Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/29/2006 Env Bd Packet
City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting November 29, 2006 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 2, 2006 - October 4, 2006 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS -- -THERE ARE NO ACTION ITEMS 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Stream Health Monitoring Program (SHEP) B. Environmental Board Goals C. EAW Discussion /Number of Responses D. Environmental Board Members E. Peltier Island Management Activities F. Earth Day 7. ADJOURN • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 CITY OF LINO LAKES DRAFT MINUTES DATE : August 2, 2006 TIME STARTED : 6:35P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Constance Grundhofer, Mary Jo O'Dea, Martha DeHaven, Jeff McDowell, Sarah Norman and Barbara Bor MEMBERS ABSENT : Kimberly Brouillet STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 28, 2006 Page 3, paragraph before C should read: follow up summary to council not follow up letter to council. Delete last sentence. Ms. Norman made a motion to approve the June 28, 2006 meeting minutes with changes. Ms. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Action Item 5A — Comforts of Home - Deleted Mr. Asleson added Visioning Update in place of 6D other updates. Ms. Grundhofer made a motion to approve agenda as amended. Mr. McDowell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. OPEN MIKE Opened at 6:39 p.m. and closed at 6:39 p.m. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Comforts of Home — Taken off Agenda B. Golden Acres 1 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 Mr. Asleson presented his staff report on Golden Acres which is a preliminary plat proposed for rezone. The following are the recommendations by the Board: 1. Add standard language: no importing or exporting of soils without city approval 2. City approval of plantings in rain garden swale areas. Ms. Norman made a motion to approve with staff and Board recommendations. Ms. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Storm Water Utility Mr. Grochala explained that due to the implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements the City's maintenance activities are increasing substantially. As a result the cost of maintaining the City's storm water system is also increasing. In order to address the increased cost for these activities the City Council retained the services of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to identify and evaluate potential funding options. Mr. Grochala stated that, in general, the NPDES Phase II program established minimum control measures to insure that systems are adequately maintained. He added that current property tax dollars are not sufficient to meet the increasing demands. Mr. Grochala reviewed the six NPDES minimum control measures that the City must comply with. He noted that Minimum Control Measure No. 6 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping has a significant impact on the City. This measure, in part, requires the city to inspect 20% of its stormwater system annually and correct any deficiencies found. Mr. Grochala explained that the report prepared by SEH identified two main funding sources; Property Taxes or establishment of a Storm Water Utility. The report concluded that the most equitable funding source for stormwater maintenance is through the establishment of a Stormwater Utility. Mr. Grochala noted that under a stormwater plan all properties, including tax exempt properties, contribute to system maintenance. The system is based on a users pay philosophy. Under the stormwater utility, properties that contribute 2 DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 more stormwater to the system pay more. This method differs from general property tax levies which impact properties based on valuation. Ms. O'Dea questioned whether the Environmental Board should be doing more to address stormwater issues with new development. Mr. Grochala responded that from a new development standpoint the Environmental Board and the City in turn have been doing an excellent job of managing improvements to the system and incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP's) to the extent possible. The issue at this time is funding for ongoing maintenance activities. Mr. Andy Lambertson, SEH Inc., provided the board with additional information related to establishing a dedicated stormwater management funding source. Mr. Lambertson stated that storm water costs are no longer incidental. The City is now required by MPCA to meet certain standards. Mr. Grochala provided examples of stormwater related issues that had to be addressed this year but lacked funding. These issues included a $17,000 storm line repair that was not budgeted, replacement of a culvert on Rondeau Lake Road at a cost of $18,000; and another culvert on Wood Duck Drive and that will add another $20,000 of unbudgeted storm water costs this year. Mr. Lambertson provided the board with an overview of the City's Stormwater Management system. He stated that the entire community benefits from good storm water management. Storm water management minimizes property damage from flooding and erosion and maintains transportation corridors, protects our rivers and lakes, manages our maintenance costs and it's the law! Mr. Lambertson stated that the City has a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that meets the NPDES requirements. He also reviewed the six minimum control measures which include; 1) Public education and outreach; 2) public participation and involvement; 3) illicit discharge detection and elimination; 4) construction site run off control; 5) post construction run off control for new development and redevelopment; and 6) pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations. Mr. Lambertson went over funding of storm water management with a storm water utility. The report reviewed financing alternatives: 1. Special Assessments. 2. Impact Fees 3. Grants 4. Special Tax Districts. 5. General funds /Ad Valorem 6. Storm Water Utility. Mr. Lambertson thinks storm water utility is the most fair because it is based on runoff not property value. The Storm Water Utility is by far the most fair. 1. Everyone pays. 2. Charges are based on runoff, not property value. 3. Land use intensity of development. 4. Engineering sound "Equivalent Hydraulic Area ". 5. "Users Pay" philosophy. The more runoff user contributes the more they should pay. 3 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 Mr. Grochala stated that staff would continue to review and examine costs regarding stormwater management and would put together addition public information documents. B. Blue Heron Days Blue Heron Days is scheduled to take place on August 19. Ms. Brouillet and Ms. Norman will design a sign for the cart. Mr. Asleson stated that the shirts have been ordered for everyone. Ms. Bor will measure cart and email size to designers. It was suggested that the sign for the parade should only have five words. Ms. O'Dea suggested that everyone check the Blue Heron Day web site to find out where the Environmental Board should meet and set up for the parade. Mr. Asleson said he will bring the t -shirts and garbage bags. Ms. DeHaven will bring a decorative bug for the float. Mr. Asleson suggested tabling the garden club for now. He also suggested putting an advertisement in the local paper for a specific time and date to determine interest. C. Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program The Volunteer Stream Monitoring Program was discussed. This involves Friends of the Mississippi Grant and covers Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek and Clearwater Creek. There are volunteer training sessions regarding biologic monitoring of creeks, general health and creek analysis. D. Other Updates — Mike Grochala Mr. Grochala gave background of the upcoming Visioning Process. He also stated that the Comp Plan amendment processing updates will begin shortly after the Visioning Process. Ms. Bor asked for the timeline for the Comp Plan. Mr. Grochala stated it is planned to have it to the Met Council by the end of 2007. E. Other Updates — Marty Asleson Mr. Asleson gave updates on Emerald Ash Bor Disease and how it will affect the Ash Trees in Minnesota. The disease started in Detroit where it came off the pallets from ships on the waterway. If we want to save the Ash trees we need to come up with a plan now. One way to save the trees is to start injecting them immediately. However, there is no funding available. 7. ADJOURN 4 DRAFT MINUTES • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on August 30, 2006. There being no further business, Ms. DeHaven has moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Ms. Bor seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Lisa Hogstad Community Development Secretary 5 DRAFT MINUTES • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE : October 4, 2006 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Constance Grundhofer, Mary Jo O'Dea, Martha DeHaven, Kimberly Brouillet, Sarah Norman and Barbara Bor MEMBERS ABSENT : Jeff McDowell STAFF PRESENT : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes to approve. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Under Discussion Items add D. Attendance. Approval of agenda as amended. Motion by Ms. Grundhofer to amend. Motion seconded by Ms. Brouillet. Motion Carried. 4. OPEN MIKE Opened at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Youngbauer requested time to speak on EAW. Ms. O'Dea stated that a good time to speak would be at the end of the EAW review. Ms. O'Dea asked if there were other issues. Tere O'Connell suggested looking at other sources of energy, such as wind turbines, solar energy or something along that nature. Open Mike closed at 6:40 p.m. 1 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Natures Preserve/EAW Mr. Smyser, City Planner, explained the process for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Mr. Smyser has the primary responsibility of reviewing this process. Nature's Refuge is the name of proposed conservation development. There has been no project application filed with the city. After discussion by this board the EAW will be revised and then presented to the city council. If the EAW is passed by the council there will be a public comment time period that will last 30 days. The EAW form is designed by the Environmental Review rules and the city does not have any say what is on the form. Ms. O'Dea asked if the Environmental Board would review the comments before going back to the city council. He said once we get the comments back from the council and public comments the document will be brought back to the Environmental Board. Ms. O'Dea asked if the neighbors in the neighborhood receive a copy or do they need to request it. Mr. Smyser stated they need to request. Ms. Bor asked about the percentage of units of government who actually respond after reviewing the EAW. Mr. Smyser stated typically there will be a comment from Fish & Wildlife, Rice Creek Watershed District, DNR and a few others out of about 25 departments. Ms. Bor asked if Mr. Smyser thought we would get 25% response. Mr. Smyser stated maybe. Mr. Smyser gave EAW presentation. Ms. O'Dea began the review with the board. Ms. O'Dea suggested going paragraph by paragraph. Page 2, Description Ms. Bor asked if the 132 conservation acres area is a collective area. Mr. Husveth said that it is all connected. The largest area is 70 acres. Ms. Bor suggested making it more descriptive or a little clearer so it is not just a big lump. Site Description Ms. Grundhofer asked if the NE portion of the sight had been previously platted. Mr. Smyser noted that the northern 80 acres were platted back in the 1970's or 1980's. The plat was recorded but nothing was ever built. Ms. Grundhofer asked if we can add a sentence stating this. Mr. Smyser said it was previously platted as R -1 and now proposed PUD. 180 acres are now R -1 and 60 acres guided to be residential. Ms. Grundhofer suggested making the last sentence clarifying the platting procedure. 2 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Page 3, first paragraph, second sentence. It was asked if the large wetland complex is a variety or one type of wetland. Mr. Husveth said several. First paragraph, last sentence. Ms. Grundhofer asked if the drainage will stay the same or be removed. Mr. Asleson stated as far as he knows the drainage will stay the same. Mr. Husveth stated the hydrology will be the same. Last paragraph, third line down. Ms. Bor asked if this project could begin late 2006 as the EAW states. Mr. Smyser stated this could be possible. Page 4, first sentence. Ms. O'Dea asked Mr. Asleson if the Environmental Board needs to comment now. Mr. Asleson said not yet. Mr. Smyser stated we could add city approved imported soil to EAW. Ms. Bor asked how we will know if we are getting the right fill. Mr. Asleson stated that the site is being checked all the time. Ms. Grundhofer asked if someone could explain a ribbon curb. Mr. Smyser explained that the street is raised only a little bit to let water run over the curb to the infiltration and other natural elements. Ms. O'Dea asked where this type of curb would be and if it would be on the map. Mr. Smyser stated that specific locations are not in the plan as of yet. Wetland Impacts Ms. Grundhofer asked if we can have a percentage of lots to be filled. Mr. Husveth stated that we have the ability to do this. Ms. O'Dea wants it to be made clear as to which lots stay and which lots go. Conservation Development Phase Typo, change to read 150 not 1550. Page 6, Permits and approvals required Ms. O'Dea asked if the developer needs approval from the archeological people. Mr. Smyser stated if anything were to be found on the site they may have to work with the Historical Society. Mr. Smyser stated that so far there has been nothing noted on the site. Page 7, first paragraph. Ms. O'Dea stated that a school property located SE of proposed development should be • referenced in this paragraph. 3 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Cover Types Ms. Norman asked if the landscape plan has been prepared. Mr. Smyser stated that part of the landscape plat, grading plan, etc. have not been created as of this time. Existing Resources, last paragraph. Ms. Grundhofer stated that the last sentence refers to 23 sites of wetland. We would like percentage of wetlands. Mr. Husveth stated yes, we could give percent or acreage. Ms. Grundhofer would like to state that the habitat is very important. Page 8, sixth line down. Ms. O'Dea asked that the wording be changed from disrupt hinder to disrupt and hinder. Mr. Husveth stated yes. Page 10, third paragraph. Ms. O'Dea wants to be given a specific area that may be conducive to the Blanding's turtle. Mr. Husveth does not have information provided to him as of yet. Ms. Bor asked if neighbors were interviewed as to sightings of the Blanding's turtle. Mr. Husveth received a letter last year from Raymond Stadum. Ms. Bor wants to know where the turtles travel and where would they lay their eggs. Ms. Bor read Raymond Stadum's letter. Ms. Bor wanted to know if we could highlight the area where the turtle's were spotted. Mr. Husveth said there is a process for getting reliable and credible documentation. Mr. Husveth has spent hundreds of hours on the site over the past years. He has not seen a Blanding's turtle on the site, however if he had he would be very excited about it. If we want to add more detail about the turtles, we need letters that have facts and locations. Ms. O'Dea said we should get the information in the EAW. Mr. Husveth agreed. Last paragraph Add information about the Blanding's turtles in the homeowners association. Page 12, top, second set of bullets. Ms. O'Dea asked if we identify where the roadway section would be. Mr. Smyser stated the roadways have not been designed as of yet nor the holding ponds. Ms. Grundhofer wanted to know if the salt from roadway plowing will cause a problem for wetlands. Mr. Grochala stated the water quality and storm water infiltration issue will address those issues. Mr. Husveth stated they will use plants that are more salt tolerant. 4 DRAFT MINUTES • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Page 14, second sentence Ms. Norman stated we should give examples of the best management. Mr. Asleson stated he would add examples of erosion issues, seeding, sand, etc. Page 16, last paragraph Ms. O'Dea asked if we need to add truck washing areas. Mr. Asleson asked Mr. Husveth to add this. Page 19, second paragraph Ms. O'Dea wants paragraph to state: if these things do not occur than the impact will be... Ms. Brouillet wanted to know what happens when contractors are not following the noise ordinance as it pertains to construction. Mr. Grochala stated the noise ordinance is part of the city code. Ms. O'Dea suggested changing wording in EAW to state city code not city practice. Mr. Grochala stated this is the city's standard practice. Ms. Brouillet asked if the police can enforce this ordinance. Mr. Smyser answered yes the police can enforce this. Page 21, top of page Ms. O'Dea wants to add the following: Construction will be limited to hours referenced on page 19. Mr. Asleson stated this could be added. Page 22, last paragraph, third line down Ms. Grundhofer would like the percentage of acreage added. Page 24, Wetland Impacts Ms. Grundhofer wants to designate where wetland impacts will be. Mr. Husveth stated it will be added. Second paragraph, last sentence Ms. O'Dea asked if mitigation needs be specified. Mr. Husveth stated not at this point. Rare Species Impacts It was asked if the Blanding's turtles could be identified under this section. 5 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Page 25, Traffic and Air Quality Ms. Bor asked to add something regarding noise and pollution to the school. Anoka County Site map Ms. Grundhofer asked if there is someway to show residential around this development. Mr. Husveth stated the map was made to show wetlands. Mr. Husveth stated we could show more detail on map and will. Ms. Grundhofer stated the DNR letter references an attachment that was not included with EAW. 4.0 Traffic Analysis Ms. O'Dea wanted Traffic Analysis above bullet points to read in our opinion..... Mr. Smyser stated the analysis is the developer's report and we cannot change. Ms. O'Dea asked if we can identify the document as being created by the developer as it is not clear who this traffic opinion has been done by. Mr. Smyser stated something will be done. There are no further comments of the document by the board. RESIDENT - Carol Featherstone of 631 Andall Street, Lino Lakes. Ms. Featherstone stated she was notified about this meeting by a neighbor. She stated she has trees marked and it is very important to her and irritates her when she has to come to the meeting to find out what is going on. Ms. Featherstone stated she feels that the city is trying to pass things by. Ms. Featherstone addressed Page 17 of EAW which indicates roads. She wants to know where they will be located. Mr. Smyser stated the proposed road would utilize Wood Duck Trail for access. The property owners were contacted. The homeowners said they were not interested in making a road on Wood Duck Trail. Mr. Grochala said Wood Duck is essentially a collector street. Rather than taking a road out onto Cty Rd 14 there would be a connection to Wood Duck Drive. However, it has already been developed. The site as proposed does not have a section going to Wood Duck Trail. There are access points going over north of Andall Out Lot. Mr. Smyser explained this and showed on screen. The developer is working with school for a full access. There is a right of way on Andall Street. That was the original plan back when Andall Street was platted. So as of this time Andall is not a full access street. Ms. Brouillet asked if School says no they would not be interested in a full access could Andall Street still be used. Mr. Grochala stated it is not really a possibility and very unlikely. People would not be willing to drive north to go south. 