Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ packet 9-14-09
i LAKE City of Lake Elmo EL M O 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651)777-5510 Fax: (651)777-9615 I Www:LakeElmo.Orp NOVICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting can Monday, September 14, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA i i 1. Pledge of Allegiance Z. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. June 8,2009 4. Public Hearings a. VARIANCE: Consideration of an application to permit the construction of a 147 square-foot addition to the house which increases the non-conforming impervious surface coverage at 8199 Hill Trail North. b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: -Consideration of an t application to amend an existing CUP for Country Sun Farm &Greenhouse at f 1121I b01h Street. c. . ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Consideration of the addition of definitions. to Chapter 11 of the city code as well as revisions to.section 154.081 regarding permitted encroachments. 1 5. Business Items a. Sanctuary Landscape Plan Revision b. Buffer Setbacks in Open Space Preservation Developments c, Economic Development Activities 6. City Council Updates I a, August 18, 2009-Variance for porch at 8618 Ironwood Trl- approved 7. Adjourn i { f DRAFT i City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2009 Chairman Van Zandt called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Britz,Hall, McGinnis, Pearson, and Van Zandt. Absent: Bidon,Fliflet, Van Erem, and Ziertman. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek. i Agenda I Minutes—April 22, 2009 Commissioner Pearson was in attendance at the meeting. M/S/P, Hall/Pearson, approve as amended. Vote: 6:0. May 11, 2009 M/S/P,Anderson/Hall, approve as presented. Vote: 4:0. Abstension: McGinnis and Pearson. Public Hearing—None Business Items—Discussion of Economic Development Activity Planning Director Klatt summarized what economic development means, how that activity pertains to Lake Elmo and to provide input to the Council regarding potential activities and standards. i Chairman Van Zandt stated that cities and/or a state can offer incentives to businesses to locate in their jurisdiction, should the government choose to utilize one of those incentives. He said that like nearby cities have done, Lake Elmo needs to think about what would make the city a destination and then what other amenities are needed to support the destination location. He said that transportation is an issue as the city does not have a park and ride or much for bus routes. Commissioner Hall said you notice where Lake Elmo's boundaries are when you drive on the main routes as the city is markedly different than neighboring communities. The city must have different policies and those should be identified. i Planning Director Klatt stated that the city has taken some strict stances in the Comprehensive Plan with the land use guidance and in the city code. This has restricted j what.can be done, some of which find this to be a positive. Commissioner McGinnis said she would like to support the path of being proactive in the economic development. She said she leans more to inclusivity and is nervous about identifying which businesses should be included. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-8-09 3 i 1 E DRAFT i Commissioner Anderson said she thinks a vision statement would be helpful although there is current mention of the rural character of the city. Commissioner Pearson said it might be helpful to come up with a list of existing businesses in the city and see if they have some thoughts of missing opportunities. Commissioner McGinnis suggested polling other cities of a similar size to see how they went about promoting economic development in their communities. Commissioner Anderson said the City will receive helpful data with the 2010 census. I The commission felt this was a worthwhile effort and the commission would like to be involved. Business Item—Future Meeting Schedule and Long-Range Planning Issues Planning Director Klatt suggested that specific meetings or times be set for review of long-range planning issues at the commission meetings especially with upcoming development in the city. ` E The commission felt a second meeting a month would be worthwhile beginning in September as long as the agendas were well utilized. i City Council.Updates Planning Director Klatt identified that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan was approved on May 19, 2009 at the Council meeting. i Planner Matzek said that the Hugec variance at 2931 Jonquil Trail North was approved after the site plan had been revised to be more in conformance with the recommendation of the commission. Planning Director Klatt identified that an open house was planning to be held that Wednesday for the Wireless Telecommunication Tower Ordinance. Planning Director Klatt said that a predominant planner was giving a free talk in the upcoming weeks and encouraged commissioners to contact him if they would like to attend. 3 Adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i Kelli Matzek Planner i i i Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-8-09 i :i I Planning Commission Date: 9/14109 Public Hearing z Item: 4a ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application from Greg and Kathy Lohmer for a variance from the maximum impervious coverage ratio to permit the construction of a 174 square foot addition at 8199 Hill Trail North —R1 zoning— PID 09-029-21-23-0006 SUBMITTED BY: Kyle K€att, Planning Director � t, REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Administrator i SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing and consider a request from Greg and Kathleen Lohner for a variance to allow the construction of a 147 square foot addition to the house at 8199 Hill Trail North that would add 84 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage to a lot that already exceeds the maximum of 25% coverage allowed under the R-1 Zoning District. The variance has been requested to allow an expansion and improvement of the primary structure on this site that would otherwise be limited to the existing footprint of the building. For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship on a property owner. "Hardship" is broken down into the following three components: a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or i buildings in the same zoning district; and c. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. j In reviewing the request against the three criteria listed above, staff determined all criteria were met as strict adherence to the code would not permit any expansion of the building to increase the amount of usable space. The request is also deemed to be reasonable as the addition would have no impact on adjacent properties. 1, At this time, the planning commission is asked to conduct a public hearing for the variance request to allow construction of the proposed addition. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on this request. 1 1 'I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Valley Branch Watershed District does not require a permit for the proposed addition and did not state any concerns with the application as submitted. :I r t i i • Staff is recommending the inclusion of two conditions if approved to require proper redirection of water away from any neighbors and to make sure that additional impervious surfaces are not added after the project is complete. i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variance for Greg and Kathleen Lohmer, 8199 Hill Trail North, to allow the construction of a 147 square foot addition to the house at 8199 Hill Trail North that would add 84 square feet of additional 1 impervious surface coverage to a lot that already exceeds the maximum of 25% coverage allowed under the R-1 Zoning District i 3 a i ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................................Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning - Report by staff................................................................Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning 1 - Questions from the Commission....................................Chair&Commission Members 1 i Applicant Comments..............................................................................Chair facilitates Questions of the Applicant.............................................Chair &Commission Members Open the Public Hearing.......... .. ................Chair Close the Public Hearing .......................................................................................Chair - Call for a motion....................................................................................Chair Facilitates Discussion of Commission on the motion......................... ...........Chair Facilitates - Action by the Planning Commission ..............................Chair& Commission Members t ATTACHMENTS (10): 1. Staff Report .. 2. Area Map i 3. Application Form 4. Applicant's Narrative(1 pages) 5. Certificate of Survey 6. Response from Valley Branch Watershed District i I 4 i i s I i i �3 i City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review z To: City Council From: Kyle Klatt, (Director of Planning Meeting Date: 9-14-09 i Applicant: Greg and Kathleen Lohmer Location: 8199 Hill'.frail North Current Zoning RI —One Family Residential i i Introductoty Iit orntatiotl Request: The applicant is seeking approval of variances to allow the expansion of a principle structure located at 8199 Hill Trail North. Specifically, a variance has been requested as follows: i ® To pen-nit an increase in the impervious coverage on the lot for a bathroom addition. The lot currently exceeds the maximum limit of 25%impervious surface coverage and the addition would increase the total impervious coverage on the site by 0.5%or 84 square feet. Please note that the application as submitted to the City included a request for a variance to allow the construction of a deck at the rear of this property. After further review of s the site survey, Staff determined that a variance would not be necessary to build a deck because the City's Shoreland Ordinance allows for an encroachment for decks up to a certain distance towards the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) for structures that do not meet the required minimum setback from a water body. 1 Background. The applicants' property is located within the I L. Cohn Subdivision at the end of the peninsula between Lake Demontreville and Lake Olson along Hill Trail North. Their property backs up to Lake Olson, and has direct access to the