for 15 years. She asked if tax Bonded that the developer has requested a subsidy and explained that the developer, Ryan Companies the beginning one year ago. Trehus reviewed that th- mpact of this development necessitated wetland abatement, and asked if the situation had changed according to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Payton answered questions asked about previous activity in the area. According to the aerial photographs taken prior to the construction of Interstate 35W, showed the highway greatly impacted the tamarack forest that was present at the time. Trehus noted the rates had been maintained, but the impact from the volumes remained unknown. He urged an analysis be performed. Mr. Payton explained the stormwater runoff rates and water quality were under the review of Rice Creek Watershed District, and it was their decision, not the City's. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus indicated the Watershed District was reviewing their standards, and only dealt with average rainfall but the lakes would be impacted. He indicated he spoke to representatives at the Watershed District who agreed with his recommendation. Mr. Payton responded that the request was moot, because the Watershed District was the qualified party to deal with those issues. Trehus pointed out that the Watershed District did not have the financial resources to do the study. Mr. Payton answered that the Watershed District regularly reviews their standards. Chair Lanyon explained that the study would be relevant to the City. Trehus urged the Board to make the recommendation, and let the Council decide, for instance an analysis using computer modeling on the increased volume of runoff into George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon agreed and added the message the Board wants to send is that a study needed to be done, and given the size of the project, with the impact remaining unknown, it needed to be addressed explicitly. Mr. Payton stated that issues such as infiltration, pondin retainment and treatment were all being dealt with by the Watershed District. Asleson explained all responsibility for the imp ��' oul • $ t be placed on the Ryan Target project. He commented that the Water` ed istrict °studies on the lower but not the upper part of the district. Chair Lanyon commented that the Bo ure the Watershed District specifically addressed the impact of vo Trehus noted the report, wh: been s b itted, showed significant phosphorus loading. Kukonen stated all know what the message to the Coun water volumes of runo tudies were still pending, and the Board did not c was dealing with. Chair Lanyon reiterated that the e that because of the scope of the project, the issue of ed to be addressed specifically. Mr. Payton explained that the public value credit and the creation of the wetland were already planned. Chair Lanyon indicated the issues of concern for the Board were the water volume and water quality issues. Donlin assured Mr. Payton that the Board appreciated the graciousness in which he had dealt with the criticisms of the Board, however, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet caused the Board to have some real concerns about the impact of the project. She indicated that compromises occurred all the way down the Mississippi River. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted that the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet stated the impact on wetlands and George Watch Lake is unknown at this time. Trehus moved that the Environmental Board recommends an analysis be conducted to determine the impacts of water volumes and water quality on the Chain of Lakes, George Watch Lake, and nearby wetlands. This analysis should utilize computer modeling, and if the Watershed District is unable to provide this it may be appropriate that the applicant contribute financially. Donlin seconded the motion. Trehus submitted that he did not initiate the discussion of computer modeling, but someone from the Watershed District mentioned it. Motion carried unanimously. O'Connell indicated the Environmental Board was concerned with what the City was losing, and inquired about environmental education possibilities. Wessel stated that the subject was in review. The final decision would be in the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The Environmental Board would have to respond in the next meeting. He offered that the document be sent to the p °'vonmental Board the same time it would be sent to the Planning and Zoning Board. Trehus pointed out that the Environmental B sid d not seethe project for two months. Wessel responded that the most re es had een shown to the Board. Mr. Payton explained that he had been ting wi a Ryan representatives, and they had commitments from a bank and the R es. Grochala noted he had been working on open space, pedestrian traffi"r, ign. ae, lighting, power, and impacts on adjacent properties. Trehus asked if it woul Donlin expresse Environmental Boar brought together. She project assure the Board through. nd signage which could be used as a model. new tenants might not be aware of the concerns of the wally speaking, the beauty and vegetation needed to be ed with tax abatements, could the representatives of the at the recommendations on vegetation would be followed Wessel indicated that there were no ordinances to dictate, but assured the Board that these issues were being negotiated, and that Ryan had made a commitment to reflect the character of the City. B. 8075 20th Avenue N. — Asleson reviewed the background on the project. The homeowner wanted to build an unattached garage in a lake protection zone and 100 -year floodplain. He recommended checking with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. There was no proposed size of the garage, but there ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 could be an issue of exceeding the allowable fill for a wetland if one was found to be present. Kukonen indicated he had driven by the property and believed the Watershed District should be contacted. He indicated he thought there could be other places to build. Chair Lanyon indicated the two issues were that they may need to fill the area, and they would be adding to the impervious surfaces. Kukonen inquired if there was a model to look at such as Clearwater Creek with the swails. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should approve the second paragraph as the recommendation, with the addition that the City come up with examples in the City to show homeowners. Kukonen moved to pass the second paragraph as the Board's recommendation. Trehus added that the concerns should be a condition of Planning and Zoning recommends approval or denial, passing on recommendations. He urged the Board t submitted that an addition to the recommendatio opposing the variance request. proval. He noted that the o not limit themselves to ear in its recommendations, and at it did not support or Grundhofer inquired at what point the Watershe® istrict come into the process. Asleson answered that they would be contacte . wetlan . re built over a certain number of feet. O'Connell added if the prof n� 000 -s• ` . or less the Watershed District did not have to be contacted. Grochala stated tha or a variance, so the recommendation could be denial if the proje Trehus noted that they °' sking for a variance in setback and could possibly be a drainage easement. Gro.a` ala presented a diagram of the plan and explained that the proposed building was not located within a drainage easement. He explained that the zoning ordinance required accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front property line than the principle building. Grundhofer stated the map had no scale. Grochala explained the ponds were somewhat limiting the placement of the structure, he was estimating the placement at about 30 -ft. from the main structure. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chair Lanyon pointed out the Board could make a statement such as "We do not recommend this project goes forth until...the Watershed District is contacted. Trehus asked if it could slip through the cracks without contacting the Watershed District. O'Connell answered it would be possible if the garage was under 5,000 -sq. ft. Chair Lanyon stated that since they were asking for a variance they could be asked to contact the Watershed District. Asleson suggested also inquiring on the effects of the additional impervious surfaces and water volumes. Trehus summarized the motion is to indicate that the Board does not support or oppose the variance request, however, because the proposed project lies within a lake protection area as described in the Environmental Handbook, the Board recommends: • The homeowner should contact the Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. • Without knowing the exact size of the building it is unknown if the project would exceed the allowable fill limits. • Landscape for surface water management to minimize impact on wetlands. Motion carried unanimously. C. Pinnacle Towers Update — Asleson stated the ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Draft Comprehensive Plan — Groch Comprehensive Plan, which the City ha the Plan was a unique work th , ould b set goals for total populatio +using would need to be dealt wi Council had adopted the ing on for several years. He believed doc "` ent that staff could work with. It had ts.. There were still several issues that mplementation of the plan. Grochala comment °that" o>' has reviewed the Environment Boards goals and tabled discussion cil meeting with the intent of having a board representative presen e a directed the boards attention to the letter from Linda Waite -Smith which indi that the Council's desire to meet with the board and discuss its role, goals and intera 'ion with other boards Chair Lanyon noted this item had been tabled until the July 9, 2001 meeting. He asked if anyone could be at the meeting. He stated that it could be discussed at the joint meeting and inquired about the mechanism to keep the cap at 147 units/year. Grochala pointed out that the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, but it still needed Metropolitan Council approval. The Comprehensive Plan becomes the basis to draft ordinances and other laws. The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance will be revised as part of the implementation strategy to provide the necessary growth controls. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Donlin explained the disparity for a 500 -unit development but allow for only 50 units /year. Trehus agreed that it was a major drawback to phasing. Donlin stated the Mayor was using a 20,500 population cap, and the concern was the need to build new schools. She asked how they were to respond. Trehus stated that if the numbers were adjusted it would be 38 homes/year. Grochala stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was started the population was12,000, and there had been dramatic growth recently. The council will need to address this issue as the city begins working on the plan implementation. Chair Lanyon indicated that the caps were very important, but so were the rates. If the rates were too fast the Boards begin to lose their effectiveness. The Board wants to help staff to develop ordinances. Grochala responded that the ordinances would enforce the goals and with the Comprehensive Plan there was a consensus to build on. The Conservation Development Ordinance could be a first step. Trehus stated that the Comprehensive Plan was limited because the language creates no impetus to make it happen from the developers. Grochala answered that the availability of water and sewer would be on of the limiting factors fo development. Chair Lanyon asked now that the Comprehensive P adhere to the numbers. Grochala answered that clarifying the 147 units per year versus the 20 approved, would the City .sion would need to be made Grundhofer pointed out that the new Subdivisio Grochala agreed that a lot was depend n the majority of issues deal with housing de dinance was not in place yet. politan Council's approval. The ordable housing. Chair Lanyon suggested hav nority s, of which ordinances to work on. Grochala added it may be practical to work on components of ordinances. Kukonen expressed scenario. He w responded that the c for the limitation of gro aside open space. expansion of the MUSA with the proposed growth aration of MUSA and non -MUSA. Grochala eness of extending utilities to certain areas may provide certain areas, and could encourage clustering and setting Kukonen indicated that two hot topics were MUSA expansion and Metropolitan Council. Chair Lanyon stated that the Comprehensive Plan had been passed, even though it was not exactly what the Board wanted. He pointed out to the Board that it can still affect the implementation of the Plan through ordinances. Trehus asked Grochala if he had seen the Environmental Handbook. The Handbook outlined the process, and would become the basis for the ordinances. He asked what would happen when the Handbook and Comprehensive Plan did not agree. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chairs Lanyon noted that at some point the ordinances should be tested against the Environmental Handbook. He reviewed that consultants had worked with the City trying to create a win/win situation. Grochala stated that power was not in negotiating to take it or leave it, but using the ordinance to encourage compliance. Donlin inquired whether the taxes would increase once the MUSA was established. Grochala answered that while growth boundarys are established by the plan, it did not designate MUSA. MUSA would be held in reserve until development takes place. Trehus stated that there were different zone categories for the land not in the growth zone. Grochala responded with the example of an area north of Centerville. The land use plan showed it at low density residential, however the sewer and water were two miles away and is currently zoned Rural, it would remain at that designation. Donlin commented that as soon as the MUSA becomes available, if people were taxed as MUSA, they would be encouraged to develop their land. Grochala answered that the MUSA would be banked until as development project p ere approved. In this way land would be classified as non -MUSA until developme s place Chair Lanyon indicated that agenda items A, his goals were. Grochala explained his goa defining roles, so that recommendations would that there would be times when he an ` ���_: oard E mel . '' fie asked Grochala what volve e Environmental Board in ccepted and passed on. He admitted ICI conflict. Chair Lanyon stated that the Environme could be more proactive th. � ve. G with being reactive is the Bo "`d would be more helpful to the City if it ala explained that some of the frustration ess itself. Chair Lanyon point ti need of help, the Board would like to offer support. On the s ir nmental Board, it would be gratifying to know if the Board made a differ Grochala stated the deadl nes that limit the influence of the Board may be the meeting time, and a change in the meeting time might be considered. Chair Lanyon suggested that there needed to be a set of procedures developed, so those mutually beneficial situations could be created. Trehus presented a recommendation to implement a moratorium on all new residential developments possibly to be extended to all development. A copy was submitted to staff. Trehus moved to adopt a moratorium as written, to be forwarded to Council. Donlin seconded the motion. • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus explained that Target would not be affected, only new submittals. Kukonen mentioned that a moratorium would inhibit arguments with developers. Donlin reviewed that several years ago the City enacted two back to back six -month moratoriums. Trehus added that with 450 units already in process, a moratorium was a needed step for the City. The motion carried unanimously. Trehus inquired of Grochala to review the Preservation Zoning District. O'Connell suggested the letter be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Asleson indicated the Board could meet July 18, however it would be too early for comment on projects and applications. Chair Lanyon explained in order to comment on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, the Board should meet before July 23, 2001 with either a special meeting or an additional meeting. Since the Board was not having an impact on projects, the meeting could be moved to July 1 , 2001. Grochala stated the Board could move the meeting 18, 2001 for comments on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, with the folio mee , the second week in August because the Watershed District is meeting on fly 5, 2001. ^ e Council meets on the 13th and the 23rd for the Environmental Audi et. Chair Lanyon noted the Board would on both 1 ' 18, 2001 and July 25, 2001. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 —'' tem ' as discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. C. Environmental Asses discussed as part of D. Shade Tree Ordina with models used in th document included a tre t Comments/Target /Ryan — This item was oard Business A. reservation/Discussion — Asleson wrote the document ecause there was no working model in the State. The reservation policy that was bound by the Council. It required the developer to replace the trees in public areas and developments. The City attorney advised against banks, and opposed the tree replacement. The issue of policy versus ordinance could be revisited. Grundhofer indicated that the definition of wood lot was a tree area of one acre and was under the tree preservation policy, with 25% of the area having large trees. She asked staff if the policy could apply to the oaks in Highland Meadows. Asleson answered it was included as a part of the zoning code in policy form and the developer had not complied. The policies were guidelines, but there was no means for enforcement. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted if the tree preservation was an ordinance, and not merely a policy, the number of units could be reduced by one - third. Asleson stated that the City could not legally enforce the replacement of trees, according to the City Attorney. Chair Lanyon advised the Board to leave out the replacement sections from the document and recommend it be adopted as an ordinance. Grundhofer moved to have the tree ordinance revised by the Board and to move forward on the Tree Preservation Ordinance without reference to the replacement of trees. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Introduction/Michael Grochala/New Community Development Director — This item was discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. PROGRAM /PROJECT UPDATES A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface — Tbk item was tabled to the July 18, 2001 because the meeting was cancelled due to the po ire shutdown of the government. B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item w < €m ble • the July 18, 2001 meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Osprey nest — Asleson stated he met scout 9 to put up an osprey nest in August or September. B. Trees from Xcel Energy — repo that Xcel Energy had agreed to give the City two trees for one for d = ed ile repairing wires from storms. C. Spirit Hills Updat that Spirit Hills was required by the Rice Creek Watershed Distri develo : m ntenance plan to sustain the permeability of the soil. This action suppor te endation given from the Board. D. Pond Contamination — sleson indicated the results from the lab showed the presence of coliform at 200 colonies /ml with a 100 colonies /ml detection limit. The second pond showed no detected coliform. The MPCA stated the life expectancy for coliform was 1.5 days, although the viruses could remain. The septic tank would be fixed by July 9, 2001. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 18, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 9:41 p.m. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 • Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : July 18, 2001 TIME STARTED : 4:48 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:18 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus (arrived at 6:27 p.m.). MEMBERS ABSENT : Amy Donlin and Dave Mach. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved unanimously. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Ryan Companies/Marketplace project — Grochala reviewed the backgr of the s «' ct timeline and the rationale for the Environmental Assessment Workshe sheet was not an approval process, but a means of identifying issues on the i : ct of particular project in several areas including traffic, noise, and bi • . 1 facto .; The City Council was the Regulating Governmental Unit (RGU) y o th" pprove or deny the project. The 30 -day reviewal period ended o 1 01 .i d the City had 30 days to act. Comments were received from the Mi °�`�so lu>� ontrol Agency, Minnesota Department of Transportation, �� esota ste ical Society, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. There wer fay ors that evaluated significant environmental effect: • The extent and revers �R ri of the environmental effect. • The cumulative potent effects of future projects, according to a defined area and time frame. • The extent the project was subject to mitigation by a public regulatory authority, and the rationale for not requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • The extent the environmental effects could be controlled. Grochala explained that there were three options for the Environmental Board to recommend. • Motion to recommend a finding of no significant impact. • Motion to recommend a finding to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. • Motion to recommend tabling the decision until additional information was submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Chair Lanyon asked if the City Council approved the resolution, was it still contingent on approval by the Watershed District, and could the District call for an Environmental Impact Statement. Grochala stated the RGU (meaning the City Council) would make the final decision, with a probable yes or no addressing potential impacts. Chair Lanyon explained the Board had concerns that the Council was deferring to the Watershed District on certain issues. Grochala indicated the City would base its approval on how the issues were addressed. Chair Lanyon questioned if the Environmental Impact Statements were for large projects only, and not usually done on smaller projects. Grochala answered they often take about a year to complete, but the City did not want to miss anything. If Rice Creek and other agencies with their standards were not a part of the process, more studies would be required. Grundhofer asked if there were permit requirements to be met, specifically on p. 2 of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments regarding what standards of infiltrations were used for stormwater. Asleson stated that in terms of amounts, the Watershed as much as possible, however with regard to design, apply. Grundhofer inquired if they decided on a mode son responded that a design was being considered for Spirit Hills, and a similar on • uld apply here. strict had extended the standards ere many models that could Grochala stated requirements could be m: m •.i ons for approval. The islands in the parking lot for vegetation were being pl for infiltration areas, however, the planned grading needed to be inquired Asles a� ' ndicated the quantity would be answered, but the quality would need t Grochala commented operation and main indicated that best m loading. Asleson noted regulatory control which would be written up in an t and discuss how the costs would be split. He ractices would be recommended to reduce phosphorus Watershed District may require them. Kukonen questioned if the green islands would be basins with curbs around them. Asleson pointed out the islands at City Hall were supposed to be basins. Grochala explained that there was a risk of backing up in the spring. Maplewood had basins, which filled up with runoff debris. Asleson commented that in the spring or times of rainfall, there was little puddling. Chair Lanyon referred to p. 2, top of p. 6, and p. 8 the fourth paragraph, where the City's response indicates that 29 acres or less would not significantly affect the wetlands. Grochala added there was a similar comment on p. 6 response #4, "the loss of significant 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 trees," but the City had zoned it for commercial. The total volume of runoff leaving the site would increase. Staff indicated it would be difficult to separate out and measure the future potential impacts and its contribution to global impacts. Chair Lanyon stated his concern was the precedent the City was setting with those statements. Grochala responded that the City had only one commercial district zoned, but acknowledged the necessity for word usage to inhibit ambiguity on subsequent projects that would come before the City. Chair Lanyon noted the rate was not going to change, but the volumes could be accepted for the specific project, then inquired about comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Grochala explained the comments of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources were similar to the Watershed District. Grundhofer asked if they were planning to remove the soil and replace it. Grochala answered that with peat soils, they would excavate and fill more suitable soil. O'Connell stated on p.10 section 20011.18 at the top boring locations. Grochala noted that it must be w on the parking lot ratios versus a parking ramp. ere was a map showing the get. A discussion followed Kukonen noted 1,747 parking spaces in the plan, ' inquired if they lost any. Grochala stated he did not recall the exact numbe it was r ced. Grundhofer asked where the soil would go er it- as removed, and had concerns about compression of the soil. Asle : cated � as addressed in the discussion of infiltration areas. Kukonen reviewed th concerning parkin they had brought the n allow. e Minnesota Department of Natural Resources here Wetland A was located. Grochala stated that arking spaces down to the minimum the City would Chair Lanyon questioned comments by the Minnesota Department of Transportation on page 4 concerning the Chain of Lakes Park, which was not adjacent, but across the highway. Grochala answered that they look for rate control of runoff onto the highway. Chair Lanyon noted that it was another example of a statement made which could be precedent setting. Grochala responded the sentence on top of p. 5 should be eliminated. O'Connell indicated that there was a comment that there would be a loss of bird habitat, but there was no mention of deer. She noted there were many deer in the area, and it would increase accidents with cars. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Grochala stated the wetland adjacent to the property was about seven times the size of the plat, and asked if there was a connection for the animals to go. Chair Lanyon answered that initially there could be an increase in the population, but ultimately they would die. Grundhofer expressed concern that the temperature change as a result of the runoff could cause problems for the frog and dragonfly eggs. Asleson stated that it would be difficult to measure, but the shading in the parking lot would help cool the runoff. Grochala suggested that it might bounce in the outlet. Asleson answered that the effects were unknown. Chair Lanyon stated that it would be worth it to monitor the outflow temperatures. Grochala concurred that a case study could be done. Asleson stated he took surface temperature readings on two occasions at George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake. He found that the water temperatures did not fluctuate much in George Watch Lake because the lake was so shallow it would never stratify. Chair Lanyon concurred adding that freshwater systems were adapted to mdden changes. He continued that most of the water would go through the infiltration O'Connell noted the area was zoned for intense co erci velopment. Grochala responded that it was technically zoned a shop Wessel pointed out that it was the only site in the Previously, there had been at least twely s, but chosen for a shopping center. ne was interested. Chair Lanyon mentioned on p. 6 at the top re s another example of similar language, and asked Grochala to work o guag f. r runoff and use it throughout the document O'Connell expressed cone o e re rence on p. 7 discussing filling the wetland. Grundhofer asked a significant was planne or estorations on site. Asleson responded that nothing O'Connell inquired about "e City's response. Grochala indicated that they needed to be consistent with the Master Plan, which called for an equal amount of public park as to mitigation. He added that Anoka County was in support of it. Wessel stated that there was an agreement in effect where adjacent land could be accepted for the park. The City had difficulty giving up land for Anoka County. Kukonen noted that a maintenance plan would go through the County. 4 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Chair Lanyon pointed out on p. 8 the Metropolitan Council was addressing runoff, however, the phosphorus nutrient loading was not mentioned. Grochala responded the City could add it to the agreement. O'Connell mentioned that increasing the diameter of the pipe would also increase the runoff. Grochala answered that they had to meet the two -inch rate requirement, but they would decide how to accomplish it. Grundhofer inquired about the disposal of oil and batteries. Asleson explained that they would be required to direct customers to off site disposals. 0' Connell asked about the acres of impervious, noting that in the document it appeared to change several times. Asleson commented that basically the entire area would be disturbed. Grundhofer questioned which plantings would be chosen. Grochala assured her it would be according to the City standards. Grundhofer described how past construction had affected R e heron rookery and bald eagle's nest. Chair Lanyon concurred and asked staff to write the section to keep in perspective the volume increase would be accepted i„ e. He urged the Board to move forward with the topic of water volumes of Grochala stated that they needed to work wi �'° sues. Chair Lanyon indicated that water vol unquantifiable. Asleson agreed that it w adjusting hydrology. Chair Lanyon suggested tha negative declaration, and by the Rice Creek W in the process, an impact, but the extent would be impact by destroying the upland and want to choose option #1 the resolution of a vironmental Impact Statement pending approval ochala stated that without these agencies present act Statement might be needed. Kukonen expressed cone er stating that there was no significant effect. Chair Lanyon stated that Kukonen had p . nted out that #5 should be rewritten to say no impacts were revealed that were not under the jurisdiction of other agencies. Trehus arrived at 6:27 p.m. Chair Lanyon summarized the comments for Trehus. Trehus pointed out that the Metropolitan Council stated on p. 3 third paragraph, last sentence, that there must be an analysis of the impacts on the wetland before a determination could be made. Chair Lanyon responded that the concerns were under the requirements of the Watershed District. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Trehus mentioned that the Watershed District dealt with the minimum requirements of law and lacked the teeth to enforce. Asleson stated the Metropolitan Council spoke of impact to trees, but they impacted the area when the highway was located through the area. Trehus answered that was the 1967 Metropolitan Council, and the representatives have changed. He recommended the Board attach some conditions to be met, because they were maximizing development, but doing little for the environment. Asleson indicated the Army Corp of Engineers needed to approve the project. Trehus explained that the Metropolitan Council suggested more could be done. He believed they should be attached as requirements. Chair Lanyon mentioned that the issues were all on the table including the potential environmental impacts. Trehus stated that they did not comply with the Watershed District's requirements, and there were other agencies involved. Trehus moved for recommending option #3, Table th additional information i.e. the Watershed District analysis should be done to fully determine the i water quality to the Rice Creek Chain of Lake analysis should include computer modeling. The must be done prior to a negative declara Water predevelopment conditions. Grundhofer discussion. ion until the submission of ecommendation that an of incred runoff volumes and e, wetlands and Lakes. This ropolitan Council has determined this dines should be reduced to motion for the purpose of Grundhofer asked who woul+ "' fo ., and could the Council require it. Trehus indicated that pursued. He pointe stay at predevelopmen for the developer. ed the impacts were unknown and should be litan Council stated that the runoff volumes should sleson mentioned that it was not a real expensive venture Trehus explained that they would need to discuss the impacts, not just a number for water volumes, but what was the number going to do to George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon stated that the concern was who would be doing the analysis. Trehus responded the Watershed District could do it. Asleson mentioned that the developer needed to meet minimum requirements. Trehus urged the City not to make the decision until the Watershed District responded. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Kukonen suggested the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could be changed. He agreed with option #3 with the addition of until the Watershed District responded. Asleson noted that in a wetland mitigation, the second site needed to have an equal or better quality than the original. Trehus stated the City did not have a policy on Tax Abatement and so they were having a hearing on it. He suggested that runoff was similar and they should also have a hearing. Asleson answered that the headwaters were under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The effects of the runoff on the ecological systems on site could be predicted, but the project's effect globally was more difficult to quantify. Trehus noted the Watershed District had to table the decision because the developer did not provide the required information. Chair Lanyon responded that the Watershed District would treat the runoff issue similarly, but more carefully. Trehus pointed out the Watershed District was in the process of increasing their standards. The Board seemed to say that they wanted the developers to meet insufficient standards. The lakes are public property, but the public was receiving o compensation for that. Trehus advised that the Watershed District had a list of s rteen points they had not provided information for They said that the Waters °° +strict could not provide the analysis due to lack of funds, but urged the City to °= for i, ith the statement from the Metropolitan Council, they urged the City to co `ide that an : lysis must be done before a decision. Asleson noted that there would be 13 -ac lake. The rate may stay the same, but the impact of water volume of one project was project by project issue. If a s significantly. ater volume /year added to the Id not. Chair Lanyon stated that the bly insignificant because it was not a ne, the elevation would not change Asleson indicated a b o � th� ole town would be necessary. Chair Lanyon reiterated that bec not on a project by project basis, the numbers probably would not be signific Trehus posed the question " "hy would the Watershed District recommend requesting it, and the Metropolitan Council would require it before a determination could be made. He noted the City was willing to have a hearing on Tax Abatement, why not a Surface Water Management Plan also. The City could put the policies in place, and then address the development. He noted that the comment made by Kukonen echoes that of Metropolitan Council. Trehus submitted option #3 with the addition of calling for an analysis of the runoff impacts, an evaluation of surface water, and that the results and comments come back the Environmental Board for comments. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 The motion passed 3 -2, with Chair Lanyon and O'Connell voting against. The Board members in favor worked out the language of the motion. The motion stated that the Board recommends: • Tabling the decision until the submission of additional information, i.e. Rice Creek Watershed District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Metropolitan Council states an analysis of impacts of water runoff from the site must be completed before an Environmental Impact Statement determination can be made. • Metropolitan Council recommends the applicant try to reduce runoff volume to predevelopment conditions. • The Environmental Board should review and comment following the submission of additional information. Trehus moved that prior to a negative declaration, the City should adopt a policy that defines how the City will address development projects with more than ten acres of impervious surfaces. O'Connell seconded the motion for discussion. O'Connell pointed out she did want the policy, but it woul•ot impact this project. Chair Lanyon indicated that making the motion wou motion. Trehus amended the above motion to remove th seconded the motion to amend. ish the impact of the prior "prior to a declaration." O'Connell Chair Lanyon explained that he voted agal motion because it would not say why or where it was going. Grunhofer stated that there i Council who did not understand the importance of it. Kukonen noted that:eeting : s planned with the City Council and the Board was going to raise the issue as a g Trehus withdrew the motion, with the understanding that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Chair Lanyon suggested the goals move from a global perspective to a project by project basis and then have the Board prioritize them in order of importance. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 25, 2001. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. Kukonen seconded the IImotion. Motion passed unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9 AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 2001 TOPIC: Centennial School District/New Elementary School /Site Plan Review BACKGROUND: Centennial School District has submitted plans to build a new elementary school in Lino Lakes. The site chosen for this new school is north of, and immediately adjacent to, Centennial Middle School on Elm Street. The site is approximately 21.76 acres. The site is zoned as Light Industrial (LI), and is proposed to be rezoned to Public /Semi- Public (PSP). The site plan was received on August 13, 2001. Staff has had one chance to look at the submitted plan since it came in. Many questions have surfaced from traffic flow to environmental issues. I have enclosed the smaller maps in the packet. I will bring the larger more readable maps to the meeting. The GIS shows an area out of the flood plane, with Isanti Wet soils generally where the wetland line is shown on the maps. Although the AES vegetation classification shows this wet soil as reed canary grass, there are some small areas on the fringe that appear to have a bit more plant diversity. The Lino Lakes Handbook for Conservation Development sites a recommendation to have a buffer around the wetland area on the West side of the site. The site is in a Lake Protection Zone. Water in an area on the NE corner of the site is labeled as MALSW. This area ultimately drains to County Ditch 10 through storm sewers. The area of the site to the South and East side of the site is labeled as CD10S in the Surface Water Management Plan. This is a small watershed, which contains the final portion of County Ditch 10. County Ditch 10 empties into the North side of Marshan Lake. Reccomended action in 1994: High Priority to perform drainage study to determine flow rates from water shed in MALSW, and High Priority to perform drainage study to determine drainage system on both sides of Lake Drive. The Assumption in 1994 was that Lake Drive drains North to CD10, and the recommendation was made to study other conveyance needs in the watershed. Since this study, we have started addressing not so much conveyance, but the idea of surface water management, Stormwater Treatment Train, infiltration, etc., in addition to the notion of water conveyance. Estimated costs for the two studies mentioned above was about $7,000 in 1994. Trees: There are no significant considerations for high - priority tree classifications. The site would need to be surveyed for individual significant trees as part of a required Tree Preservation Plan. Trees must be located on the grading plan and a strategy developed for preservation or removal. Greenways and Trails: More of a trail issue than greenway. Originally, in the 1992 Trail /Greenway Plan, it was determined to have a greenway and trail following along the NW corner of Marshan Lake to access the Regional Park from the Town Center site. This leg of the Greenway was eliminated, and alternative routes discussed. One route was along Lake Drive, bypassing the residential area to the North of The Shores of Marshan Development. The other consideration was the possibility of more of a Greenway situation by following the Freeway through the Middle School and the LI to the North. The advantage was that the creek (CD10) crossing would be less challenging in this area. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Building site with recommendations listed below. 2. Recommend to not approving building site. RECOMMENDATION: • Study surface water issues as per current surface water management recommendations. • Study the options for developing more Surface Water Treatment Train elements into the plan. • Use native plants. • Submit an O &M Plan for Surface Water issues, including plan for native vegetation. • Convey Environmental Boards concern for lighting forward to plan review process. • Recommend approval of the building site with further review and discussion of above environmental issues. Sew''-litl.::' State Correctional Facility . i ----n ( v O 6vy __ 1 I,0 135 . 111111 j AI �.�� J i / IMP „ LAKE G Ill . .Q` JIIIPPIP °� Centennial Middle School ^ /r //II QV Ir AWN( 2 *411, :rani .- ..., ....,. .- . rill aft" ��din �� :: M Marshan Lake p �I N \, \ _I-- NM 1111 % (-1 I , m� ® 1 W -7.--r, S 1 • *IN PLC 12 mama, C'`� • .i.: 4: rio6 4- fir l . � d a >L.ti *VI* 588'49'12 - 720.12 PRCPSRTI ui44 = ELY. L0'eMO' PLAT FIELD 14 BUS PARKING 5110 .- ^'au ^E.•Ae s PROPOSED EEUILDING 1 IT7 "TREE T1P, L TIES ern*, CANOPY N!D i Ines error. C:a,OP. ryas . n•r• • \r • ANAREaN rFWh•T•P 220• SOFTBALL FIELD 16(7,2.4' ;•• PLAN FIELD • ; rare l 6410 • (T0 Oft T'Mt R E PO LFLATM . EXISTING 35 STALL. BUS LOT t 0.1••7t ' _P1 ri • J �` S88'49'1Yf - -- t »� , • • • • , . . • M tlf..akY2. wYa"y PR 2!11/:, Lm 1 /TO OE PR OVlD APTER ANAL PLATN0■ 41 • • i EI CANOPY MI /TM/ . • • 1 • '111'•1 }• . : x} EXI8T9NCY PARKING STALLS -AT MIDDff E•.E SC1a0ER1. F 1 FI 11:11 ,i: 1 i 1...^.; t» +11 1 Iii I....I : 1.i i d-1 i i rata 1.1 I ' I l t1 1' 1'•1x521'1. ..».......4......� w ;I • 1 '30 ;, 1.'i • •: F. "(STING •7 i jg11'4: I !H E i E j E' -' + °, i 1 F .x:a • ��, 1•:1111:,:; 1 1 I. • i i i- 1 -•1-t• €.'..Lie 2 e.! 1•i•} Li C1 1 SITE LAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN Lit)3C LE r1 a SO' Arms tron j Tors etfi Skotd and RycIt ei • Inc. Architectar @4424.31 /•: 1112. Flnmung NI( -2/11• 9r:Ij•.? 1.121st..pt .b/It r' 3ltnnrapolls l;ulterol., 554227 Tel 703- 515 -3731 i:x 753-52a -:289 i 1 i • ° ' -E f i E : • • 3 Y .? ;;;.=.:•!;*- a 538.57 RECEIVED AUG 13 ZOO, TY OF LINO 1.,6.14ES i +ca »� x••222... O 1.1 r• INEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LSD. NO. 12 ELM STREET AND 4TH AVENUE UNO LAKES. MN 55014 PROJECT IINIFORM A T ION: SEEM . INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 4101 NORTH ROAO CIRCLE PMES. MINNNESOTA 54011 PHONE. 163.1133010 FA/ 163.153430 ATT. JOHN CNRISTr N55 SUratitaa MICEEST LAND SURVEYING INC. 110E RIVER ROAD ANOK.1. MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE: 113.112.1051 ARCHITECT/ LANDSCAPE ARCFIIT L ATSaR MCI OLDEN VALLEY ROAD SWTE 300 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55421 PHONE. 1633433131 FAX. 1635253239 ATT. KEVIN TEPPEN- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ATT. NANCY LAEISSONEUQE- ARCHITECT REFER t ASSOCIATES 3440 DE AL.MS1.4 SUITE 240 FAWN. MINNESOTA 5307 PHONE. 651.4523051 FA./. 65152.1191 ATT. JOHN KRAUSERT CL't•MTNLda CIA 4. s 3100313. SEPTEMBER 3001 START CGNs175.1c11 . OCTOGER 2001 SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. JULY 2002 SITE STATt5TM % • ACRES. 154 .1- • PCNDN0 AREAS. SEE CIVIL PLANS • uETLAND IMPACT AREA, 3EE CIVIL PLANS • UETALND REPLACEMENT AREA. SEE CIVIL PLANS • DRNE LANES ARE 242 WIDE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • PARKING 6T3LL5 ARE 9•x20' • OMB LANES 430 DRIVEWAYS WILL DE E111.3410.15 PAVEMENT • SIDEVIAUC.6 DLL CE CONCRETE • 3' P4TF4B4Y6 WILL DE DITUMNOUS • ALL DRNELA 415 AND P4RUNG ISLANDS WILL 144E CONCRETE CURS AND COMER PARKING STATISTICS/ 1 SPACE FOR E4C14 CLA55R64Pb 34134 CLAIM/67C 5) 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 300 STI$•EMT5. 3 f7S0 STUD®VTSJ I SPACE FOR @1110.31 EMPLOYEE, 50 1220 E 1 *1.0 rEES/ 1_SPAGR FoN EyRLIaY 4 sT M IrORn.T w TOTAL REda1RED• 131 TOTAL TOTAL PROVIDED. 113 TOTAL REFER TO ARCNITECTIRAL PLANS POR DUILDNG ELEVATIGNS. 1.271*IOR FEATURES• PLAIT SO 1®4. F Ce rr_w r 4311011 Nam, s stAOL HILLS ePR+ca IM.sa tlYn}aa. Y C••NIM e nv 3' Wt. ROOT Rt5ARCs Es 31R LSb{R 5. NO V CROTCH 5OTAHIE.0 HAMR• Y'N *OAR MAPLE Aar r Ma W u PED All IMITO d1. Oar. *Nero 'Atoms blr.•' CM. 11 w 14 IHR. LEADER R NO V CROTCH LH2sRsroRY/ AMBIT TRH 201JNIC�AL RN NAME5 Sr_E ' NYUTII ewu 21 rallt Yrvar•la' OPEN] Ma3N .4_*2 APPLE F....•x- ••• ••••••la NNW R0 NT, 5 N NO REr+AUecs CLOT PONY • 621.4. a. ; Ida •GUr 3.T NE COE• PILL OVI..RP 30'..T ROM/ TO COO. C07. taRAOS !C to 30' WT C0?. Pt.AITTN : NOTES 1 MOOVC1 SOD M 41041 As POICAT@0 04 FLAN. ALL AREAS NOT DESISNA.TSD TO EE SCDCEq OWL. as miscue Ah0 545.20110. .. 2. ALL 961111.111 ems AND TREE SAUCOVI2*1N 5FPECDE0 MULCH IN.l*S OTHD23SE HMO. MLCH 51ATEPML TO SE 523115251 4' CEPTL ISITE L= _ :T a LANDSCAPE PLAN NIVflr "el tI i} ,1 ;lilt• lilt et oP,�o .tr..�. �n rr�t cart �y t . t I''• ,• 0.4..• • tlp. II y:st ; Hi, = :I ....A.4T 4 • . a. m._, p•. • *MAC • .u..nai I I t % 1 1 i � ! . ,... _ 4 : t E .. . yr �i i. [ 1 �t , 1 • W ' w - •- alb r{ �F "'"01.7" .xcs::xtw . ' S 2Y1 :"} £sa ^�."..w: x ^ saw ."“s' '.:_- .. ( • j! I t i its• .e....0 1 I i 1. "A). RNO , '•4„,,A•v4,...w :4?:ar•^�.'aw,L. :(.+`. ♦.csy x, i+:.„H C z • qIi ;4I.. 1 II • 1•i 11'iwie!a!••,. •, _ • •!ity" • `i 3•..1 •.1 <� • ( 1 'IOVERALL LAYOUT PLAN \ 1.1.0./SCALE Y - 100' rmstron T 1'orset�i Skold and Rydceri :. 111 i.!FLLd.!" • 41 T. '3 •q 1.-7( YSN3�'t• ;+Tl G °„ k f• 1 . T 1 . :I: xx t "1 . 1 • 1 • P. '41.3 ';_ ! i . \Y 4Ia .. t;: »me , t Arehitrclurr• 8501 F :: : ;in r:'IUL Goldrll Rimini!! V„ ilry Rd.. Ih•rinr D•+1,•11 ?111 :II ( I.e,Urttt.,pt AI, h Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 lei. 1113-545-3731' Fax 'iG1- 525 -9L'89 r'i PROJECT INFOPI ~NATION: ahem NDEPENDBNT SCHOOL DISTRICT T. 4101 NORTH ROAD CIRCLE PINES. MINNESOTA 55014 PHONE, 1633923010 FA,, /63.133030 AM JOHN CHRISTIANSBN MIDUEST LAND SURv5 r54G INC. 110 C RIVER ROAD ANOCA, MINESOTA 55303 PHONE. 16310.9099 ARCHITECT/ L.INICSCAPE ARCHITECT. ATSIR 8501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 300 MINNE4POU6. MINNESOTA 55.E+1 PHONE. 1633483134 PAX, 1633233285 ATT. KEVN TEPPEN• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ATT, NANCY LA6168ONERE- ARCHITECT ISEHDER ( 4880C&ATES 34•10 FEDERAL DRIVE SURE 240 E4G4NL MINNESOTA 55422 PHONE. *5140.'.1.52 RA:A. 55L452 5151 ATT. JOHN KRSU*ERT CONSTRUCTION SCHE043.2, BIDDING. SEPTEMBER 2001 START C0461 78.071.26 OCTOEER 2001 SUBSTANTIAL. COI•PrLETlQb JULY :002 • ACRES. P3.0 ./- • PONDING AREAS, SEE CIVIL PLANS • UETL4NND S•P4CT AREAL S88 CIVIL PLANS • SETAUJ0 REPLACEMENT AREA. SEE CIVIL PLANS • DIVE LANES ARE 24' WOE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • PARKINS STALLS ARE SLOT, • DIVE LANES AND DRIVEWAYS WILL BE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT • SIDEWALKS WILL BE CONCRETE • S. PATWIATS 394.1. BE 61TMINNOUS • ALL DRIVELANES AND PARKIN* ISLANDS WILL HAVE CONCRETE CURB ANO GUTTER P4RC444 STAT!STICSjt 1 SPACE FOR EACH CLASSROOM. 34 (34 CLASSROOMS/ I SPACE FOR EVERY 300 STUCENITS• 3 (150 STUDENTS! I SPACE FOR EACH EMPLOYEE, SO (110 EMPLOYEES/ 1 SPACE POR EVERY 4 SEATS N 4U1DITORIUMs 0 (NO 41IDRORMSM7 TOTAL REQUIRED• 131 TOTAL TOTAL PROVIDED. 113 TOTAL REFER TO. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS. E4TER10R FEATURES. RECEIVED 4 pl1G132� °1 'i 4CEs 1 Gib VF L1�SJ L INEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LS.D. NO. 12 ELM STREET MO 4TH AVENUE LINO LAKES, WI 55014 /E ..L L- 1.70UT PLAN GNb1H E N8 1110:HCD 8Y S. Ci; L 1.0 :S 1„ CFTT 1 MIDWEST j Land Surveyors d aril Sagin.ara, Inc. re. M O.. ,..1. nr.m L II. - w w 0. . o-o O W.._. 1. 1 Mw,M.. • a11 10511. % r a W.w .-MM • TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY for CENTENNIAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #12 • 1. 110.0.0 1110...1. *1110.11 M•• .. 0• .•M A.0,. 0,•y 11..1. O...w GRAMM 3012 tr. wt ACM 110 OMrm - 010, e•1. ant . Dower 4.0. Poi* w e. MM. MM. fYrai- CM MM. OW. J. Mr * Ow.M.4(0• N. pd. at OM.•. O.0, .MM•. sM•r YM W -w- MM. 4611y 9M0.4•r e MM. 4.0. Ma - ■- M.M. MN*, SM•J•r 11.0 • 11 .., PO.* M 1101 Pomp 4.0. VW? AP -•- 11•.10. 511■•. 01•wr �11 MM. MM. O.1 OMM M NNW* Po r0.. M 0•.I. 4.00 0111100 -.Me-. Awoke 40100 1 001 OMrr bond ••- boobs 111014 J M PP* Mono* -1•-• MM. MP. 11M.w..1 M ter•- pool. d1•. Drape PPP - ...4.0. 01M.y1. **WM ..r • J•••• 4.10. *111.1 11. Mots* IMO. 0.10. ••. 00.104.0,01. uav 0•••• 4.011 OY•r D.1. 0.010 M00A1 prM0* MNMI..OMowwf0u Na MMw4Y MW • M W oak. menial aft Yostima waft .M11.1YN . M•1..LU.M II.I.Mw • 4. Mmf1 of 11 N 0,00..0 MOM h.010.010. 1. f 110.4+•0' •M tl. •^M p1. r Mod w .5••f .10 mp 0,.M *0000. m4 00I a • .Wi.M omf 3111*1r..111r w 1.... of No O0. r M.M.I. d rs:1111 Mop M Mame -10,0.111 Memo 1m• Awy.• •.i 1111 10517 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS BOUNDARY SURVEY for CENTENNIAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #12 SIDIALLIZEINIZSCIZSZ 71414✓ M IMO* Ow*, ✓w*Sr*• IN. ✓,144 n •1004.0'. ✓M.0a14 M*MMM 444*7; ••• YAw 44444 •*.441.44 •*41'' 14.1** - w seam* wow N .l* 1*** 4.1• •• **mod Om*, Yaw *I • *am 44 M14*4 /11 0.4 4.4 Ma* p,�Y `. Mew / MOM Mw rot ✓1441.11, ✓w M Mt• /1011. 14 44.0 44.141111 •■•••• M **I MP4.*r.9. M- am M Om 1411.114 A11 1M ✓Ili N.4.44. .44-3 .e 00.11..041144 ** M N1✓p ✓w*.a.O.1 YYY lYY✓ •••4411.14 O.✓.: gyp✓,-. Os .fr1 tM- **•• *ow *Wm *N•YON .4WM of 044? 1010, .M .44140. •••* MM •Jf88 MI N MN O.•!• 10010. 74414* 4104 4411.! 177 M • 44044411y41..�40 M•f ✓ 4✓ M ✓ 44 4-11.444 V. ✓ 14 *Mat 444 ✓.14144 Ix 74114.11.7441.14 �l NLI U ✓•lY 1Ma*O*•*Oi Mt ay** JM• b ✓4444 Ma 41444.* 11441 4.14.144 W 1 1 :t i . 4464•1144 N 46 4••411.14• • • *4 w SO ON. 14.4 Cr* ,4414- *000. OOPS= 9CiLa • 1•4• M► 1 0:0 w- ritV 1 � VP. P•. 1 $01734211 ..40210 1 40764040-1041. 4/4 41-411.0204 / / .4 MSS 11i • ," 141 !fit \ aI \ 141 I r"4 114 -,- 41 1 / leek. . - }7'H /5 PARCEL -141i CONTA ice'/ 1.5.00,`., ACRES 10' M.ORE. 1 P.iI6NI11 / P40POSFO SCHOOL DES 447/ON 43„0. $1 '4 iiykt1 /14 44.* 77741 MM ✓ 44 444 410 71 444 ✓ w MN** 01444 ✓ 44,1.4.- 4.f. N Sr** 13sq• 444 14 1••.4-.1 1 M.4. M444 444 Aw 44144 4M..4.1► /" ii / M. 1 11 - ✓ow. l4.1. Oi.4• ✓ w 7444* 4•W ✓ !•W /4 4.-* .4 N M AM1� 77 / M +M Mt..' 0+•.4-•444 N A •**M .* W SA- •01.0 4441414 ✓• 1�.1 j� / ✓4144- .�1414.14.444 444ra*4 .4444 ✓ 44* 1444444 4114 N • 4M1i a 4.44 *44......* u0.{ P.4f ✓ 411-14 Y W M ft*** 4 S N� wr40* 41%4 4441* 104 fa 4.1.., 10 144 ...=. .141. ✓.Ki•441N4- 4-4- - 444114.14 Nj1.*M•al/w/ iY ...IN* 444.4* Am* 0✓M✓W1*6* cm*✓ • A.11.4444411*GM or MI* 4-...w••• - 41444.1- ••• ✓ 4141 M.w111 444. ✓ 44 **WO 4114, ••••••••••••• It �✓.*4O4 w.441M ✓• -14.4. 4444. /r ✓444*...* 4.141.144... ✓17141M -1444 b 4449 14 4.1 R wr l w .1.44 1.47 L riw.• O4 **N.*. 4l -4.1 1 tH •••••*** of 14144.414 *gm MMM•a -VW .14 .•i 00..14 M 1444. •••1 114 ll*•Sthrw1.1 I 1 ' 4, .1' 4444* 4.474 - 441**• .Y• 4141 M• *me 44/7144 14141444PW i, 11 •-1Y7*m. ii IMIWEST I I Land & ci u �0eers. lac. � 1 I 'r"i..n.•liw No tN.ntlly 0414 .tl -I... - 114 N. -*Oa - C.*** 1W 4.,.44. 144 000...4u.44 Mir. 4.0044 S89'441016 / 440.00 1MI7.m7t44 t ti 7210-7701-4270 I• 4.7 I N S O R 588'49'12 E O **•44414 M.M44- a 1 720.12 37407 LESS N88'34'4114' 1`• 1 y -4 9 • 7.56 I :t 7 : ✓ 4.4 N 14:04 * *Mr N 5MM. 4 114. I►1114* MM L MN 140 4-14 Ma* Irosoloo• Now 4404. 1 -,4 4444111441••.. OW/ 141444 .01.1• • 441.14.- 0.444444.40..•07 44 44114144.14•• ✓*4f**f •A 4334 14 •• /Y*N 17 WI �M K74q MM Ma M1µ PO4P.-r 7. M44144*M ✓MIb Ma N • aW444 4t41Y` MM*••' Maw 4.1*✓ 44 . *1.1414✓ 1441444•∎• ■dry*Dma 1M• M 4-444.1.4- ✓M 1414444-1040014!4144!44! 4-4* 444447411/ 14144144✓- .- N7114wl 1• 144M444 4*4**4. A1• 4- M ✓ 44 NM.* 4.44 ✓ 44 311■••• 4**• ✓ S.* 14 14.14► 11 4-•Y 7444. ?t MK A W 644.1 •■•4444 W 0..4 ✓M4.14.M./ 0.1.7 4 4- 44- 44141447 ✓M 444414.✓ 04 Owl MOW 0.• M*, 44 mat 77814M- ✓44..-44.✓ 411114 1*o4*1117 owl 1y•44417N44.d70071MN44 Mrs** therlar •••■• amama *Mr of 646 • 11i 44441414441*4 Mop 77 MK Mao 01.y1Mamma 17COMIO41 • 1144..41440 144 4,444-4 47000 444 140**4* 6* ✓14**I 1/407441444 Ix 1141414 a 1.14 14141410 414 A4444 44414 44..14 44.•44444'` M,14 Ora 11444474 1 019/Mel 14 molt 4i744 Owl ✓44 4* 1141 444 ✓ft*Mr- Owl. 4444114-4 O* *17 .4-1• 14 M 4-. b 144 AM. Oa 0 414••■• THIS P A R C E L C O N T A I N S 2 1 . 7 6 A C R E S MORE O R L E S S /dy 53 &57 Ai S - 14. *4414 ✓ 444w4N>• 744441 -. ,1 -4444• 11,44 444••! 4414.*✓ •144.. •- 4.44 440.. !. sMar ✓ -4444- 14+74414 -.•1444 41 V' • 588'49.12" 557.86 1 14104 ..114 444 NY PM 1444.4 444 J4*.44174. r 441.14 *144 4414.0/• 111.11444 • •O• *am* 4• 144144r war a• low ✓4434. ✓ 4144. srl 414gK 44ra44 - 14.40.14440 41e11 17.p P.1, 11. 4147 444 4.4_11 11w:441 7-4-44 SHEET 1 Of 2 SHEETS g'S \ o / /,10 �► ee OM a.Ow _ �,_ .I (I, _ • _ . ,_ — _ ; \ J `I `\ _ ``` /:— _ 71 ran —�- i i I f ».�.', ( / r 4( m. \ l f /i I / / l (i ""•-•J 71.1 / %�• _ ��\ 1 / e yf/ �, /i —1 —� ( / ( Peres �1 r / !e .•- i .- I ice' W CI /�A N D g— NUR' Swam MAP Minor Een.896e* As 01 8-8-04 er 4. MtNrr Armstron Torset and Rydeen lane Midwest Land combs" It CNN 4eermoUwe Ina oat been vr..d a to 4. meraq. r completeness by RMdr . Aeodated. be. ecture 8501 fin neering geld= Planning Valley RdInterIoDn 0 Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 Tel: 763 - 545 -3731 4w« Soo ens anon kt ry f :RelLilei� � "Assoeiai[s,`Inc. Vacated '4TH AVENUE Civil Envr' .e.; Plaanr, and Lod Samoan 1. t wnnara REVISIONS a -�A-o1 I m. ter wdr�y that this plan nee Panamab� aq d4.et mpue4ion and eat tee !,ay lieeos.d Pml viand 40,1 .er tear UMW MI•ras NM Ree Mt/0t IAeeia Wit &CM MIlt t• 00 .t a0MI0 Mat TaE= i TTF T n° T i ii n a -T I 40 WI see WWI ,' MOW =OUP l.•Ae Ram fF RIPRAP DETAIL 010 SCALE EROSION CONTROL. NOTES • 0)- Caebesterbe er are nyrw7lb Ir .M.**. Y ra.wyt.. Wand Peduan t Dienserge Uo,4wUae ; etio Q 013) Cenral Mont Water Permit far C.n.*NUe. Minty Were a oblotien 4gnr. ■ - C.Mnefer b aeranable Am M nstlpauaa end bmeUsee remised y Cenral SON., water Perdt , - tit .melee deed mean. Meer MME an 4w4aDM prier te coding mentions end maintained sled M ana &turbd bad Mee motored. • - Seam pond psis streets a n.amy are eMredbn mimeo' bee been &mailed. bob ante dfebabd by e.enln 4o. Meg be mewed per Ds wa4NaDam raNl tee Meru et e.M4mRd eamWDen at amain a Mal rem 0- sea land...,e peenn and apdoadene leer tee ale44am,d. CONTROL DEVICE OPERATION SCHEDULE Ilfll SKTNU7gN II[A10*0 9.T RNOE T OCE ENTRANCE ARP P01D RUT PROTECTION • PROPOSED NAM= NI PROPOSED COON BASIN 'Reposes wow . PROPOSED CAPE WIC PROPOSED PIARD ENO . LEGEND ® PROPOSED SORIA SEbmt ® PROPOSED SAWART SEWER -+--.- PROPOSED TN7esNAN ® PROPOSED eomea R__ . sta PROPOSED to over mummaUS ® PROPOSED OWW eurr 010 utems -•RO- PROPOSED CONTOUR • MIOPOSED Imams —o-- SLT met —••• — OOISIRICOON WITS MRR TO ANT CONSTRUCTION AFIRE TR8UTARM ORAIA0E MP INS BEEN PART Of INMV. 004 9NO MEIN MOWRY PANNO OPERATIONS OM CONSTRUCT 00000 NM MONO N/A LAME DAY STRUCTURE I CONSTRUCTED GRADING NOTES - AE eWatieee .Men an a Nei *de*. - • - RWMAIN/ROW /INXE Ste MO NNE LOT 01010 NRDWQ/PARIONO SCOOT SOH • • 001. PORNO —6.