6 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Mr. Grochala stated that there will be notification going out on this in the future. The EAW will be available on CD, hard copy for a fee, on the internet and in our library here. This is still a working draft. Property owners will be made aware of the progress during the public comment period. Ms. O'Dea asked if letters will be sent to surrounding residents. Mr. Smyser stated once the process is done and they are ready to begin this will be done. Ms. Bor stated the board is responding to the EAW without a plan. We need to push for as much detail as possible. Once the review has finished it is critical that we are responding to a conceptual change. RESIDENT 2 - Lou Jungbauer, 679Andall Street, Lino Lakes Mr. Jungbauer stated that listening to ladies (board members) tonight he is stunned and very impressed. I ask that you reject this project and if the project goes ahead I will be a team player because you have shown that you will listen to the people. Mr. Jungbauer Lou went over his handout. Mr. Jungbauer asked if we have open space left. Mr. Grochala noted 3,500 acres of Regional Park. Mr. Grochala noted the city survey was not positive towards the purchasing of open space. Mr. Jungbauer went over his sheet on the city survey. Mr. Jungbauer talked about a proposed development called Robinson Sod Farms. Mr. Jungbauer stated he did not realize the EAW was a working draft. Ms. O'Dea questioned Robinson Sod Farm development. Mr. Grochala stated there will be a presentation to council regarding looking at Robinson Sod Farms as part of the comp plan update. The Robinson Sod Farm is planned and guided for development. After the 2030 visioning process is done, the city will be begin the comp plan update. Ms. O'Dea asked if you want to have a full document of what is out there and the full impact why not mention it. Mr. Grochala stated the process is not to begin anytime soon. The EAW is not an approval of a development. This is a document we are presenting. This is an issue raising development. We have not gotten into a development review of how everything works, letter of credit, final design, etc. Ms. DeHaven stated she does not want a traffic problem like Eagle Brook or worse. Mr. Grochala stated that things will get worse over the next year. Hopefully next year the 3 5 W interchange will be started. 7 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 Ms. Brouillet asked who the EAW was developed through. Mr. Smyser stated the developer submits data and then it becomes the city's document. The city is responsible for what is in that document. The current EAW is the 2nd or 3rd version that he has revised. Mr. Smyser stated he takes the EAW process very seriously and it is a complete and accurate document. We do not have people available on staff to put together this kind of document. The city checks it and say's it is okay. Under the law, the EAW is the city's document. Ms. Bor asked Mr. Carlson about the intensity of number of units vs. rural executive lots. She asked why Mr. Carlson would choose high intensity. Mr. Carlson stated this development process goes back 3 -5 yrs. He has looked at this development in different directions. Mr. Carlson has hired professions to come in and make decisions for them. Economics do not enter in at this time. The conservation development is the result of a lot of meetings. Personally economics are not working out like Mr. Carlson would like it to. The property has been cut and dissected . Ms. Bor asked about making a more concentrated design with the same area. Make bigger lots, less number of units. Mr. Carlson stated he has lost 70 lots so far going with a conservation development. Mr. Husveth stated that every lot that is lost is not just about making money but going to maintaining and restoring the land. 270 lots are the tipping point on this development. Mr. Smyser mentioned the open space plan. How do we get done what we want to get done? Having no growth does not save the environment. We need to pick the areas in the city that are really great to restore and maintain high value ecological spots. When we have a developer in one of these areas, we at the city work with them. Mr. Asieson stated that this site is the highest value area in Lino Lakes. RESIDENT 3 - Tere O'Connell, 1000 Main Street, Lino Lakes: The development craze has gone down. Ms. O'Connell stated she is worried that homes will not be able to sell, everything will get changed or the land will be sold to someone else who does not have to follow the EAW. How does this EAW prevent that from happening. Mr. Smyser stated the EAW is not approving a development project. It does not say how a project is going to be laid out; The EAW has a lot of important information that tells us potential environmental impact of the project. Then when the actual project application is reviewed and approved it must be built as approved. If something is significantly different then the law says a new EAW has to be done. Ms. Brouillet asked if Mr. Carlson owns the land or has option agreements. Mr. Carlson stated the land is under control in different agreements and it includes the EAW. They 8 DRAFT MINUTES • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 have gone through long hard hours of work to be here. Mr. Carlson stated the development will be done in phases or increments. The conservation part of this development will be done up front no matter when the other phases develop. Ms. O'Connell wanted to know once they start can the other developers pull out. The answer is no. Mr. O'Dea asked for a motion that would approve the changes and comments added to EAW. Motion by Brouillet and second by DeHaven to pass along to city council. Motion passed unanimously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Blue Heron Days/Earth Day/Recycle Day Earth Day will not be able to be held next year due to future road construction. There will not be an entrance. Marty Asleson suggested Earth Day to be canceled and resume the following year. Ms. O'Dea agreed that it would be a good idea to resume the following year. Recycling Day will be held Saturday, October 7, 2006. Next year recycling day may have to be reduced from a spring and fall recycling day to only a spring recycling. Mr. Asleson noted the spring recycling is usually very busy and fall recycling is usually very slow. We generally charge what it costs to have materials recycled. We are committed to having at least one recycling day a year . Ms. Bor commented on what recycling day symbolizes to a community and the importance of having two recycling days. Ms. Bor stated that she is more than willing to waive her meeting stipend and put it toward recycle day. Ms. Bor also asked how we communicate recycling day to the public. Can we look for sponsors within our own community? This question was tabled until the next meeting. B. Fall Restoration Projects Mr. Asleson stated Stoneybrook restoration will be this fall and Foxborough will either be this fall or next spring. 9 DRAFT MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2006 C. Resource Management Planning Update Mr. Asleson and Mr. Husveth had a meeting with Rice Creek Watershed District to review the goals of Lino Lakes. Mr. Asleson handed out a letter to the board members from Emmons & Oliver Resources. Mr. Husveth went over a portion of the document that was handed out. He noted the area between the Chain of Lakes, the Robinson land and Behm's as well as Nature's Refuge. Ms. O'Dea asked if we could put this Discussion Item on our next agenda so the board will have a chance to review the handout. Ms. Bor asked if this fits into the storm water management plan and is to be combined with the land use plan. Mr. Grochala stated the whole area has been modified through the Regional Park to add more open space. D. Attendance Discussion It was noted that Jeff McDowell has not been in attendance for quite some time. The board was told by Mr. Grochala that he will be resigning. The board agreed that we need to advertise for the open spot on the board as soon as possible. 7. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on October 25, 2006. There being no further business, Ms. Bor has moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. Ms. DeHaven seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Lisa Hogstad Community Development Secretary 10 DRAFT MINUTES • • • = Project Location and Property Boundaries Delineated Wetland Locations 1 With Wetland ID Number Kjolhaug Env. Services Co, Inc. 0 500 Feet d October 8,2906 ee4. f',iticat Connections Ecological Services, Inc. 41)attwe, Trrl N. it: 651.4)3.443C • op an 54int (mil, ft 162.433.4534 1,1anasata, 59041 r iafatVatitsi.tra State Listed Plant Species Locations (2005 Field Survey GPS Data - CCES, Inc.) cj Flmbristylis autumnalis (Special Concern) • Polygala cruciata (Endangered) e Rotala ramosior (Threatened) e Scirpus clintonii (Special Concern) ® Viola lanceolate (Threatened) Blanding's Turtle Documented Location MN DNR Natural Heritage Database T32N R22W SE Section 5 j1992) Blanding's Turtle Observation Location Report from Local Resident Raymond Stadum (1990) Delineated Wetlands and Rare Plant and Animal Species Locations Nature's Refuge Conservation Development Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Figure 3 AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: November 29, 2006 TOPIC: Stream Health Monitoring Program BACKGROUND: I have attached past correspondence I have had with FMR concerning the SHEP. Included is : • List of partners • Proposal • Budget • Multi- metric, IBI based Citizen monitering This summer the citizen volunteers were trained. The volunteers also performed sampling on three waterways within the RCWD. Data from the sampling has not been summerised as of yet. Gary Averback, group leader lives in Lino Lakes and will update you on summarized data if it is available. Otherwise, Barbara Bor and Terri O'Connell have been asked to update you on their involvement and experience in this program. OPTIONS: NA RECOMMENDATION: As per Environmental Board • Friends of the Mississippi River 2005 Proposal to the Minnesota Community Foundation Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) is the leading citizen -based organization working to protect and enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities area. We strive to create positive changes that improve water quality, provide habitat for wildlife, create education and recreation opportunities, and inspire widespread commitment to this natural wonder that flows through our community. We act as a "voice for the river" in the area's most important decision - making forums and work to build bridges between the many citizens, municipalities, and other constituents who have a stake in the river. FMR also vigilantly assesses current and emerging river issues, initiating and leading partners in programs where our work is needed most. Throughout our activities, we emphasize active community engagement as the key to protecting the river and its watershed. FMR has a strong record of providing excellent educational programming as well as working with volunteers on river and watershed protection activities. In the past year, over 1,200 people participated in FMR's educational offerings and volunteers provided over 10,000 hours of service for the river. Effectively engaging citizens through local monitoring efforts is one way FMR is creating positive change for the Mississippi River. As our state struggles to assess, protect and improve our valuable water resources within the context of limited government resources, citizen volunteer monitoring is a cost - effective method of citizen engagement and data acquisition. Indeed, citizen volunteer monitoring of streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes provides meaningful data, generates individual and community awareness and can informs local and state decision makers on the health of local water resources. We as Minnesotans are blessed with magnificent and abundant water resources. Passing on these resources to our children means protecting the health of these waters. This is done through knowledge and commitment. Citizen volunteer monitoring provides important knowledge as well as engage local individuals as committed stewards of water resources. While there are many excellent monitoring programs throughout the state, we have yet to fully live up to this great potential. Volunteer data often lacks the required scientific rigor, limiting its usefulness and credibility. Policy makers and resource managers, whether due to lack of data reporting or lack of data credibility, rarely use the information collected by volunteers. As a result, citizen volunteers may disengage, feeling their efforts are wasted. We envision a new model. One in which volunteers provide meaningful data, shepherd this data to decision makers and actively engage in improving and protecting the resources they monitor. Over the past 15 years the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been developing new protocols and indices for the biological assessment of streams and wetlands. Due to the fact that aquatic organisms express a range of tolerances to environmental conditions, biological assessment can be a powerful quantitative tool in understanding the health of water resources. While chemical water quality sampling is important, it can only show the quality of the water for a given set of parameters at a given period of time. Biological monitoring, which surveys aquatic organisms that grow, develop and reproduce over time, provides a more complete picture of the ecological health of our waters and is a better predictor of long -term trends. Friends of the Mississippi River Proposal to the Minnesota Community Foundation Page 1 of 3 • • • • • In 1997, in collaboration with local partners, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency scientists developed a citizen wetland monitoring program based upon these bioassessment techniques. The Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) is now an award - winning and nationally recognized program that uses citizen volunteers to monitor the biological health of local wetlands. FMR began managing the WHEP program in Dakota County two years ago. In 2004, we worked with over 100 volunteers who contributed 1,672 hours monitoring local wetlands. We continue to grow the program, adding 40 new Dakota County volunteers in 2005. Building upon our success with the WHEP program, FMR proposes to develop, implement and evaluate a new replicable model for engaging volunteers in a rigorous stream monitoring program in the state of Minnesota. To carry this out, FMR will work in partnership with the following new and existing partners: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA), Anoka Conservation District, the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Anoka County cities within the Rice Creek Watershed. This Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP) will provide scientifically reliable data, effectively engage volunteers and provide meaningful data to decision makers. The Stream Health Evaluation Program, a new national model for water quality assessment: • Monitors both streams and wetlands • Uses research -based multiple index metrics • Professionally trains adult volunteers • Utilizes multiple levels of quality control to ensure quality results • Provides relevant, reliable and usable data to local decision makers • Engages citizens in water resource management and assessment • Encourages protecting water resource health among community members • Promotes partnership between local governments, state agencies and community residents. FMR will recruit two teams of 10 -15 citizen volunteers from the Rice Creek Watershed focusing on cities within Anoka County. Recruitment efforts will include mailings, press releases, FMR's newsletters and face -to -face meetings with lake associations and civic groups. These efforts will serve to promote the SHEP model as well as recruit participants for the project. Participants will be required to go through a rigorous and engaging training session. The trainings will provide volunteers with background information on the biology and ecology of the watershed and how monitoring can inform and enhance the management of water resources. With the assistance of MPCA biologists, the volunteers will be professionally trained in the use of advanced, ecoregion - specific stream monitoring and assessment protocols. The SHEP teams will monitor six to eight sites along Rice Creek and its tributaries. These sites will be chosen for their location upstream or downstream of significant natural resource impacts, such as ditch maintenance and new suburban development, as well as water resource restoration projects. This will allow volunteers to identify and track trends in the ecological health of the stream as land uses change and management /restoration projects are implemented in the Friends of the Mississippi River Proposal to the Minnesota Community Foundation Page 2 of 3 watershed. FMR staff will work closely with the volunteers during monitoring events to ensure protocols are followed and to provide follow -up training as needed. FMR and Anoka Conservation District personnel will provide multiple levels of quality control of the methods employed by the volunteers in the lab and in the field. Once collected data has been quality assured, a final report will be written and a presentation developed that summarizes the monitoring results. These results will be posted on FMR's website with links to and from partner websites. FMR will coordinate with local partners and community organizations to share published results through newsletters, websites and media outreach. FMR will organize volunteers to present the SHEP results to local city councils, the county board and the watershed district board highlighting correlations between their data and land uses within the watershed. These presentations serve as an excellent learning opportunity for elected and public officials. Hearing about water quality issues, concerns and successes directly from citizens will have the greatest impact on how water resources are managed by decision - makers. Volunteers often become even more passionate about the resources they monitor, and they wish to participate in activities that enhance the health of their watershed. Where practical, FMR will assist volunteers with planning and carrying out stewardship projects in the watershed, such as river and pond clean-ups, storm drain stenciling, invasive species removals and native plantings. In order to demonstrate the program's effectiveness and replicability, Dr. Julia Frost Nerbonne of HECUA will design and implement an evaluation of the volunteer monitoring program which will evaluate the following questions: 1. Are the volunteers providing reliable data? 2. Are volunteers feeling engaged in stewardship? 3. Through which channels are monitoring results being communicated to decision - makers? 4. What are the barriers and bridges to effective use of volunteer data in decision - making? We believe that citizen volunteer monitoring can be a powerful agent for positive change in water resource protection. Our vision is to create a model program that will strengthen volunteer monitoring credibility by proactively addressing and rectifying the perceived weaknesses of current volunteer monitoring programs and thereby harness this power to actively engage citizens in water resource enhancement. Based as it is on metrics and protocols developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the various ecoregions of Minnesota, and with a thorough and independent evaluation of the model's effectiveness, the Stream Health Evaluation Program model will be well- suited for use throughout the state once it is established. We have chosen to develop the Stream Health Evaluation Program in partnership with the Anoka Conservation District, the Rice Creek Watershed District and local cities in order to ensure the program's continuation and utility. Our experience in other areas has shown that volunteer monitoring can be a powerful tool for both mobilizing and energizing committed resource advocates and for connecting citizens in a proactive and supportive manner to their local governments in working towards common goals. We anticipate the Rice Creek Watershed District and local cities will provide the annual financial support for the continuation of this program. Friends of the Mississippi River Proposal to the Minnesota Community Foundation Page 3 of 3 • • • • • • Jamie Auua fI [Trevor C (D Jeff Barbara 1Mary 11rene 0 a Dawn Joel 1Marty First Name Sherbon Schaust Russell Rich Perry Liukkonen Karius 0 cD �' Frost - Nerbonne Dubats Chirhart 0 0 Last Name Anoka Conservtion District Hennepin County Environmental Services Friends of the Mississippi River Friends of the Mississippi River Anoka Co. Parks Water Resources Center Minnesota Waters [Friends of the Mississippi River HECUA Rice Creek Watershed District 1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency City of Lino Lakes 1 Organization 763- 434 -2030 x12 612 - 596 -9129 651 - 222 -2193 x18 651 -222 -2193 x14 763 - 767 -2861 612 - 625 -9256 952 - 938 -2564 651 - 222 -2193 x11 651 - 287 -3308 763 - 398 -3078 651 - 296 -7357 763 - 982 -2435 Phone Jamie.Schurbon @anokaswcd.org ,_,. ( 3 `< in o c a. 0 (7 3 3 7 E (0 trussell @fmr.org srich @fmr.org jeff.perry@co.anoka.mn.us = 0 0 © n 3 0 fD = maryk @minnesotawaters.org ijones @fmr.org jnerbonne @hecua.org ddubats @ricecreekwd.com 1. (D 0 3 al P. 0 in rt (D 3 C (I) masleson @ci.Iino- lakes.mn.us Email d9HS Paysaa1eM >laa-0 aai'j • How will success be measured in ways meaningful to citizens, local managers and decision makers? • Is there an education and outreach component to communicate project results to citizens, local managers and • - (Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1 decision makers?, - -1 Deleted:. J • Does the project have transferability statewide, within a multi - county area, or within its basin or to a similar hydrologic settine? 