cul-de-sac at the end of Hill Trail North. This lot is relatively small,even for the Tri-Lakes area, and at 17,092 square feet, and is well below the 1.5 acres minimum lot size that applies to properties zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The lot is somewhat irregular in that it narrows down to a 20-foot wide opening at the cul-de-sac and fans out back towards the lake. The proposed variance would allow the applicants to add an addition to the front of the existing home which, as stated in the request,would allow them to expand the size of their master bathroom.. The addition would meet all applicable setbacks for this district, j but would increase the overall impervious coverage on the site. There are two separate i i • 1 I Yariancey Revicvv-" Eason Page 2 Planning Commission Report 3-24-0,5' i 1 sections of the City Code that regulate impervious coverage for this lot as follows: i • R-1 District Regulations—25% • Shoreland District Overlay Zoning—6,000 square feet or 15%of the lot area, whichever is larger. s. , i Since the City Code dictates that the more restrictive standard applied when two regulations govern a site, the 25% impervious coverage limit applies to this site. According to the site survey,the current impervious surface coverage is 5,532 square feet,which includes the house, garage,driveways,walkways, and shed. Based on a total lot area of 17,091.6 square feet,the current coverage of the lot is 32.4%. The proposed addition would be built out over an existing sidewalk that would not be replaced, and would add a net amount of 84 square feet of additional impervious coverage to the lot(0.5% of the lot). Because the existing coverage already exceeds the maximum allowed under the ordinance, a variance is required in order to increase the property above the current amount. Please note that the shoreiand regulations,which are usually more restrictive than the underlying zoning district provisions, actually allows for greater impervious coverage on this lot. The Shoreland ordinance would allow up to 6,000 square feet of coverage, which is well over the applicant's total of 5,616 with the proposed addition. The original application also included a variance request to allow a deck addition to encroach into the required set back from Lake Olson. The request was made in response to an initial review of the site using aerial imagery to determine the current structure { setback. With the survey and accompanying detailed site information that has been submitted, Staff is now able to make a determination that a variance is not needed for the deck. This determination has been made based on the following: • The Shoreland Ordinance allows a deck to be built without a variance for a structure not meeting the required setback from the OHW level. The deck encroachment cannot exceed 15%of the existing structure setback from the OHW level or encroach closer than 30 feet to this line, whichever is closer. i .In this case,the applicants' house is set back 58.2 feet from the lake which would allow j a deck to extend 8.73 feet closer to the OHW level. The site plan that has been submitted documents that the deck will extend 6.6 feet closer to the lake than the building setback line. Applicable Section 154.041 (C) R-1 Minimum District Requirements `odes. Maximum impervious surface coverage of 25%. j Section 150.255 (G) Shoreland Standards. Subd2(a)Storm Water Management— Specific Standards. I S:!l.nrad t;;seti!•ur'iczncc.s'x5'lJI Hill Trail A -l,ohmer':Rep P/Lohmer Lot 1'61-iance 9-14•09.doc 1 Variance ii't>.7:ieiv, Mason Page 3 i Plannit?g C'omnissu,fr Rq)ort; 3-24-0N f 1 Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 6,000 S.F. or 15% of the lot area, whichever is larger i Section 150.256 (B) Subd. 2 (b) Additions/expansions to nonconforming structures. i. (a)Additions/expansions. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of § 150.255. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to § 150.253(B)(2). (b)Decks. Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria and standards are met. 1. The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established. 2. A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable ' location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure. 3. The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet,whichever is more restrictive, ' E 4. The deck is constructed primarily of wood and is not roofed or screened. 1 i tt I Findings General Site Overview Site Data: Existing Zoning--R-1 (One Family Residential)/Shoreland District Land Use Guidance—NC (Neighborhood Conservation District) Parcel size— 17,091.6 square feet(0.39 acres) Property Identification Number (PID): 09-29-21-23-0006 1 Application Review: Applicable HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question z Cede cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and Definitions: no other reasonable alternative use exists;that the plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. VARIANCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required S.V.and h Se'.•pail ances18199 Hill"frail Az-Lohmer'; cep IV 1,ohnzerl,w(.'ov 1wrlance I-lal-ll .drier Variance Review; Eason Page 4 ' Planning Commission Report;3-24-08 i to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship as defined in.Section 300.06, Subd. 3. Economic considerations along shall not constitute a hardship. [sic] IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Any structure or surface which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of water into the ground, including but not limited to building footprints, sidewalks,paved or gravel driveways and parking areas,patios, sport courts,or any other similar surface. Decks,pervious landscaping fabric, engineering-approved paver systems,and retaining walls shall not be included as impervious surface. t i i Variance The applicants have provided the Planning Commission with a statement describing Review: some of the details regarding their property and some supporting information to state their case regarding the need for a variance. Their primary intention with the proposed [ expansion is to bring the house up to modern standards and make it more usable and convenient for them. The hardship in this case is related to the small size of the lot, which given the impervious coverage requirements, does not allow for any expansion of the house beyond the current foundation. A review of the City's variance criteria follows, focusing on the information submitted by the applicants. By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can successfully address the three criteria as outlined below for the septic system. 1. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; One of the key elements of this finding is that the property cannot be put to j reasonable use under the zoning regulation,and that no alternative exists. In this case, one could argue that a bathroom addition/upgrade is not needed to provide for j reasonable use of the property. On the other hand,if homeowners cannot accommodate modern upgrades to their homes, there may be little incentive to improve a property that has limited (or no) expansion options. In considering the alternatives to the proposed variance,the applicants could add a s second story to their home without increasing the coverage on the lot; however, such an addition would have a significantly larger impact on the surrounding properties and on views from the lake. Because the variance is from a coverage requirement, the only way to accommodate any additions to the home would be to eliminate or remove some other impervious surfaces from the property to offset any increases. This reduction could be accomplished by removing some of the driveway or sidewalks on the property, but such a solution seems excessive given the small 3 amount of area that would be added to the impervious coverage on the lot. Unlike setbacks, lot width,or other requirements that are dimensional in nature, 1 S:'il,and Mill trail A -Lohmer,tRep l'J 1.011mer Lot Coll f-:ariance 9-14-09.&W I Variance Review; Eason Page 5 lanning Commission Report;3-4-08 j I there is simply no other location on the site that could accommodate the proposed addition since no expansions would be permitted under the code. It is also worth noting that the shoreland regulations would allow for the proposed expansion,which allows for smaller lots to exceed the impervious coverage standard for shoreland areas of 15%. A lot must exceed 40,000 square feet to before the 15% threshold would apply. i r Staff finds the inability of the applicants to build any addition to the house without first incurring substantial expense and creating potential impacts with the removal of existing buildings or paving does constitute a hardship and that the proposed addition z represents a reasonable use of the site. This criteria is met. i 2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; There is a fairly wide range of lot size found within the City's R-I zoning district and the applicants parcel is at the smaller end of this range. At the minimum lot area allow by code for a lot of record, 0.9 acres, a property owner could cover 9800 square feet of such a lot. Many lots within the R-1 zoning district fall below this standard; however, the applicants' parcel is further unique because of its triangular shape. The shape of the lot does not provide for alternatives that could further j reduce the amount of driveway or other impervious space(for instance,by reorienting the approach to the garage). This criteria is met. i 3. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The physical layout of the platted lot and the topography on the lot were not created by the landowner. The City's impervious coverage requirements were likely adopted sometime after the home was built. Staff finds this criteria is also satisfied. Variance Based on our analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff recommends approval of Conclusions: , the impervious surface coverage request for 8199 Hill Trail North. Resident The Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing to consider testimony Concerns: from neighboring property owners. Staff is not aware of any comments or concerns from the surrounding neighborhood that has been stated before the meeting. ' .I 5':'f.