• ORNMAOS MRNI - M— O RSNO *47404100 -- 0— came SANOAIM SEWER — a-- MVO OINKED OAS WE — 4— oasis* DRRD 0R.CRIC 4100 VOW BURIED 111/7110tiE UNE —me— ISMS BURIED 141EW000N UNE -9a- -- nom mom • Ono MU NE G811ITON MIEN 1RRUJMr AREA It PAM 1 e a Se Rae ue t ,reeve Score In Feet NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - _ rrWTCeu031 An0Ur lnurro n GRADING dT EROSION °PAWN PROTECT 410. SHEET • al •.r_ iI tei I "Uld. WY VP OMNI We RR C41 MOMS kti • 1 \ \ 1 POND maw EMo- 8Q103 As of 8 -8 -01 Ifleenelay A Topplgmi•I inteo•Se„ we ympaot ay 1•••• Land &Avow A OA Endieen• 1••. TAi• iN onatien ho• a• lean welded to to Po wormy •r •••••••• by R•hde ! Anacleto.. We. Armstron Torse Skold an Rydeen Architecture 8501 Engineering Golden InterloPI nning Valley Rd.. Design Suite s00 Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 Tel: 763 -595 -3791 Par 7Ra- S74-1714O O 0 Low !UN •••••••7 Muao.• uxa 4h =K•d ""9TH AVENUE CisdEnsdnea•. Sawn and Land &even .ea robot Who Suh•e• • Eno,. Mom. snag utrisa•l • rmut -wn•m • m.ak inrograloneslon REVISIONS Car 000T4 013-01 1 booby e•t*j. that TMs Plan was mowed by •O10 a duy M Prate �• the laws • the stab et telneeat0. 0 0 0 UTILITY NOTES - M swim to Wood to • Pebt IP tram p. peead Miler* - UYBy al .0040. be0B•n• • l bowls mall m othan al em9Y•r aeon aen•w,.Ba . - M ■•amab to haw • milkman •e1 7.5• et aewr. • LEGEND • PROPOSED wWOIE • PROPOSED =CM BLSW l mama NOWT - PROPOSED RATE WILK • PROPOSED FURS DO PROPOSED STORY SEWER ••••=••• PROPOSES smarm, sew - -y-e..��►- PROPOSES SUMO COMER • MOPOSe) 510. DUtr BNUNMOl3 ISM PROP:0 D um Sur, m000011O -tla- PROPOSES =DOUR •® PROPOSES mew —o- -SOS RNCE •.••— CONSMUCHON nag NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, I.S.D. NO. 12 ELM STREET AND 4111 AVENUE — • — MRINDAR1/ROW/BUICK UNE EASENEM lilt UNE M RDINO/PMNND SMACK LM • 904, BORMO —••- DINNNIE MOW Y— ENRIRA SWID MIN — $— C1e11N0 N00RY SEWER • ti— COSNIO SION SEWER — a— EXISTING DUPED OAS 1.11E — R— ES67WWS SLMER Mb7MC UK — - n— OlMINS BURIED =MOM UNE —s•O Ml..- CONTOUR • e• SO =PRO ELEVATION UTILITY PLAN • 21 00 too 410 SCOle In Pant CHECKED DI SHEET C2 14V-Q L,..l..... 212,4 15 • 11r Y n`-, Ar:nstron Torsetfi Skold and Rydeen Inc. MdM O L Architecture Engineering Planning Interior Design Landscape Arch. 8501 Golden Valley Rd., Suite 300 Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 Tel: 763- 545 -3731 Far 763- 525 -3289 15 1 FIRST FLOOR REFERENCE PLAN I M I:s:ruS arr. Sett re ue, r_rr..t:M a NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL �i•°GR as r.Sett 3R ri CS :a. !0 01 :ME= SAFER- Si% C•IC •A' I Al A ]ML. YESI1t4y AR(rre tSCIS M u:i Se VAT W u -,Mue„ CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS. LSD. NQ 12 ELM STREET AND 4111 AVENUE n11R ,A• A101 1 11ERGA8101 A102 IOLET 80011 AIM TOW 6001 • A104 W0Y 011011000 0105 1101 USED A10S 110TISED 0107 RESOURCE ROOM *103 STORAGE ALOE C{MM01 A110 I01I11AAREN A111 RRIAT 80011 A112 TOUT ROOM A113 101EROARI01 A114 CORR1OR AI ISASDWWAY MIS 067101 0118 CLASSROOM A117 0AM10N A118 CLASSROOM A119 CLASSROOM A120 NOT USED 0121 COMMONS• A122 STAFF 101ST ROOM A123 C1151001* CLOSET A124 BOW TOW 80011 Al2S was TOILET 11001 A126 1WET ROM ENTRANCE 0127 NOT USED A123 CLASSROOM A129 CLASSROOM 0130 Rill 1 A131 IECNNOLO Y CLOSET A132 CORRIDOR A133 1ES10301 A134 ST. Y MS 00980E A136 EREWOOR LOBBY A137 LEMON SOUP ROOM A138 310RIGE SILT 8101 111EROART01 8102 TOW 181011 8103 wow / 062. ROOM 8103A CORRIDOR 8104 961180E BIOS 60T01/L OFFICE BIOS SMOENT AOVOcA1E 8107 PRINCIPAL 8105 MANE 8108 STORM 8110 CONFERENCE ROPY 8111 10911 -USE ROOM 8112 CORRIDOR 8113 WOMEN'S MUST ROOM 8114 HENS TOAST ROOM 8115 015060MN CLOSET 0118 BOYS 10EQ ROOD 8117 IMO 01 80001 8118 OFRCE / WORKROOM 8119 NOT USED 3120 MENA 00008 8121 NOT USED 8122 COMPUTER IA8 8123 SIORACE R0011 8124 GIRLS Tatz 8000 8120 NURSE / COT ROOM 8125 00119114101 9001 8127 NOT US® 8129 T01ET 80011 8129 NOT USED 8130 668005 8131 0611810E 8132 SWBAIY 8133 18311811M 8134 MOM c101Mir 0102 KIN / STORAGE 0103 AMMO' 6008 0104 56110 0105 CORRIDOR 0108 11510 0107 110522 / SHOWER 6008 0108 MUSIC C109 PASSAGE 0110 MUSIC 0111 LOT USED 0112 NOT USED 0113 mar USD 0114 CONDOR 0115 NOT USED 0118 CLASSROOM CI17 CLASSROOM 0115 CLASS6001 0110 0AS100I 0120 NOT USED 0121 001006 0122 SCWF 100ET ROM 0123 =MOAN CLOSET 0124 8015' TOW 600E 0125 6005' TWEE ROOM 0125 TOILET ROOM ENI2ANCE 0127 NOT U9E0 0128 CLASSROOM 0129 CLASSROOM 0130 013' TOILET ROOM 0131 CUSTOMS CLOSET 0132 RRIET ROM INIMNCE 0133 BOYS TOILET 8001 0134 CORRIDOR 0135 MORAL 0130 STRWAY 0137 9036012E 0138 STOWAGE ARILIX 0101 WO STOWAGE 0102 NOT USED 0103 STAFF 03100 0104 10130 OFFICE 0105 SMOG AREA . 0108 KITCHEN 0107 CRY F000 STORAGE 0108 PASSIM 0109 COOLER 0110 FREER D111 NOT USED 0112 PASSAGE 9113 TO 011 ROOM 0114 015700Mp OFFME 0115 0iM00. STORAGE 0115 RECOMMIT ME* 0117 STORAGE 0118 BOLO ROOM 0119 1ECTININr.0. ROOm 0120 CYM 0121 CIA 0122 6YR / CRAM 0123 MUM- PURPOSE 80011 0124 PASSAGE 0123 CIA ENn7ANCE 0128 TABLE STORAGE 0127 6370 ENTRAINS: 0128 011 ENTRANCE 0129 100! CO S10RACE 0130 CM MIRANCE D131 CIA OFFICE 0132 00209911 0133 CORA003 0134 mum m AUG 'I 3 2001 t C.,11-41' Of 1.13 0 LAKES KEY PLAN yl L Tor ?_0 _ ... e 1 IFIRST FLOOR REFERENCE PLAN :RAAT. SY 0:i, 'AL. caa r, A? $e-:r 21V Torset!-i Sko1d and Rydeen Inc. Architecture Engineering Planning Interior Design Landscape Arch. 8501 Golden Valley Rd.. Suite 200 Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 Tel: 783 -515 -3731 Far 763 -525 -3285 / SECOND Fl pOR R ENCE PLAN A201 CASSROOM A202 COMM ROOM A203 CLASSROOM *204 =rout RON A205 CAM= A205 SMEAR A707 CIASSR0011 A203 SPECIAL ED A208 CLASSROOM A210 Ig1I / EIEC ROOM A211 SOFT TOM ROOP1 A212 IOW TOM ROMP Ail3 lily TOUT ROOM A214 1OLET ROOM oRRWiE A215 CUSRD09R CLOSET A211 COWIEK A217 A/01 M A215 COARI03L A219 ELO. MO MOT USED A221 MEMOS MCOIE 1 8201 CA45p0O1 9702 =MOM ROOM 9703 CASSR0011 8204 COIFERENCE RO0M 5203 CLASSROO1 9209 MCC USED 8207 CAMCCAI aloe SPECK. ED eta MAMMON 8210 1ECI / DEC ROOM 9211 SWF TOts ROM 2112 8012' TOM ROOM 9217 oar ToET ROOM 1214 TORN 50011 MINCE 8215 =DOM12 CLOSET 9219 C9191Cl6 8217 SWMYAY 8118 COMMON 9219 C 215705 lIa > ome CM1110311 C202 COIDDOCE R0OM 0203 CASSROC1 0704 cameacE 80011 O05 CASSICOM =0 MOT USED O207 8ASSRam1 Cme SPBYL ED C201 8AS91001E 0219 M IC1 /8.80 ROOM 0211 SW TORSI ROOM 0212 BOOS 1OM ROOD 0213 slay TOUT 2000 0214 TO1M RO 4 BO WE 0218 CMT0pA11 CLOSET. 0218 COMM 0217 3171RMAY 0218 CO5IDOR. 0219 IPORNOLOOY CLOSET KEY PLAN I 'n_? ci q • OU' ''IS T �N �2D'eAT..'!I .]S R: POOPN p OY LT P S !Y f1 =_ NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOEN ::C.E. aau AM CULT PA..... L +vc -1'. ::i'FR k .49:M T.r r.... /YAITCAIAII At 01101 In cM.IMI n .. ..n A. UNIT 'D' BEE MEMO I SECOND FLOOR faRAM BY 11:RC.R.CT be. al":_T 1•10••••01.41■11,118116 . • .7" .1,•vs.r. • • • • ...stehe.. --7.krat 111 ME4U1bEL EIF V11"4 litai lialletegina E- MEI allEM:1 EWA • ffillirCU Minn 114111111F TII:=031111.11 P Iter.7111 I IFINCOI MI 1 iait61W- El - - ----••,..— Z1%1 MATE,A11111111 PiWEIL IIIIMMUL'iliil'i .._ intRA, r MrA N li 91 r . :1+:7 I I VA i I tall I ItAllia mmmmt MI1_ W.111/IF...1 MU ---- • 1,2..; • 1 11'......".* ..; ., .. .1, .... hi-r-f.20L-mmg rurof;;-----is Trog---; - • ;' Armstrong • Architecture - 8501 ' Minneapolis Torsetn Engineering Golden Minnesota 55427 Skold and Planning Valley Rd, Te• 783-545-3731 Rydeen nor 0e it son FaX 7133-1525-412RM CF111-'0 20p1 %HEREBY CEITAPYISTAT 1HIS PUk SPIDEVICATRIN OR REPORT IRS PREPARED FOIE OR UNDER MY DIRECT WPM. `MON AND VAT 1 AM A PAY RECESTERED ARCHITECT ENDER THE MS OR WE STATE CIF IWlEEOTL cal* • NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LS.D. NO. 12 Pi p4 STREET AND 4114 AVENUE •EXTEIllaR • . au, it Tirthi 4. 1••••11•1.1111111.1■11 MONO J.o_CAnwes{ 5611 Igfae � 1 z ' tittlT'b.' MyTBFtorz eLSViAT.M • 0 Y$l q.t." !3117'6 EttT=PgiofA• • Ws. !Loll taYS riser O • _LCD/! P IAA • YL-vl I"= J W117 141 >=XT =PIOif L'l.e\l'171ot1 itAby4w1 df ^' ur1IT'6' CXTLRtoR ei- cv00P1, O • rzezesnrele I.•/1etba • y rsr:a� _ L MWALElSRP6 (WW1 Et91MPtSC. fAYa1 }R}P.(�CQLEA�SQT(CRQftR. MAIMS roe, twile1FAvs Ya'' -tio" I e> r TAO 6101etw THOow ArmstroIlgg Architecture am Torsettl En eer' Golden Skold and Golden R deer r Design vnDee Rd" interior DA egn. Suite 900 II1C. Landscape Arch. c0T.10Y.H0r• moo Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 , Tel: 763 -545 -3731 Fax: 763 -525- 3269 - LuVI R4L• • WIT 4'G itrtx -tir • pc- rmaIOI =MEV 0 TPtIFTbtCFi !J- I4,'• •C)Tt14I00. gi-Mo Tlo1 IQyti1V� t=X ft• =LC i Tt fl O' -14,11 e%TRl4o• sl 621 1IN IExTimmici •>=Lmv LOUVER JAt1b Ut 6RICIC CAthT( etti A• a aau/ Mt.. SIMI= CMOS SPAWN ••e. 11•11• ' •uu•116 .u.uuu WAAEA 43ctFR IotAna 6'110' P P. VEat CTCOp TNT. EIFS GAVE IPS O,d. @ STUOS atf..t' E NEREBY'CERgES"REKT110 PUN, SPEOROASON G AlP NT WAS PREPANEO•SY ALE OW AMER WON= SUM- :MISS AM 1NAT 1 AY A OULY REeSRREe ARWETECT UNSER INC LANs OF ➢1E STAR Of MINNESOTA. :PAUL L MY= Lo.IUIE><Siu: Vt1CIC C4UIT( NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CENTENNIAL PUBUC SCHOOLS, LS.D. NO. 12 EA STREET AND 44TN.AVENUE 1 CANER. I a b JCC Cur( • EX.TERIOH ..w..� ELEVATIONS • • 1a SIN r1LF e• later- Herat.. =awl ea¢ mum= re1•A y�l!!!! m mai C� �11 i ■tea MOE -Q NMI l�F /a owamis oriatvism immis q • Tim - • • • ppig1 �UYiE9wi� ®� • . O.ec e�cw,rbn SCI' - T r%f► -lidR • ���p� ��we,.e :aerr�ai.�e:a.Yraf�i�N h' � sar+awaaaR�a�RRS9eorwu ° iAi v��°`� r��, I rllsuimosamo 11111311 IRMO MN 1101 ! r%. •L'i x•• • r.. r iMhr - $hree • 0121 -.0, • EXTERIOR E�N �Em HUES • I. > e oicehro K gad n�»an 1 2 ® rz RE1 ergs, su..�.�.n n 6 CASL a .1DRm ANC mown • A :apt 01®©, ere. Cixe Ibt QNan ii S:' ; 4. Au g3 brtt h®� .• � WOO& DETAILS' __ Vii. 'lY7q��T iN1a.••rmR s rrr. 1._ • • r_,'uNtr •01 EATepliop, Et"EY.°ITION• Arrnstro q •Torseth Skold and Rydeen Inc. Architecture .8501 Engineering Golden Interio Design Planning I l$ ite 300 La'ndsr.n. A.A. Minneapolis Minnesota 55427 Tel: 783 - 545 -3731 Fax: 7R7■R5 ■goeo HEREBY COM MAT THIS PUN. SPECFR;A11oe CR PEPCRI VIES PREPARED BY Ra LCroER W DIRECT Mt+ O Ds THAT MAw : Y RECIFERED ARCHITECT • NEuW ELEMENTARY rSCI100Lc� • mrrtdiria r ; +i! cx:RO�• x•� THE CONTRACTOR SHALL Can- PUBUC UTIIJIIES FOR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLE. VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR' SADDLE CLUB PREPARED FOR. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC. CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305 SHEET INDEX SHEET Z 3. 4. 5. 5. 7. DESCRIPTION COVER EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PRELJMINARY PLAT GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN UTILITY PLAN DETAILS TREE PRESERVATION PLAN I IIflf7V CRIMPY 114I11111 1 MI. Y4PIG11 I. 011 REPORT WA PM/W9 B! YE OR UMBER MY IRO! 0007) 001114A• 1 MI • ma IJCIMS0 PMOFES401Y1 111001 1N URI Or 1K SW[ Of IOIF301A DUD / •N "III Iq. *1*10 en 0310 RECEIVE Q I CITY OF LINO LAKE REVISIONS I FM1IIIIL:i ■..ICP'r.Sia1m1IrI ca u t .I:, 0LL, C IEMIM:IiCC37l17 I0 ■i g, • ca vin .:, 1.. • t • w • // 1, III I!I i . . .. III ...w Y w�A PTR!w de O, GSM MIR 804 1 2 I I - --11�, , II I BLOCK 1 OUTLOT E 0' NICK CNANLAIR MCE �Q as. 888 n . o x°..4viy '� °• /fens A. Pen r a 1 ;[ iili�M+tiM• Rte!*!' 4Y Y ...a �� "°°' • ` "r REMANDS • •1°« 8 - ri♦,.1, • MN Uras ,•1•A � a wE. Al. j t •IM'Y/ wa+i Y 11.AWS , aA \w A 04� i /• �er� 4N. w . ••Mm rwM.y,y41,,« 052 MUMS 8, VOW Ait RED BENCHMARK: • - REMANDS . • i ME7LAN08 n 0 00 120 180 LEGEND 98- MOTO 0005N0 CONTOUR X 908.3 00+010 MONO SPOT ELEVATION MO TO DOMINO STORM SEWER C °AOEm•U1 1 •- ▪ OENIIO COSMUNO WARNWN, MAW 4 CAME WALK C swam sozge. -••- 001010 0050X0 S 0886! SOWN 084080 =ONO 1R0E LINE 0 001010 =ma 1RU DENOTES DOWN ROAM IIKAINOMT DENOTES EWING FENCE DENOTES MONO REMAND • DENOTES =IL BOOM NOM SURVEY TIM PERFORMED BY EE*R0 1810 SURVEI2/0 4 0115EERI10. / 001 -711 -0112 20*1 IO 00610054 PERFORMED BY AOIWIO 0 OSO RIOTA, 8401 952-646 -0912 I RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2001 MY OF LINO LAKES REVISIONS MOWN iGYL11041■L1?11•rI�J ;a.� 181/1 T•∎ 1 198M CORNY TNT 11M9 P4AM. 8058 ORON, M REPORT WAS PRPNOD BY IK OR 110001 Y/ ON10T 5488000* PRO TNT 1 MA A DLO UORlm PROMOONIL FROMM MOOR RE IAN OF TIE 0M OF 84411088. DORM STAR. DOB 88. NO. INAS RIMMED or TAW SCHOELL & MADSON, INC:\ MOWERS • 9URVET8R3 • ROMANO BAIL =ONO • ERMRONNENTAL SER8CE5 10500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SURE 1 8408020014A 491 55305 (552) 540 -7001 PAD 540 -9005 innuahodmadgDmm OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, UN 881- 481 -0017 / F: \ENG \61513 \Ot)i� \O2\ XCOND.dwg, 08/13 /2001 09:42:0/ AK, CalvinT DATE: APRIL 6. 2001 PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 2 OF 7 SHEETS 9 &GLEN LA I' 1 OUTLOT 1 694 55 DRANA0E. UTILITY k CONSEM4DN EA5EE4ENT 210.0 DRA 1615. NINNY k CONSERVATION MOMENT DRAINAGE. UIRRY k CONSERVATION 5ASEU2R S 0 60 120 160 r LEGAL DESCRIPTION SE 1/4 OF 714E SW 1/4 OF SEC11011 26. TOWNSHIP 31. RADE23 mom COMM MINNESOTA LEGEND 9146- 003999 CONTOUR DOST1 0 WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED DRAINAGE k UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED W6. (ASSOC TYPICAL ESMT. DETAIL, TYPICAL SET -BACK DETAIL, (DRAINGE AND MAY) S BLOCK 1 592 002 20' 065440E. URUT/ k CONSERVA710N EASEMENT ,LOT DATA Ix ...4 ..4. . .14 1 21622.4 0 21822.4 2 1 -• 0 1 -• 3 131261 0 131269 4 157663 0 157191 5 12661.1 0 12161.1 4 17165.4 2662.2 19647.6 7 1. ,4I 6 16219.4 3769.1 1998821 9 10 15447.4 11411.7 0 11570 4 15447.4 23052.3 „ - 150433 1 3.5 12 I . 1 13 i(•'tTafi992=1181=19 14 F:LTT99mNIE7A-1 15 Fig iiRMMELI .1f�BFi11-!-S 16 •L"ti 1 ,RE SI[!F!T'." J 9 IFill 16 IFRI 0 u 21 E�7l- TOTAL 929,. 2 5iyitil��;■u• -i BLOCK 2 REAR LOT ANNE LOT ...4 .4. .-w 1 226452 96262 32471.4 2 B M11=1Et !I ' 111111E/31:11111=11 4 B111=119 - s _ LT1 111111 E R.J - 1, _ KFRFI1TINFITITTIB'LTI^ 11 BLOCK 8 •!.3" B!211•1•:1;1=1111C1X3111C=M1 8il•i ®8IIEMII8IETI BILIMI 7888 i'77� 8[,ET!.TI B8TT47678Rif.?T.7 OUTLOTB LOT .w4..4 •.M ..6r 157131 30385.7 45076.7 4253623 007065.3 634277.6 1072. 441045.3 537461.0 975556.3 6808.88 ABNr44•orr / WETLANDS BENCHA1MK: 100 FEET SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST CORNER or �Y0U(I.OT A. 10P OF WATERM AN PIPE. (ASSUMED FROM FROM 1050 PLAN BY OTHERS) REVISIONS F43FIIS119:1112331 �_T611LAIR •",n../::► :IVi9IPUlt: "1 :1.1iLi01:; . ?211351'.1:- l LaPM 119.11E1A'31•T:mUGC EMI BOOK 6231. PAGE 46 (104/81) 1 116KNY COOT 11WT 116E MAN. Wi0NGU10N. 06 \ RE76Rr 8AS IMO NAT 6r IE D6 1501 6r pRO/ sUP553110 1 050 7241 1 44 A 0147 R Of PRO/MONK 0. 61166866 06060 1110 1461 OF 016 MR a 6661601*. 0699 67N6. OATS NM 152 16664 R6MI16 61 016E SCHOELL A MADSON, INC. 04014 • 1016658005 • PLANtONO SOIL TIMING • ENNRONNENTAL SFAVNIFS 10560 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. 51RNE 1 MINNETONKA, MN 55305 (952) 546 -7604' FAX 546 -9065 YRR.9tl344 191.4 AN6 F: \ENG \61513 \UUb \172 \PkEPLA OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 051•481 -0011 .dwg, 08/13/2001 O9 :4.::517 AM, LalvinT DATE; APRIL 6. 2001 CEI ED AUG 1 3 2001 C TY OF LINO LAKE!! AREA TABULATIONS TOM VIE AREA 1 99.77 ACRE TOD4. LOTS • 26 PROPOSED alp OF WAY AREA: 3.54 ACRE AREA 96111.1 PLATT0 LOTS 1 13.64 PARE "WOE LOT ARM : 212223 S7. AVERAGE LOT AREA : 17551.4 S 1996016E LOT AREA ) 1 35703 S.P. 001996 : 046 0653 /ACE PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 3 OF 7 SHEETS 100 TR IML -095.0 03 PER DOA STUDY) BLOCK 1 WETLAND ALTER. x544 soft. ACRES sersoo-z DMINIGE. UnUTY k CONSERVATION :EA5E0EN1 20' TRAIL EASEMENT 9413 WLTIANO ALTER. 3403 SOFT. .05 ACRES SURAIOONEIBLE CURB k GUTTER Ow) 114 MANAGE. TIMM OON k EASEMENT 1 PLO, OUTLOT E �II 1.011 MANAGE. UTILITY k NISI--- t< -e-� DO 000000 00 00120 WETLAND BUFFER 7309 SOFT. OR1MME. UIILRY k CONSEMATION EASEMENT FOUND SI 13055 SONNER VA4� I 'ATATA YAW WETAND BUFFER 7355 93iT. • BUFFER ,130 sort. X 955.3 X 555.3 wo _SE 59 -1 LEGEND 77031010 =TOUR ARMPIT CONTOUR PERCENT OF GRADE ORAMAOE PRIM EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER 119E OF CONWEItl1CTION EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCE PROPOSED SPOT ammo COS SPOT imam WEIIAND ALTEATION ROLAND YDI0A710N NEll/ O EH9ANCDIER ROCK CONSTRUCTION D MICE HOUSE PAD 55111 ORME 0Lw.110N9 WONOOT riff ENTRY SOIL BORING LOCATION SOL BORINGS WETLANDS 5E11315 NFFER 10357 3411. /. Seas /ilawT OUTLOT B RCM 1 WETLANDS WETLANDS 1550 SOSPR 1' FILL WTIN ,• GROOM WS DRAINAGE, UMW k CONSERVATON EASEMENT ‘41•54 \111.11 era WETLANDS 1108.98 eere Orr 507.0105 TAW Nor WaP •ETLA(IO MTIOATION TYPICAL CRO$t-EECTION JCL 049 0 • 120 100 WETLAND NOTES 10194. RE7180 ALTERATION - 13170 SF. TOOL memos REM.. 37940 Si. TOTAL WETINO A4IIOA7ION - 19252 Sf. IRMO MLUE CREPT (BUFFER) - 29703 S.F. (.75 X 39051 S.F.. 29739 S.F.) TOTAL 1EMN0 841110A7ION - 35540 S.F. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. ALL PERIMERR SLT FE411 MC ROCK COTISIRIICII014 ENTRANCE! SHALL BE OM= PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE WNIRFCIOR STALL CONSTRUCT DRNNAO11 BASINS PRIOR TO STE WING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OR10E SITE MM INSTALL WRITES. 4. THE COMPACTOR SHOT. PISTOL CATCH BA7N MOON CONTROL MEASURES. 0. 411131 TWO WEDS OF SITE CEDING, ALL COMM AREM !NAIL BE Wit= WIN W. S00 OR ROCK BASE. SEEDING MALL BEM 0CCONTANCE 51111 MN00T SPEC. 2575. SEED 119411.E SHALL BE MNDOT MIXTURE 500. ALL MULCH SHALL BE 11•E 1 MO PIMA BE PSG ANCHORED. FOUL= SHALL DE 10 -10-10 COMNERCAL CAME AT AT A RITE OF 200/435. PER ACREAGE SOD 355MILL MEET THE RE4RRE0499 OF MOOT 3573 AL AREAS TO BE 5000E0 OR SEEDED 91431 HE CONNED 51114 ANNUM OF FOUR INCHES OF TOPSOIL a ALL EROSION COTR4412L MOSU ES SHILL L BE SCULLED MD MANTAMED WATERSHED pPoC MD MINNESOTA PPLN � 7. 114E CONDUCTOR STALL I/WM1 ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. N C110010 THE REMOVOL OF ACCUMM1m MIT N FRONT Cf SILT FENCE DURESS THE DIRUOISN OF THE 02I51I1LIC(g5. 4 ANy EXCESS 9EOBIER N PROPOSED BASINS PULL BE ROOM BY THE a REARMS ALL EROSION 9ONIROL IMMURES AFTER WECETAIION T9 10. 144E CONTRACTOR SHALL REAM ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT 1RACI= ONTO MOM STREETS AND PANED AREAS 11. F BLOWING OUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ART' WATER FR044 A TANK TRUCK 10 ILL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 12. SWEEP Ammo SIRES N MCOROMCE WON COY REQUIREMENTS Mixture 25A Modified (26B) Prairie Meadow & Streambonks Comm N... 0.N4M.4 U-e. X of M9 Olurion. W. 04410/40.4 WO" 30 64.48...95 A.wnwa ..n.S... 11 MINN 11444 ollemoll 344.140•4 Womb OA Kw axle( 6e•- 12,.1x. DS Mow/ 1400. I... ..9•31 LO B u4.A0 5444 59.1..r.x. ...090 03 04-14.144 DewmAsx . M •A r.4 4.•.e( 4.491. 0.4 314 040 *ON. Lb... 400+4. 120 • m w" r 0.4 01 M... from rr1 ObON53 ...48r 03 M.•. A.4 94 ..440 499 03 44 ..Aww 150.0. A 890.8... 37 040-11•. 09 No 44$414 -••••31 03 M..Aw 01.Yq.1e( 1.1.9Y 1104•p9 0A TM 01•••9r Ur* Pio•41..4. 124 k.4 M. 9048. L.OAY • fee,• 01 R. 012... 9.48 90 44. 110 *Way Sow M9.0r hoar OA YAM 0.0.124 4490. 9945. 03 11x0. N4 35.0 O.Ntl. F.. 9.4.n..00.09 1.0 ,9.Pm. f.4 P.. WuA.la 10A Somo A 0 ... iosk 5154“ absAnno 0.3 M .1..040 03 909 4 ,•4•0 04899. 849001. 127 944.... 590490 .ul.. 00 0444•.. P44. ',Alm PAM° 30 9.9.120. VrO..9 . 02 90111 v94. f..I.Ai• 02 44..h ad Nionkemb ...144.0. 