7. How does the proposed project use technically feasible BMPs to abate or prevent non -point source pollution? • How will the project help select the proper BMP or combination of BMPs for the project area? • Will the project develop BMPs for a specific source of non -point source pollution? 8. Is the water of concern of state and regional significance and priority? How so? 9. How does the proposed project maximize water quality protection or improvement relative to the cost of project implementation BUDGET INFORMATION Project Outlay Budget Summary the objectives* (program elements) that will comprise your Please complete the following table by listing project and estimated cost of each element. Funding Types Total Objectives Grant and Local Cash (1) In -kind (2) (1 +2) 1. Volunteer Recruitment/Management $3,500 $500 $4.000 2. Monitoring $7.000 $6,900 $13,900 3. Volunteer Training $2,000 $2.000 $4.000 4. Quality Assurance /Quality Control $3.900 $3.900 5. Program Evaluation $10,000 $10.000 6. Monitoring Equipment/Supplies $1,500 $1.500 7.Administration $2.000 $2,000 8. Food, Printing. Postage, Mileage $3,600 $3.600 Total of Objectives $33,500 $9,400 $42,900 *Objectives address the cost of setting up monitoring stations, collecting monitoring data, reducing the data, installing various kinds of Best Management Practices (BMPs), public education, writing the implementation plan or final report, etc. All the different pieces of your project should be listed here. Please be sure that the costs listed for each objective are realistic. 3 • Deleted: ¶ ¶ ¶ • Deleted: ¶ 11 ¶ ¶ ¶ • • i Project Support Budget: Please complete the following sections for all the sources of grant, match money, and in -kind contributions for your project. The match requirement is fifty percent (50 %) of the total project costs. Cash Amount 319 Non - Implementation Grant amount requested cannot exceed $300,000 for 3 years. Project Sponsors (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Cash Contribution To Project (2) In -kind Contribution To Project (3) Total Project Support (2 +3) A. Project Sponsor Contribution MN Community Foundation Grant $10.000 $10.000 B. Local Contributing Sponsors: 1.Rice Creek Watershed District $500 $500 2.Anoka Countv Parks $ L000 $1.000 $2.000 3.Citv of Lino Lakes $500 $500 4.Volunteers $6.900 $6.900 B. Subtotals; $11.000 $8.900 $19,900 C. State and /or Federal Contributing Sponsors: 5.VSMP (LCMR funding) $1.000 $1.000 6. Rivers Council of MN (LCMR) $1,000 $1,000 7. 8. State and /or Federal Contributing Sponsors Subtotals (not including funds being applied for in this application) ** C. Subtotals $1,000 $1.000 $2.000 SUBTOTAL: All project sponsors (A +B +C) $12.000 $9,900 $21,900 GRAND TOTALS Total Cash $12.000 Total In -kind $9.400 Total Project Cost $42,900 • MPCA staff or resources cannot be used as match. * * This amount cannot be more than 20% of the total project costs. 4 • (Deleted: B. Subtotals: Friends of the Mississippi River Multi - metric IBI based citizen monitoring The Rice Creek Watershed has undergone significant hydrologic alteration. Starting a hundred years ago, lands were tiled and ditched and vast wetlands were drained for agricultural production. In the economic boom following WWII, the southern portion of the watershed was changed again as growing communities replaced farmland with houses and roads. Today, the next wave of development has hit the sod farms of Blaine, the cornfields of Lino Lakes and the pasture land of Hugo. Agricultural ditch systems are being converted for use as stormwater conveyance. Meanwhile, as land prices soar, battles are being waged over ditch maintenance, wetland conservation and ecological protection. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is attempting to manage this transition from agricultural drainage to suburban development, while at the same time address mitigation and restoration of the many impaired waters in the watershed. Recently the RCWD has embarked upon an ambitious plan to restore major ditch systems to natural hydrologic systems that improve ecological health while accommodating suburban stormwater runoff. The first step in this process was the adoption of a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan that seeks to accommodate stormwater conveyance for new development while providing for habitat and water quality improvements within the Anoka County Ditch 53 -62 system, best known as the site of the new Vikings' Stadium. This system drains to impaired waters Golden Lake, Rice Creek and Long Lake. Restoration is also planed for Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 that drains to impaired waters Marshan Lake, Rice Creek and Long Lake as well as for Anoka County Ditch 46 that drains to impaired waters Rice Creek, Peltier Lake, George Watch Lake, Marshan Lake and Long Lake. In some cases, such as Washington County Ditch #2 (JD2), the RCWD faces a difficult balancing act with respect to its obligations regarding drainage and its obligations for natural resource protection. In an effort to balance those two needs, the RCWD recently removed obstructions in JD2 to prevent local flooding while, at the same time, restoring downstream wetlands as part of RCWD's efforts to improve riparian and wetland habitat in the Hardwood Creek system where JD2 forms the upstream portion of Hardwood Creek, an impaired water. Hardwood Creek flows into impaired waters Peltier Lake, Rice Creek, George Watch Lake, Marshan Lake and Long Lake. This project underscores the need to involve communities in the monitoring of local wetlands and streams so they can better appreciate the impacts of various activities and help to better inform decision - makers. 1. In order to monitor the effectiveness of these restoration efforts on water quality improvements to impaired waters and in order to more fully engage community stakeholders and policy makers in the process of impaired waters restoration, we will develop and implement a citizen biological monitoring program within Rice Creek and its tributaries. This Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP) will use a new model for volunteer monitoring. Based upon an ecoregion specific, multi -metric stream Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) developed by the MPCA, professionally trained volunteers will collect quantifiable and quality assured data on the biological health of streams within the Rice Creek Watershed. Professionally trained volunteers will perform biological monitoring on eight stream sites throughout the watershed. Monitoring sites will be chosen to evaluate the impacts of recent and planed changes by the RCWD to existing hydrologic systems upon the watershed's impaired waters. Once collected data has been analyzed, citizen volunteers will present results and conclusions to local city councils, county boards and the watershed district board. Once established, the program will be ongoing, allowing for trend analysis to evaluate the impacts of both restoration efforts and other changes in land use. SHEP will evaluate the biological health of Rice Creek and its tributaries. Collected monitoring data will indicate progress not only towards restoring aquatic life impairments in Rice Creek and Hardwood Creek but will also serve as an indirect measure of improvement in recreational impairments in many of the watershed's lakes. 2. The Volunteer Stream Monitoring Partnership (VSMP), with support from MPCA Biological Monitoring Unit staff, will provide technical assistance and training to ensure that the volunteers correctly use the monitoring protocols, understand and appropriately use the IBI, and learn macroinvertebrate identification. FMR will work closely with Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), Anoka Conservation District (ACD), Anoka County Parks and City of Lino Lakes staff persons to chose site locations that will best evaluate the impacts of restoration of hydrological systems upon impaired water bodies. Anoka County Parks will provide the use of park facilities for both training and lab work and will provide monitoring equipment and supplies needed by the volunteers. The City of Lino Lakes will provide additional monitoring supplies. RCWD, ACD, Anoka County Parks and Lino Lakes will provide assistance in recruiting volunteers for the program. Mary Karius of the Rivers Council of Minnesota will perform quality control on all samples identified by the volunteers and provide technical assistance. The VSMP will provide opportunity for the Page I of 2 • Friends of the Mississippi River Multi- metric IBI based citizen monitoring volunteers to participate in and present at the 2006 Annual River Summit. In order to demonstrate the program's effectiveness and replicability, Dr. Julia Frost Nerbonne of The Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA), will design and implement an evaluation of the volunteer monitoring program. Dr. Nerbonne's evaluation will seek to answer the following questions: 1. Are the volunteers providing reliable data? 2. Are volunteers feeling engaged in stewardship? 3. Through which channels are monitoring results being communicated to decision- makers? 4. What are the barriers and bridges to effective use of volunteer data in decision - making? 3. SHEP will provide important on -going monitoring data that will be used by the RCWD and other agencies to evaluate the impact and inform revision of restoration efforts within the watershed as well as to monitor the impacts of continued hydrologic change in the form of ditch maintenance and stormwater management. 4. SHEP is a new model for citizen monitoring. It engages citizens in actively learning about and caring for natural resources while at the same time providing relevant, quality assured data to decision makers. As it is based upon MPCA stream IBIs the model may be replicated throughout the state. 5. SHEP is based upon the model utilized in the highly successful volunteer Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) in Dakota and Hennepin Counties. Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has coordinated the Dakota County WHEP for the past two years, growing the program from 85 volunteers in 2003 to 140 volunteers in 2005. WHEP is but one example of the many programs and over 2700 volunteers coordinated by FMR this year in the Twin Cities area. Working closely with our partners, FMR will recruit two teams of volunteers within the Rice Creek Watershed. SHEP will actively engage these volunteers in understanding and evaluating activities from restoration to increased development throughout the watershed that are impacting stream health and impaired waters. 6. Dr. Nerbonne's program evaluation will provide an independent measure of the program's effectiveness. Once monitoring data is quality assured, a final report will be written and disseminated to project partners, local communities and the watershed district. These results will be posted on FMR's website with links to and from partner websites. FMR will coordinate with local partners and community organizations to share published results through newsletters, websites and media outreach. FMR will organize volunteers to present the SHEP results to local city councils, county boards and the watershed district board highlighting correlations between their data, land uses and hydrologic change within the watershed. These presentations serve as an excellent learning opportunity for elected and public officials. Hearing about water quality issues, concerns and successes directly from citizens will have the greatest impact on how water resources are managed by decision - makers. 7. The public education and outreach provided by SHEP is itself a BMP. The monitoring performed by SHEP will provide evaluation of constructed BMPs as part of restoration projects. 8. Rice Creek Watershed has many regionally significant water bodies. Rice Creek is a popular canoe route. The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park is the largest publicly owned chain of lakes in the metro area and a popular recreation destination. Many of the watershed's lakes such as White Bear Lake, Bald Eagle Lake, Long Lake and Lake Johanna are all popular spots for fishing and recreation. Waterfowl hunting is popular at many of the watershed's wetlands including Hugo Farming WMA and Hardwood Creek WMA. Unfortunately many of these highly valued resources are impaired. 9. Citizen monitoring can be a cost - effective tool providing both quantitative data and educational outreach. Due to the advanced nature of the monitoring program, volunteers will produce meaningful and quality assured data that will provide relevant evaluation of restoration efforts underway within the watershed. Our experience in other areas has shown that volunteer monitoring can be a powerful tool for both mobilizing and energizing committed resource advocates and for connecting citizens in a proactive and supportive manner to their local governments in working towards common goals. Page 2 of 2 • • AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: November 29, 2006 TOPIC: Environmental Board Goals BACKGROUND: At the end of each year the Environmental Board reviews past goals and sets goals for the following year. I have attached the 2006 Environmental Board goals that were approved by the City Council. One of the goals was to review a previous project. The Board selected Stoneybrook. The Board started to review the Stoneybrook project earlier this year. It was decided at that time to wait for the developer to react to deficiencies that were called out. Now that the end of the year is here, we should revisit this project. I have attached the Stoneybrook revisit agenda item from the February 22, 2006 as a starting point for summarizing this project I have also included with this report past reports and recommendations for 2006. I think it is too dark this time of the year to have site visits before the meeting. If we were to select a project to visit, I would recommend The Legacy Project or Marshan Meadows. If you have time during the day it would be worth a visit. The Legacy project is the area to the North of City Hall. The YMCA is now going up and landscaping is in from Lake Drive to the Village Green area. Marshan Meadows is the Bruggeman Development on Lake Drive next to the Methodist Church. I think it would be a good idea to also start writing some goal statements for 2007. RECOMMENDATION: Establish draft goal statements for 2007. Summarize project review. 6B1 Resolution to adopt the Environmental Board goals for 2006. 6B2 Stoneybrook Development revisit /review project 6B2i Agenda Item 5A Stoneybrook 6B2ii Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Stoneybrook 6B2iii Stoneybrook Wetland and Conservation Easements flyer 6B2iv Stoneybrook Development Contract 6B2v Stoneybrook Conservation Easement 6B2vi Miscellaneous pictures Stoneybrook Development 6B3 Recommendations concerning Golden Acre 6B4 Agenda Item 5A Golden Acre 6B5 Recommendations concerning Legacy Town homes 6B6 Recommendations concerning Integra Site. 6B7 Agenda Item 5A Integra Homes — The Preserve 6B8 Recommendations concerning Pheasant Stroll Estates 6B9 Agenda Item 5A Pheasant Stroll Estates 6B10 Agenda Item 5A Comforts of Home /PUD Development Estates 6B11 Woods Edge Landscape 6B12 6B12 - Email from Jeff Perry to Marty Asleson regarding Heron Research Project. • Council Member its adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 06 -16 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD GOALS FOR 2006 WHEREAS, , The City of Lino Lakes has an established Environmental Board, AND WHEREAS, ; The purpose of the Environmental Board is to provide aid and advice to the council in its efforts to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment ; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the city; to advise the City in the use and management of its natural resources in order to preserve and enhance the environmental amenities for present and future residents, and to ensure a lasting quality of life within the city, AND WHEREAS,; The Environmental Board approved the following 2006 goals at their December, 2005 meeting: • Promote environmental stewardship with the citizens of Lino Lakes by: A. Communicating environmental initiatives in the city using various means of communication, i.e., City WebPages, newsletter, homeowners association meetings, the information kiosk, and press coverage. Pursue providing articles and information to the Quad Press. B. Promote individual Backyard Wildlife Habitat through the National Wildlife Federation. • Participate in Blue Heron Days, providing educational material to the public. • Participate in Earth Day activities in the community, promoting environmental awareness and collaboration with other environmental focused organizations. • Monitor any activity in the AUAR Area, focusing on the values Lino Lakes citizens have expressed in the vision for our city and the unique ecological aspects of our wetlands, lakes and streams and subsurface waters. Apply mitigation plan as defined for that area. • Perform an evaluation of past Environmental Board recommendations for development projects. Review projects by site visits, discussion with city staff, and landowners, neighbors, on the outcomes of the Boards recommendations. Submit a summary of significant findings resulting from the review in writing to the Community Development Director . • • • • Continue to collate information received from other municipality environmental Boards, identifying opportunities to collaborate and leam from each other. • Collaborate with the Kim Sullivan, the University Extension Division, or other groups to offer an environmental education seminar for residents. • Promote conservation development within the City incorporating the Open Space/Trail Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. • To meet or exceed our City recycling goal of 50 percent or greater of our Municipal solid waste. Find innovative ways to promote and encourage recycling as a city. Add recycling materials to kiosk. • Continue to monitor the Heron rookery and water quality in the northern one third of Peltier Lake and to support the protection of resources in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. That the 2006 goals of the Lino Lakes Environmental Board be adopted. John Bergeson, Mayor Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 13th day of February, 2006. The motion for the 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 declared duly passed and adopted. • Environmental Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: February 22, 2006 Re: Stoneybrook Revisit Last year the Environmental Board selected Stoneybrook Development as a revisit/review project. The Board wished to invite a representative, or representatives from the neighborhood to come to a meeting. I have talked with Kim Brouillet from Stoneybrook and invited her to the February meeting. I have included background information in the packet. Marty • Page 1 • • Environmental Memo To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson CC: Jeff Smyser Date: April 3, 2002 Re: Environmental Board Review /Recommendations /Stoneybrook Preliminary Plat The Environmental Board made the following recommendations of the Stoneybrook Preliminary Plat, at the March 27, 2002 Environmental Board Meeting: • O'Connell made a motion, seconded by Halen to deny the Stoneybrook Preliminary Plat proposal. • The developer needs to contact and send plans to the St. Paul Regional Water Utility and Vadnais Lakes Watershed District. If the development should go on for approval, than the Environmental Board made the following recommendations: • To pass on all staff recommendations highlighting the use of water quality design 1. Water basins and surface water management areas should be protected from compaction and planted with a buffer of native plants. 2. Basin filtration capacities should be enhanced with organic bed establishment in flow areas. 3. A sequencing and management plan should be submitted for all resource protection issues during construction and post development. Sequencing should include protective fence installation for trees and soiVwetland areas. Sequencing should include specific times the fencing will be removed. • Page 1 • 2. Silt fence and soil protection fence installation, enforcement, and removal. 3. Tree protection 4. Native seed areas and management 5. Buffer signs. 