<rrrd l•S it%czr'utitr.:ne,c4l99Ill.11 Dwil A'-l:Ci>?rn r':r{e>.), i'f l.r)hmer Lot Cov Variance 0-14-09.doc: ;I T"ariance Revieii,; Eason Page 6 Planning-Commission Report:3-24-08 i Additional Valley Branch Watershed has provided a statement that it does not require a permit Information: for the activity proposed a part of the variance request. Staff has not received any correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources concerning this application. i i Conclusion The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 147 square foot addition to their house that would add 84 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage to a lot that already exceeds the maximum of 25% coverage allowed under the R-1 Zoning District. Commission The Planning Commission must examine the proposed variance to determine whether it Options: meets all conditions of approval outlined by city code. The Planning Commission considered the following options: A) Recommend that the Council approve the requested variance based on the applicants' submission and findings of fact. B) Recommend that the Council deny the requested variance based on the applicants' submission and findings of fact. C) Table the request and ask for additional information. The deadline for a Council decision on this item is October 13,2009 which can be extended an additional 60-day if needed. F t Recommended Staff recommended option A: Approval of the requested variance with the following Action: conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide for proper management of storm water away from the new addition and shall not direct this water on to any neighboring property. 2. No new sidewalks or other pathways may be installed on the site to z accommodate for the sidewalks impacted by the new construction. Any new sidewalk must be offset by the removal of the same area of existing impervious surfaces. E `s Denial Motion `1'o deny the requested variances. you may use the following motion as a guide: r Template: Move to recommend denial of the variance application for 8199 Hill Trail North. S`,Y,and U'Setk'crri ri ices 181 991/ii1 f rail r4 -Lehrer:/?ep'Z Lohmer Lol I Liriance 9-14-09.dxxr. Variance R(!view Eason Wage � , I'lararr.ir�Q C�`orr nission R,eporr; 3-14-(M i ; based on the following findings: (cite your own findings) I Approval To approve the requested variances as recommended by staff, you may use the Motion following motion as a guide: j Template (as recommended Move to recommend approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 147 by staff}: square foot addition to the house at 8199 Hill Trail North that would add 84 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage to a lot that already exceeds the maximum of 25% coverage allowed under the R-1 Zoning District based on the findings listed in the staff report and as articulated tonight, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. (use staff's findings provided above or cite your own) Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide for proper management of storm water away from the new addition and shall not direct this water on to any neighboring property. 2. No new sidewalks or other pathways may be installed on the site to accommodate for the sidewalks impacted by the new construction. Any new sidewalk must be offset by the removal of the same area of existing impervious surfaces. I s cc: Greg and Kathleen Lohmer, 8199 Hill Trail North i i i l i i 4 i 1 i 4 i I I S .hand Use!I I-(ill Trull N-Lohmer*;Ieep III I.f:rlfiti?7 I.(11(.,i�S't'irraa»ct'9-)J-09.dre• ................ ........... .... ........... .............. & SION W N kill- ILI 104 MON , i Fee $ City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 3 i Comprehensive Plan Amendment Variance '" (See below) '� Residential Subdivision 1 Preliminary/Final Plat [�Zoning District A.ntendment Minor Subdivision O Ql — 10 Lots Text Amendment Lot Line Adjustment O 1 l —20 Lots O 21 Lots or More i Rood Plain C.UT� ❑Residential Subdivision Excavating& Grading Permit ; Conditional Use Pt=it Sketch/Concept Plan Appeal ED PUTS Conditional Use Permit(C.LI.P.) Site&Building Plan Review APPLICANT: ��r��� - ,��.�u-, e,,_ 8 t�t4 f-t} l.( 7� A.). Z /f1 c, iVVv �So�Z I (Name) (Mailing Address) (Zip) TELEPHONES: 5f-7-11-7565 CoSr Y '1- 11 0�; ta51` CfsS-0'7 i o t' 41Q- 3fo7� (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) FEE OWNER: ( Name) (Mailing Address) (Zlp) I i TELEPHONES: (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) i PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete(Long) Legal Description): P' 1.22 -Z o� I L cs { DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: err ti Ae i q � "J �" i *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined its Section 301.060 C, of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code,the Applicant MUSt demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related/to this /appiicati.on is as follows: 3 7 °j u(j f01 -e c a� nc Gm e [GC G! h r u Xh CLA In signing this ication,1.hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning aN d ubdi rision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I furilier acknowledge the fee ex fanation as outlineem the' lic•atiou Drggdures and herebv agree to pay all statements received from the'City pertainingto ad i tonal a615jcation ex e. Sign re of .a Date SI nature of Applicant Date • 3 Or 12003 City of Lake Elmo•3900 Laveme Avenue Nord) L..akc Elmo•55042 651-777.5510•Fax 651-777.9615 l t II j 1 l i 2. a) Property is owned jointly by Gregory L. and Kathleen M. Lohmer. b) Legal description of property: t JL Cohn Subdivision Lot 6 Block i Property ID: R09.029.21.23.006 i Parcel Size: 0.33 acres (IS,161 sq. ft.) Existing Use: Residential Current Zoning: RI Single-Family c) Section 154.041 RI Single-Family District Standard—Maximum 25%Impervious ` Section 1.50.255 Setback to Ordinary High Water Mark—Shoreland Standard d.1) Increase master bathroom by expanding out to the east. Impervious will increase from about 30.5%to 30.9%. Code only allows for 25% Impervious. 1 d.2) Add deck to the west side of the house—too close to Ordinary High Water Mark. It appears code allows 5.25 feet beyond the structure wall closest to OHWL*. Request for additional two feet so foundation wouldn't have to bust up existing patio. * - See email from Kyle Klatt. z e) Had an onsite meeting with Kyle Klatt and discussed proposed remodeling. I mentioned neighbors who had decks and a three-season porch that were much closer than my proposal. He was going to further review file and propose proper course of action. Stated probable exclusion of variance for deck— see*,but would need variance for additional two feet and variance for the bathroom due to exceeding current code of 25%impervious. He also recommended a certified survey be completed. i f)The house is 37 years old and the goal is to update and renovate to bring house up to current standards to make it more usable and convenient. There is a need to update bath and shower and the current bathroom lacks sufficient room.. The deck will provide a natural flow from the kitchen to the porch to the deck. g) I was told the current rules and regulations were put in force after the house was built. ; i h) It is well known that the neighborhood's overall character is quite unique.However, essentially all homes in the cul-de-sac have been upgraded and modernized and my proposed update would be comparable. I don't see any detrimental effects (Scenic views, etc.) to the neighbors. i I it KOH Matzek From: John Hanson [JHanson@barr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:19 AM To: Kelli Matzek i Subject: 8199 Hill Trail North Variance Request Kelli: i As we discussed on the phone today, the proposed deck and master bathroom expansion at 8199 Hill Trail North does not require a Valley Branch Watershed District permit. The proposal will add less than 6,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and will be well above the 100- year flood level of Lake Olson. John i John P. Hanson, P.E. Barr Engineering Company Engineers for the Valley Branch Watershed District 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 952.832.2622 phone 952.832.2601 fax I 651.748.4230 VBWD project office E } i i i i t { 11 I 4 i i 1 I I 7 CD CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 6 o �o. m LOT 7 .W p � l g i h g 191.84' 5 g S 85.1 V41"W A 945.5 44ii ��9„ ash +gag BUCK 4 � °� 506��� ' If w LOT 6 11 A 954.5 L �g 0 5 w� 95° P�� SQpti 3 g,o NOTES; WATER SURFACE ELEVATION + Q gam- gig �QP1610 35 y5 954.4 ^ OLSON LAKE ON 7-23-2009 = 925.9 FEET hg }} o � owE`t DNR-(DIVISION OF WATERS)LAKE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 82-103 `� 95fl.a vg. ,s 954.5 954.3 Spit g { pti v ,�,3 a T.po y9 " P ' ADDRESS; CLASSIFIED AS RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT g\z faye-aGPV 8199 HILL TRAIL N. AND AS PROTECTED WATERS O + g�N of g+ 947 A,o 947.5 �����Tyo��g ti �� Fl �Qp�� LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 ORDINARY HIGH WATER(OHW)ELEVATION = 929.3 FEET �o. // �1 r CC" fl °� CPo +gya +g � I �`n� q O 31° CITY OF LAKE ELMO 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION =931.0 FEET } 01 tg s gab IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE l� �� � �� � ���� cn ! �np = 2,091.7 SF VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT 100 YEAR O M h m o F p ,. r, . Q . q r �y. g. a y z o p. g - 795.5 SF Z ;0 � gti � yp fig �, 5 / GARAGE FLOOD ELEVATION = 931.5 FEET s- tt� o �+ate +ph, m� �° s� i DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA = 1,597.4 SF ➢ C 'y�� ga 94+i.z COVERED PASSAGEWAY = 126.4 SF m A c i �, 5 �ry SIDEWALK TO LAKE = 218.7 SF m ` ' • yam,° �mz s a \ �� SIDEWALK AROUND HOUSE = 237.8 SF BENCH MARK: SPIKE IN WEST FACE OF TRANSFORMER POWER POLE `� g�h ° o `Z SIDEWALK AND PATIO = 361.5 SF LOCATED NEAR THE N E CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, J. L. COHN SUBD„ +� m +��^ �, y�� r ��O SHED BY LAKE = 103.0 SF 1.0'ABOVE GROUND. ELEVATION= 947.59 FT. NGVD 1929 DATUM w � N Cg p`o gap' \ a 5 PROPOSED 7'X 21`ADD.TO HSE. = 147A SF s6 +g1 MINUS TX 21' EXIST. SIDEWALK - - 63.0 SF I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A C9 TOTAL EXISTING COVERAGE = 5,616.0 SF SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: n 0=5 + 945.2 /ems +--- a 939.7 g TOTAL AREA OF LOT 6 ABOVE LOT 6, BLOCK 1, J. L. COHN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT, LOT S THE OHW 929.3 FT ELEVATION 17,091.6 SF WASH€NGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA bW n 11° + IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR LOT 6 = 32.8% AND THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON,AND ALL VISIBLE m g� . ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY,FROM OR ON SAID LAND, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR 93 �o g� 12 = 954.5 UNDER MY DIREST SUPERVISION THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 1! ` Q GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. = 948.0 P J LAND SURVEYING, LLC JO} 1� p+ 929.3 TOP FOUNDATION ELEV. = 956.0 �, .:....