01 O.M. N..90' • 0....n. 0.4 490 100.0 O rs▪ ip5454•11r...4o rPIOVY ..Mw 49. R..I9 • 91.31 of 30 9 N Ms D441..4 for uo• lokl• 12.9 and 'MOM. fano 14.1 I 12.1 .:.w ▪ p...M.. AY. 12.9 ...0 I N N 488.4 n0Nw0... I1* 0.90.. *4F only wino 1940 .e(1...AuOx Irw O.... 45- CONTRACTOR FAUST CONTACT ENGINEERS WERAND SPECAUST PRIOR BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION AREAS AT: (952) 548 -7301 AUG 13 zoos � F "No o LAK REVISIONS FIIFC11113:iM[]:DarZEI:LI11� PTi., [Mc I II ut:Sa L.M1,=111:411111:13.714, MR 11111111111•11•1=11111131. MITI 1 MOM 001811' 13111505 P1A0. 54E0917119. 011 REPORT WA AMPA1101 OY ME 05 MOO W ONDT 5.9011.60931 4140 114(4 1 AN A OW 00000 PROFEl9OM31 MIXER VILNA 117 401.! OI 100 51530 OF laves, A STOIC C Om T60 10.1MM19N 1102155 Bn SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. OWNER /DEVELOPER 05051480 • SURVEYORS • ""'""G HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 405. 7557010 • 9944 0041. SERVICES 10550 WAYZATA BOULEVARD 31.E 1 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D HLN11TNINA 4444 00305 ST PAUL, MN (952) 545 -7001' FAX1 545 -9045 861-481-0017 DATE: AUGUST 13. 2001 F: \ENG \51513 \Ot)b \O2 \PREGRA E.dwg, t>W13 /1001 10:23:45 AM, CalvinT PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 0 SHEET 4 OF 7 SHEETS TRIM WIWI BY 00100 2 NAUMAN 56 OTIFR9 8N. -4660 awxoYo -r 1307.6 / // ,, /, // ( -( / III I�I I0I 1 BLOCK 1_ CONNECT 1 DIP 002 WY 1720 TO CDT c018EC108 ww. w. owe OUTLOT 143• -r 808.35 u4 65.-56710 00.-6. 30535 • 0.4071 wVA4892. 0w2 0 IOW-1 SOR38 40-6• 50535.0.4011 10.3 5656001.70 116/. -4162.16 641. -86660 2 118• -Ir RCP STAN 0 80 -560.50 'V BLOCK 1 -16• RCP • 11.72E -I2 Rg • 1.605 CO 15 801•00{.00 8N. -100.00 W 6 RIM -56600 61v. -w4.35 SO1135 • 0.755 14 •1 OUTLOT )B / / / • ( /. \ / 1.- / / • /• • RI4.•- 07.50 841. -565.07 CB 14 856- 005.00 65.- 001.70 77•-5' 00636 • 0.4 0 • ` 32• -1Y RCP . 1805 J6 --e SOR35 • 0.471 80 -604.38 65.-656. / OW-8' SOR 38 • 225• -21' RCP • 0.245 OUTLOT B ROW HBE -562.1 / / 27• TOP PE ANY. ■561.80 pR RCP 0/15 65.4567 OUTLOT B •- 2` 567'18P.3.■ 0.205 /._ ' • RP6T•10N • SMUT 1' FILL WIN 00811110 UNITARY 40•-9' 50835 • 0.40E 1BL.1 NN- 001.60 ANY.- 631.80 2 0 00 120 180 LEGEND r 956 IVEla--•-- PROPOSED STORM SEWER r 1w006x I 0•DP r85, u1m18 01554 , 41 008180 =MANN PROPOSED E10E104AIN SWAM SEWER 1T PROPOSED Sw6YARY SERER Iy..- PROPOSED HYDRANT W/ WOW: PR0700ED GATE VALVE • CONSTRUCTION NOTES:2 1. ROES TO MO1ECTS SIR PLAN FOR 11500010 480 PM1 W 0 IROIS . OMEN5019. MO 00011100/6 2. 114 00056 00NIR0C0010 TWILL VOW 711E 1110WONS AIO 0!61110 85 OF THE 5111.0610 PIPE 5YSI=J P80R TO C0O UCTIN0 00810E CONNECTIONS. 3. ALL NO C0N0011080 TO E161180 5863810 518108050 MOIL DE •OII- N -054L• OR CRT APPROVED EQUAL PM CONOIETE R00f OR 5800 STRUCTURE; CONSTRUCT M OP011110 EOM. To TIE RIPE ME GROUT MONO PPE TO CLOSE OPENING MOD RENO STRUCTURE TO CDT RE000REIIO85. 141E CONTRACTOR SHILL VERIFY TYPE OF 0 60OIICII TRAP O0 ENC1IEERING O EPARIM0IT MO 00080441E M0 MIMED an 056MEC00p NEEDED FOR 0811 ACCa7806CL 4. SMELT RL01084000 85071044685. I -I/2? OMN035 NEE WOK 3-1/6 IIN1N0US GAY COURSE Y CL 5 100. Max CRURRD 416610X0 COMPACTED 000010E AND TRENCH BACK FILL 0. PIM 10 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION THE CONTACTOR SAL ODD VERIFY 00SRN0 VIVO LOCATION AND 65015. 410 00057MKY STWEO1 SIMS RIO FCC CONDITIONS SHALL 56 REPORTED TO 1HE OMER RIIEDYOELT. WARNING 10E CONTRACTOR 9051 coma ALL Pua10 581744 708 I0WI= OF ALL UNDERGROUND wET. CRAM RS ' O! OR CONDUITS. MEG STRUCTURES 00080. HE SRAM REPAIR OR REPLACE THE MOVE 80446 DMACED 05650 CONSTRICTOR M NO D05T TO OWNER. REGE AUG 1: CITY OF LIN 200i L)LAt S J REVISIONS FaFM77 r:111B:.miTISa:112.1631tuEL11•111111RIMI ILMCJI mow mommumol E• t;;9I•u sa�Ir h�-i:a? l:iva•]�� RahG •7N/,,,>Il,ja.'E'I�_I?!'.'11G _. 1 SCREW OSSIFY 7447 5 5 PLAN, 8580G1DN, OR &PORE WM P066005 05 415 OR UMOG W DREW SIPOSIZION [M0N1ISM 56160607 TAR SUWAE 507 MOO 5AV6 000 SCR N6 I3404 RMAE9 0R O015 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. POWERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOL 15980 • 0011081104741.0841000 10580 7MYZATA 001GL6 80, SURE 1 NNNE1017164. MN 65305 • (052) 646 -7601 7160 546 -0065 w rashoe6NO0A011.00m OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651- 481 -0017 DATE: AUGUST 13, 2001 F: \ENG\ 511513 \006\02 \PKEMLITY.dwg, 08 /13/2[J111 09:44:13 AM, calvinT PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 5 OF 7 SHEETS Tao Su tY IiY 404 iii 74.1 354 7 44• MS . bi 0401 447' 1. 70 r Plukd Reek • .1<� • it DEPM -ax roP NAP WITH P4340 RIP RAP OVERFLOW DETAIL u it WRNS L R(7 0M 7. 0412 CONC. CUB GUTTER I' L13'-LEO TOM 1.1/.4 GT. MFMOWS COURSE IACN COAT 2-080 Tye 1.2 2 tilt 3 TNT. NON- NFINIO Coln[ 5 (FUMED ON 4PP EO SUI331 OQ —84 MEOT GRNRR/R BORROW TYPICAL SECTION MEAN STREET /PERMANENT 50011030 REVISIONS RENOWN E IIFZo3l MAI5-' 4.ILTIraiRk•!.' F.7LP_i14C •':t'i51. 55>_T5� I IEMJr CENMY IRA 150 PIAK 31433n3a10S. ON Ralf 7NS PREPAIao NY NE o4 UEO7 NY DPW l5OM93N AND NAT 1 NIA ONLY 4ICOa4O PIOFUSON& DOWN N001 US TANS OF 7K 0041E or IMONSWA. ocUl OWL Mt KG. No. 111106 IMMO Mt MN • ocsJO NUM OPIt KG. No. 111106 MOM Mt SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ( OWNER /DEVELOPER ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PUNNING 502. 1ES1M0 • ENVIRONMENTAL =WOES 10550 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1 u5NETON1A. MN 55705 (552) 545 -7561 FAX 543-0055 worwaohoolmadyenoym DATE: HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 151_481-0017 �!/ worwmahodmadyenoom % :\ENV \b1513 (1(iEs \(i2 \PKEDETAIL .dwg, G4i /13/2009:42:52 AM, Calvin A U PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION DETAILS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEETS • SP 7VI ,r meIo WIAAAR 7001 NNW 4 OPIII s - W tom 703,1 Tumor Y d.M al .11 GLR N.R 1Ar' 1.7 tj 3Li u a ii i4 71/1 i w 140.33 73 J 7G 45 l ei MI 27i Iss aa. *3.E 4 I43 M• 3447 7 4 7 awl API f4' L 73 ,..44 41 4x4 N' Y us u M 1u U 1Y u 1u tj a 1M - AS Tao Su tY IiY 404 iii 74.1 354 7 44• MS . bi 0401 447' 1. 70 r Plukd Reek • .1<� • it DEPM -ax roP NAP WITH P4340 RIP RAP OVERFLOW DETAIL u it WRNS L R(7 0M 7. 0412 CONC. CUB GUTTER I' L13'-LEO TOM 1.1/.4 GT. MFMOWS COURSE IACN COAT 2-080 Tye 1.2 2 tilt 3 TNT. NON- NFINIO Coln[ 5 (FUMED ON 4PP EO SUI331 OQ —84 MEOT GRNRR/R BORROW TYPICAL SECTION MEAN STREET /PERMANENT 50011030 REVISIONS RENOWN E IIFZo3l MAI5-' 4.ILTIraiRk•!.' F.7LP_i14C •':t'i51. 55>_T5� I IEMJr CENMY IRA 150 PIAK 31433n3a10S. ON Ralf 7NS PREPAIao NY NE o4 UEO7 NY DPW l5OM93N AND NAT 1 NIA ONLY 4ICOa4O PIOFUSON& DOWN N001 US TANS OF 7K 0041E or IMONSWA. ocUl OWL Mt KG. No. 111106 IMMO Mt MN • ocsJO NUM OPIt KG. No. 111106 MOM Mt SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ( OWNER /DEVELOPER ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PUNNING 502. 1ES1M0 • ENVIRONMENTAL =WOES 10550 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1 u5NETON1A. MN 55705 (552) 545 -7561 FAX 543-0055 worwaohoolmadyenoym DATE: HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 151_481-0017 �!/ worwmahodmadyenoom % :\ENV \b1513 (1(iEs \(i2 \PKEDETAIL .dwg, G4i /13/2009:42:52 AM, Calvin A U PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION DETAILS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEETS • • 601 • • REVISIONS rT3EC71M 1- c3w•ZIAlM:ITw3.K.A1 rim Oroo SINK nolib SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • Sum • P1/N040 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SOL. 1E5T00 • ENWRONNENTAL SE M= 10000 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. ELATE 1 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D MOMETONKA MN 0 06 I ST PAUL, MN ro52) x-7001 F 881- 481 -0017 `"e'"°�0"0°" AM, OWNER /DEVELOPER 4ATE` AUGIJT 13. 2001 ASPEN LA. — - OUTLOT n 120 160 LEGEND O gown nisi 10 BE SAM O 004012! TREE TO BE REMOVED moo EMOTES 9I MACE/ Will 01, CONSTRUCTION IBBRIIr CONSTRUCTION NOTES:" 1. PLACE MIT NICE PROTECTION AT THE ORIPI.INE OF TREES OE71003120 1D NO/ARA FOR THOSE AESO01AT0 0111 TIE UNITS Of COIIS1RU0IlON PRESERVE ANO PROTECT T00U041OUT COR0IRUCROM ME LIMO Number following abbreviation denotes eatimated Ranter Ineine three Het obev. around IeveL The amend number my) m. decal.. the number of tm.t that location 1 d.n.hs a deed tee). Number mimeo Wnahe lEs diameter in feet ODemise dwtdue. 4.e. (';] Dente. elaub. *Daman an ..Mnau. Ir... •• Denotes tree 1VO. A Denotes AM Example Donstm kW, Mtn. BF Denote. Wham N Ous.a BA Denotes ee.....d O DeoW Birch B E Deal.. Bee Oder BN OeoM. BuWreel SU Donato. Beet CA Dangles Catalpa CR Denote. Chef 11 01 Denote. Cottonwood EL Dente. 01. FR Denote* Fruit 041 Omelee =M • Denote. Harm DeuoareesW1hmtno1 0 Denote. bmreod JD Omuta. • 0.netr Coffee Al U Denote. Ube LO Denotes Lomat Denote. Mepl. MP 0 . E Be0M. OM• R DenoW Pine 50 Denotes Papier TO Oen. Time 3.401000 1E Denotes Tree ETar1ra•n WA Denote. Walnut w D..tae Wawa RECEIVE AUG 1320 CrrY OF LfsNO L k a WARNING ME CONTRACTOR SHALL CON0AW ALL A.L UNDERONOUIRO FORM CIBLLS, COICURB. PsES. MIIBI0IES. 3352 OR MLR BUR= Si0100R03 BEFORE 04001NO. HE OWL REM OR REPLOCE 1NE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED 04x010 COr1SINUCR041 AT NO COST TO 00100. PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN TREE PRESERVATION PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 7 OF 7 SHEETS • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 2001 TOPIC: Saddle Club Preliminary Plat Review BACKGROUND: The Saddle Club was approved at the April Environmental Board Meeting. After this approval, the project was denied. I believe the reason for denial was related to road connection issues. The developer has submitted a new plat for consideration. The plat excludes the southern area that is not in the MUSA and was. considered with the previous plat application. As you may recall, this area was desired to facilitate additional housing and a request was made to expand the MUSA reserve. A Greenway dedication was included in this proposal. The new plan only includes the portion of the property that is in designated MUSA. The developer has submitted a plan that, from what I understand, meets the standards outlined in the City Zoning Code. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Approval of Saddle Club Preliminary Plat 2. Recommend denial. RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Board's recommendation will be forwarded on to Planning and Zoning and the City Council. • AGENDA ITEM 5D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 2001 TOPIC: Molin Concrete Site Plan Review BACKGROUND: Molin Concrete is one of the oldest established businesses in the City of Lino Lakes. It is assumed that residential housing came in after Molin Concrete was established. Molin Concrete has made application to build an additional concrete manufacturing facility on the site. There is also an intent to build an automated gantry system in the storage area in the future. Zoning conformance issues such as % greenspace have not been reviewed yet. Wetland impacts have been indicated, as well as proposed wetland mitigation and infiltration intents. This has not been reviewed by the RCWD yet. The Molin Concrete site is divided into two subwatershed areas of the Marshan Lake Watershed. All water is assumed to flow to Marshan Lake via CD 10. The 1994 Surface Water Management Plan indicates the Subwatershed MALNE has a high priority for a drainage study to determine outflow and ponding requirements for culvert under 4th Ave and to verify discharge from the area. MALNE is on the north side of the site. CD10N is the subwatershed on the south side of the site and the 1994 SWMP indicates a high priority for a drainage study to review RCWD study to determine flow rates determined in their reports. The estimated costs for these studies were indicated as $2000 each in 1994. A significant amount of wetland soils (isanti wet) were filled when the Molin Concrete Plant was initially constructed. Impervious run off, and water with ellevated high pH levels, may be a concern with this site. Creating an effective infiltration area is important here. Previous Conditional Use Permits required screening on the berm to the North. This berm should be planted and irrigation supplied to allow for plant growth. Construction of the new facilities appears to miss the area on the east side of the property with trees. This tree area is classified as Recently Developed Forest in Degraded Condition. The County well Point index indicates a well head location in the present storage area of the facility. If this well head is not being used it should be capped. OPTIONS: 1. Approve Site Plan with concerns addressed. 2. Do Not approve RECOMMENDATION: Approve But: • Complete recommended studies of the 1994 Surface Water management Plan for the Subwatershed areas involved. Design a Surface Water Treatment System in response to understood values. • All Surface Water Treatment areas should be planted with native materials and an O &M, and 3 -5 year maintenance contract with a knowledgeable landscape company should be incorporated into the development agreement. Escrow dollars should be allocated for these purposes. • Install a watering system on the berm area and submit a landscape plan. Natives would be encouraged here. • Check the status of the well head in the storage area. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • W et O • Professional Group Noma. / Do... 105 a. Fmk Sant 5We X0 O.. (007) OH -7050 7o lsx 141 Poo. (17) 045210/5 Nothilo15, *155057 www.plo(d.*c..D Paged 1M. =CM PitOIXE/S =PANT Extruded Precast Manufacturing Building Liao Lass, Minnesota Kg Non W ilms t 7 -1..01 WNW 22.* wow 7 -10-01 CNC IMO rp1 0DO1.ee0.11 e@I.e o I s-ss m I wow MUSD PON o.ru o w *woad Sy ►Nht dmoolook Glad Proloolood OW. «tea■ e r e�irla MO soma Oil w eee.IIIr.oa 1 booby godly Dint rids 7h► opednxibn. or report .a propound by n* er under ny direct .up.M.lon end UM 1 are • duy I7an.od Architect under the lows .1 the dot. at Wanda Seed..: 1Dd or )Mild Men. Ode 7 -11-01 t: IDd.rd 1O0. Rog. Ile. 13041 hye. tN.ND XXV Dam 7-1-01 Om Dr zult IN Chocked Sp ai Cgpidd hetarleed Dodpr Grim 7001 Sat 11d. MOD Plan S reoe A1.0 15) WNW /MI 0,1 ICI • 1.7 3.811.1 11111121. W /1131. NMI. RC. IMMT spoon WW1 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION IOLM WO • 34P LION - SO MX. III MM. MOM MOW IMMW1 NOM IMP 0-I MOM COMM MM WMT 1NM I. IV 1101 1110111L WW1 11 /WO 1T1P.) 1.11111 P1111332 - MI MC 11111' 1111111!'i 1,111 11 111 HI', 1 ILE II 11111 g' :f.=`' 1111111 gi 11111111 ff■ g11111111 11 11 111 11 IF 11 11 1 1111 1 1 1 1111,11 , 111111111111 I I II I 1 1 I I I 11 1 0 le Id' I'm IF', 1 11111, II 11 1 . 1111111111 :1' 111' HI 1111111111 1111i HI II 1 1 11 It, 11,1 II 11111,111 PS. 1ML 0010.1 lawr WOM1 111 MTN WIT WW1. 1111 1112. WEST EXTERIOR LLATION CONTI, SCALS VO • PW rat WM MAID. ILL W WC. NS MOM KM CCM= MAT SWOT MUM LW WIT.* X•1111WI- 011C. Ma PIM 1-• PIPE BOLLARD SCAM I. • 141 PIPE BOLLARD PLAN KAI" I. • 114. TIL *a. 11.4 VO SOUTH IIXTRRIOR ELEVATION 1101.0 VO • PW Profeasional 21211P1 aloto Atsileests / 0e0teers NS bib Fos* Mama IbMs //a /0 Ow DII Nardolidd, MN us, Dm eon 64142N Fru *fl 1141-2N3 vowswapahiblibmwa h olset 0121121111 PM= amemr Extruded Precast Manufacturing Building Lino T. Minnesota Day Nem itZ s'-d, it: AUG 1 3 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES Ilasidsam • 1 7-27-W 1 W/L 11 IMO WLWU. SWOONS it 312:0111 wm 3 7-11-01 OM 11.1112 Mil WOW 2 7-10.01 MC ENID 010121101103 IMMO I 1 s•a-at Ns= 01/1CR NNW • 1 .41 MILMI RN MINER IMMO 12/4 I 0s AwmoW 12 eamesem 1211•1 =.2P1 am to Ms sealed ea ANY Cada* hafasimat Das" Clamp Dm ebbed et WOW simadmis. aft doss aselks mod fisM sommusubmis. 1 hanky bray that lab plan. sposiksabm. assest was prepared by am or maw w• *u auperehien e nd bet 1 ens • tluh thamed Arch/bet under Mn lows d the stet* al IlInnseela. SPINime boof or PMIN oft 7-10-01 C. Ptaland Das Ne. 13040 MOM Iamb= Dams Damn Opt RAWIIN Cbsdad Dys CapplOt Prefassisad Dade Grows no« ea, Sztatior Blevations A2.0 • • • 44‘44101111111--CIA r41- 1 1 i r I 11 1 ' 1 I I iI I 11 11 I 1I l 1 , 1 11 1 1' ■ 1 11,1, ij'1 ,111 '111 ' 111, 1 1 h 11 1 1 1 ! 1 1 r 1111 111 1 II 1 d 11 11 1 10 rl 1 i l 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 11111111 1,11 lh II 1 1,1 1'111 11 II I111,11'I' m 111 MEE 1 E, 111141111 11 III I. i■ I , I €2111111:11-11111111111111121111 Rc AUG 1 3 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES • • AGENDA ITEM (0C, STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 2001 TOPIC: Trade -A -Tree Program/Tree Trust/Xcel Energy /Approval BACKGROUND: This program was introduced at the last Environmental Board Meeting. The Trade -A -Tree Program is a partnership opportunity between the City of Lino Lakes, The Twin Cities Tree Trust, and Xcel Energy. The goal of the program is to increase the quantity and quality of trees in the community while reducing power line maintenance and power outages. The Power Company has line clearance safety standards that have to be maintained. When inappropriate trees are planted under these lines, costly and repetitive pruning visits, and disfigured trees are the result. The Trade -A -Tree program replaces each tree removed with two new trees. The additional trees can be planted throughout the City. The process involves an initial tree inventory and identification of the trees under three phase power lines that we would like to replace. The Tree Trust assists in selecting trees and provides other assistance as needed. The Tree Trust works with community residents by contacting them, explaining the program and addressing concerns. Xcel Energy removes the above ground portion of the targeted trees at no cost. The City would have to remove or treat the stumps and plant the new trees. A formal recommendation to proceed is needed. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Environmental Board support for this program and City Council Approval. 2. Table for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1. Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 98 - RESOLUTION WHEREAS, , AND WHEREAS, ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this xxth day of xxxxxxx, 1998. Kimberly A. Sullivan, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on date. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer Tree Trust's TREE *TRUST Education • Employment. Training • Environment 2350 Wycliff Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55114 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Trade -A -Tree Benefits • • • • S'S ON L t. ti 4t w o ° e x s, 0 u • � gz J • How does it work? ai �: a) E� • ° '� • o 5 a, aa)) 0 0 0 -o a et 'b� ct▪ S ib 8 �v c.; as a) > �? a 0 > a 'd a) : O U y ° O' N -+ ) p � E > o0U• 4,'g0.0 �c0 N� y -,tea; 4. U • Q' P4 O > a) 5 3 c� 4. O co y '0 4 p !, y .° U 1-4 41.01j.I� ao ~g E a ,U-+ 0 3 a) a N • 8 N 1 w° a, a g.