6. Soil restoration • Page 3 • • (0.2) Agenda Item 5A Environmental Board Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 Topic: Stoneybrook Development/Preliminary Plat Background: The following minutes are from the March 27th Environmental Board Meeting. At that time the Stony Brook Preliminary Plat was discussed and passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board. ACTION ITEMS A. Stoneybrook, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, MUSAIComp Plan Amendment Asleson indicated that there were three development areas. He reviewed the background material. The property was guided forlow- density sewered residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The developer was requesting MUSA allocation, and rezoning from R -Rural to R -1X -Low Density Residential, and approval for a 111 -lot subdivision. There were 19.2 acres of wetland, with 2.06 requiring mitigation, which would be accomplished on site, and 58.87 acres of upland. The site was very wet, and infiltration techniques were limited, so water quality design was important. The water basin areas should be protected from compaction and planted with a buffer of native plants. Basin filtration capacities should be enhanced with organic bed establishment in flow areas, such as an organic pond area. Schneider inquired if the recommendations were binding. Asleson responded that they were only recommendations. Grundhofer pointed out that there was a development on Ward's Lake adjacent to this development, and asked if they were both aware of each other's impact and the combined impact. Asleson indicated they were being dealt with individually. Asleson continued reviewing the background material. The soil was very insensitive to ground water pollution, except for a small area in the South East comer that is in the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed District. Additional water volume discharges should be minimized. A sequencing plan and a management plan including a 3 -year contract with a landscaping company should be submitted. He urged that no soils should be hauled off the site or brought on the site without permission from the City. The sequencing plan should indicate responsibility for cleanup after the last house was completed including the fencing. The landscape- screening plan was submitted for Birch Street, but staff had concems about Colorado Spruce and the maple was not hardy for the soil. Grundhofer questioned if there were any acceptable conifers. Asleson stated that the only native conifers were white pines located in northern Anoka County, but were not native or adapted to this area. He conceded that a white spruce might grow if they wanted a spruce. O'Connell inquired about whether willows were native. Asleson indicated the water willow was possible. • • Chair Kukonen stated that a road was proposed over the culvert owned by the St. Paul Water Utility. He thought the plan should be denied with recommendations. He added that things had been approved in the past. Asleson indicated that the City decides after it goes to the Planning and Zoning for reviewal. Schneider questioned if the culvert with the proposed street over it was referring to Street B. Chair Kukonen responded that the culvert was from Vadnais. Asleson clarified that the Pipeline easement was not a greenway, but a trail connection. Chair Kukonen called for a motion. He reviewed the Board recommendations to be added to the staff recommendations: 1) Deny and contact the St. Paul Regional Water Utility and the Vadnais Lake Watershed District. 2) Provide Buffering for pipeline easement in the northeast comer lots. 3) Street lighting should be downward focused, no spill. O'Dea suggested more open area, where 50 %_or more should be preserved as open space not including wetland mitigation. She proposed an additional 17 acres should remain undeveloped, and encouraged clustering. - Asleson submitted signage on the buffer areas and language in the association's covenants. O'Dea addressed the screening on Birch Street, and inquired about the possibility of promoting non - linear plantings. She also asked if the ditch was going to remain or if it would be altered. Chair Kukonen inquired if would he consider asking for a PDO to preserve a 17 -acre additional open space, as long as the developers were requesting a re- zoning, and follow the principles of development from the Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. Asleson noted that signage should be placed on the buffer boundaries to indicate that buffers did exist, and covenants should be established with the homeowners' association prohibiting encroachment. Schneider asked about the site's chance for approval. Chair Kukonen responded the site plan would go the Planning and Zoning Board, and then to Council. He added that the Environmental Board was reviewing the plan because it was submitted prior to the moratorium taking effect. Asleson pointed out the Rice Creek Watershed District usually met the same night as the Environmental Board, so he had tried to meet with them earlier. Schneider asked for more information about the role of the Army Corps of Engineers. Asleson answered they would be involved if there was a headwater located on site. Schneider asked for a definition of MUSA allocation. Chair Kukonen responded that it was City water and sewage, and was dictated by the Metropolitan Council. Asleson added that it affected the capacity to deal with sewage. Grundhofer inquired about when it was going to be approved. Chair Kukonen stated that the Surface Water Management had already been approved. Asleson added the Rice Creek Watershed District had yet to be approved. O'Connell posed the question about the possibility of asking the developer to communicate with Ed Vaughn. Asleson spoke concerning the combined impact of the two 0 and many of them addressed. (Attachment 3). I would recommend adding the two above issues in "Analysis" as additional considerations. Recommendation: Environmental Board Comments: Attachments: 1. 2. • DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND EASEMENTS FOR STONEYBROOK THIS DECLARATION is made this day of , 2003, by Tollefson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Declarant "). WHEREAS, Declarant is the Owner of certain real property located in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"); and • WHEREAS, the Property consists of one hundred three (103) detached single - family lots ( "Lots ") which have been platted and developed for the construction and occupation of single family residences; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to establish certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements on the Property to foster consistent quality in architectural design, preservation of values on the Lots and on the Property, continuing maintenance of certain subdivision monumentation, and wetland buffer signage. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Property shall be subject to this Declaration, the terms and conditions of which shall constitute covenants to run with the Property, and that the Property and all shall hereafter be owned, used, occupied and conveyed subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, and charges set forth herein, all of which shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all parties having or hereafter acquiring a right, title or interest in the Property, any Lot, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns. ARTICLE I ARCtuiLCTURAL AND EXTERIOR CONTROLS Section 1. Administration; Architectural Control Committee. (A) There shall be an architectural control committee ("ACC ") composed of three (3) members, each of whom shall be an Owner of a Lot, but the initial committee ( "Initial ACC ") shall be composed only of the • Declarant or Declarants designees. The ACC (and/or the Initial ACC) brill have the authority and responsibilities as set forth in this Article and in Article W, Sections 1(D) and 2 and Article V. (B) At such time as each and every Lot comprising the Property has been improved with a single family residence, but in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date upon which Declarant no longer owns any Lots, the Initial ACC shall convene a meeting of those who own fee title to the Lots Page 1 of 11 CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ( "Easement ") is made of this day of , 2003 by' Tollefson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Grantor "). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property lying and being within the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota legally described on attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); and B. The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota ( "Grantee ") is a Minnesota municipal corporation. C. Grantor desires and intends to grant and convey to Grantee, a conservation easement for the purposes set forth in this instrument, all as more fully set forth herein. WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a non - exclusive conservation easement over, under and across that portion of Grantor's Property legally described on attached Exhibit B (the "Easement ") on the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Easement area is depicted by a sketch attached hereto as Exhibit C. Exhibit C is for illustrative purposes only, and the legal description of the Easement contained in Exhibit B shall control. Section 1. Conservation Easement. 1.1 Grant. Grantor herewith grants to Grantee a conservation easement for the purposes, and subject to the terms herein specified, over and upon the Easement area legally described in Exhibit B. 1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the Easement is to assure that the Easement area shall, at all times hereafter, remain in its current undisturbed condition, constitute scenic surroundings, and constitute a suitable habitat for wetland vegetation and/or wildlife. This conservation easement shall in no way be construed so as to grant to the public any rights to use or improve the Easement area for any other public or private purpose. J 1.3 Building Restrictions. No buildings or other structures of any kind, and no fences, roads, signs, poles, no wires, or other material of any kind shall be erected, installed, constructed, placed, or allowed to be erected, installed, constructed or placed on or within all or any portion of the Easement area. Page of • deemed to alter, affect, or impair in any manner whatsoever any other portion of this instrument or any exhibit •ttached hereto. 4.2 Binding Effect. The Property shall be transferred, held, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to and together with the Conservation Easement granted herein. The Conservation Easement shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each such parties and shall run with the land. 4.3 Duration. The duration of this Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. 4.4 Nonexclusive. The owners of any portion of the Property shall have the right to use the Easement area to the extent that such use is not inconsistent with the rights granted to Grantee by this instrument. • 4.5 Title. Grantor represents and warrants that no other person has an interest in the Easement area other than Grantor, and that Grantor has good right, title and interest in the Property which is the subject to the Easement granted herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this instrument as of the day and year first above - written. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF foregoing, instrument was acknowledged before me this c�ay of 2003, by ,`t'/ c:. a h cL of Tollefson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Minnesota corporation (ph the corporation. 11 This instrument Drafted by: S. Todd Rapp, P.A. 15025 Glazier Avenue, Suite 401 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 (952)432 -3240 kt lJ Y \� <s toL_, Notary Public LTTW4LQ EXEDBIT B • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA • • • • H r- m N D D vZ _rase— ``) `,__ _� _w -•--- .• - -•-•- .- . -_ - -- TT -592— — — =214 . -_- - -- - -- 1111.3 BIRCH STREET CSAH 10 • / BIRCH STR _ J �910— -�� • i 1 1 1R 00 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FELT 41* 114 pm * PICINH@R * san0` 'Se ^ 7 ^a _ r 110 fM wt•'aw VI Ile PLANT SCHEDULE KEY COMMON/BOTANICAL NAMES 02STORY TREES 30 SWAMP 11141E OAK BICOLOR �Wpppg PA 11101E PONSYLVANICA PATYORE q C ��pgAA� NS MACK RMEPICEA CAUCA OENSATA SRE/ROOT Ort I arM, away am, Uu 1101 m. yrprM • , as r war ad .Y..I ••U•1 . w�41m Landman NeMI.a under M IM M M •f 4Yw.R DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL OMER TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT. INC. 17271 KENYOII AVENUE. SUITE 103 LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA 33O44 LANDSCAPE NOTES TA• rN ".4 NMIJr•it a• moan Me pas Im alwamang mot •M du. . rlr'meg Is M.p11pN y ears • 10,..uw 0111 S..adr r w iwtlf.4s • M pima O.I.Y. Mr nma Y. Amami a./•1 111 M1 0.l •mri•ap r Ia••m„•m/-.m.lrm 01.•.ra it 0. •mr !1•d. •N molabor nodadlot p la gam 4 W madam • ..a..0 r aL 0.41.• 0m•. •••• p •••••• m N•. Madam. W loMmoai fa/Y•Mwe am. a•1 A.•r Y r • Itoomrma w pl . 10 0. 1Wu M .dam .aplm.• •1 weft Yam as •mr. •a N.r. Y • •mrmm•a trod bee el 0.jl* 1. IL dammed m wm N.0 damdmom •waitarge :1..Y.mi.ii 6. MI•W • 0'11 add Dry, 0W m WON mar al 1/•.. ....1.111 1* ay WAN Mon Ym (.0.11(01 S.NAM an* beds N be imams mar amity Mao w mtw 4 Mama 1• aimaa WYf mar •1.16.1. a..• .1I WYO. Ii wa am 111 NM YMR ▪ 5u' .q'gi11U.liaygrew.In•wmpl •• wow. STONEYBROOK V R 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT __T.e �..,.,. N tat :T STONEYBROOK • 0900 3041 L h _ _{ ,. .F4---i T1 _ _1 _I I SHERMAN LAKE ROAD 14417 qq4lR (1..137 ) 19 14312 qIL 1 5 A 4 13.423 qII. 21 MNS Ask PHEASANT HILLS DRIVE 4 17.213,84 NO0'401011 I• V-- 7 st M of eN Eel lad N Rd SE 1/• el 2.: 27 LOCATION MAP LOT DATA (NOT TO SCALE) NINe1U1 LOT OEPTN 135 fT. SITE DATA TOTAL AREA OUTLOT AREA TOTAL LOT AREA UPLAND LOT AREA R.0.W. AREA UPLAND LSETARBAOT 30 FT. 100 FEB DENOTES PRA "CLAW AREA DENOTES PROPOSED PONDe1C AREA DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS s—i t II 1-5 2 - - - -- DENOTES PROPOSED RIOTER EASEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 700 400 Mf.— MI Me M i #* *.n PICAIEER . arling # * * ■•■•■• ww.w +w. (Ot 7RT) I lash • 100 D. 414.41011 LOT 71041 AT SETBACK LINE 90 FT. AT CORNER 115 Ft. AT R/W LIKE N/A fT MUM 1.0T AREA CORNER 11/A S0. FT. INTERIOR 12.925 SO FT. ABLE AREA (12.925 S0. FT.) BEM YARD SETBACK HOUSE 10 FT. GARAGE S FT. 30 FT. —O. STREET FRONT TARO SETBACK 30 FT. 1 INre7 ..1097 pal Ma PM. 444 0+.11-14 h .Ina at bade m7 dal .Me.MION tats pit 1 am a e.7 14..4.■ land Srsp wow Me Nos 41 eN S4.N 41 11114..141 Rea Na. 20191 Dah. 78.07 AC. 21.44 AC. 43.71 AC. 36.08 AC. 12.92 AC. 54.60 AC. 1 1 being 5 heel In width. end odjon.tq lot 14424 and 10 feel Is wldth and odjolnnq snot inn and rear let lbws balsa 0lherelee Indicated on the plat. L EGAL DESCRIP71ON NUMBER OF LOTS LARGEST LOT SMALLEST LOT AVERAGE LOT EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING u'UU11ES The Eost Half except the East 1/2 rods thereof. taccording 1. the United Ste Township Goverment Survey of 195 thereof and situate in mane County. Minnesota 2. Rood .4e.11 3-7 (ear aNae11 <. Road START a 3 R.ww •••0 1 •0 Con c.tt Ge..w.nN1 S new. LM ale Modem k AIN /I dN.e77 •f Cl/L.. •••••er Rewvwa 4. 09/03/02 1 L.,eat 03/06/02 9. 04/01/03 2. 3.04/29 4.111113 SHEET TITLE PRELIMINARY PLAT 103 46.360 S.F. 12.826 S.F. 14,042 S.F. AGRICULTURE R -1X AVAILABLE o1+NERTOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT. INC. 17271 KENYON AVENUE. SUITE 103 LAKEVILLE MINNESOTA 55044 PROJECT SHEET INDEX 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PREUMINARY SITE it UTIUTY PLAN 4. PREUMINARY GRADING A EROSION CONTROL PLAN S. PREUMINARY GRADING k EROSION CONTROL PLAN 6. PREUMINARY GRADING Y EROSION CONTROL PLAN 7. PREUMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8. GRADING DETAILS STONEYBROOK • SHEET 1 OF 8 SHEET 201132PRP UtiC Dear Home Owners - ca Developer - Tollefson Development O o O •R 7 O O coo to Q Z o m c Y Y c m o N J a City of Lino Lakes c co Y0 0 d 10 N Y Z C) U a) 1° c Y � - o cL ona m � 4. v CU v v ° 0 ■ x, -0 v 0 .0 �, . w u y U r •a' a� O C bA'b O 'v_' L.. .0 0 2 vv .0 c�� v�i i] p p sv-i v'- sue, n 0' c4 Or _v O yA 0 --- x E 151 z' i v y k v W 'C d d .0 ct ‘4 v L r v O A i 7 +-] CU r p= OS ''� ' r O B 0 v u v v v o v �; v H u '(Z) O Rice Creek Watershed District • Q O U 0 L1. Ct 0 44 0 •0 r 4A • O 0 v 0 CU v H 0 h' 0 0 0 0 O V v a) 4. V Wcs CC O CC u 0 y 0 0 v 50 W .44, v C.) �' 0 m C v v U r-+ U • 0 CU 0 0 0 � v N cA .0 0 m't O N CC V e o •0 I •44 U v : O 0 d o l,-, A., u0 cn 4_, c3 0 U v a I) t = 0 E Q) CU cli W -., 0 O U c.0 U , r p. r v r it'ssa fl is, o 0 0.4 0 U 0 0 0 0 OU L' i 0 4 o - U p ny 0 cu 0 Q) R• 4)) sa 4) 44 C L 44 Ul • 0 0 V) • y w ^o-0 r r �'4 0 W 0 0 0 0 3 0 � s" v . 4 0 0 w v N 0 0 Ct r 0 � a 0 _ ;„ t bA O E :n C W 0 0 v 0 v 4-4 U 44 0 0 v 44)) 0 O 0 ct r v 0 v 2 U • 0 ra O V • 44 0 A. '0 c 4.4 W ' W PQ -0 CU L co v • 0 V v 44 cu N 0 v cC Evi W 0 r Cdo ct r 0 �cr U cn Q� VI 0 K 0 L v, r ct E 0 v 44 cC a) 0 44 r 4. '0 "0 W I. 0 r I. • v.., "0 W J U O 4O.) -, v, v, ,fir ..b o> 0 Removal of the 4) 0 0 v O 0 O cu C bA 6.0 0 s., 4" 0.a y^ 'L7 C/D •0 0 -t O ' • ' 0 0 0 y-, O c bA 0A b6.0 r r 0 e. 0 0 bA0 0 1J 0 0 b 0 40 0 y4 0 N 0 0 O ✓ f w 4) 0 4 i-I y � 0 — u, u „ r '-, 0 "I'd Y V y �--` r v) 41 c- 0 Y 4) 4.4 0 V 4A 6 ' W'b 0 2O ( z ( 'I) v u is r L S' W v v O r 0 e O .0 0 C LL c 0 r U r v E 4) b 44 0., ^ "0 W/ co is �. r Q) . CJ 70 0 0 .., N v v 4A O O N 0 4,; v 0 t v4 0 O bon � r rCa.U4 v • AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT Stoneybrook THIS AGREEMENT made this 27th day of May, 2003, is by and between the City of Lino Lakes, whose address is 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota, 55014, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City ", and Tollefson Development, Inc. whose address is 17271 Kenyon Avenue Suite 103 Lakeville Minnesota 55044 hereinafter referred to as the "Developer ". WHEREAS, the Developer has received preliminary plat approval from the City Council for a plat of land within the corporate limits of the City known as Stoneybrook, hereinafter called "Subdivision ", said land is legally described to -wit The East half (1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (1/4), Section 27, Township 31, Range 22, except the East 1 -1/2 rods thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Anoka County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Development Contract on October 14, 2002, for Phase I of the development; and WHEREAS, the developer is requesting an amendment to said agreement to provide for Final Plat approval on the entire Development in accordance with the provisions of said document; and WHEREAS, the Developer requested that the City construct and finance certain improvements to service the plat; and WHEREAS, the Developer is to be responsible for the installation and financing of certain private improvements within the plat; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 429 provides a method for assessing the cost of City installed improvements to the benefited property. Development Contract Stoneybrook WHEREAS, the City Subdivision Ordinance and Minnesota Statute 462.358 authorize the City to enter into a performance contract secured by cash escrow or other security to guarantee completion and payment of such improvements following final approval and recording of final plat; and herein, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO: that the I. DESIGNATION OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Improvements to be installed at the Developer's expense by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as "Developer Improvements ". B. Improvements to be installed by the City and financed by the Developer are hereinafter referred to as "City Improvements ". II. DEVELOPER'S IMPROVEMENTS A. The Developer's Engineer shall prepare, at the Developer's expense, a grading plan, street including CSAH 10 and utility plan, a surface water management plan. The Developer shall secure a contractor to install these improvements; said contractor shall be approved by the City at its ABSOLUTE discretion. All Developer improvements shall require City inspection and approval an4, where appropriate, the approval of any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. The Developer will construct and install at Developer's expense the following improvements according to the following terms and conditions: 1. Grading Plan a) A final site grading plan, including certified wetland delineation, with maximum two -foot contours and cross sections as necessary shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to commencement of any site grading. 