• 1�I m gig MAIN FLOOR ELEV. = 956.7 ri .•`• •'moo C"7 yg ` pp BUILDING HEIGHT (HIGHEST PT.) = 967.3 BY: _ �;'REGISTEREtD +g' 0 30' PAUL A.JOHN LAND 929.3 LAND SURVEYOR, MINN.LIC. NO. 10938 SURVEYOR + tP 10938 �L FILE NAME or L5B1J.L.COHNSUBD.GLOHMER.TRV SCALE DATE DRAWN BY PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY 30 Ft/In 8-4-2009 INSERT NAME GREG AND KATHY LOHMER P J LAND SURVEYING, LLC 8199 HILL TRAIL N. 12510 MCKUSiCK ROAD NORTH + JOB REVISION SHEET LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 STILLWATER, MN 55082 09-306 1/1 1/1 651-777-7565 651 303-0025 This map drawn with TRAVERSE PC,Software Traverse PC Planning Commission Date: 9/14/09 REGULAR Item: ITEM: Hold a public hearing and table an application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to add 24 acres and an approximately 40,000 square foot parking lot to Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse at 11211 60tt Street. 1 REQUESTED BY: Country Sun Farm & Greenhouses i SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner t REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator 1 Kyle Klatt, Planning Director I SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: i The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, take comment and to table the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)Amendment application to the September 28th Planning Commission meeting. The applicants are requesting to amend the existing CUP for Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse at 11211 60th Street to allow the addition of 24 acres to the existing approximately 43 acres. The applicants are intending at this time to add an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet to be covered in crushed limestone and/or recycled pavement millings. I i Staff is requesting the application be tabled at this time to more thoroughly document the existing business uses and structures on the site and to reclassify the use on the existing (and proposed additional)property as an agricultural entertainment business. Although staff does not anticipate any concerns with the existing uses on the site, by reclassifying and identifying what has evolved over the past few decades on the site, the documentation will help to clarify the currently vague and often silent CUPs that have been approved and amended over time. Agricultural Entertainment Business was added as a conditional use in both the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts in 2008 to address businesses such as Country Sun Farm and Greenhouses. As such, staff finds this a more applicable definition of this use than the previously utilized "greenhouse" and "open seasonal sales lots" in review of the CUP. i i ADDITIONAL FACTS: i I • There was not an indication by the applicant of intent to increase/expand the current use on this proposed additional acreage, but instead to relocate the existing uses and structures that would be displaced by a potential reconfiguration of the County Road 17 and State Highway 36 interchange and/or the addition of a frontage road. The applicant is proposing to relocate those existing uses (corn maze, hayride area, etc.) to the currently farmed land to the east. • Previous staff reports have identified this site to have received a CUP in 1979 for the greenhouse business being conducted on the site for years previous. However, staff has l been unable to find the original CUP. • The land area included in the CUP has expanded over the decades through approval of CUP amendments from 8 acres to its current configuration of over 43 acres. • Past approved amendments have permitted the inclusion of greenhouse expansions, retail sales, and sale of"carnival" type foods. I 1 i 3 • The size of the proposed overflow parking area will NOT meet the city's threshold for requiring additional engineering, but will require a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Planning Commission open the public hearing so as to take any testimony, but to table the application to the September 281h Planning Commission meeting at which time the commission will review the applicants amendment to add approximately 24 acres and an overflow parking area to the CUP, but to also reclassify and clarify the existing use on the property. Suggested motion for consideration: Move to table the application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse to September 2e. i t SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: j • Introduction Kelli Matzek, City Planner • Report Kelli Matzek, City Planner • Questions to staff Chair facilitates • Comments from applicant Keith Bergmann/Dick Bergmann, Applicant • Questionsicomments from the public, if any(up to 3 minutes) Chair facilitates • Discussion Chair facilitates i • Consider recommending approval Commission of application ATTACHMENTS: Site map Applicant's Submittals i 1 i 1 I I 7 1 1 i I i I s t i 2 I I 5 3 :. i` 1 1y 4 1 1 i } i ;y :� s ��, ;, t :� �� ��"� '', ���� �v� / `\ v�l w � ,t ,_ ����2� rs ,� �; i i�5 i i� �i :; `l, 4 ,k t :j t� i �i i� .1 �1 is 3 i4 ,t y i;. E t Jy ?7 Z �, h,-..����_,I,):,�-lI,��1,�.L-,1 I-�,'�*,1-1;,�,,,"-;I1i,i`�1��,1,"�..-,,-`I;��:,,.,�-4,II:W,',.,��.�:-.L� F f'5�, g y 7 i ` i � t I, u-, 1 i 4 4 Y ' -,:�I i t''—�.,-�,1 },'!_-.',-`-l.I".-A,',-1'�"-,1:.o;;;;;;;;��:."�..,r,. f . ) � r- r + �} fl r a !Q -t�,----1,*":���,'','I,".�.1",��<�-I:I����-`'..,M.I;�:,,I.-',.��-�.,�.-k��!-���--L.i.1,,7�-:.::i�N�,i.i�.I����,,��,.-,1,,.-,�,,�",i�.I,T��,,1,.7��.,;,:,I'I_i�,.��,A,"-.�l",l-::,-,�.4 t�,�,,I"-��...,1-''I�.I I�.�:�;4,,1�IIA,,1II�',"-'.:,,.,,1',l.�,%;"I 1;,'�:1"'�,,,,.,.1���;�:,1�",;.r,,-�,�,��l I. ;1 I i��1-0Z,I�1,'I,��I.], .�,1 ne-,-��,�-L-...,",-.,,.��-,,,',�,._;1�A-,,-,.,l..;,�,�;,-r�"�r��:l..�.;..�.-.,.�.�—,."-'-1��;-.,�,,�',g",.�.,,"-.��jg.-���-.-I-M:�-:,,'-,".,..l,,.,.,E,W"3;�,�,,;-�:,I,l.-..-!,,,..,.�-1,�:5-,,�Fr-z-1—�..,:;.I,I�';�!�",-���...,�.,,I,�'�.',r��-:���.,l."1�"�.'-,;:��,:�'---�,,.-A,��i�-.j--�f,.I.,1--�,''I.�..i".�l;""�.Y�,���,,.��-A';l,-,1,I.......,,M,-,:,,�j�"�I1,-�MP,,,!�ilj�-��-.:,.��,�''-,I—,,,-1�,,"I�-.i.-.-..�",!�-P�---�-��l.�,",r.?,j�,,�-�.F.,,.,,1,'.�.,i],',".�;fm2.�';,n,,.-..�-..,�-,1��:,,-4.,'.I',",-�'...,.-I�,-'.-'1�1�-II.--"s,,4-�i i�-,§,�,;.;.-..,.L,i�����:��,, -'�,.:....,'�-;.,�..Ni%-W1 i'*,'%r�,z,i,,,'.'.1...�,�.�I.."T-.,,,". �,,....1,��,I,�I��,.','-.'�g,,:�-I-I!�,J��--II-.1.,,-I;-1d1,.,1�l��,-k'.,-�..,",m,':.-1.,�T�,1I-�� -,,j,",:........-I.�A m�.-Y�-".,.........'!.V-,.',�-;.-. ,,....,.-1�� ,7.'.,,l",7..,�1,,'�.,`-,,:, ,1,.,,".-,:��.:��X;-,. I"II,,,�,�,-""q n 3 x i 1 �F� Y t ^ �y rm g 1 I w r t + r F r f -v 4+ a . ) t 1 II F J I - 1 1 7 R I i - , Y G+ ✓7H1'h .«nu...a fir+ '�� a r z v - - ay I .7i,r .1ti-r '-m. �m�x*n A- s -? J .,.m.,q.ny>„r,�..-L .z. +,,. :r s `, I J a �myi i i ,+ 7 'a .:.; 7 6 f. ,z-. -il ywr�b'".;.�✓ax.n*.. -;v �f 2'r,..v, ,.,w..ara 't3f.:: 4 reegiwim..., .:.- w w'i..K' 'y, t < u k u q ., p "6,'`y ,'1F" '_a, `�' 'i ` 5` 4 y .if a J a, )} G.. Al - ''( .�RCQlneLial.CSr. ''w f f V �:�,,-7 r - n F t� r r 'r 1 7. I d .. P; - urn _ i?7 ``" z,`�'4• )'�z r r •,,� p i� F''sra +, ,b s � zY '��-:�. x < I u .+ _� a '�c``'@yRt .-Wes'— ,r- i: s as r "! II I. II S 5 f r t t `r ' 'k. f ,` r y " r ni p � r , IMY f a Y t - -: 1 d F3 iM y kl t"I - . F, b 4 � a y I lG.. yy, 't''i ra 1 r :,n - +.�n. r -�, k k t ''• r rF d - c Y : Pfi f .r,, r ', I _ 1 1 , r," r F S. 4 r ! v tw' ,,.e t t`r t 3 v = v r 5sti r tl a r 'v � ';, w �` e E s ` V "7 t 'I 4 ' s-',W, ,ire i< ' a t� - _ k 4 - re I �$� o !t �; �$ k: ( 'wi z '^' t° �h'a` e V .� - tl "�'zY,C�y" � a r ,1; 1. ,'� Er ppr 'll 3.). i IA 'fffi�I_ ''C j f"�Ir M 'C Z ,11 1 i P t - Z ! F �� 1 d{ I - 4ti ,� S r f ;L tv 1 d r r ( ,��„�`�;rwti r I' C t r'- �' t J I x J i Jysr' - .:e.."..-....,.��,�.-,,I'�.,�,,L.�---:,Z�y,.I-r�1,l�.-�'L�'�,.�-,.,:��.�,,.,,'--1-1,-.�'�,,,,-,,f-",,.-,:.:.i I,,���i x�:�,;-L..�I1:.�.,1�O;.��.1,l�1��-`,-`��,,,e.1..l�4-7.',,�'��'�,pI'z,,;,<""� ,.-4�1�i��:..',�-��RP,;1�;,"ft�'�:.7�:��,.�-.�.Z,-l-�-�-n!��,,-1,'I,;-�...I 4,'.�.-,.:,�,"�4,I,.!!.."'1:...i�,:,-,�.,II-,,,,��,�-,�.�-"-�mz.-1,"-,:;.�"�i-i-�_,�:!:-�.Z-,j.�-"-.;'..,.,.�:s."-�,:-�I,�--�,—,k J�.,.r--,�5"'',�FI�-��.!� r § 'r 4'x zv i iy r ^', +L R, gfl O ^1 . u j,1,4 I-�,�-�,,�-,.�:!.,--��:,,-,- r:. .'-' . .: a:.:. - y 4 t 1 t S� ! ' � ti :. Dd�p '§�"^ �. m� J z " ! sl r z -F,r, is r'- ^�` _ S : ' r^ y�'F ° SY! gg � t t 7 m. L r I y IY, ii fl µ i , : .'� cr . ' !' f i $-",�, n .$? .� p — r4r i� _ y L.ar r Y,F.. z zty, i _ �. ., 1 �: € _I d c K -F a:wl :r' - I } Ra ><c - _ x an 1 yt r� ^' s• x ix, $. ° i Jy,a sp. '1r^"�.z-f r }� �,g .Y' !� r T3:'r<• H r y, ( a - r q ,n e yg „r. a« sw '; 'xa 3 r x ;r r' ""x r ks.. zrz„r a_je�.`�!� M p tr. i i I i t� I I 3 i i i I i 4 i i 1 i f i l 7 i 1{ i I s i �I II i i E i l t 1 tf 1 3 vt 2c 6►# -77 � ' Sa �y -1 ''� -75 7 -50 3'A 17 bt _7,1 7 i x 2'z � i 1 i i i i1 t t I Planning Commission Date: 9/14/09 Regular Item: )q C i i 1 ITEM: Consideration of an amendment to Section 154.081 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted encroachments in required yards and the addition of definitions for"porch" and "awning"to Chapter 11. SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director I I SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City received a variance application in July of this year with a request by a resident to build a covered porch within the required front yard setback. Although uncovered porches are permitted by Section 154.081 of the code to encroach into the setback, a covered porch is not. At the time the City Council reviewed the variance application, staff was directed to revisit this section of the code and to bring it back to the Planning Commission to consider amending the ordinance to allow covered porches in the setback as well. s i As such, staff is proposing minor changes to Section 154.081 regarding permitted encroachments into required yards to allow covered porches six feet into a required front yard setback or side yard setback in the case of a corner lot. In addition, proposed definitions are also provided as the city ordinance currently does not have a definition for neither'porch" or"awning,"though both appear multiples times in the city code. The alternative language was information and suggested language provided by the City Council at the time of the variance review. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed text amendments, to hold a public s hearing on the potential changes, and to provide a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: I Staff is recommending approval of both proposed definitions as well as the proposed staff language provided. The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed suggested and alternative changes to the ordinance and provide a recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: I 1, Draft Ordinance i i 1 i i I s i Chapter 11.01 DEFINITIONS. Porch—A covered but unenclosed projection from the main wall of a building that may or may not use columns or other ground supports for structural purposes. Awning—A roof-like cover, often of fabric,metal, or glass designed d and intended for protection from the weather or as a decorative embellishment and which Rrojects from a } wall or roof of a structure over a window, walk, door, or the like. I i Section 154.081 Permitted Encroachments on Required Yards The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements, except as restricted by other sections of this chapter. (A) In any yards. Posts, off-street open parking,flutes, leaders, sills,pilasters, lintels,cornices,eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings,open terraces, steps, chimneys, flag poles,open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair);;use per-shes,stoops;or similar features;provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees;shrubs, plants, floodlights or other j sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas,or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property. i i I 3 Staff recommended language: Porches as defined in this ordinance may encroach up to 6 feet into a required front yard setback or side yard on a corner lot,but in no case shall be.setback less than 10 feet from the front property line. Alternative language: Consideration should be %riven to allow architecturally compatible roofs over porches ' serving the RJnciple entry, in lieu of awnings. Awning zni t be limited to a 4 foot extension from the front of a house,regardless of distance from setback, and porch roof ' eaves might extend into the front yard setback a maximum of 8 feet, or be at least 52 feet from the center of the street R/W, whichever is more limiting. ' i i i i i 5 1 i Planning Commission Date: 9/14109 St. Croix's Sanctuary Landscape Plan s Business Item Item: 5a i i ITEM: Request to Amend the Landscape lan or the Croix's Sanctuary OP Development SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director ,t i REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner ' Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator i f SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a proposed amendment to the approved landscape 'l plan for the St. Croix's Sanctuary development. This action would require a modification to the OP— Open Space Preservation District requirements which must be approved by a 4i5ths vote of the City Council because it would substantially reduce the number of boulevard trees below the minimum threshold required in the ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the change for a number of reasons, including the strong desire of the current residents within the subdivision to move away from a ! more urban, boulevard planting plan and towards the preservation and restoration of natural landscapes within the development area. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture, Inc. will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to more thoroughly review the proposed landscape plan and the rationale for the land l management approach that is being recommended. BACKGROUND: ; s The St, Croix's Sanctuary OP (Open Space Preservation)development was approved by the City of Lake Elmo in late 2005, and was subject to a developer's agreement approved a short time later that required certain improvements to the completed by the developer, including the construction of roads, water services, sanitary sewer laterals, landscaping and other improvements. The landscape plan was approved by the City at the preliminary platting stage and met the City's requirement for tree plantings in OP Open Space Preservation districts which is stated as follows in Section 150.180 of the City Code: i Boulevard landscaping. Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every 30 feet or placed in dusters at the same ratio. A landscape plan for the entire i site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches above grade level. The plan approved by the City calls for 590 total trees to be planted throughout the development,with 367 being planted within the boulevard and 223 being planted on private property (including outiots and open space areas). By the time the City was working with the developer to close out the project in the fail of 2008, several of the lots had been built upon with new residents occupying many of these homes. During the staking that was done in preparation for the planting of new trees, these residents became quite concerned that the landscaping plan did not reflect the character of the area. The Homeowner's i i 1 1 I i I Association (HOA) at this time stated its desire to work with the developer to propose a revised concept for landscaping within the project area. i Unfortunately, the developer ultimately did not adhere to his obligations under the developer's agreement with the City, and the City was forced to declare the developer to be in default of the agreement earlier this year. The end result of this action is that the City was able to collect on the outstanding financial guarantee for the project and has been working to complete all outstanding improvements using these funds. The amount of money available was limited; however, and needed to cover things like road improvements, utility corrections, grading alterations, in addition to the outstanding landscape work. I REVISED PLAN l I Given the circumstances surrounding this development, including the failure of the developer to complete all required components of the developer's agreement and his general objections to the approved 3 landscape plan, the members of the Sanctuary HOA decided to hire the developer's landscape architect to develop a revised landscape plan for the subdivision. City Staff has met several times with the residents and the landscape architect to work towards a solution that will satisfy all affected parties, with the intent of bringing a revised plan back to the City Council for official action. The objectives of the revised plan include the following: • To respect the residents desire for a more open, prairie feel throughout the development rather I than the proposed urban design that would place a high density of trees along boulevard areas. • To make the best possible use of the limited funds available once all important infrastructure corrections have been made. • To develop a framework for ongoing maintenance and preservation of the natural landscape that can be augmented as future funding might become available. • To allow the City to move closer towards final acceptance of the Sanctuary improvements without further impacting the residents that current live in this subdivision. The plan that has been prepared by Landscape Architecture, Inc. is substantially different than the one approved by the City with the preliminary plat. Most notably, there are only nine larger trees to be planted within the common areas, with the bulk of the proposed improvements taking the form of weed treatment, buckthorn and invasive species removal, seeding of prairie and transition areas, and other restoration work. This plan has been reviewed by the City Forester, and in her attached report, she states her approval of the proposed management plan. The landscape architect for the project will be in attendance at the meeting to more fully describe the features of the revised landscape and natural area management plan. I The plans that have been submitted to the City do not include the landscaping that has been performed to date on the private lots that have been developed, which in some cases, is fairly substantial. Also, the developer did complete a portion of the approved plan at the entrance to the subdivision, and therefore, has previously planted 40 trees at the entrance to the development. Furthermore, the covenants associated with this development require each new home builder to plant at least two trees on lots with new homes, which will result a minimum of 76 trees being planted in the future. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised landscape plan I for the St. Croix's Sanctuary subdivision, and specifically is recommending this action because the proposed plan will help accomplish the objectives outlined above. This recommendation includes the approval of a waiver from the OP District requirements to permit a plan that does not meet the number of trees otherwise required to be planted under this ordinance. Staff further recommends that this approval be contingent on the following: f I i i t I j f • Adherence to all recommendations of the City Forester as documented in a report to the City dated September 8, 2009. i • That two trees per new building site be provided near the public boulevard and clustered along lot lines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new homes on all undeveloped lots. i ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The original landscape plan is attached for review by the Planning Commission. This is the plan that will be replaced should the City approve the revised landscape proposal. • As noted above, this action will require a 4/5ths vote of the City Council since it would authorize a 1 waiver of the OP District provisions related to landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised landscape plan for the St. Croix's Sanctuary development subject to the following conditions: I i • The implementation of the plan shall adhere to all recommendations from the City Forester as documented in a report to the City dated September 8, 2009. S • Two trees per new building site shall be provided near the public boulevard and clustered along lot lines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new homes on all undeveloped lots as of September 15, 2009. l ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Landscape Architect 2. Proposed Landscape Plan 3. Restoration and Installation Plan i 4. Plant Selections i 5. Site Condition Plan i 6. Landscape Classification System for Sanctuary 7. Report from City Forester 8. Existing Landscape Plan i 3 i ORDER OF BUSINESS: i Introduction......... ............. . .........Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Presentation by staff.......................................................... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director t - Presentation by Landscape Architect... Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc. i Questions from the Commission,........... .........Chair& Commission Members I - Call for a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................ Chair Facilitates i - Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair & Commission Members I i i 3 I i August 31",2009 i City of Lake Elmo i Kyle Klatt Planning Director ' 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,MN 55042 i RE: SANCTUARY LANDSCAPE PLAN i Dear Kyle, We have attached 20 Copies of the proposed landscape plan package for you to share with the Planning Commission & City Council Members. Based off of the $30,000 to $35,000 range that was provided by you and your staff last week for this purpose, we have created a proposed landscape plan that is proposed at$33,767.50 as described in detail in the Proposal for Installation Services attached. We will plan to present this concept at the September 146`, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting and the September 15ffi, 2009 City Council Meeting with representatives from the HOA present to show support for this plan and to entertain questions. .I If you need additional landscape plan packages please let me know as we would be happy to provide these in color to clearly convey our design intent to all stakeholders in this process. SINCERELY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. 00(A i i STEPHEN MASI`EY,ASLA, CLARB,LEED AP DIRECTOR.OF DESIGN cc: Carolyn Cary,Sanctuary HOA i cc:Karen Kill., Browns Creek Watershed District cc: Ryan Steinps4 City of Lake Elmo cc: Craig Dawson, City of Lake Elmo cc:Kathy Widin,City of Lake Elmo i i 856 RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE C ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PRONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAI.L: STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COM I I 1 { r r i 8.30.09 Proposal for Installation Services I Sanctuary of Lake Elmo HOA ! P.O. Box 832 Lake Elmo,MN 55042 t i RESTORATI"ONOF PRAIRIE AND OAK SAI✓ANNA PLANT COMMUNITIESAT SANCTUAR Y IN LAKE ELMO,MN i Sanctuary is apart of the Anoka Sand Plain Ecoregion, a landscape known for its mosaic of tallgrass prairie and deciduous forest. The current landscape cover is a mosaic of grassland, woodland, and wetland habitats. Non-native plants are dominant across each habitat type. For example, the grasslands are generally dominated by non-native grasses introduced from Europe. Areas dominated by non-native plant species, generally, have less wildlife (butterflies, birds, amphibians, etc.) and lower soil and water quality. The long-term and collective goal is to restore the land at Sanctuary to native prairies,woodlands,and wetlands. Prairie Establishrr�ter�t We would propose to prepare the seed bed, control erosion, supply & install the seed to j establish the native dry upland prairie (see attached quote and map). A single dry upland species (Blue grama) would be established along the roads and paths. The majoaxty of area would be seeded to our dry upland seed mix (G1/F1, xeric) which contains 27 species of native wildflowers and seven species of grasses. Our seed (see attached list) primarily originates from local sources in the Anoka Sand Plain and neighboring ecoregions, ensuring that these species are naturally adapted to the soil and climate of this region. i Buckthorn Control- Buckthorn is a noxious shrub that has invaded the majority of oak savanna and deciduous forest areas of Sanctuary. The first step to restoring these areas is to remove the mature buckthorn and chemically treat the stumps. We have identified four areas (3.31 acres total) that contain the highest densities of buckthorn within large, old growth oak and other native tree stands. We propose the removal of the buckthorn and other noxious shrubs in these areas. s ; i I i ; F i I -2- To furnish and install the following Trees via 85" Machine move Tree Spade 6 Autumn Blaze Maple @ 6 inch caliper ($1,500 Each) $9,000 3 Oak But @ 5.5 inch caliper ($1,500 Each) $4,500 Includes: one year plant warranty, Fall 2009: 3 waterings, hardwood shredded bark mulching&Tree Protection ( hardware cloth), Summer 2010: 5 waterings & one slow release fertilizer application. E Total Proposed Tree Installation Fees $13,500 Erosion Control and Permit fetes from Browns Creek Watersbed District z Permit Fee ($1,250} $1,250 400 linear feet of Silt Fence @ $5 a linear foot ( SE cornea: of area 12) $2,000 i Includes: Silt fence removal and disposal upon approval by watershed district. i Total Proposed Erosion Control Measures and Permit Fees $3,250 E Removing Buckthorn from 2.78 acres of Oak Savanna and Deciduous Forest i Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price Area 5 One-time cutting, chemical treatment, acre 0.19 $1,950.00 $370.50 and chipping (where necessary)of Buckthorn and other noxious shrubs. Area 21 One-tune cutting, chemical treatment, acre 2.59 $1,950.00 $5,050.50 and chipping (where necessary) of Buckthorn and other noxious shrubs. Area 45 ' i One-time cutting, chemical treatment, acre .40 $1,950.00 $780 and chipping (where necessary)of Buckthorn and other noxious shrubs. Area Adjacent to Manning Avenue at Entry( West Side of Street ) One-time cutting, chemical treatment, acre .13 S1,950.00 $253.50 and chipping {where necessary) of Buckthorn and other noxious shrubs. Total Proposed Woodland Management Fees$6,454.50 Dotes; i l. Buckthorn will be cut and laid down.to promote natural decomposition. Buckthorn will be removed, chipped, and chips blown back into woods if high buckthorn densities accumulate and become too dense for the woodland 1 understory. 3 i i F ✓- Quote for Prairie Establishment and Noxious Weed Control Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Price Area 1 Early Summer 2010 noxious weed(broadleaf) 3 Spray acre .49 $250 $122,50 Area 12 (Except SE corner) Early Summer 2010 noxious weed (broadleaf) i spray acre 11.74 $250 $2,935 SE corner of Area 12 i Fall 2009 Herbicide Treatment acre .66 $250 $165 Spring 2010 Herbicide Treatment acre .66 9250 $165 Seed bed preparation,installation of dry upland prairie seed mix,and disk anchoring of straw mulch acre .42 $2,000 $840 I i Seed bed preparation,installation of short I Transition (Blue grama)seed mix acre .24 $1,900 $456 Erosion control blanket (100% of Blue grama) sq yd 1,162 $1.50 $1,743 Area 23 Early Summer 2010 noxious weed (broadleaf) spray acre 3.07 $250 $767.50 E i Area 30 ' Early Summer 2010 noxious weed (broadleaf) spray acre 1.94 $250 $485 I ) Area 35 Early Summer 2010 noxious weed (broadleaf) spray acre 1.28 $250 $320 Area 42 Early Summer 2010 noxious weed(broadlea� spray acre .98 $250 $245 i Along South Side of Trail and as it abuts to the Street within Area 42 & 12 Per Plan Fall 2009 Herbicide Treatment acre .19 $250 $47.50 Spring 2010 Herbicide Treatment acre .19 $250 $47.50 Seed bed preparation,installation of short Transition (Blue grama) seed mix. acre. .19 $1,900 $361 I F i -4- Erosion control blanket (100% of Blue grama)sq yd 920 $1.50 $1,380 SW Trail Extension Fall 2009 Herbicide Treatment acre .05 $250 $12.5 Spring 2010 Herbicide Treatment acre .05 $250 $12.5 t i Seed bed preparation,installation of short Transition-(Blue grama) seed mix. acre .05 $1,900 $95 i i Erosion control blanket (100%of Blue grama)sq yd 242 $1.50 $363 i i Total Proposed Prairie Establishment and Noxious Weed Control Fees $10,50 Notes: j 1. This quote does not include the removal or disposal of any construction debris. . 2. This quote does not include any soil grading or soil amendments and assumes acceptable soil. I i i Total Proposed installation Fees: $33J67.50 i t 1 I 1 1 I i 1 l t I i i i E ....... ..................... -------------- ------------------- .. .......... ........... ............ ......... ........... .......... ........... ... ............ .......... OUTU.'.1 OLIT,L01' r g 'gr 0:V1 AM- - va, 29 (29 ..... ..... 28 'g a, R", v 28 31 Fit 27 32 E ...... 31 ................. 24 3N, ....................................................................................... 365 33 0; Tj pmoO BUR OAK 27 27 34 OUTLDT E 4A f \7 �39 is 31 28 17 Ai 33 39 3 38 A 19 13 1- K t; .......... 29 2 J TLOT LOT. I........... IQ 4 A �0 k"- AREA f 7., 4. 4 14 AUTUMN BLAZE -3 L C)C K MAPLE f L J 7 ...... J 41 -7 OU DRA"'G6 kkow"', 4 46 e ---,12 X IC 43 CORRESPONDING V, 7 4 WITH LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL K 13)L 0.C 2 ....... .... LANDSCAPE PLAN KEY J-- N 6 MAPLE -7 AUTUM LAZE 9 WEED TREATMENT AREAS 44 BUCKTHORN TREATMENT AREAS 8 TRANSITION SEED MIX AREAS L G I/F1 SEED MIX AREAS 4 2 :33 41 34 18 PROPOSED TREES 3 7 4 4 1 POND TO RECEIVE SILT FENCE ......... ------------ ------- .............................. NORTH SANCTUARY - LANDSCAPEPLAN LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA J GRAPHIC SCALE AUGUST 2009 d .. Aid �uv y ' 4 y gyAA �� fi� SON N r�z 4 i 's r � TTREES i DECID �/� T O �../ i t ALREADY INSTALLED i i i f l I i t t f t s CO-INIMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Red Maple Acer rubrum Autumn Blaze Maple Acer x freemanii `Jeffersred' i White Ash Fraxinus amen icana Flowering Crab jUalus Sp, i i 1 i i S i l i 1 li 1 3 i i PROPU"' SED I t P� 1 i i 's i F i i I COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME i Autumn Blaze Maple Acer x fr�eemanii `Jeffersred' Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa I 1 i 1 t i i i i i i i s I i 3 i i i i I 1 x sX ! i b ' i ffi 4 L fr i k } op r " * ' - � ...w � yN �i�' s� fit„ ,� •"� _, s .��a n y �,,.k t ��,-"�"� �0 i ➢ ram, ;� 't`" t rRM •. '�, �� rvw+' .� " 'ary .,; k�T �n`Ys`j�,, � ryv�. r P LL ACM M"IX 'l•taeae �1° ��?qx7$�+ �➢Fr"Miwm -9 �+E°. C�r I ceY 'Mnanli ` effel s ed' Auliva ze M;q)lc x� � F ' 341` + "t" 'N ..@ova *� 'y. rim 8 i �' r &._.e v i -`V '� d rr Is�►m"x^�'" e _�R� x yi�„t g*'.•�' A �p °�'7d '� ,n� ap'it g x ,f�q - 1 4 "K+a"�� ,: A 4 r lj r ti a � { kol w Cu�rca� zcroCal,)a $ .Qiak: R Sti 5L ar L�kR ""tip rr r "X • IA _ a �F��Y f^ °Y^ $u}✓' fa"'44�c`k. ��i? �i�r - t� i �3�rei k �ed " y }zpw , I�` . , 7y sG, dot xis > �, r d,,yyt# t r L 4 i R. i i i i i �@F h q � Y T �1�x ��•_ I Blue Lama Close-Up MML MIX(GI)-Short Xeric Prairie Grass (18 inch height) Side-Oats Grama .................................................................................Bouteloua curtipendula i Blue Grama ................................................................... .......... ...Bouteloua gracilis Prairie Brome .. ....... .Bromus kalinii Canada Wild Rye ................................................................................Elymus canadensis i Stine Grass ...........................................................................................Koeleria cristata j Little Bluestein.....................................................................................Schizachyrium scoparium Prairie Dropseed ............................................... ....Sporobolus heteralepis MNL MIX(F1)-Short Xeric Wildflower( 18 inch height) Fragrant Giant Hyssop ........................................................................