° g Ccil a) • E� 0 a • • • •d -o 0 8 y ° 0 a 0 �'' 0 • -o 2 0 a) a at 0 a p > IS o to CA 0 Ea 0 0 b 0♦ • v a H - ob w a p aUi a) ra a) 0 'e' b su E� . E� .0 cz PC a, • • • • N N tu 0 3 co a) 0§ • 't! • How can you apply? ucation • Employment Training • Environment o, v o w• ° o • 0 N rn 0 vt ao v" a 3 v� o NA.: te I P, W IhuI4 a) • . . o y i s • U4 w 0 v 0 0 . X b transmission lines r O N 1 -e)m June 27, 2001 Dear Environmental Board Members: The City Council would like to schedule a joint meeting with your board in August or September. The purpose of the meeting would be to review the ordinance establishing the Environmental Board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. If you could give me an indication of your preference for meeting days and times, I can compare that to the availability of the Council. For example, would you prefer to meet on a week night or on a Saturday morning? Are there days or weeks we should avoid? Also, are there additional items you would like to see on the agenda? On a slightly different note, the City Council did receive the goals established by your board. They decided to postpone discussion of the goals until your board chair could present them and he was unavailable for the June 25 City Council meeting. We anticipate the goals will be on the July 9 meeting agenda. The City Council is looking forward to meeting with you and to working effectively with you in the future. Sincerely, Linda Waite Smith City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council Members Michael Grochala Mary Asleson Marty Asleson Orom: Dave Mach [dave.mach @dnr.state.mn.us] ent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:26 AM o: masleson @ci.lino- Iakes.mn.us Subject: Re: Recommendations Marty, I have decided to enter the 2005 Medical School class at Des Moines University. The first day of Orientation is Tuesday August 7th, 2001. I will not be able to make the July meeting. What process is required for my resignation from the Environmental Board? The sooner you get someone on board (no pun intended) the better for you. I do want to sell my natural yard and house to someone who can appreciate it native character. I would love to target someone who values the efforts I have put into it. Do you have any ideas on how I can target an environmentalist looking for a home in Lino Lakes? Dave »> Marty Asleson <masleson @ci.lino - lakes.mn.us> 07/03/01 09:48AM »> Recommendations are attached and revised by Mike T. Still waiting for consensus on the July 18th meeting time. Please call Dawn and let her know. Marty Asleson «RECOMM- 2.DOC» Environmental Coordinator 1111ity of Lino Lakes 00 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes MN. 55014 651 - 982 -2435 651 - 982 -2499 (fax) masleson @ ci.lino- lakes.mn.us f\T-ncka 4edirn Cf Page 1 of 5 Thr, Nenpoint Education foa Municipal Officials Project is aei educational nzaak.ors that addr-csse , the rola tranship of hnd a se tc natural resource p l)ro+jrani for bend use fieoision otCcti01=. EVOIC,Orlin! "PI:A'T 7 lP E Hone NOM What's New Nautilus Feedback Middlesex County Extension Center 1066 Saybrook Road Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 -0070 860- 345 -4511 FAX 860 - 345 -3357 Directions & Map All About NEMO NEMO's Reason for Being Project Staff A 9 Sentence NEMO History Awards NEMO Partners Supernumary Policy Panel If you're at the Wrong NEMO... NEMO's Reason for Being A one sentence description of the NEMO Project appears at the top of each page of this an educational program for local land use officials that addresses the relationship use to natural resource protection. That pretty much says it all. However, never havin leave well enough alone, we will elaborate just a bit on the key elements in that definitior reverse order that they appear: Natural Resource Protection is the Goal: (even we feel that no further elaboration is nee' point) Land Use is the Issue: We believe that better land use decisions are the key to protectin natural resources, community character, and long -term economic health of our commun Local Officials is the Target Audience: Because land use is the issue, the people making. decisions are our key target audience. In the United States, this mean local officials sery use boards at the county and municipal levels. (Quick - name 5 groups or organizations assisting these critical decision makers! Can't do it, can you? Chalk up yet another good NEMO...) Education is the Method: Given that the local land use decision making process is comp and widely varying, state and federal regulation can only go so far in dictating better land policies and practices. We believe that education - particularly research - based, non -advt professional outreach education - is the best way to foster better land use decisions. NOTE: If you have the time and the stomach for more editorializing about these philosor issues, we suggest that you go to the Soapbox Editorial section of the NEMO Store.. [top Project Staff We could go on and on about one of our favorite topics, ourselves. But here are just the m'am. l�a...wi... A.- ....J4 1 �..... ....... http: / /nemo.uconn.edu/about.htm 8/22/01 About NEMO.... Page 2 of 5 L P ICJICI HI I IUIU 1 r\CaUI Mt Water Quality Educator Project Director Likely alternative career path: Infomercial Personality Jim Gibbons I Resume Land Use Educator Project Director Likely alternative career path: Dock Worker Laurie Giannotti I Resume Natural Resources Management Educator Connecticut Programs Coordinator Likely alternative career path: Bakery Owner SandyPrisloe I Resume GIS Educator Likely alternative career path: Camp Counselor John Rozum I Resume National Network Coordinator Likely alternative career path: Alternative Musician Steven Nakashima I Resume Special Projects Director Likely alternative career path: Door - to -door Salesman Heather Crawford I Resume Sea Grant Marine Extension Educator Likely alternative career path: Dog Trainer Photo Photo Photo Photo Photo Photo Photo Please also see our Educational Programs section for information on the right person to learning more about various sections of the NEMO smorgasbord. The same information contained in our NEMO Program Flyer, available at the NEMO Store. [top] The 9 Sentence NEMO History NEMO originally was conceived as a pilot project to assist local officials in 3 Connecticut towns address the issue of nonpoint source pollution, and therefore help to better protec quality of Long Island Sound. The original stimulus for NEMO was the creation of a land database for the state of Connecticut, for the purposes of estimating nonpoint source loa nitrogen to the Sound. Recognizing the educational potential of the land cover informatic funding from the USDA/CRSEES Water Quality Initiative, NEMO was created in 1991 -15 collaboration between 3 branches of the University of Connecticut: the Cooperative Exte System, the Natural Resources Management and Engineering Department, and the Cor Sea Grant College Program. It took about a year to develop the initial NEMO educationa http: / /nemo.uconn.eduJabout.htm 8/22/01 Page 3 of 5 LrnRing Lana use to vvarer warmly, tnat is aunt arouna geograpnic inrormation system lt.: of natural resources and remote sensing- derived images of land cover. After a year of di and a second year of operation in the pilot towns, interest in the NEMO educational prog to spread to other towns, and our Connecticut programs began to widen in scope. By ab colleagues in other states began to express interest in adapting NEMO, and our Nationa initiated. In 1999, both the Connecticut and National efforts got a technical shot in the an formation of the NAUTILUS Regional Earth Sciences Applications Center, a partnership NEMO and the Laboratory for Earth Resources Information Systems (LER IS) remote se UConn. At present (circa 2000), NEMO has worked with almost two- thirds of the 169 mt. in Connecticut, and the National NEMO Network has funded projects in 17 states. NEM( conduct about 150 educational workshops a year. [top] Awards LOCAL: Middlesex County Soil & Water Conservation District's Outstanding Municipal Program of 1997 STATE: University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Excellence in Outreach Education Award. The NEMO Team - May 2000 American Society of Landscape Architects, Connecticut Chapter. Year 2000 Olmsted Award. Jim Gibbons - March 2000 The Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, River Conservationist of the Year Eightmile River Watershed Committee - May 1998 ( IMAGE ) The Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, River Conservationist of the Year Chester Arnold & Jim Gibbons: Project NEMO - May 1998 American Planning Association, Connecticut Chapter's Outstanding Planning Program of 1997 REGIONAL: United State Evironmental Protection Agency Environmental Merit Award - April 200( Northeast Cooperative Extension Director's Award of Excellence, 1994 NATIONAL: "Remote Sensing- Enhanced Outreach Education as a Decision Support System fo Land Use Officials" won the 2001 ESRI Award for the Best Scientific Paper in Geograp Information Systems. National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF): 1998 National Environmental Education Achievement Award - Natural Resources and Land Use American Planning Association, Small Town & Rural Planning Division's Award of Excel Outstanding Educational Program of 1996 [top] MPMf1 Parfnarc http: / /nemo.uconn.edu/about.htm 8/22/01 About NEMO.... Page 4 of 5 UConn Partners NEMO is a partnership of three units of the The University of Connecti Cooperative Extension System, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Natural Resources Management & Engineering Department, College of Agriculture and Resources Connecticut Sea Grant College Program Supporting Agencies NEMO is supported by many different partners, to which we are all grateful. Here's a list current major contributors: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Nonpoint Source Program USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service NOAA National Sea Grant College Program Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch NASA (for the NAUTILUS Center) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Advisory Groups NEMO has two great advisory groups operating at the state and national levels. To see 1 click below. NEMO Advisory Committee National NEMO Network Interagency Work Group Program Partners For information on our other partnerships, particularly having to do with programs, pleas, individual program pages of the this Web site. NEMO Supernumerary Policy Panel Our Policy Panel is composed of nationally -known experts, chosen for the specific expel they bring to the table. [top] Curly Howard, Eddie Haskell, Homer Simpson, Ed Norton, Water Steve Irwin, i.........:.,..., PI ihlirt Ralatinnc rlrri !national PnIIs itinn Intarananrru http: / /nemo.uconn.edu/about.htm 8/22/01 II I Ip i VIUUb surfaces Safety Page 5 of 5 Cooperation If you're at the Wrong NEMO... It may be that there's been a terrible misunderstanding and you're here looking for anott- Aquick Internet search turned up these intriguing NEMOs. Please accept our apologies, but cnsier asretu return when your atten on aik col nonpoint source pollution and land use planning. A certain submarine Captain of A pan -asian organic literary & celluloid fame restaurant in Miami A New Millenium Aweekly comic strip of the Observatory of drawn in detailed, art-nouve oceanographic marvels on in little boys fantastic dreams. the Pacific Northwest For more details on the project and its impacts, please check out our publications list or project coordinators. (top] Home 1 About NEMO 1 What's New I Nautilus I Feedback I Search Copyright © 2000 University of CT Cooperative Extension. Service. All rights reserved. Revised: August .13, 2001 . http : / /nemo.uconn.edu/about.htm 8/22/01 NEMO/Nautilus Page 1 of 1 The Noiipoint Education fat' Municipal Officials Pr'oj et i ain e+diac:ational makers that arldresses the relationship of 1-and use to natural resource p paooras -n for land use cieciasion 'otecti knee! reI TtONAL = Home APPLICATIO S About Nemno What's New MEM Middlesex County Extension Center 1066 Saybrook Road Box 70 Haddam. CT 06438 -0070 860 -345 -4511 FAX 860 - 345 -3357 Directions & Map OUTREACH PUBLICATIONS CONTACT U S NEWS NASA Regional Earth Science Applications Cent Home I About NEMO I What's New I Nautilus I Feedback I Search Copyright ® 2000 University of CT Cooperative Extension Service. All rights reserved. Revised: August 13, 2001 . http : / /nemo.uconn.edu/nautilus.htm 8/22/01 - - - rr cita)IIie Maps & Data Research Applications Outreach Page 1 of 1 Publications Contact Us News NAUTILUS is a new NASA Regional Earth Science Applications Center (RESAC), located at • of Connecticut. The acronym NAUTILUS stands for Northeast Applications of Use planning for. Urban Sprawl. Quite a mouthful, but it speaks directly to what we're all about t -- m power of remote sensing technology available, accessible and useable to land about -- m makers concerned about the impacts of sprawl on their communities. We're also dedicated a general public about remote sensing and other geospatial technologies and how they to Y ca So WELCOME! I n be I We hope that you find this site useful and informative. Please use the button: bars at the top of each page to delve into NAUTILUS. Home Page I Welcome1 Maps & Data 1 Research 1 Applications 1 Qutreach I Publications. I C_ Us N 1 Search & Index Contact 1 _ ews University of Connecticut NAUTILUS University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources Haddam Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Road, Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438 Voice: 860.345.4511 Fax: 860.345.3357 Email: NAUTILUB@canr.uconn.edu Copyright 2001 Project NAUTILUS, the University of Connecticut and NASA. Materials be used if proper credit and attribution is given. All rights are otherwise reserved. ed within may http://www.resac.uconmedu/welcome/index.html 8/22/01 Background Maps & Data Research Applications Outreach welctrne Publications Contact Us News Page 1 of 2 Background NAUTILUS represents the next logical step in the evolution of a successful partnership that has been fulfilling the basic goals of the RESAC initiative since 1992. The Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Project and the Laboratory for Earth Resources Information Systems (LERIS) - two efforts of the College of Agriculture an. d Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut -- have been collaborating on a series of projects that have applied RS, GIS, and other geospatial information and tools to real -world natural resource management problems. Here's a brief look back at our earlier (and in many cases ongoing) work that led up to NAUTILUS: 1991: The NEMO /LERIS collaboration began when Cooperative Extension land use and water quality specialists saw the educational potential of a new land use /land cover RS data set developed by LERIS (to estimate nitrogen Toads to Long Island Sound). After extensive discussions with the LERIS Director, NEMO was developed around the idea of using land use /land cover data to better inform local decision makers about the land use /water quality connection. NEMO places particular emphasis on impervious cover as an indicator of the impact of development on water resources, and has been a national leader in the use of this indicator (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). 1994: Cooperative Extension (working with The Nature Conservancy and U.S. EPA New England) began a series of successful watershed projects that served to stimulate a second LERIS /NEMO collaboration. The subbasins of the lower Connecticut River are largely forested, making forest management and sprawl- generated forest fragmentation key issues for the watershed communities. At the same time, LERIS was working on a land use /land cover analysis that would differentiate between forest community types. LERIS was able to pilot and field check their research in the watersheds that NEMO was working in; CES foresters were then able to use that information for analysis and education of forest owners and municipal officials within the watershed towns. 1997 -8: Over the past year, NEMO and LERIS have collaborated on making geospatial data available to land use decision makers and planners statewide. LERIS had obtained a state grant to update and improve the 1990 -91 land use /land cover database, with an emphasis on improved discrimination between urban and suburban land covers. This data set, created by fusing TM and SPOT panchromatic data, was completed this spring. Another part of the research, devised in collaboration with the NEMO team, was to create a more accurate impervious land cover data layer using neural network technology; this work is still ongoing. http: / /www.resac. uconn. edu /welcome/background /index.html 8/22/01 Page 2 of 2 In a related project, NEMO procured EPA Section 319 (nonpoint source pollution) funding to conduct regional workshops around the state, presenting NEMO 's "basic" education program on land use /water quality, and showcasing the new land use /land cover data set. The workshops, conducted in the Fall of 1997, reached land use commissioners from at least 114 of the state's 169 municipalities. As part of the project, NEMO staff created a hard copy series of watershed and land cover maps for each town in the state. These maps are now available (in pdf format) in the Maps & Data section. Suggestions as to how each map can be used to initiate watershed- oriented planning and programs within the town are available at the NEMO Home Front web site. Home Pagel Welcome 1 Maps & Data ( Research (Applications 'Outreach ( Publications' Contact Us 'News ( Search & Index University of Connecticut NAUTILUS University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources Haddam Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Road, Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438 Voice: 860.345.4511 Fax: 860.345.3357 Email: NAUTILUS @canr.uconn.edu Copyright 2001 Project NAUTILUS, the University of Connecticut and NASA. Materials contained within may be used if proper credit and attribution is given. All rights are otherwise reserved. http:// www. resac. uconn. edu /welcome/background/index.html 8/22/01 Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: August 29, 2001 Re: Operation and Maintenance Plan Attached is the final Draft Operation and Maintenance Plan for area in the Spirit Hills Development. The Request was made Watershed District to the Developer to submit this plan to the City There were some changes made to the original proposal and incorporated in the document attached. • Page 1 Drainage /Infiltration by the Rice Creek for approval. these changes are Construction, Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance Plan For Infiltration Basins in the Spirit Hills Development, Lino Lakes. The overall objective for this maintenance plan is to ensure the longevity of the Infiltration basins designed as part of the stormwater management plan. Introduction Infiltration basins are designed to retain and infiltrate the stormwater runoff generated for a given design rainfall event. The success of an infiltration practice is dependent upon a number of things: naturally permeable soils and subsurface material, sufficient depth to the water table and /or a restricting layer such as bedrock or a hardpan layer, proper construction, proper operation