2. Erosion Control Plan a) The Developer shall submit an erosion control plan, detailing all erosion control measures to be implemented during construction. Said plan shall be approved by the City prior to the commencement of site grading or construction. b) The Developer shall submit a Turf Establishment Plan which details topsoil placement, seeding, sodding, mulching, fertilizing and page 2 Development Contract Stoneybrook watering. Said plan shall be approved by the City prior to the commencement of site grading or construction. 3. Tree Preservation Plan a) Developer will provide a tree preservation plan prior to any site grading which shall be in accordance with the City Tree Preservation Policy. Developer shall escrow for boulevard tree planting for each side of a lot which abuts a street. The City Forester shall determine species, size and location. b) The Developer shall remove, dispose of, or treat all dead and diseased trees in accordance with the City Forester's recommendation before building permits will be issued. 4. Grading and Erosion Control Construction & Maintenance a) Prior to the commencement of site grading and erosion control, the Developer shall complete items II.A.l, II.A.21 and II.A.3 as listed above. b) The Developer shall grade the site to within 0.2 foot of the grades shown on the approved Grading plan. No deviations will be allowed unless a revised plan is submitted and approved by the City and all other regulatory agencies. c) All development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by the topography and soil of the subdivision in order to create the best potential for preventing soil erosion. d) Erosion and siltation control measures shall be coordinated with the different stages of development. Appropriate control measures as required by the City shall be installed prior to development when necessary to control erosion. e) Land shall be developed in increments of workable size such that adequate erosion and siltation controls can be provided as construction progresses. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any one period of time. page 3 Development Contract Stoneybrook Where the topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for respreading over the developed area. The topsoil shall be restored to a depth of at least four (4) inches and shall be of a quality at least equal to the soil quality prior to development. The Developer shall install four (4) nchesof soil onrall boril ,yards and seed or, sodas approved bythe City. The Developer shall make all necessary adjustments to the curb-stops to bring them flush with the topsoil prior to occupancy. h) All disturbed areas shail be seeded. i) The front 50 feet of the lots, the street right -of -way, storm water storage ponds, and surface water drainage ways shall be graded prior to commencement of utility construction. j) Drainage swales, ditches, storm water storage ponds and other high risk erosion areas shall be protected from erosion. k) All remaining grading must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 1) Protect streets from erosion deposits. This should include a combination of roadside silt fences, roadside sod strips, catch basin rock bale inlet protection, rock construction entrances, straw mulch, and/or street sweeping. m) The developer's engineer shall certify, in writing with an as -built survey, that all grading complies with the grading plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Final street grading, subbase, gravel base, bituminous binder course, and concrete curb and gutter. 6. Storm sewers when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, including all necessary laterals, catch basins, inlets and other appurtenances. 7. Sanitary sewer, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances. 8. Water, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrants, valves and other appurtenances. 9. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the page 4 • • • Development Contract Stoneybrook lot markers for future property owners. Lot corner irons on the back property line shall be installed so that the top of the iron corresponds to the finished ground elevation in accordance with the approved grading plan - guard stakes shall be appropriately installed to mark these irons. 10. The Developer agrees to maintain, at all times before acceptance of the streets by the City, an access road suitable for use by emergency, police and fire department equipment. The adequacy of such road shall be the sole determination of the City. Furthermore, such access road shall be located no more than 150 feet from any structure built within the subdivision. 11. The Developer shall promptly clear dirt and debris, within public right -of- ways, and drainage and utility easements, resulting from construction by the Developer, its purchasers, builders and contractors within five (5) days after notification by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for all necessary street and storm sewer maintenance including street sweeping, storm sewer cleaning, ditch cleaning and pond dredging, resulting from the accumulation of said dirt and debris, until all Certificates of Occupancy are issued. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and when the streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The developer shall maintain a smooth, hard driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. 12. Street Lighting: a) Residential street lighting shall be owned by the City. Such street lighting system shall be installed, operated, and maintained by the electric utility company. City and electric utility company may enter into a contractual agreement on the rate and maintenance of the street lighting system. b) It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to pay for street lighting operation charges for the initial 15 months of operation of the system. 13. The Developer shall dedicate to the City, prior to approval of the final plat, at no cost to the City, all permanent or temporary easements necessary for the construction and installation of the Developer's Improvements as determined by the City. All such easements required by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City shall determine. • 14. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all site grading and development approvals and permits from all appropriate Federal, State, page 5 Development Contract Stoneybrook Regional and Local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction and prior to the City awarding construction contracts for public utilities. 15. The Developers shall make provision that all gas, telephone, cable TV and electric utility designs be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction of the streets. Following review and approval by the City, the Developer shall insure that all installation comply with applicable City, County and State design standards and show proof of security arrangements with said utility companies. 16. Cost of Developer's Improvements, description and completion dates are as shown on Attachment A. 17. Construction of Developer's Improvements: a) The construction, installation, ma erials and equipment shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. b) All of the work shall be under and subject to the inspection and approval of the City and, where appropriate, any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. c) Prior to the acceptance of Developer Improvements by the City, the Developer shall obtain final plat approval an4 record the final plat which will dedicate all permanent easements necessary for the construction and installation of the Developer's and City's Improvements as determined by the City. d) All Construction debris and trash shall be properly disposed of at the developers expense and in a timely manner as determined by the City. 18. CSAH 10 improvements shall be at the Developer expense. The Developer must obtain all necessary approvals from Anoka County. The Developer is responsible for acquiring any necessary right -of -way, temporary easements, or permanent easements for the construction of the CSAH 10 improvements. 19. per shall construct and pay for all improvements as described in 20. The Developer shall make an application to FEMA for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to revise the existing Flood Plain maps consistent with the proposed grading plan. 21. Guarantee page 6 • • • Development Contract Stoneybrook a) Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Letters of Credit (1) The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all Developer's Improvements and hereby guarantees the workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the City's final acceptance of the Developer's Improvements. Concurrently with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on one hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's Improvements. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state thereon that the same is issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Contract and construction of all required improvements in accordance with the ordinances and specifications of the City. The City reserves the right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this contract. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year from present or future expiration dates unless thirty (30) days prior to such the City Clerk or Administrator is notified in writing by certified mail that the Letter of Credit will not be renewed. Reduction of Escrow Guarantee. (1) The Developer may request reduction of the Letter of Credit, or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. Prior to the final acceptance of the Developer's Improvements the City shall require a Performance Bond or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of the agreement. The amount shall be determined by the City Engineer. 11I. CITY'S IMPROVEMENTS • A. The City shall install or reimburse the Developer for the following described improvements to serve the Subdivision on the terms and conditions herein set forth: page 7 Development Contract Stoneybrook 1. Storm sewer trunks. 2. Sanitary sewer trunks. 3. Water trunks. B. Construction Procedures 1. All City improvements above shall be instituted, constructed and financed as follows: The City shall commence proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429 and City Charter providing that such improvements be made and assessed against the benefited properties. After preparation of preliminary plans and estimates by the City Engineer, an improvement hearing, if required by law, will be called by the City Council for the purpose of ordering such City Improvements. After preparation of the final plans and specifications by the City Engineer, bids will be taken by the City and contract awarded for the installation of City Improvements under the City's complete supervision. C. Security, Levy of Special Assessments and Required Payment Therefore. 1. Prior to the preparation of final plans and specifications for the construction of said City Improvements, the Developer shall provide to the City a cash escrow or letter of credit in an amount equal to thirty -five (35 %) percent of the total estimated assessments as established by the City Engineer. (See Attachment B) 2. Said letter of credit or cash escrow including accrued interest thereon, may be used by the City upon default by Developer in the payment of special assessments pursuant hereto, whether accelerated or otherwise. That such cash escrow or letter of credit shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the special assessments, except, the amount of such escrow or letter of credit may be reduced, upon the request of the Developer, at the City's option, but in no event shall be less than 35% of the outstanding special assessments against all properties within the Subdivision. The entire cost of the installation of such City Improvements, including any reasonable engineering, legal and administrative costs incurred by the City, shall be assessed against the benefited properties within the Subdivision in accordance with City policy existing the date of this agreement, in equal annual principal installments plus interest on the unpaid installments at a rate not to exceed the maximum allowed by law. 3. All special assessments levied hereto shall be payable to the City Clerk in semi - annual installments over fifteen (15) years commencing on April 15 of the year after the levy of such assessment and on each September 15 and page 8 • • • Development Contract Stoneybrook April 15 thereafter until the entire balance plus accrued interest is paid in full unless paid earlier. In the alternative, the City, at its option, may certify the entire assessment roll to the Anoka County Auditor for collection with the Real Estate Taxes. In the event any payment is not made on the dates set out herein, the City may exercise its rights granted hereunder for such default. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the installation of the City Improvements and the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. In the event the total of all City Installed Improvements is less than originally estimated by the City Engineer in his feasibility report, Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081. D. Required Payments of Special Assessments by Developer. 1. Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns hereby agrees that within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a residence on a lot located within the Subdivision which is assessed for the cost of such City Improvements, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, agrees, at its own cost and expense, to pay the entire unpaid City Improvement Costs assessed or to be assessed under this agreement against such property. 2. If a certificate of occupancy is issued before the special assessments have been levied, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns shall pay the City the sum of cash equal to one hundred twenty percene(120 %) of the Engineer's estimate of the special assessments for such City Improvements that would be levied against the property. Upon such payment the City shall issue a certificate showing the assessments are paid in full. Notwithstanding the issuance of said certificate, the Developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency and the City shall pay the Developer any surplus arising from the payment based upon such estimate. Developer will be paid interest on all assessments paid before the levy of such assessments by the City at the bond interest rates paid by the City. E. Acceleration Upon Default. 1. In the event the Developer violates any of the covenants, conditions or agreements herein contained to be performed by the Developer, violates any ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the plat, or fails to pay any installment of any special assessment levied pursuant hereto, or any interest thereon, when the same is to be paid pursuant hereto, the City at its option, in addition to its rights and remedies hereunder, after ten (10) days' written notice to the Developer, may declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied pursuant to this agreement page 9 Development Contract Stoneybrook due and payable in full, with interest. The City may seek recovery of such special assessments due and payable from the security provided herein. In the event that such security is insufficient to pay the outstanding amount of such special assessments plus accrued interest the City may certify such outstanding special assessments in full to the County Auditor pursuant to M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3 for collection the following year. The City, at its option, may commence legal action against the Developer to collect the entire unpaid balance of the special assessments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto, with interest, including reasonable attorney's fees, and Developer shall be liable for such special assessments and, if more than one, such liability shall be joint and several. Also, if Developer violates any term or condition of this agreement, or if any payment is not made by Developer pursuant to this agreement the City, at its option, may refuse to issue building permits to any of the property within the plat on which the assessments have not been paid. IV. RECORDING AND RELEASE A. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Development Contract shall be a covenant on any and all property included in the Subdivision. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Development Contract with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Subdivision described on Page 1 hereof. City shall provide to Developer upon payment of all the special assessments levied against a parcel a release of such parcel from the terms and conditions of this Development Contract subject to provisions contained in this contract. V. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS A. The Developer agrees to establish a non - interest bearing escrow account with the City in an amount determined by the City Administrator or his designee for the payment of all costs incurred by the City related to the development of the plat and the Developer Improvements including, but not limited to, the following (See attachment B for Breakdown of costs): 1. Plat Review Fee 2. Planner Review Fee 3. Administration - 3% Construction Cost 4. Engineering a) Administration 5. Legal - Plat Review 6. Publications page 10 • • • Development Contract Stoneybrook 7. Park Dedication Fee 8. Tree Preservation Policy 9. Street Lighting - Instal /Operate 10. Traffic Signing Improvements 11. Boulevard Tree Planting 12. Street - Storm Sewer - Pond Maintenance 13. Sealcoating Fund 14. Aerial Photo Recovery Cost B. If the above escrow amounts are insufficient, the developer shall make such additional deposits as required by the City. The City shall have a right to reimburse itself from the Escrow. VI. BUILDING PERMITS A. The Developer agrees that building permits may be issued upon approval of the Final Plat by the City Council at which time all required Financial Security shall be in place with the City. B. The Developer further agrees that City Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, and Bituminous Base Construction of the Streets, temporary street signs, gas,`electric, and telephone will be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. C. The Developer further agrees that an as-built survey certifying that all the grading complies with the grading plan prior to issuance of building permits. D. The Developer further agrees to make an application to FEMA for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to revise the existing _ Flood Plain maps consistent with the proposed grading plan prior to issuance of building permits. E. Each lot must comply with erosion control measures to prevent any material from leaving the lot. The City of Lino Lakes will not perform any requested inspections on the lot until it complies to the erosion control requirements. F. Each lot must have a City approved Certificate of Grading showing the as-built survey prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer, its purchasers, builders or contractors to ensure compliance with the grading plan. page 11 Development Contract Stoneybrook VII. PHASING PLAN A. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved phasing plan as follows: 1. Final Plat approval for Phase I shall be granted for a maximum of 52 lots in 2002. 2. Final Plat approval for the remainder of the development shall be granted in 2003. VIII. HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY A. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours set out in City Ordinances as follows: Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed IX. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this contract and acceptance by the City, the improvements lying within the public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. X. INSURANCE A. Developer or all its subcontractors shall take out and maintain until one (1) year after the City has accepted the private improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of his subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no /100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one person and One Million and no /100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less then Two Hundred Thousand and no /100 ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of One Million and no /100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City, its employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or all its subcontractors shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. page 12 • • • Development Contract Stoneybrook XL REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR DEFENSE A. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this contract, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees if the City prevails in such action. X.II. VALIDITY A. If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this contract is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Development Contract. XIII. GENERAL A. Binding Effect 1. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. B. Notices 1. Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notice given as above. C. Final Plat Approval 1. The city agrees to give final approval to the plat of the Subdivision in accordance with section VII upon execution and delivery of this agreement and all required petitions, bonds, security, and documents including the following: a) Review and approval of a Homeowner's Association agreement, which includes provisions for the operation and maintenance of all signage and buffer areas. page 13 Development Contract Stoneybrook b) Review and approval of informational brochure including Best Management Practices with regard to buffer and wetland area requirements. c) Receipt of warranty deeds or dedication of all outlots proposed to be conveyed to the City. d) Detail of proposed wetland and buffer area signage. e) Receipt of permanent easements covering temporary cul -de -sacs lying outside dedicated right -of -way. f) Receipt of Conservation Easements covering wetland buffer areas. XIV. VIOLATIONS/BUILDING PERMITS A. In the event that Developer violates any of the covenants and agreements contained in this.Development Contract and to be performed by the Developer, the City, at its option, in addition to the rights and remedies as set out hereunder may refuse to issue building permits and/or Certificate of Occupancies to any property within the plat until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. XV. PARK DEDICATION A. Park dedication for Stoneybrook 1st Addition shall consist of a park dedication fee. XVI. PROPERTY TAXES A. Should the recording of the Final Plat occur after July 1, any and all property taxes on any public property dedicated as a part of this plat shall be the responsibility of the Developer. Dollars shall be incorporated into the escrow agreement to cover the cost of said property taxes. page 14 • Development Contract Stoneybrook DEVFT ,OPER By r er STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF LINO LAKES Al 11ST: On this day of , 200 Sbefore me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ty \ +��Q r G �j N(Mayor) and A`" l61., �lerk), to me known to be respectively the Mayor and Cle k of the City of Lino Lakes, and who executed the foregoin ttrument and acknowledge that they executed the same on behalf of said City. otary publ. NOL{^.'' '+ESOTA • My Commtss;;;n Ex ;rs Jan. 31, 2005 page 15 Development Contract Stoneybrook STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On thiL day of JCe , of 200, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared s ��I ► 1411 d (Developer), to me known to be (% r { PP � iD p ), the , of <o //e -(501 r de f •, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and that they executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they/he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. LISA M. HOGSTAD NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005 v��c� Nile Notary Public page 16 CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ( "Easement ") is made of this day of , 2003 by Tollefson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ( "Grantor "). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property lying and being within the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota legally described on attached Exhibit A (the "Property"); and B. The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota ( "Grantee ") is a Minnesota municipal corporation. C. Grantor desires and intends to grant and convey to Grantee, a conservation easement for the purposes set forth in this instrument, all as more fully set forth herein. WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a non - exclusive conservation easement over, under and across that portion of Grantor's Property legally described on attached Exhibit B (the "Easement ") on the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Easement area is depicted by a sketch attached hereto as Exhibit C. Exhibit C is for illustrative purposes only, and the legal description of the Easement contained in Exhibit B shall control. Section 1. Conservation Easement. 1.1 Grant. Grantor herewith grants to Grantee a conservation easement for the purposes, and subject to the terms herein specified, over and upon the Easement area legally described in Exhibit B. 1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the Easement is to assure that the Easement area shall, at all times hereafter, remain in its current undisturbed condition, constitute scenic surroundings, and constitute a suitable habitat for wetland vegetation and/or wildlife. This conservation easement shall in no way be construed so as to grant to the public any rights to use or improve the Easement area for any other public or private purpose. • 1.3 Building Restrictions. No buildings or other structures of any kind, and no fences, roads, signs, poles, no wires, or other material of any kind shall be erected, installed, constructed, placed, or allowed to be erected, installed, constructed or placed on or within all or any portion of the Easement area. Page 1 of 6 1.4 Restriction on Removal of Vegetation. No trees, shrubs, or other vegetation shall be removed from the Easement area except for noxious weeds or for purposes of tree disease control by, or as directed by governmental agency. 1.5 Storage Restrictions. No storage of any manmade objects, and no soil, trash, waste, or other materials or substances of any kind shall be dumped or placed, or allowed to be dumped or placed, as fill or for any other purpose, upon any portion of the Easement area. 1.6 Excavation Restriction. No soil or other material or substance shall be excavated, dredged, or removed from any part of the Easement area. 1.7 GeneraUEnvironmental Restrictions. No activities detrimental to the drainage, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or wildlife and vegetative habit preservation of the Easement area, and no other activities detrimental to the preservation of the said area, shall be conducted or permitted on all or any part of the Easement area. No fertilizers, whether natural or chemical, no pesticides, herbicides, or insecticide may be sprayed or applied to the Easement area except by, or as directed by, a governmental agency. No surface use shall be made of all or any part of the Easement area which is detrimental to the preservation of its scenic beauty or its habitat for wetland vegetation and/or wildlife. 2. Maintenance. Grantor herewith grants to Grantee, its agents and employees the right, but not the obligation, to preserve, improve and enhance the slope, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat within the Easement area by altering, clearing, and removing trees or other vegetation, by changing the contour of the land, and by planting trees or other vegetation and to enter upon the Easement area at anytime to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. • 3. Enforcement. 3.1 By Public Authorities. This Conservation Easement may be enforced, at law or in equity, by Grantee. 3.2 By Private Parties. This Conservation Easement may be enforced, and any controversy or dispute involving the meaning of the language, or any term or condition, of this instrument, may be settled, in arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association by a sole arbitrator. In addition to owners of any portion of the Property, Grantee shall have standing to initiate such arbitration proceedings. All owners of any portion of the Property, and Grantee, shall have the right to receive notice of the pendency of any such arbitration proceedings, and the right to participate therein. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in the Association's offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at such other place as is agreed to by the parties. The arbitrator shall have the right, to be exercised in the discretion of the arbitrator, to award attorneys fees and costs to the opposing parties if the arbitrator determines that any party to any dispute or disagreement in connection with this instrument has acted in bad faith with respect to the Easement, the dispute, or the arbitration. Judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in Anoka County District Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person owning any portion of the Property, or possessing any rights hereunder, shall have the right to seek from Anoka County District Court equitable or provisional remedies (such as temporary restraining orders, temporary injunctions, and the like) before or after any arbitration. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 Severability. If any term, covenant or provision of this instrument, or any exhibit attached hereto, is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such determination shall not be Page 2 of 6 deemed to alter, affect, or impair in any manner whatsoever any other portion of this instrument or any exhibit •attached hereto. 4.2 Binding Effect. The Property shall be transferred, held, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to and together with the Conservation Easement granted herein. The Conservation Easement shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each such parties and shall run with the land. 4.3 Duration. The duration of this Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. 4.4 Nonexclusive. The owners of any portion of the Property shall have the right to use the Easement area to the extent that such use is not inconsistent with the rights granted to Grantee by this instrument. 4.5 Title. Grantor represents and warrants that no other person has an interest in the Easement area other than Grantor, and that Grantor has good right, title and interest in the Property which is the subject to the Easement granted herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this instrument as of the day and year first above - written. TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Minnesota corporation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. ) COUNTY OF .I% foregoing the corporation. trument was acknowledged before me this ! _ • ay of 2003, by of Tollefson Development, c., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of • This instrument Drafted by: S. Todd Rapp, P.A. 15025 Glazier Avenue, Suite 401 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 (952)432 -3240 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 1 through 9, inclusive, Block 1; Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 2; Lots 1 through 25, inclusive, Block 3; Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, Block 4; Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 5; Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, Block 6; Lots 1 and 2, Block 7; Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 8; Lots 1 through 22, inclusive, Block 9 and Lots 1 through 23, inclusive, Block 10, all in Stoneybrook, Anoka County, Minnesota. • • EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA EXHIBIT C EASEMENT AREA SKETCH • • (n i5 c/ • • (os _S Environmental Memo To: Paul Bengtson From: Marty Asleson Date: August 3, 2006 Re: August 2 Environmental Board Recommendations The following recommendations were made concerning Golden Acre: Although the site is not large enough for the RCWD to review, recommend following standard guidelines for addition of impervious. That is an infiltration area must be provided to infiltrate the impervious area from the Mpls -St. Paul median storm (.34 inches) in 72 hours. This area could be in the form of a rain garden between the 4 houses with as much impervious area as possible directed to it. The infiltration area must be protected from compaction before construction begins. The grading plan shows the surface water flowing to the neighbor lot. The grading plan should be changed to reflect on site storage /infiltration of water. The infiltration area should be in the form of a rain garden and the design approved by the City A SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) and a MPCA permit are required for this project. The SWPPP must be submitted to the City for approval before any soil disturbance occurs, as well as the MPCA permit. The SWPPP must be located on site (Preferably a mail box) with weekly and post rain fall event inspection reports. The developer did submit an erosion control plan (Attachment 4). The erosion plan should be made more comprehensive to address pollution issues such as concrete truck cleaning and litter containment. The plan needs to show a concrete truck wash site that is protected by containment barriers. All wash out must be removed from the site after construction. The plan signature is the responsible person that will inspect and correct deficiencies. The name and 24 hour phone number of this person must be added to the plan. Location of the required rock entrance must be shown on the plan. • Page 1 • Storm sewer catch basins need to be protected with an Infrashield type of device. Silt fabric will not be allowed. • The SWPPP needs to be very site specific. With out revision, the project should not be allowed to move forward. An inventory of significant trees should be submitted with s tree preservation plan. Escrow one boulevard tree per house No soils should be imported or exported without City approval. Motion to approve recommendations by Norman, 2 "d by Grundhoffer. All were in favor. • Page 2 • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: August 2, 2006 TOPIC: Golden Acre BACKGROUND: This is a preliminary plat proposal for a rezone, variance for lot size /width /depth. This is almost an identical proposal to the adjacent Haley Manor Plat that was reviewed in 2003. Golden Acre has a total acreage of 1.11 acres. The existing zoning is R -1 Residential. The Developer wishes to subdivide to 4 Tots. The project is located in Mar Don Acres, North of Lois Lane and South of Arlo Lane (Attachment 1, 2, 3). As with Haley Manor, there are no significant pre- existing land covers on site, nor are there any pre- existing soil -water relationships that would indicate rare plant features. There are no National heritage Consideration and no existing wetlands. Although the site is not large enough for the RCWD to review, recommend following standard guidelines for addition of impervious. That is an infiltration area must be provided to infiltrate the impervious area from the Mpls -St. Paul • median storm (.34 inches) in 72 hours. This area could be in the form of a rain garden between the 4 houses with as much impervious area as possible directed to it. The infiltration area must be protected from compaction before construction begins. The grading plan shows the surface water flowing to the neighbor lot. The grading plan should be changed to reflect on site storage /infiltration of water. A SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) and a MPCA permit are required for this project. The SWPPP must be submitted to the City for approval before any soil disturbance occurs, as well as the MPCA permit. The SWPPP must be located on site (Preferably a mail box) with weekly and post rain fall event inspection reports. The developer did submit an erosion control plan (Attachment 4). The erosion plan should be made more comprehensive to address pollution issues such as concrete truck cleaning and litter containment. The plan needs to show a concrete truck wash site that is protected by containment barriers. All wash out must be removed from the site after construction. The plan signature is the responsible person that will inspect and correct deficiencies. The name and 24 hour phone number of this person must be added to the plan. Location of the required rock entrance must be shown on the plan. Storm sewer catch basins need to be protected with an Infrashield type of device. Silt fabric will not be allowed. • Much of the language in the Erosion Control Notes are template /cut and past sentences with little thought on specifics or site realities. For instance, the notes • • • talk about Tree Preservation where there are no significant trees to be saved on the site. The SWPPP needs to be very site specific. With out revision, the project should not be allowed to move forward. There are no significant trees on the site. Escrow one boulevard tree per house frontage will be required. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 Attachments: 1. Location 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Boundary/Topographic Survey 4. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 5. Utility Plan • • 4 • 1 1 si GRADING, DRA1NAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN • ARLO LANE' sas-zrz a 65.00 is U r 0 n i cs O PmaC • i� J f r gig. � ti I212 It s. !'• 7 a P. Milraa NOTE DRAINAGE ALONG SIDE LOT LIES SHALL BE DdiECTED U 1O NFL1RA710N SUMS WITHIN EACH LOT. DRAINAGE STALL NOT BE DIRECTED ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES 7.3 • r� --EXISTING FENCE (TO BE SAVED) gn CURB & CUTTER LOIS LANE a aERB Ec RiJ77k7! 217 FENCE REOIIIRENENIS MAC AS PER ROOT SPEC SRO 7 maw ENamamEr M r IONiY DE'Ai1R W FARM rICrO' AIUMIY OSFIINONS OF MOOD SAKES WAVY DUTY SILT FENCE PER WOW SPEC. NW SLT FENCE WOOD POST NOSE NP. 600 GRADING LEGEND s EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS SLT FENCE ORANAGE ARROW RAN GARDEN INFILTRATION AREA GRADING NOTES LOCATHON MAP NWT W SCALE SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SELO GAR: 912. 2_��G� PRDPMES 0--- PI�OSED GARAGE ELEVATION ENTRT 'MK DIM LEE: ELEVATIERI ELEVATION LO: 911.9'' PROPOSED CONTOURS REPENT FINISHED ED SURFACE ELEVATIONS. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTE GUTTER LINE OF CURB. DOSING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ATE BASED ON RECORD DRAWINGS AND. MERE POSSIBLE, MEAS1JREENTS TAKEN N THE FEL.D. TIE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EMT OR COMPLETE. COMRALAuR SILL CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPARES AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR 10 EXCAVATION, TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTIJIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING AU. EJISTMG UTILITIES WHICH H CONFLICT VIM 71E PROPOSED MPROVDEMS SHORN ON THE PLANS CONTRACTOR TD CALL GOPH ER STATE ONE CALL (1 -800 -252- 1188) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVA710N FOR LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES CONTRACTOR REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES 10 BE SAVED. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES !LEGUME REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT. TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES CF A PROFESSIONAL TRIMS SERVICE TO 1iN1 THE TREES. SHOULD THE CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS RESULT N TIE BEATING OF ANY UMEIS, TIE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED 10 IMAM ANY LASTING DAMAGE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORI7AIION BY 1HE MINER. 00515 FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONS ICIDENTAL TO TIE GRADING CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR SMALL SHIP, SIOCCPRE AND RE- SPREAD SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL 10 PROVIDE A MI E M FOUR NCH DEPTH 10 AU. DISTURBED AREAS 10 BE SODDED OR SEEDED. TEE PROPOSED GRADN4G PLAN INDICATES FINAL GRADING AFTER THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A HOLODONM OF 2.5 ACROSS VC BUILD PAD LOCATIONS DURING THE GENERAL GRADING OF TIE SHE. THE FINISHED BUILDING SUMMATE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.10 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE PROPOSED ELEVATION. STREET OR PAR TONI AREA SUBORADE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FEET ABOVE OR BEI.Ow THE PROD ELEVATION. AREAS TO RECEIVE TOPSOL SHALL BE GRADED TO WHIN 0.10 FEET OF THE REQUIRED ELEVATION IRILESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY TIE E4G88EJ=RR. TOPSOIL SMALL BE GRADED 10 WORN 1f NCH OF 11E SPECIFIED THICOESS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REWARD/DOS OF THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY - NATIONAL POLWTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (OEMS) PERM CONTRACTOR SHALL BE A CO- APPLICANT WITH THE OVNER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE REQUIRED INSPECTION REPORTS AND BE IESPONSELE FOR MAN1pNANGE OF THE EROSION CONTROL ggVKES EROSION CONTROL NOTES ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TD COMMENCEMENT OF GRADS OPERATIONS AND S MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS CN THE 511E HAVE BEEN RESTORED. 1EIAPORARY EROSION CONTROL TO BE PLACED AROUND STORM DRUM STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. SEDIMENT SHALL RE REMOVED FROM AU. SEDD ENT CONTROL DEVICES AS NECESSARY AND MUST 80 REMOVED F DESIGN CAPACITY HAS BEEN REDUCED BY FIFTY PERCENT. A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR DURATION OF PROJECT. ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER, NOT TO BE SODDED AND GREATER THIN EIGHT FEET N HEIGHT, SHALL NAVE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC PETALLED. STREETS SHALL BE MOT FREE OF SEDIMENT CARRIED BY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND MULCH AU. DISTURBED AREAS NOT 10 BE SODDED. SLIDING SHALL S PER MnDOT SPECIFICATION 3576 APPLIED AT A RATE OF FIFTY POUNDS PER ACE. SEEDING N POND AND INFILTRATION AREAS SHALL 85 MDCTURE 31011W1 (NAIVE WET TART,) 84 ACCORDANCE WITH MnDOT SPECIRCAIIGN 3876 APPLIED AT A RATE OF B2 PGIIDA PER ACRE. MULCH SHALL BE PER MADOT SPECIFICATION 3082. TYPE 2. TIE MULCH SHALL 00 APPLED N ACCORDANCE WITH MnDOT SPE0FLCA110N 2575.3, N1. MULCH TO 80 APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1W0 TOMS PER ACRE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH A DISC. 0.00BU5TER RJR OTHER APPROVED EQUIPMENT. 0 • a 0 H Z o (%)Zz W�� tri Z -Jw <nQ 2tJ O Z (1) W Q 0 Z W -J 00 C3 Q 1 W CD Q0 ui Z CC 0 V t.9O z_2 0 Q �W KG KG PROST 1805 -001 LINO LAKES, MN 08123/06 1/1 • • Memo LL5 Environmental To: Paul Bengtson From: Marty Asleson Date: April 6, 2006 Re: March 29, 2006 Environmental Board Recommendations The February 22, 2006 Environmental Board made the following recommendations for the Legacy Townhomes: Landscaping • Several changes should be made to the plant schedule. Recommend changing Sunburst Honeylocust to straight thornless Honeylocust. Sugar maples will not do well in the sandy soils of Woods Edge. Red or Sunburst maples should be substituted for the Sugar maples. Americanna/native (Redmond) Lindens should be substituted for the Cordata /non native (Greenspire) Lindens. European larch should be changed to the native Eastern Larch. Ponderosa pine should be changed to native White Pine or Red Pine. The area to the east of impervious areas and bordering the basin area (trail location area) should be planted with native Eastem Larch in the wet to mesic soils, and white oak with Red oak in the upland areas. • Conservation Easement areas should be planted with the City Native Seed mix • Top soil note in the landscape plan. Should read "all areas disturbed by construction activities except for native specified seed areas should have 4 inches of loam top soil thourghly incorporated into the subsoil and seeded or sodded..." Again, where native plants are specified, no topsoil shall be specified. • Raingarden and infiltration basins... should read "shall receive the City specified native seed mix." • Under the Sodding Installation Notes, should read "4 inches of top soil should be thouroughly incorporated into the subsoil." Areas to receive sod should not be fertilized with a 10 -10 -10 fertilizer. A starter fertilizer with "0" phospherous must be used. • Page 1 • • • Under the seeding section of the notes, there should be no specification for top soil/organic matter incorporation into the infiltration basin areas. In filtration basin areas should be seeded with the City native seed mix and any changes approved by the City of Lino Lakes. • Sodded Areas must be irrigated. • • Conservation Easement Recommendation Trail • The area to the east of impervious areas and bordering the basin area (trail location area) be placed in a Conservation Easement with the City named as the easement holder. . No top soil should brought in for native seed areas. • The trail location should be staked by the City. This trail should be placed higher on the contour than otherwise. There has been discussion on the Tamarack basin restoration to the East and since the hydrologic elevations of such a restoration project have not been modaled yet, the trail should generally be placed as high as possible. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan A copy of the mandatory Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) submitted to the MPCA for approval should be submitted to the City of Lino Lakes Environmental for Review and Approval before any construction activity proceedes. A copy of the final approved plan must be maintained on site with the required weekly and post storm event inspection reports. The SWPPP site manager's name should be submitted to the City with how to contact this person. The location of this site must be indicated on the SWPPP. The SWPPP must indicate where rock entrances to the site construction area will be placed. The rock entrance must be at least 50 feet in length. The rock must be 1.5 inches in diameter and maintained for rock pore space. The SWPPP must indicate a "trigger point' for cleaning silt fence areas. Silt fences must be cleaned when the fences becomel /3 full. The SWPPP must indicate specific plans and intentions for dewatering on anticipated and unanticipated storm events. The plan must indicate procedures for dewatering that would prevent turbid/fioculant waters from leaving the site. The plan should also indicate a method to control wind erosion off of the site. The SWPPP must show one, and only one area on the site where cement trucks will clean their tanks. This area must be protected from the movement of cleaned materials from the clean site. The SWPPP must indicate disposal of Cement Truck Cleaning materals after construction is finished. All storm water sewer inlets must be protected with a mechanical device such as the Royal Industries Infra Safe device. Lighting All security lighting that may be installed on the Town Homes must meet City specifications. • Page 2 • • • Memo b Environmental To: Paul Bengtson From: Marty Asleson Date: May 3, 2006 Re: April 29, 2006 Environmental Board Recommendations /Integra Site The April 29, 2006 Environmental Board made the following recommendations: • Since it is in a Level 1 habitat area, and an important Greenway area it was recommended to pursue a Conservation Development. • It is important to look beyond the borders in design considerations to include connections between Foxburough and the Saddle Club property. • Developer should provide for increased public value as presented in the preliminary review of May 25, 2005. Provision of contiguous, restored and managed open space in the City Greenway would be most desirable. • Keep proposed 28 feet roads. • The proposed Conservation Easement should have acceptable documentation covering the Easement, tied to Covenants and Restricts ions of deed and homeowners association. The fees should be tied to the management requirements outlined in the proposed stewardship plan. • The plan should show roof -top water directed to grass areas of yards. Rain gardens, although hard to see (Attachment 9), are designed into the front of the eastern bank of houses. Recommend this design be carried over into the western cul -de -sac bank of houses. Curb cuts should collect water off the road surface and flow into the rain gardens. These rain gardens should be low maintenance types, have a garden appearance, and be similar to those gardens designed in the Maple Wood or • Page 1 • Burnsville retrofit garden models. Property owners were given a choice of planting type. The plants for these ponds, although encouraged to be, do not necessarily have to be native. Evaporative Control Systems could be an option for these gardens. These ponds should be separately funded from through storm water programming rather than restoration dollars. Infiltration Ponds and storm ponds and swales should be planted to native species in accordance with Critical Connections recommendations for restoration and management. All yard soils that will be planted with sod must have 4 inches of top soil thoroughly tilled into the soil before sodding. • A Storm Water Pollution Plan is different from an erosion control plan. Developers typically submit an Erosion Control Plan. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is a" living- breathing" document required under the Non -Point Discharge Elimination System requirements of the PCA. Stormwater management can change from day to day and the document should reflect anticipated and unanticipated events. An Erosion Control Plan typically has generic copy -paste text and pictures. A SWPPP gets very site specific. For instance, Attachments 6 and 7 talks about concrete truck cleanout areas. A SWPPP will locate a spot on the Map. The SWPPP needs to have a designated stormwater contact on the plan and a phone number that the person can be reached at. The SWPPP will address unforeseen events such as the need to dewater turbid site water. The SWPPP should define beforehand how this will be done so that polluted water does not leave the site. The Erosion Control Plan will clip -paste notes on rock entrances and the SWPPP will address who will replaceltop dress rock filled with sediment. The SWPPP document must be in a designated place on site along with the required weekly and post rainfall event inspection sheets. A mailbox on the site marked SWPPP works best for the City. An acceptable SWPPP must be submitted to the City Environmental and Engineering for approval prior to ground breaking. • No import or export of soils w /out city approval • City lighting ordinance needs to be followed. Keep lighting and monument lighting to minimum. • Developer should submit an acceptable landscape plan. • Developer should look at using modified walkouts as much as possible in order to reduce fill placement. • Developer should have a document produced for homeowners to evidence Association and deed restrictions, and declaration of covenants. • Page 2 • • Remove shallow marsh restoration from the plan. • • Acceptable signage should be placed at the conservation easement boundaries of each lot. • Storm Water Pollution Plan should have a name and a number placed on it for 7 days a week contact purposes. • Add one boulevard tree per frontage if there is room to do so. • Page 3 • Agenda Item 5A • Environmental Board Meeting Date: May 25, 2005 Topic: Integra Homes -The Preserve, PUD, Conservation Development/ Preliminary Plat application review. Background: On May 2591 of 2005, the Environmental Board reviewed a site purchased by Integra Homes. The purpose of review was to present the natural resource and cultural issues on the Integra Site in order to discern the viability of conservation development on the Integra land. There were no lot/street layouts that were looked at that time. Subsequently, Integra submitted application for a PUD Development on April 10, 2006 Analysis: From The Environmental Board Resources Review of May 25th 2005 /Summary Resources The Integra property is within a Level 1 habitat/greenway area of the Open Space, Greenways, Parks and Trails Plan. Level 1 habitat is those habitats pulled out of our MLCCS that are of higher existing value. The Integra property is in regionally significant eco patches. These eco - patches were mapped by the MN DNR The MLCCS for the Integra site showed: Delineated wetland areas are cattail marsh. The aspen forest area also has interspersed oaks, cherry and red maple on the more upland areas. These areas are inundated with new growth buckthorn plants. There are smaller areas of saturated aspen forest, long grasses and forbs on upland soils, willow swamp, seasonally flooded non native emergent vegetation, and grassland with sparse trees, oak forest, and wet meadow -shrub sub type. County Ditch 25 channels water to the NE through the Integra land, and goes to Wards Lake, then to Reshanau Lake. The flood plain area map is extensive throughout this site. It was recommended to do as much as possible to create a surface water treatment train and buffer system to improve water quality to Reshenau Lake. C,F7 • Delineated wetlands are extensive. We recommended as much buffer as • • possible in these areas when the initial site was reviewed last year. Much of the land soils are Rf. Rf is muck, and the Iw is wet sand. Both are classified as hydric soils. It is the areas where these soils form bands and are covered by flood plain, or used to be covered by flood plain that have a big potential to restore to rare vegetation. The soils also show the challenges to building houses in this area, and protecting /restoring resources. Critical Connections has further reviewed the plant communities on this site and found Tubercled Reign Orchid. The Lino Lakes Blandings Turtle Model shows activity and breeding patches close to the site. The Minnesota DNR Natural heritage database also shows Blanding's Turtle concerns in the vicinity of our mapped model. Pre - settlement vegetation for most of the site was classified as wet prairie, except for the NE corner of the Integra property. This was classified as oak openings and barrens. Greenways and Trails The greenways trail concepts from the City Open Space, Parks, Greenways and Trails Plan shows a trail traveling from Foxbourough through the SE part of the Saddle Club site, into the Integra site and into Birch Park (Attachment 6). This is an important link in our trails and greenways concept, and is intended to be more of a recreational experience. Public Value Statements Conservation developments can be desirable if the City can achieve higher stated public values. These public values may or may not translate into a scenario that works for the developer. The process should attempt to foster a higher collaboration between the City and the Developer to achieve higher public values. Value Statements for Foxbourough were: • Preserving more natural open space (through a conservation easement). • Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and the size of the development footprint • Restore /enhance ecological systems on the site as part of the development process • Protect off -site ecological systems through increased buffering • Ensure long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer • Provide public park and trail opportunities consistent with the System Plan • Manage storm water (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration approaches • Preserve the open space aesthetics to which community residents have become accustomed. • Maintain natural buffer between established and new developments. Questions surrounding these statements (or additional statements) should be evaluated in regards to Integra. In addition there may be other value statements, or modifications to the above statements that could be listed for Integra. Statements such as: • Establishing and enhancing important and functional wildlife links, reduces fragmentation of unique habitats. • Protecting known or possible rare plant communities • Establishing a public awareness and education site for community residents. • Promotes a neighborhood community atmosphere. • Creates an important resident trail Zink . • Creates a crucial greenway link. Options: Recommendation as made by the Environmental Board. This property will be developed in some fashion. Since it is in a Level 1 habitat area, and an important Greenway area I would recommend pursuing a Conservation Development, unless the same flexibility can be applied to enable the protection of resources. There is not a great deal of buildable uplands on this piece of property, and in order to facilitate adequate conservation buffering /and protection conservation development techniques would need to be used in my opinion. Equally important is to look beyond the borders in design considerations to include connections between Foxborough and the Saddle Club property. Recommendation May 25th, 2005: Was made To Pursue a Conservation Development Integra Homes, and Critical Connections will be at the meeting to present their findings and to discuss the Development Proposal. The project submitted includes 31 Lots on approximately 50 acres of land. The total upland for the property is 14.97 acres. The proposed density is between 1.61 and 1.7 units per acre. We have asked the Developer to provide for increased public value as presented in the preliminary review of May 25, 2005. Provision of contiguous, restored and managed open space in the City Greenway would be most desirable. • • • • Site Use The developer has minimized impacts by redesigning the road and building pad areas. The road used to be more "U" shaped and go through Outlot B. The road now is separated into two cul -de -sacs that minimize wetland impacts. The Southern cul -de -sac is mapped on top the Saddle Club property. The Developer is in the process of purchasing a right of way from the saddle Club owners. The saddle Club was recently purchased by another developer. Integra will pull the cul -de -sac back onto his property should he not obtain an easement. Not a big environmental issue but it shows the developer is trying to look beyond the boundaries of his land in planning. House frontages have been reduced allowing more room on the backsides of houses to preserve and buffer greenway (Attachment 5). Drive lanes on the road have been reduced to 28 feet. This is the minimum standard now in use. The layout of the land on this site makes it difficult to design the desired trail into the plan. The proposed trail has been placed in such a fashion that wetland impact has been minimized. Note the boardwalk sections on Attachments 3, 4, 5. and that roadway is being used as designated trail connections. Engineering still has to verify the proposal for conformity to engineering standards, particularly for water elevations. Minimum lot size must be confirmed with Planning and Zoning. Conservation Easement A Conservation Easement is proposed for the site. See Attachment 5. This Conservation Easement should be written in a similar manner to the Foxburough Conservation Easements, Covenants and Restrictions document of Foxburough. Similar dollar amounts should be applied to The Preserve. That is, in Foxburough, $40,000 initial startup restoration dollars, $100,000 Trust fund and $100 per lot Association Fees were applied. It would be alright with The Preserve to look at more of the trust dollars be used up front in initial restoration efforts. Restoration and Management Plan The Developer has submitted a Restoration and Management Plan for the Conservation area of The Preserve (Attachment 12). This Document is intended to guide the restoration and management of the natural areas in the future. The document submitted is comprehensive. Critical Connections will be at the meeting to address questions concerning restoration and management plans, as well as give a more comprehensive existing conditions update. In addition, public value statements submitted by Integra are included as Attachment 13. • Surface Water Management The plan should show roof -top water directed to grass areas of yards. Rain gardens, although hard to see (Attachment 9), are designed into the front of the eastern bank of houses. Recommend this design be carried over into the western cul -de -sac bank of houses. Curb cuts should collect water off the road surface and flow into the rain gardens. These rain gardens should be low maintenance types, have a garden appearance, and be similar to those gardens designed in the Maple Wood or Burnsville retrofit garden models. Property owners were given a choice of planting type. The plants for these ponds, although encouraged to be, do not necessarily have to be native. Evaporative Control Systems could be an option for these gardens. These ponds should be separately funded from through storm water programming rather than restoration dollars. Infiltration Ponds and storm ponds and swales should be planted to native species in accordance with Critical Connections recommendations for restoration and management. All yard soils that will be planted with sod must have 4 inches of top soil thoroughly tilled into the soil before sodding. • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan A Storm Water Pollution Plan is different from an erosion control plan. Developers typically submit an Erosion Control Plan. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is a "living- breathing" document required under the Non -Point Discharge Elimination System requirements of the PCA. Stormwater management can change from day to day and the document should reflect anticipated and unanticipated events. An Erosion Control Plan typically has generic copy -paste text and pictures. A SWPPP gets very site specific. For instance, Attachments 6 and 7 talks about concrete truck cleanout areas. A SWPPP will locate a spot on the Map. The SWPPP needs to have a designated stormwater contact on the plan and a phone number that the person can be reached at. The SWPPP will address unforeseen events such as the need to dewater turbid site water. The SWPPP should define beforehand how this will be done so that polluted water does not leave the site. The Erosion Control Plan will clip -paste notes on rock entrances and the SWPPP will address who will replace /top dress rock filled with sediment. The SWPPP document must be in a designated place on site along with the required weekly and post rainfall event inspection sheets. A mailbox on the site marked SWPPP works best for the City. An acceptable SWPPP must be submitted to the City Environmental and Engineering, and prior to ground breaking. • Tree Preservation Although a bit hard to read, an acceptable tree inventory and preservation plan was submitted as Attachment 11. Unfortunately, with limited area to develop, most of the trees will be lost on the site where building pads, roads, and stormwater collection areas are designed. Options: 1. Recommend approval to move forward with The Preserve with Staff and Environmental Board Recommendations 2. Recommend denial /and or table. Recommendation: Option 1 Attachments: 1. Site Development Plans/Vicinity Map -April 10, 2006 2. The Preserve, Existing Features 3. The Preserve, Preliminary Plat Property Description 4. The Preserve, Preliminary Plat 5. The Preserve, Site Plan 6. The Preserve, Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control 7. The Preserve, Preliminary Plat and Erosion Control 8. The Preserve, Preliminary Plat and Erosion Control Notes. 