_......Agastache foeniculumn Prairie Onion. ............................................................................................. Allium stellatum Leadplant ....................................................................................................Amorpha canescens Butterfly Milkweed .................................................................. ..............Asclepias tuberosa Smooth Blue Aster ....Aster laevis Azure Aster ................................................................................................Aster oolentangiensis Upland White Astei. ...................................................................................Aster pummicoides � Stiff Tickseed ................................................. ...........................................Coreopsis palmota White Prairie Clover................................................................................... Dalea candidum Purple Prairie Clover ...Dalea purpureum Narrow-Leaved Conefl ower ......................................................................Echinacea angustifolia Pale Purple Coneflower ............................. ...Echinacea pallida Round-Headed Bushelover ........................................................................Lespedeza capitata Rough Blazing Star ................................ ................Liatris aspera Doted Blazing Star ....................................................................................Liatrispunctata i t i Wt '�� � �' .,y �-��� s.. t y ,1^�� 4 .� � �,k�,s irr '' � rffi*;'�fi➢.�'� ��°N ae w e, Mir x4r a § d t a � r� Svc x t— � SEE Uzi ua ,51 y" vt CC r� r y ,c Sii ��" i "1 �'��� 7 r� I a i [ �* � r �✓�t�{+j r a�4��Ft4,' it. UN b f t�� �t_t-i�♦♦���� yM> �t. � z^", ,aiMZ,y4'+0 f' I � � r, t1t`t r �4� wj' i: 4 7 I " �e a n r�{ r 4 I :•k:' E -rM�'3�:. y .�' 1 r " '+, 6 � "� "� H {, r sM�, � ➢ � 5 a� u r�: .�'t ���,q v aK ✓+ �-. � � 5 Yr'1 F'�r��S Kr4�' J S� �� �� 5� • I i i x i i tt 1 ii 1 i t4 F -f` § -�7r�T'C'��r�`J•t„r y f � t � �� , � 1 J . r,`�s k_S t r. .}, ._ € 6 K • R d 41 G1 & Fl Late Summer 'T E i i rs � tr'S w- aZ i'A t 'PONs'-z� 3 �a �t t OU "I MRS ............ ..... G I & F I Late Fall i i i E i i i P i i i i t I S I i l i I l A I L E *-T'r i ,I 1325 Bailey Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119 651.459.9744 baileynurseries.com Plant Information& Text Provided By BAILEY NURSERIES i i < 77 7777777s � I x s s h 5 nW <+v � I I i t - 28 28 ' s I 31 �c 23 1 s. _ 32 31 { j 38 24 36 33. 1 22 ! .. I 29 27 27 - r 39` — / v _ 31 28 / �r _ o- "''n� 17 39 .33 i • I 29 s /' 19 19 •� / $! ORAL h4t 16 G14 r� ti _ \ 40 AC \\ — \ , r 4 1 FAs�acvt A9SA7tROE \ GRAPHIC CORRESPONDING WITH CHART 2- � MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES � �\ � 46 SITE PLAN KEY 12 rwM, tR�i>Aut tnsiraerl r 1fi r 12 , t a F� HIGH PRIORITY WETLAND c s_ MEDIUM PRIORITY WETLAND 43 / I zr T ' LOW PRIORITY WETLAND r HIGH PRIORITY GRASSLAND - `\ `F dfl MEDIUM PRIORITY GRASSLAND ; • '�,�y;'�' I LOW PRIORITY GRASSLAND 4.4 ' --— -- — TT AGRICULTURAL FIELD r 12 i Lam, WGH PRIORITY WOODLAND — s .. 8 I ! MEDIUM PRIORITY WOODLAND !_ LOW PRIORITY WOODLAND 43 I r NORTH _ 7 �, .. -S T R - SITE MITI N PLAN LAKEI"ELMO, I NESOT GRAPHIC SCALE I i Prepared by: .v.:.,.: Jim Lckbera Ecologist hfinnesota Native Landscapes, Inc. Amanda Clementson—Designer La7dscape.47•chiteclure,Inc. Date Submitted: 7,Q 3i09 Submitted to:Sanctum),H0.4 RECEIVED 1 FEC 909Landscape Classification System Sanctuary DevelopmentTY � E Lake Elmo, MN This report provides baseline information on the landscape cover at Sanctuary Development in Lake Elmo,Minnesota. The current landscape cover is a mosaic of grassland,woodland,and wetlands.Non-native plants are dominant across each landscape type. For example,the grasslands are generally dominated by non-native 1 grasses introduced from Europe.Areas dominated by non-native plant species, generally, have less wildlife(butterflies, birds, amphibians, etc.) and lower soil and water quality. Some of the non-native species at Sanctuary are listed as federal or state prohibited noxious weeds and, by law,must be controlled on private and public lands.The I prohibited noxious weeds at Sanctuary include Canada Thistle,Bull Thistle,and Musk Thistle. i In this report,we first classified each landscape type to the following:wetland, grassland, woodland, or agricultural field. We estimated the percent cover of native versus non- native species to provide information on the ecological condition of each area. That said, ; not all non-native plants are noxious or invasive species. We provide a general measure of landscape quality(low,medium,high)based on the native versus non-native plant f composition (Chart one, columns three and four); resulting in the overall assessment of l native plant diversity(landscape quality, Chart 1,Column 5). i ,I t Chart 1-Assessment of Landscape Quality ' Results of Landscape Survey(July 13,2009) Area Landscape Type Percent(%) Percent(%) Landscape number Native Non-native Quality Plant Cover Plant Cover 1 Grassland 2 98 Low 4 .._,. .. .. ... l Wetland 5 95 Low � ' t w. i F Woodland 30 70 Medium 4 Wetland 20 80 Low <;.h. 5 Woodland 20 80 Low } 1 6 Wetland 30 70 Hial3 }i 7 Wetland 5 95 Law s $ Wetland 5 95 Low Grassland Low - 95 a. � 10 Woodland 40 60 Medium. 11 Wetland 5 95 Low 12 Grassland 5 95 Low 13 Wetland 5 95 Low 14 Wetland 40 60 Medium 15 Wetland 5 95 Low 1.6 Wetland 5 95 Low 17 Wetland 5 95_ Low 18 Wetland 5 ! 95 Low 19 Grassland 2 98 Low 20 Wetland 5 95 Low 21 Woodland 10 90 Low 22 Wetland 5 95 Low 23 Grassland 2 98 Low 24 Wetland 70 10 High i 25 Wetland 20 80 Medium 26 Wetland 5 95 Low 27 Grassland 1 99 Low 28 Agricultural Field - - - 29 Woodland 20 80 Low s 30 Grassland 5 95 1 Low 31 Woodland 2 98 Low 32 Wetland 5 95 Low 33 Grassland 30 70 ` Medium 34 Grassland 10 90 Low 35 Grassland 10 90 Low 36 Wetland 5 95 Low 37 Woodland 20 u{ 80 Medium 38 A ricultural Field - - - 39 Woodland 30 70 Medium i 1 i i t 4 i 40 Wetland 5 95 Low 41. Wetland 5 95 Low 42 Grassland 2 98 Low 43 Woodland 15 85 Low 44 Grassland 5 95 Low 45 Woodland 10 90 Low 46 Wetland 5 95 ( Low Average 12.5% 87.5% Low ! i In the second chart, we determined the distribution of invasive and noxious plant populations and indicate management priorities based on areas with the highest density of invasive and noxious plants.Areas with the highest density of invasive plants have a "high"management priority. Areas with moderate invasive plant densities are suggested t as a"medium" management priority. Lastly, "low"areas are those with few invasive plants and are considered to have a low management priority. s' Chart 2-Management Priorities: Nigh Densities of Invasive Plant Populations. High indicates high densities of invasive or prohibited noxious plants and a required need for management. Medium indicates less invasive or noxious plants and a moderate need for management. Low indicates less invasive I no noxious plants and little need for management relative to other areas in the short-term. I t Area Landscape Type Management number Priority__I 1 Grassland High Wetland Low 3 Woodland Medium 4 Wetland Low 5 Woodland High b Wetland Medium 7 Wetland Medium 8 Wetland Low 9 Grassland Medium 10 Woodland Medium 11 Wetland Low 1.2 Grassland High 13 Wetland Low 14 Wetland Low E 15 Wetland Medium 1 t I i r 1 1 16 Wetland Low j t 17 Wetland Low 18 Wetland Medium 19 Grassland Medium 20 Wetland Medium 21 Woodland High i 22 Wetland Low 23 Grassland High 24 Wetland Low { 25 Wetland Medium 26 Wetland Medium 27 Grassland Medium I 28 Agricultural Field - 29 Woodland Low 30 Grassland High 3? Woodland Low 32 Wetland Low 33 Grassland Low I 34 Grassland Medium 35 Grassland High i 36 Wetland Medium 37 Forest Low 3 38� Agricultural Field - 39 Woodland Low 40 Wetland Low 41 Wetland Low 42 Grassland High 43 Woodland Low 44 Grassland Low 45 Woodland Low 46 Wetland Low i Invasive and noxious species -Highest density areas: The locations in red have the highest densities of invasive and noxious species. Without control,these populations are likely to spread and cause further problems.In the Wooded areas (5 and 21)invasive common buckthorn is highly dense and has formed an almost impenetrable thicket.Highlighted grassland areas contain high densities of the noxious weeds:Bull Thistle, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Spotted Knapweed, and Wild Parsnip. t All of the above species are non-native,invasive, and highly problematic. The thistle species are deemed prohibited noxious weeds and are to be controlled in accordance with i t j I i state law.For images and plant descriptions please see the Minnesota DNR information included as appendices at the end of this document. l For additional information on noxious and invasive weeds please visit the.Minnesota DNR website. i I Minnesota DNR Accessed: 7/15/2009 http-//www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/index.html i i 1 i 's r i i i i i I 3 t i l t i i 1 11 i ( I I l I t �i 3 a i i U i g_Ug R a S 6 R• I a r i N za � _ O t LIJ CC f LU 1 � Y ! t r 4 S. r 1 •I i � i 1 C j S LU ! } I LU 72 i• I ,�4,. ; ' i i u��a•- � g� 3 0 �F � s 3 � ; � c I x of z i 1 i i i i 7 i i 4 i i i A P P"" E P14D I C E S i INVASIVE AND NOXIOUS PLANT DESCRIPTIONS i i DNR INVASIVE AND NOXIOUS PLANT LIST DEFINITIONS l t t t l t l 1 si i Buckthorn-Invasive species:Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 2 s Buckthv S 1 I awn ? � t I ! F Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) was first brought to Minnesota from Europe in the mid-1800s as a very 3 popular hedging material. Shortly after its introduction here, it was found to be quite invasive in natural areas. The nursery 3 industry stopped selling it in the 1930s, 3 but many buckthorn hedges may still be found in older neighborhoods throughout Minnesota. j Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), also from Europe, has been sold by the nursery trade in two different forms. The - cultivar Columnaris has a narrow and tall f Buckthorn is form; the cultivar Aspenifolia spreads up j one of the most to 10 feet and has narrow leaves that invasive species give it a ferny texture. This buckthorn found in aggressively invades wetlands including Minnesota. 