and maintenance and pretreatment of stormwater to prevent clogging of the soils. In addition, a review of the soil borings of this development shows that there is sufficient depth to the water table to prevent a water table mound from forming underneath the infiltration ponds and affecting roads and other infrastructure. As a result, the following issues are addressed in this Operation & Maintenance Plan to ensure the short and the long -term performance of the infiltration ponds: • Ensure Proper Construction of Infiltration Basins /Ponds • Minimize Sediment Loading to the Infiltration Basins /Ponds • Develop a Monitoring Plan • Short - Term Maintenance Requirements -• Long - Term Maintenance Requirements Construction of Infiltration Basins /Ponds Proper construction is extremely important in ensuring the successful operation of an infiltration practice. The following recommendations regarding the excavation, timing of construction, equipment requirements, and landscaping plan will be incorporated in the final plans and specifications. Page 1 Excavation of Materials in Infiltration Basins/Ponds • Initial grading and excavation of materials in the infiltration basins /ponds must not exceed 2 -3 feet above the final grade. • During the construction process, stormwater infiltration basins /ponds may not be backfilled with any material unless authorized by the engineer in writing. • Final grading of the infiltration basins /ponds requires excavation of the remaining 2- 3 feet of overlying material down to the naturally occurring permeable subsurface material. This shall be done with a low ground pressure D4 dozer (LPG), low ground pressure D5 dozer or 864 traxcavator (rubber Tracks). Soil compaction • Minimize compaction of underlying soils by not traveling over the infiltration basins /ponds and surrounding buffer areas with heavy equipment except to the minimal extent necessary to grade and construct the infiltration basins /ponds. • Grading of the final 2 -3 feet of overlaying material should be done with light earth- moving equipment to minimize compaction to the soils. See above for the recommended equipment. • Once the final grade has been established, the infiltration areas shall be treated as a septic area. No other heavy earth moving equipment shall be allowed to traverse these areas. If the silt fence has been disturbed, the silt fence around the ponds and infiltration areas will be replaced. Using Infiltration Areas for Sediment Removal during Construction • Each infiltration basins inlet shall have a temporary sediment forebay. The main purpose of this is to offer some sediment deposition areas for the larger particle sizes. This is an attempt to reduce the deterioration, plugging and surface clogging of the basins infiltration capacity. These proposed forebays are approved for this project. Landscaping of Infiltration Areas • The establishment of native vegetation that can withstand wet/dry cycling and fluctuations in water levels, are salt tolerant and have a deep root systems promotes the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils. The basins, pond benches and mitigation areas shall be seeded with the City of Lino Lake seed specification. It shall be seeded per the City of Lino Lake planting specification. The developer shall allow any specialty seeding contractors to bid on the city seed and planting specification. See the City of Lino Lake's specification - Appendix B. Pretreatment • The inlet forebays shall serve as minor pretreatment areas prior to the water filling the infiltration basins. Other best management practices noted on the final grading plan shall be implemented and maintained. Inspections and recommended actions may be made by the project engineer, City engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District inspector. Page 2 Monitoring Plan Monitoring of infiltration practices is important in evaluating their short and long term performance as well as in the identification of their short and long term maintenance requirements. It is recommended that visual observation of the infiltration ponds be performed by the developer of Spirit Hills on a routine basis. The Developer may hire personnel to do the monitoring if he wishes to do so. The change in standing water depth above the basin floor over time should be checked: 1. A StrathAyr double ring infiltrometer test shall be done to get an initial infiltration rate. 2. A minimum of six major rainfall events per year to monitor long- term infiltration rates. 3. After each major rainfall event in the first few months of construction to monitor infiltration rates. This visual inspection will provide information on the degree of surface clogging that may occur over the years and will help to identify the short- and long- term maintenance requirements. As a general rule, the ponds should infiltrate the volume of water generated from a 2.5" rainfall event plus the run -off from the Minneapolis -St. Paul median storm of 0.34 "in 72 hours. Limiting the loading time to 72 hours allows for plant growth on the bottom of the basin and prevents the development of anaerobic conditions in the soils. Maintenance Plan The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater management practices located on the site prior to city acceptance of the project improvements. This shall be at the time of substantial completion. Substantial completion is that state of progress of the work when the work or designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents, so that the owner can utilize the work for its intended use. The homeowner's association shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater management practices located on the site after substantial completion or project acceptance, whichever comes sooner, but not before the homeowner's association is a legal entity. Page 3 Short Term Maintenance Requirements Vegetation Short- term maintenance would require partial re- vegetation in areas where the native vegetation is not able to survive. This should probably be a minimal requirement for the developer as the seeding contractor for the project shall be responsible for the establishment of the vegetation until the city or homeowner's association takes over the project. Due to the native planting seed mixture (MNDOT 25A), which is proposed for the stormwater areas, the developer will be required to contract a landscaper to perform a prescribed mowing or burn once prior to handing the project over to the homeowner's association or the city. The homeowner's association or city shall.contract a landscaper to perform a prescribed mowing or bum once every five years. Permission for the prescribed bum shall need to be obtained from the city fire chief or the MN State Fire Marshall. This is a good short and long term maintenance technique to ensure the healthy and continued growth of native species. All risk for the fire is taken by the landscaper using the burning technique. Erosion In the event that the side slopes of the stormwater management basins erode the following short- term maintenance requirements may include: 1. Excavation of sediment where it is accumulating in the basin with light earth- moving equipment. 2. Re- grading of the side slopes and bottom of basin (if necessary) with light earth - moving equipment. 3. Re- seeding as originally specified in the vegetation management plan. 4. Installation of an appropriate erosion control blanket to reinforce the side slopes if deemed necessary by an erosion control specialist. Long Term Maintenance Requirements Depending upon the quality of the stormwater being infiltrated and the ability of the buffers to treat the stormwater, the soils in the infiltration ponds may become clogged with fine material over time to the point of infiltrating the runoff generated from a 2.5" rainfall event plus the run- off from the Minneapolis -St. Paul median storm of 0.34 "in 72 hours. Expected long- term maintenance would require minor rehabilitation of the infiltration ponds and infiltration trenches. Page 4 Infiltration PondsBasins The rehabilitation of the infiltration ponds would require the excavation of accumulated fine material with light earth- moving equipment and re- planting with native vegetation. Excavation would occur in the following manner: 1. Remove the accumulated fine material and topsoil with light earth- moving equipment. 2. Excavated material shall be hauled and disposed of off site to prevent the material from re- entering the basin(s). 3. Excavate down to the naturally occurring permeable, sandy material. 4. Following excavation, re- vegetate the bottom of the basins as specified on the final grading plan. or 1. Burn existing vegetation or mow in late fall with a rotary or sickle -style mower 2. Aerate affected sediment basin with an Aerway ground- driven, rolling -tined aerator /cultivator. Minimum of two replications (passes). Minimum of 3.5" tine penetration into the soil. If the infiltration practices are designed properly, are constructed as specified and protected from erosion (buffers, vegetation, etc.) the basins could very well be maintenance free in the long run. In the worst case, the timing of the regularly scheduled maintenance should not be different than any similarly designed swale, ditch or NURP pond in the city. The long term maintenance shall be taken over by the city or the homeowner's association when the project improvements are accepted by the city. Page 5 Memo Date: June 12, 2001 To: William McCully/Rehbein Co From: Marty Asleson RE: Spirit Hills Seed Schedule/Drainage/Infiltration areas /O&M Plan Attachment Appendix B Seed specifications for native seed restoration areas: Seed Pond Area Grasses: 1. From normal high water to highest 1 -year water elevation---- - 38% Big bluestem ( Andropogon gerardii) 15% Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis) 10% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum) 7% Indian grass ( Sorgastrum nutans) All above PLS. 13% Blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) 2% Wild rye (Elymus virginicus) 1% Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) 3% Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus) 1% Giant bur -reed ( Sparganium eurycarpum) 10 % Cord grass ( Spartina pectinata) All above by bulk weight. 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo Pond Area Forbes: 2. From normal pond water elevation to top of 1 year high water elevation-- - 4% Sweet flag ( Acorus calamus) 1% Fragrant giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) 4% Water plaintain ( Alisma subcordatum) 4% Swamp milkweed ( Asclepias incamata) 4% Panicled aster ( Aster lanceolatus) 8% New England aster (Aster novae - angliae) 1% Red stalked aster (Aster punceus) 3% Canada tick trefoil (Desmonium canadense) 8% Joe -pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum) 6% Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum) 2% Grass- leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia) 1% Sneezeweed (Helenium autunmale) 2% Giant sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) 4% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis helianthoides) 2% Great StJohn's wort (Hypericum pyramidatum) 11% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya) 2% Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) 1% White prairie clover ( Petalostemum candidum) 2% Purple prairie clover ( Petalostemum purpureum) 2% Mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum) 6% Black -eyed susan (Rudbechia hirta) 3% Stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 2% Tall meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum) 6% Blue vervain (Verbena hastata) .5% Ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata) 4% Culver's root 2% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea) All above by bulk wt. 3. Grass Blend for area between 1 -year highest water level to top of pond: 35% Bigbluestem ( Andropogon gerardii) 7.5% Side oats grama ( Bouteloua curtipendula) 2% Canada wild rye (Elymus hystrix) 3% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum) 25% Little bluestem ( Schizachyrium scoparium) 25% Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans) All above by PLS wts. 2% Kalm's brome (Bromus kalmii) .5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) All above by bulk rate 4. Forbs blend from top of 1 -year high water to top of pond: 1% Yarrow ( Achillea millefolium) 2% Fragrant giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) 6% Leadplant (Amorpha canescens) 2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) 2% Smooth aster (Aster laevis) 4% Asure aster (Aster oolentangiensis) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 2% Canada tick trefoil (Desmodium canadense) 3% Stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigidus) 9% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis rigidus) 3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata) 8% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya) 6% Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) 4% White prairie clover (Petalostemum candidum) 14% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum) 14% Black -eyed susan (Rudbechia hirta) 2% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) 1% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptarmicoides) 3% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida) 3% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) 7% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta) 4% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea) All above by bulk rates. 5. Upland Areas surrounding pond and other restoration areas: Grass Blend: 30% Side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) 25% Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) 42.5% Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) All above by PLS wts. 1% Kalk's brome (Bromus kalmii) 1% June grass (Koeleria macrantha) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo .5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) All Above by bulk wts. 6. Forb seed blend for top of pond and other upland areas: 1% Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) 16% Lead plant (Amorpha canescens) 2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) 3% Heath aster (Aster ericoides) 3% Azure aster (Aster oolentangiensis) 1% Golden aster (Heterothca villosa) 3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata) 1.5% Showy penstemen ( Penstemengrandiflorus) 4% White prairie clover (Petalostemum candidum) 18% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum) .5% Prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) 18% Black -eyd susan (Rudbechia hirta) 8% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) 2% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptarmicoides) 1% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida) 5% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) 12% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta) 1% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea) All above by bulk wts. Seeding Rates 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo Grass Seed (Broadcast) 15-16 lbs. PLS /acre 8oz. PLS /1000 sq. ft. Grass Seed (Drilled) 8 -10 lbs. PLS /acre Wild Flower Seed (Broadcast) 1 -5 lbs. Acre 2-4 oz/1000 sq. ft. Recommended Seeding Dates . Optimum May 20th to June 20 Range-- - - ---- Spring Thaw To August 10 September 20 to Freeze Up All infiltration and drainage areas will be protected with fencing to prohibit encroachment and compaction. Existing soil densities will be maintained. A landscape contractor knowledgeable and experienced in the establishment of native materials will be hired to for the native seed areas. A three year management plan for the native seed areas with an established company specializing in native plant seeded areas will be submitted to the City. 6 Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT :..August 8, 2001, : 6:40 P.M. 8:42 P.M. : Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych : None. City Planner, Smyser; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Assistant City Engineer Wedel I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning p.m., August 8, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 001 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve tes of the Jul 11 200 July 1, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zo R oard, d was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. meeting to order at 6:40 III. APPROVAL OF The agenda was app _ d as .t esented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:42 p.m. There being no comment made, Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:42 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Jon Crenshaw, 7080 Sunset Avenue, Minor Subdivision, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a minor subdivision to split the eastern portion of the property at 7080 Sunset Road. He indicated the property was owned by the current resident, Jon Crenshaw and applicant's intent was to create a new single- Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 2 family lot. A variance would be required because the new lot did not comply with the minimum lot depth of 135 feet. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Lino Lakes had sewer and water two blocks to the east in Sunset Drive. Lots along Sunset Drive would connect. Utilities were not available to the rest of the neighborhood to the west of those lots. However, Blaine utilities were available to the lots on Sunset Road and several were connected to the Blaine utilities. The subject property was one of them. Utility service for the proposed new lot would need to connect to the Blaine system. The property was zoned R -1. The new lot would not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. A variance would be necessary. 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 existing use of the lot as a single - family residence was not threatened by the status quo. There were no unique physical circumstances. The sole purpose of the variance was to allow an additional lot to be created to provide economic gain. Granting an unjustified variance would be conferring a special privilege and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff indicated whether it was advisable to allow for the c atio additional lots in this neighborhood by splitting the existing lots was a polic •'• stion • ight merit consideration by the City. However, the application under consi •tion ould c = ate a lot that did not meet current requirements and there was no justification fo requested variance. Without the variance, the minor subdivision could not occ Staff recommended denying the variance based jurisdiction and because the lot did not meet the minimum lot depth. Mr. Lyden stated as he drove down ' "Wf €^ 3 ppeared there were many lots that were split, as this applicant wanted his lot it asked why some lots were split and some were not Mr. Smyser replied those G'ts were it y years ago and under the existing guidelines, those lots would not have been a ed to= split today. Mr. Lyden noted he understood , °jB variance, but for practical purposes, he did not understand why the lot could not be split. Mr. Smyser replied making a profit on the lot was not a condition for a variance. Mr. Lyden stated it was a variance of less than 10 feet and while he understood the variance, he had a difficult decision about not splitting this lot. Mr. Corson asked if the lots were serviced by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied they were not. Mr. Corson asked if applicant was requesting Parcel B be served by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied it was being requested to have service by the City of Blaine, which would need the City of Blaine's approval as well. He expressed concern about opening up this type of a situation. However, it was technically feasible to have the sewer and water serviced by the City of Blaine. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Corson asked if the City of Blaine, under the Joint Powers Agreement, could take away the sewer and water services. Mr. Smyser replied it would be difficult for the City of Blaine to do that, but it was feasible. Mr. Corson inquired about the MUSA requirements and the possibility of a septic system. Mr. Smyser replied a septic system was not a good solution and he was not sure about the MUSA requirements. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Joel Voelker, 7273 Stagecoach Trail, stated the whole purpose of subdividing lot was for economic reasons, and if the home proposed was of modest means that met the criteria of the neighborhood and was not obtrusive, then a variance should be allowed. He stated he understood there were a lot of non - conforming lots in that area and he did not understand why the policy was not set a long time ago. He asked when the area would be served by MUSA. He stated as far as he could tell, this area would always be served by the City of Blaine. He asked about the history of the lots being split. Chair Schaps replied that many years ago, the standards for lots were not the same and this had been changed over the ssm> . He stated the reason they had Ordinances was to enforce them. Mr. Voelker stated he understood the need for followi e gffhe thought about splitting the lot, he did not realize th _ r he did not realize it was short until the survey was pre system on the property, would not be a sellab :: item as a find a way to finance the sewer and water. Ord � - ., but when he originally was s . "rt by less than 10 feet, and He stated for him to put in a septic der. He stated he would have to Mr. Smyser stated this area was zone a and i R -1 new lots could not be created, unless serviced by sewer and water. Mr. Corson asked if this wa about the MUSA require sewer and water hook -u nt for MUSA. Mr. Smyser stated he was not sure Ordinance did not allow this area to be built without Ms. Lane stated she did not hav a problem with this variance, if utilities were available. Mr. Corson stated he did not have a problem with the variances, but did have a problem with the City of Blaine servicing the utilities. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the variance for 7080 Sunset Avenue Minor Subdivision contingent on the assurance there would be utility services available, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. MOTION FAILED. 3 -4 (Corson, Hyden, Schaps, and Zych). Mr. Corson made a MOTION for denying the variance based on the fact that they were not following the procedure in the MUSA requirements, and there would be no utility service by the City of Lino Lakes. Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that there was a similar situation addressed a couple of months ago and that request was granted and therefore, he was uncomfortable with denying this request. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 4 The Planning and Zoning Commission could not reach a consensus on this issue and it was decided after discussion to bring this to the City Council for their decision. B. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining this item involved two variances: a pool setback from a road and the height of a fence along a neighbor's front yard. At the July P & Z meeting, this item was tabled and directed back to staff to communicate the applicants to determine the potential to move the pool and have the City bear the cost. Staff presented a brief summary of the facts presented at the July P & Z meeting. Staff presented its analysis of the variance by explaining City staff and the applicants had been in communication about the costs of the suggested action. Applicant had sent a draft of proposed costs. The total cost estimate was $9,154.00. Due to this being a draft estimate, it was subject to change. Staff indicated the largest single line item was the pool itself. Applicant noted that disassembling the pool would void the lifetime warranty, so a completely new pool was necessary if it was to be moved. Staff stated they would need to confirm the cost estimates w . s determining if anything would be re -used without affecting applicant's warran additi' ®•the pool itself, there were other costs such as earthmoving and landscaping th have to, e considered and compared. Staff originally recommended to grant the van n' # the ol, but not for the six -foot fence surrounding the pool. Staff recommended moving the p g the p icular situation they had in this instance. Chair Schaps asked if the Ci with the funding for the the Council for their thoug iven any recommendation regarding the assistance poe "` Ms. Smyser replied this had -not yet been brought to Mr. Corson asked if the fence is was primarily a visibility issue. Mr. Smyser replied it was an aesthetics issue, and it was the City's policy to not fence in front yards with six -foot fences. Mr. Corson asked if there was a safety issue. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know if this would be a safety issue or not. There was a potential safety issue, but not a serious one. Mr. Corson asked about safety regarding access into the pool. Mr. Smyser replied the City Ordinances did not require a six -foot fence around a pool. The Ordinance only required a four - foot fence around a pool. Mr. Rafferty indicated he still did not like this situation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board had asked for recommendations and he did not see the recommendations. He indicated there was no reason a pool should be in a front yard. He stated if the City made a mistake, the pool should be moved. He stated the fence was not the main issue. He noted the best solution Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 5 was to send this forward to the City Council. He indicated he wanted the pool to be moved farther than just the minimum distance in order to be in compliance with the City Ordinances. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, stated the pool was erected in a location that was approved by the City and they had followed all of the City's Ordinances as it had been told to them. Mr. Schaps asked if they had investigated the Ordinances regarding the location of the pool and fence. Mr. Ramsay replied they had not investigated this and they had assumed a six -foot fence was okay. Mr. Ramsay stated the estimates he had received were verbal estimates, but if necessary, he would get formal, written estimates. Chair Schaps asked who had informed him that his lifetime warranty would be voided if the pool was moved. Mr. Ramsay replied he believed the lifetime warranty would be voided, but he had not actually received verification from the dealer regarding thi : owever, as he understood it, the pool liner would have to be replaced. Mr. Ramsay replied the reason they wanted a six -foot _Abe pool. He stated most residents of the Quail Ridge • lop six -foot fence. He indicated he did not care where the him more money to move it, when this had o inally be place. He indicated if he had been informed have been located where it was. was it.. a itional safety around the ent did ot have a problem with a was located as long as it did not cost roved by the City in the first Ordinance, they pool would not Mr. Zych asked why they had ori pool where it presently was Mr. Ramsay stated this was a relatively level are d they had always intended on putting a six- foot fence around the pool. Mr. Zych asked if he ha•6. Y � _ht ab • t his neighbor having to look out of his front window and seeing his pool. Mr. Ramsay ed ere was a crab apple tree that blocked the neighbor's view. Mr. Zych asked if it was appropriate for his neighbors to have to look at a six -foot fence in their front yard. Mr. Ramsay stated the six -foot fence would be in his back yard and he had received all of the appropriate approval to put the pool at the location where it was from the City. He stated he believed he had been following all of the rules of the City by obtaining the appropriate permit and permission. He indicated it was not up to him to decide if the location of the pool was an appropriate location because the City would not let him put the pool where he had originally wanted to put it. Mr. Lyden stated the City had made a mistake and the answer was to move the pool. The cost of moving the pool was a secondary issue with the main issue being to do the right thing, and the right thing was to move the pool. He stated he had a concern regarding the pool and its impact on the neighborhood. He indicated the most important thing about the neighborhood was the neighbors. He asked that applicant allow the City to rectify the issue. He apologized for all of the problems the City had caused. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 6 Chair Schaps asked if any portion of the fence could be six foot. Mr. Smyser replied it could be six -foot up until the 30 foot set -back line, and then it had to drop down to 4 feet. Chair Schaps asked why a six -foot fence was so much better than a four -foot fence. Mr. Ramsay stated children could more easily climb a four -foot fence, and a six -foot fence would be more protection. Chair Schaps replied that the main issue was that the pool had to be well supervised, and it did not matter what type of fence was placed around it. Mr. Corson asked about placing a net over the pool to keep children out. Mr. Smyser replied that would be less obstructive. Mr. Ramsey replied they had not considered that option, but he did not have any objection to it. Ms. Lane stated she would like to see the pool moved to the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser replied the problem was the grading the are if it was moved to the other corner. He stated this would have to be something the City Engineer woul ,shave to look at. He indicated he could not make a recommendation to spend the City's mone � move the pool and this would have to be a Council decision. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Road, agreed th they should not have to addressing. He indicated the He presented pictures of where the pool pres the pool was an appropriate location for a poo an 4`rtunate situation and one concern was the placement of the pool. pect to his property. He asked if Chair Schaps asked if he understood Mr. Ranallo indicated he did have the Ramsay's back yard, but he did R: `a say had a right to have a pool in his backyard. g, and did not have an issue with a pool in cation of where the pool was. Ken , 6654 Ruff pool was literally in the pool in his backyard, it shoul corrected. The bottom line was ted his home was across the street and indicated the yard and while he realized Mr. Ramsay had the right to a ved. If an error was made by the City, the error had to be t the pool was in the wrong spot. He asked if the City had any strict requirements for pools, as they had for decks. Mr. Smyser clarified building permit applications for decks did require drawings because that was part of the State Building Code, but there was no such requirement for pools, so the City did not require the same level of detail as would be required for decks, but this would not be a bad idea to consider. Mr. Rafferty stated this was a difficult situation and he did not believe there was enough information to even go forward to the City Council, and he requested that all of the information be verified in writing. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court request for variance, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny the variance to put a six -foot fence in the rear yard within the set -back, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that the recommendations were not clear and the costs had not been verified. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION that the pool be moved and the City pay the reasonable cost of moving the pool, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Ms. Lane stated she would not support this if the pool was only moved a short distance. Mr. Zych agreed and stated the pool should not be visible from the street and not be located in the neighbor's front yard. Chair Schaps asked that in the future, applicants be made aware of the City Ordinances, so errors are not made like this again. Mr. Ramsay asked what the permit fee was for, if the applicant had to investigate the Ordinances themselves. Chair Schaps stated the fee was simply an administrative fee. Mr. Corson stated the City might want to consider putting a hlet together to hand out with permits outlining the Ordinances. Mr. Lyden suggested a a of Fty article be placed in a newsletter distributed to the citizens. the Motion made by Mr. Lyden and seconded by Mr., on above was withdrawn and the following recommendation was made: The p'.1 be mov the City pay the reasonable and verifiable cost of moving the pool, with the po rabl y . e moved to the farthest comer of the y lot. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. September Meetin D ha Staff stated the date of the #tembe ' lanning and Zoning Board Meeting had been changed from Wednesday, September o gip' esday, September 11, 2001 due to various staff members attending annual conferences tha`` ' eek and their unavailability to attend a September 12, 2001 meeting. The meeting date change would be posted on the front door of City Hall, in the Quad Community Press, and on local government cable channel 16. B. Recommendation from Environmental Board for moratorium on new development Staff presented the Lino Lakes Environmental Board's recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year. This was in response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council. The Environmental Board adopted the recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Staff indicated they were not recommending the adoption of such an Ordinance at this time. While an interim Ordinance was an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the implications of such an Ordinance would need to be fully Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 8 identified. An all- encompassing prohibition of development as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. Staff reviewed the steps that should be undertaken prior to consideration of an interim Ordinance. By addressing such steps, the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. Staff also presented the 2001 Environmental Board goals and stated the City Council would be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They would also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. Mr. Lyden asked how many homes had been built this year. Mr. Grochala replied he was not sure, but they would check that out and have that information available at a future discussion. C. Packet Delivery Mr. Rafferty stated he had brought this issue up previously an + made a previous recommendation about the packets being delivered in a mor . ��� ely fashion. He stated the current deadline of Friday did not give the P & Z Board memb ` Py= dequate time to review the information. He stated he believed part of his job of b l a boar giber was having adequate time to review the packet thoroughly. He recomme R ,- d hng a minimum of 168 hours to review the packet of information, which would give " "r' • and members one week to review everything and make informed decision. He ted he di • k � • ty • elieve this was an impossible request. Mr. Grochala replied at this point he of pre'. ed to make a recommendation for a change. He stated the City staff was conti w ly s ding o ttpackets for various meetings. He stated one of the things they were working on the information was complete in the packets. He stated by the time the pa to ` P & Z Board, most of the developments had already been through the other B • g `ds and '�r j d State Agencies, and what frequently happened was that all of that informs get back to the City in a timely fashion. He indicated a large range of issues needed t a essed for each packet. He stated this did not mean things could not be modified, but at the esent time, he could not recommend any change at the present time. Mr. Zych asked what the time -frame was in the city that Mr. Grochala was previously at. Mr. Grochala stated it was pretty much the same time -frame as the City of Lino Lakes had. Mr. Zych asked if the information could be e- mailed. Mr. Smyser stated the problem was that the drawings /diagrams could not be sent by e-mail. Mr. Rafferty stated the client in this case was the taxpayers and it was not acceptable that they could not get the packet done sooner. He stated he understood there was a lot of work to get the packets done, and a lot of paper pushing, but these were important issues and he needed to be adequately informed to make intelligent decisions. He stated he owed it to the citizens to be adequately informed. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Grochala indicated he agreed these were important issues, and the City wanted to make sure the packets went out accurately with all of the available information in them and not be rushed to send out inaccurate packets. Mr. Rafferty stated he was not asking for a complete packet, but he was requesting some brief information about what was coming up for future meetings. Mr. Zych requested an abbreviated agenda be sent by e-mail that would give information on what was going through so the Board members could review the site, if necessary. Mr. Grochala stated if that was the issue, a brief summary of the agenda could be sent to the members. Chair Schaps suggested Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Grochala come up with a one -page agenda sheet that could adequately address Mr. Rafferty's concern and e-mail it to the Board members. Mr. Lyden stated he understood Mr. Rafferty's concerns and any advance notice they could receive would be very helpful. He stated he would like to see having a contact phone number of the applicant or other involved parties on those agenda items . - Ok, VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting . 42; .m., and-was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secr TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.