9. The Preserve, Preliminary Utility Plan 10. The Preserve, Preliminary Mitigation Plan 11. The Preserve, Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan 12. The Preserve Conservation Development "Restoration and Management Plan for Conservation Areas". 13. Integra Public Value Statements. • • • Memo Environmental To: Jeff Smyser From: Marty Asleson Date: March 2, 2006 Re: February 22, 2006 Environmental Board Recommendations The February 22, 2006 Environmental Board made the following recommendations: Pheasant Stroll Estates • Wetland delineations must be verified by RCWD • The flood plain area should not be encroached into, particularly the iw soil area underlying the flood plain. This area on this site has a strong potential for rare plants. A rare plant inventory must be completed. Even if rare plants are not found in the flood plain area of Pheasant Stroll Estates, there is a high probability that the seed bank for these plants exist. • The developer should work with RCWD and the City to reposition ponds and infiltration areas located in the flood plain, or design a creative wetland enhancement project that would satisfy the RCWD on this site. • A Conservation Easement should be placed over the flood plain area of this site and given to the City. • The developer provides evidence that the septic system and fuel tank located on the site are properly disposed of. • A landscape plan should be submitted for screening purposes and escrow dollars should be allocated to provide one tree per frontage of each new • Page 1 • house. The landscape plan should show all seeded areas and the City native seed mix shown the plant specifications text. • • The spillway area located on the plan may be inadequately sized and allow siltation into the wetland. • Water from impervious areas should be directed on to grassy areas instead of down driveways and into storm sewers. • The developer should loosen the soils in graded open space areas to restore infiltration capacity. Top soils should be completely tilled as deeply as possible. • Look at other BMPS such as curb cuts and rain gardens along the street scapes to provide a more integrated approach to surface water treatment train. • The Developer has submitted a storm water pollution prevention plan. The plan has most of the issues covered. The "Inspection and Maintenance "notes section" should add that all inspection records and the SWPPP will be maintained on the site in a designated location and available to inspectors at all times. The developer must state where this location will be on the site. Most convenient is a mailbox. The rock entrance described in the SWPPP should be at least 50 feet long. The large scale map was unreadable. In addition, it is suggested that additional stockpile of 1.5 inch rock be maintained on the site to top dress the entrance when rock pore space is filled. The City would prefer the Infrasafe Debris Collection Device (or a suitable substitute) for storm sewer inlet protection. These must be used on all constructed and existing storm water inlets. If there are anticipated concerns with soil movement along Ware Road, these devices should be used there. A street sweeping schedule should be submitted that is acceptable to the City on all interior and exterior roads used for the project. • Soils should not be imported or exported from this site without City approval. Motion to recommend approval of this project with staff and Environmental Board recommendations by O'Connell, second by Bor, all were in favor. • Page 2 • • • L e5 AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: February 22, 2006 TOPIC: Pheasant Stroll Estates /Rezone to R -3 and Preliminary Plat For 28 Lots BACKGROUND: Pheasant Stroll Estates is a 10 acre proposal located At County Road J and Ware Road (Attachment 1). The developer proposes to build 28 units at 2.8 units per acre on this 10 acre site. This site is guided for Medium Density Residential in a stage 1 growth area. Sewer and water is available to the site. Storm sewer is also available along Ware Road. The developer is proposing to re -zone the land from R, Rural to R -3, medium density residential district. Level One Habitat Level one habitat areas are those areas that were mapped from the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System of Lino Lakes showing resources of higher significance. The level one habitat areas are those areas that were pulled out of the MLCCS that had higher existing values. The level one habitat areas are the foundation for the location of our proposed greenways and Trail corridors. Please refer to the Preliminary Park, Greenway & Trail System Plan document. The map on the 1st page shows this area as a Natural resources Conservation area with trail corridor from the East to the West in the vicinity of this development. Also see Attachment 2. Attachment 2 shows the edge of this Level one habitat plunging in to the northern part of the property. This area is for the most part flood plain. Vegetative Cover The MLCCS is depicted on Attachment 3. The site has planted mixed conifers and deciduous to the SE, Short Grasses and Mixed Trees to the SW, Aspen Forest, Cattail Marsh and Boxelder to the North. Water Resources Surface water from this site flows to Baldwin Lake. The sub watershed is mostly flat with a very small slope going to the North. Attachment 4 shows the Sub Watershed Boundary National Wetlands Inventory, and Flood Plain. Not shown are the delineated wetlands on the site. Type 3 Wetlands were delineated in the NWI area and an area to the SE. Rice Creek Water Shed has received the wetland delineation but will not be able to verify wetland boundaries until spring. They have not looked at any of the proposed surface water management features at this time. Required Tree Preservation Plan and Resources Inventory The developer has submitted Tree Inventory and "Clear Zone" Map for trees and resources (Attachment 6). Trees in the save areas are depicted as separated • • from construction activities by silt fence. The developer should understand that the City may ask for a more substantial tree protection fence in areas where grading and construction approaches save areas. In addition to tree locations, the map shows soil types, delineated wetlands, and flood plain areas. I have supplemented this map with GIS Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 11. Trees for the most part are smaller diameter Boxelder, and Siberian Elm typical of a previously disturbed site. There are also select areas of Eastern red Cedar, Scotch Pine, and White /Blue Spruce. Significant Resources Considerations. There are no documented National Registry plants or animals on this site. Although not documented on the site, there are other areas of the City where we have found rare plant communities that have the same ecologic signature as an area on this site. See Attachment 11. Pinned areas on the map show areas on the edge or in the flood plain on lw soils where one expect these plants to exist. This is one of the reasons the level one habitat/greenway area is shown dipping into this parcel. One other site observation is the City Blandings Turtle Model predicts Blandings Turtles breeding and activity areas to the North and East. This site is an excellent place to start obtaining connectivity through the level one habitat area to the designated Greenway area to the NE. A Conservation Easement or Fee Title to flood Plain Wetlands on the North Side of this property should be given. A rare plant survey should be required for this proposed development area to substantiate any existing plants. It is unclear to me if the developer is showing the required 10 buffer around wetland areas to the North. A wider buffer is preferable. Type three wetlands proposed to be filled on the South side of the plan will have to be mitigated on a two for one basis somewhere in the sub - watershed. I have inquired with RCWD concerning their findings. All wetland mitigation area, pond areas, and disturbed buffer areas of remaining wetlands must be seeded with the City native seed mix. Signs along a requested Conservation Easement should be placed on the boundary every 100 to 150 feet. All pond and infiltration, and spillway areas must show a public access for maintenance needs. Forbays should be incorporated into pond and spillway areas in order to keep sediment out of existing wetland Native seed should be used at any spillway overflow areas. There is a concern for the spillway over flow. The spillway is questionably and empirically small and a good amount of surface water is flowing to it. One might expect sedimentation to occur periodically into the wetland area. We do not want this to occur. The Pond area on the North and East sides are constructed into the flood plain and possible rare plant feature area. The ponds /wetland replacement area should be pulled out of this flood plain area and left undisturbed. The rare plant communities commonly found in these areas are dependent on flood plain. It • • • should be noted that even though rare plants may not be found in a site survey, it does not mean that rare plant seed banks do not exist and a restoration project be successful in bringing these plants back. Other Surface Water Credit/BMP Considerations. Water from impervious surfaces should be directed to a grassy area first instead of down driveways into storm sewers. This should include provision that all roof drains must be directed to the grassy areas. There should be a requirement that all turf areas be loosed before sod is placed. All top soil should be completely tilled into the soil. No soils should be imported or exported with out City approval. Suggest a system of curb -cuts and rain - gardens along street scapes as a more integrated approach to Surface Water Treatment Train. Roof top, driveway and street runoff could be directed to these gardens and have a significant effect on stormwater volumes leaving the site. Since Private Drive West has only two storm water inlets on a very long stretch of road, the rain gardens would have ample opportunity to capture surface water runoff. Stormwater Pollution Prevention The Developer has submitted a storm water pollution prevention plan. The plan is included as Attachment 12. The plan has most of the issues covered. The "Inspection and Maintenance "notes section" should add that all inspection records and the SWPPP will be maintained on the site in a designated location and available to inspectors at all times. The developer must state where this location will be on the site. Most convenient is a mailbox. The rock entrance described in the SWPPP should be at least 50 feet long. The large scale map was unreadable. In addition, it is suggested that additional stockpile of 1.5 inch rock be maintained on the site to top dress the entrance when rock pore space is filled. The City would prefer the Infrasafe Debris Collection Device (or a suitable substitute) for storm sewer inlet protection. These must be used on all constructed and existing storm water inlets. If there are anticipated concerns with soil movement along Ware Road, these devices should be used there. A street sweeping schedule should be submitted that is acceptable to the City on all interior and exterior roads used for the project. Landscaping Escrow money should be allocated to provide 1 tree per street frontage on all new lots. A landscape plan should be submitted with a plan to screen all adjacent properties that are affected. Credit for existing and preserved trees that afford screening should be applied. The landscape plan should show all seeded areas and the native City seed mix shown on the plan specifications. A landscape contractor that is experienced with the installation of native seed should be approved by the City. • City Goals and Policy I have included in this report a copy of the City Goals and Policies under the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 13). Please note specifically the language concerning special concern features, and the preservation of water systems including flood plain. OPTIONS: 1. Approve with recommended with comments and recommendations of this report and those of the Environmental Board. 2. Other recommendation as per the Environmental Board RECOMMENDATION: Option 1. Attachments: • 1. Pheasant Stroll Estates Location Map 2. Pheasant Stroll Estates High Level Habitat Vicinity Map 3. Pheasant Stroll Estates MLCCS 4. Pheasant Stroll Estates Water Resources Map 5. Pheasant Stroll Estates Boundary and Topographic Survey 6. Pheasant Stroll Preserve Resource Inventory Map, Tree Inventory, and Tree Removal Plan. 7. Pheasant Stroll Preserve Preliminary Plat 8. Preliminary Grading Plan 9. Preliminary Grading Plan 10. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 11. Special Resource Considerations. 12. Storm water pollution Prevention Plan 13. City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, Natural Environment Section, Goals and Policies. • • • • Agenda Item 5A Environmental Board Meeting Date: June 28, 2006 Topic: Comforts of Home /PUD Development Background: The Comforts of Home proposal is located on the NW Corner of Hodgson Road and County Road J. It is an approximately 17 acre project proposal. The existing landuse is mixed -use, and it is proposed to have mixed -use. The applicant proposes a PUD for the site. Analysis: Land Cover The MLCCS is included as Attachment 4. The land consists of Aspen forest in the NW corner, upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated, long grasses and sparce tree coverage on hydric soils, and grassland with sparce conifer or mixed deciduous /coniferous trees. The Aspen forest area is highly impacted with glossy buckthorn and garlic mustard. I would say the hydric soils mentioned in the MLCCS should be removed from the red area and applied to the Aspen Forest area. Grass land plant communities have spotty butterfly grass and blue joint clumps. Wetlands The wetland delineation report is included as Attachment 17. The isolated wetland area delineated on the site is inundated with glossy buckthorn and garlic mustard. It is suggested that that the developer be responsible for all noxious plant removals on the property. The preliminary utility plan has the wetland labeled with "Temporary Wetland Impact Permit Required." Temporary Wetland impact permits are sometimes given when a utility is proposed to run through a wetland. In this case, existing soils are lifted up and placed back down over a pipe. Care should be given to ensuring a minimum disturbance and that the existing soils are indeed placed back on top of the pipe. City native seed mix used to restore disturbed infiltration, pond, wetland, and infiltration swale areas. This in agreement with RCWD CAPROC rules. Soils io • • • Soils are depicted on Attachment 15. The soils are upland, non - wetland types of soils, except where the wetland was delineated in the NW corner. These upland soils are highly permeable and should be used to the extent possible to infiltrate storm water. On the other hand, precautions should be taken with these soils when proposing fueling stations. A fueling site spill containment area should be designed into the plan if this fueling station goes forward. A requirement of this, and every project in Lino Lakes is that no soils are to be imported or exported without City approval. Surface Water Water from this site flows to Baldwin Lake. Contours on Attachment shows elevations generally dropping off to the NW, and channeling through the backs of yards to White Pine Road. The Developer is proposing to route excess water over to Woodridge Lane and than into a wetland complex to the West. This would change the water flow to CD 8 that goes into Circle Pines. In Tight that direct discharge into wetlands may not be allowed in the future, it is important to look at every opportunity to maintain the predevelopment water quantities as possible. Impervious parking areas must be kept to the minimum allowed under our City code. If additional parking would be desired than a form -pave type of pervious parking should be used. Parking lots are draining to catch basins. Instead of the pipe, maybe the design could mirror the HB Fuller model, or the use of ECS, and include a rain garden /infiltration area where the pipe is. These rain gardens could be connected to swales with additional rain - gardens in most areas. The design is using infiltration drain pipe in the pond areas that will infiltrate additional surface water. Drainage swales should have a low profile planting. Parking island bioretention /infiltration (if used), and rain garden areas (if used) should be designed and have a more formal design that is approved by the City. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan The approved MPCA, SWPPP must be received and approved by the City prior to a grading permit. This is a separate and distinct document from the detail sheets submitted as part of the application process. This SWPPP must have the responsible manager listed and a 24 hour phone number that this person can be reached. The approved SWPPP should be sent to the environmental, and engineering divisions of the Community Development Department. • • • The SWPPP must address dewatering and ensure that no dewatering is done to the wetland. An alternative /temporary pond should be designated and located on the plan (See Attachment 18 for RCWD recommendation on SWPPP maters). The site plan must show the location of the SWPPP's location on the construction site, as well as weekly and post rainfall event inspection reports. A mail box works well for storing SWPPP information. In addition the plan must show a designated concrete truck wash -out area. This area must be identified in the field and designed so that water and material does not leave the wash -out area. The concrete residue must not be later wasted on the site. The developer must indicate to the City how these materials will be disposed (recycled) of. Tree Preservation A Tree Inventory is tabulated on Attachment 10. Options: Recommendation: Option 1 Attachments: 1. Location 2. Location 3. COH Photo 4. MLCCS 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Preliminary Utility Plan 7. Preliminary Grading Plan 8. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 9. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 10. Tree Inventory 11. Senior Living 12. Senior Living 13. Senior Living 14. Surface Water 15. Soils 16. Level 1 Habitat 17. Wetland Delineation Report 18. RCWD Permit Application /CAPROC • • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: January 25, 2005 TOPIC: Woods Edge Landscape BACKGROUND: The City is expecting to go out for bids in February for landscape and lighting in the Woods Edge Development. Bob Moberg (Engineer) and Bob Kost (Landscape Architect) from SEH will be at the meeting to discuss the landscape and lighting plan for the project. They will also have their lighting representative at the meeting to answer questions. SEH will provide visual aids at the meeting. OPTIONS: This is a discussion item and is open for your comments. RECOMMENDATION: Comment with any concerns. Marty Asleson Illhlmm: Jeff Perry [Jeff.Perry@co.anoka.mn.us] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:20 PM To: Marty Asleson; Glenn Fuchs; Scott Noland; Steve.Kittelson @dnr.state.mn.us; vond0O24 @umn.edu Subject: Fwd: Peltier Heron Colony Update - Lino Council The City Council date has been changed to Monday, March 6th at 5:30 pm. does this still work? >>> Jeff Perry 01/20/2006 3:11 PM >» Andy & Steve: Would you guys be availalble to attend a City of Lino Lakes Council Workshop to provide an update on the Heron Research Project on Wednesday, February 22nd at 5:30 pm. Glenn ans Scott, I would like you to attend also since you have been closely tied to the project. Please let me know as soon as possible so Marty can get us on the agenda. Thanks - Jeff Jeff Perry 410(ark Operations Manager noka County Parks and Recreation Department Phone: (763) 767 -2861 Fax: (763) 755 -0230 jeff.perry @co.anoka.mn.us • 1