4 acidic bogs, fens and sedge meadows.Why is E buckthorn such a problem? ■ Out-competes native plants for nutrients, light, and moisture i ■ Degrades wildlife habitat ■ Threatens the future of forests, wetlands, prairies, and other natural habitats ■ Contributes to erosion by shading out other plants that grow on the forest floor ■ Serves as host to other pests, such as crown rust fungus and soybean aphid ■ Forms an impenetrable layer of vegetation ■ Lacks "natural controls" like insects or disease that would curb its growth i i http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/ter restrialplants/woody/buckthom/index.html 7/15/2009 tsumCiorn-Invasive species: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 2 I I ti i t ` s European or common xy ` ` buckthorn and glossy or alder buckthorn are listed as 1 4' restricted noxious weeds in Minnesota. It is illegal to import, sell, or transport ! buckthorn in Minnesota. Buckthorn leafs out early and retain leaveslate into ?. the tali creating dense More t shade that hers it to out- 'horn compete many native Identif y.ing buckthorn plants. .- 1s buckthorn in yard What you .c . o .o. tr l buc .hor i i Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine article The I Trouble..With Backyar ckthorn i I ; i i I i t i 1 I i i I 1 1 i i i i s I http://v,,w,Ar.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/teirestrialplants/woody/buckthomfindex.htm) 7/1 1;1')nno Bull thistle-Invasive species:Minnesota DNR Page I of 2 . i bouffil I i i i thistle Ck vulgare) i j 1 j 3 1 £ j i I j 1 j i 3 I i } i 1 � i i sr I Appearance: Biennial herbaceous plant, between 3 - 6' tail with one erect branched stem. It grows a rosette in its first year and blooms i.n its second year. Leaves: Alternate, coarsely lobed, each lobe with a spine at its tip. S extend downward from the leaves along Ines P� g i prominent ridges of the stem. Upper leaf surface is rough. Flowers: Disk-shaped flowerheads contain hundreds of tiny individual purple flowers which bloom from July through August. Seeds: Numerous straw-colored seeds with plume-like t bristles are dispersed by wind. They remain viable in the soil i for over iQ years. Roots: Each plant has a fleshy taproot. Ecological Threat: ■ It colonizes primarily in disturbed areas such as pastures, roadsides, and ditch banks, but also in 3 hayfields and disturbed prairies. i ■ Bull thistle is distasteful to most grazing animals, giving the thistle a competitive edge. ■ It generally does not pose a threat to high quality areas. http://wwvtr.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/bullthistle.html 7/15/2009 outi trusue- Lnvasive species: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 2 1 i i j s } Does not withstand cultivation. �. . It was introduced to the U.S. in the early 1800s from Europe and Asia. ■ Bull thistle is on the MDA Prohibited noxious weeds list in Minnesota. _ i Control Methods: } Mechanical Pulling or mowing in Pulling or mowing in and dispose off- site to avoid reseeding 4 Chemical Spot-spraying with glyphosate, triclopyr or metsulfuron when plants are in rosette stage (first year) in the fall 3 when non-target plants are less susceptible Biological 3 Thistlehead-feed ing weevil and rosette-feeding weevil. Caution. There have been observations of weevils feeding on native thistles 1 i 1 i i 1 i i I http,//wvv,A,.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/bullthistle.html 7/15/2009 Canada thistle- Invasive species: Minnesota.DNR Page I of 2 I 1 s s Canada thistle (C ary ns i I i I I i i i s 4 i t wescrk-tiontr% Q I, Appearance: Perennial herbaceous plant, 2 - 5' tall with slender grooved stems that branch only at the top. It has male and female plants. Leaves: Alternate, smooth, oblong, tapering, and directly i attached to the stem, deeply divided, with prickly margins. Flowers: Numerous small purple flowers appear on top of the upper branched stems between June and September. f Seeds: Small light brown seeds are tufted for dispersal by the wind. Seeds remain viable in the soil for over 20 years. Roots: Each plant has a fibrous taproot with wide spreading horizontal roots. Each small section of root can form a new s i plant enabling the plant to spread vegetatively. 3 Ecological ■ Canada thistle invades natural areas such as prairies, savannas, glades and dunes if some degree of disturbance already exists. It also invades wet areas with fluctuating water levels such as streambanks, sedge meadows and wet prairies. i i i http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial.plants/herbaceous/canadathistle.htmt 7/15/2009 j %,anaaa tmstle - Invasive species: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 2 t I t r Once it has established itself it spreads quickly replacing = native plants, diminishing diversity. It grows in circular patches spreading vegetatively through horizontal roots which can spread 10 -12' in one season. 3 ■ Canada thistle occurs throughout the northern U.S. from northern California to Maine and southward to Virginia and in Canada. ■ It has been declared a noxious weed in 43 states as one of the most tenacious agricultural weeds. a Canada thistle is on the MDA Prohibited noxious weeds list in Minnesota. %..#ontrof Methods: i Mechanical Repeated pulling and mowing will weaken roots, mowing when flower buds are just to open 3 I Late spring burns May/June are most detrimental, but also stimulate seed germination; burn consecutively for 3 years Chemical Spot application with glyphosate or with selective herbicide clopyralid, or metsulfuron i Biological Stem weevil, bud weevil and stem gall fly are commercially available I ......_._._.._�..___ 1 i i http://www.dar.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestTialplants/herbaceous/canadathistle.html 7/15/2009 Musk or nodding thistle - Invasive species: Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 2 3 M u!.3% k o r n 0 d d i [*,%[ I 1 i i thistle ( Carduus 1 nutans ; e I 1 j } i F j .4 S 1qigiiijiEnt, 3 uesc i ! i I } ri i s Appearance: Biennial herbaceous plant, between 1 1/2 - 6' t tall, multi--branched stem. Plants overwinter in the rosette stage, Leaves; Alternate, coarsely lobed, dark green with light 1 green midrib, smooth and hairless. Large first year rosette leaves. 1 Flowers. Disk-shaped flowerheads contain hundreds of tiny individual purple flowers which bloom from June through July. I Flowerheads droop to a 90 degree angle from the stem when mature. i Roots. Each plant has a fibrous taproot. Plumeless Thistle - Carduus acantho des (no picture) is very similar especially in rosette stage, hybridizes readily with above; flowers are one-third the size of above and not nodding, underside of leaf is hairy. Ecological t,: 1 a It generally does not pose a threat to high quality areas. j It colonizes primarily in disturbed areas. i http://wv,,m�.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/muskthistle.html 7/15/2009 iviusx or nodding thistle - Invasive species: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 2 3 i i 1 i ■ Musk thistle is distasteful to grazing animals, giving the 3 thistle a competitive edge. ea It grows best in disturbed areas such as pastures, roadsides, and ditch banks, but also in hayfields and disturbed prairies. ■ A native of western Europe it was introduced to the U.S. in the early I800s, and is declared an agricultural pest. ■ Musk thistle and Plumeless thistle are on the MDA Prohibited noxious weed list in Minnesota. i uontrol j 3 i Methods: Mechanical Pulling or mowing in early bud or bloom stage, then i dispose offsite i E Chemical Spot-spraying with glyphosate, triclopyr or metsulfuron when plants are in rosette stage (first year) in the fall when non-target plants are less susceptible Biological Thistlehead-feeding weevil and rosette-feeding weevil. Caution: Observations of weevils feeding on native thistles f l 1 i i 1 I i i 1 I 1 i http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invas ives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/muskthistle.html 7/15/2009 Spotted knapweed - Invasive species: Minnesota DNR Page I of 2 I 6V.Vitted krrft,a--% pwe-'-ed ((';V-,-%ntaur*e'wamaculosa) i 1 i f ! I t 3 i i i f 's rIr 3 ! I AI i i` I 'i 1 i i i i I s 1 I j ! I Q ! t I 1 i ! Description: 3 Appearance: Biennial or short-lived perennial herbaceous plant, Z - 3' high. Basal leaves form a rosette the first year from which grow 1- 20 wiry, hoary, branched stems during the second year. { I 1 Leaves: Alternate, grayish, hoary, and divided into lance- shaped lobes decreasing in size at the top. Flowers: Thistle-like pink to purple flowers sit at the tips of terminal and axillary stems, bloom from July through September. I Seeds: Brownish, 1/4" long with small tuft of bristles, dispersed by rodents, livestock and commercial hay. Seed viable in the soil for 7 years. Roots: Stout taproot. Lateral shoots form new rosettes near j the parent plant. j Caution: Wear long sleeves and gloves, can be a skin irritant to some peopie. Threat:Ecological i http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/spottedknapw=d.html 7/15/2009 F S 2 11 I l (Pastinaca sat3 3 'a q,�k rl•'ry: j t ' Descri lion : i Appearance: Monocarpic perennial herbaceous plant (plant { spends one or more years in rosette stage, blooms under favorable conditions, and then dies), 6" high in the rosette stage and 4` high on stout, grooved stems in the flowering stage. Leaves: Alternate, leaf is made up of 5 -15 egg shaped leaflets along both sides of a common stalk; leaflets sharply- toothed or lobed at the margins; upper leaves smaller. Flowers: Flat-topped broad flower cluster Z - 6" wide, l numerous five-petaled yellow flowers; bloom from June to late summer. Seeds: Small, flat, round, slightly ribbed, strawcolored, abundant take 3 weeks to ripen before they can reseed; viable in the soil for 4 years. Roots: Long, thick, edible taproot. { Warning - Avoid shin contact with the toxic sap of the plant tissue by wearing gloves, long sleeves and long l pants. The juice of gild parsnip in contact with skin in the presence of sunlight can cause a rash and i blistering and discoloration of the shin (phytophotodermatitis)s I I 3 1 i ■ Especially threatens dry prairie, oak and pine barrens, dunes and sandy ridges. ■ Spotted knapweed is poisonous to other plants (phytotoxic). ■ Spreads rapidly in artificial corridors, gravel pits, 3 agricultural field margins and overgrazed pastures. A native of Europe and Asia it has become a serious problem in pastures and rangeland of the western states. ■ It is on the MDA Secondary noxious weeds list in t Minnesota. l :i uontrol Methods I Mechanical ' Early detection and pulling Mowing as needed so plants cannot go to seed Prescribed burning, only very hot burns are effective which may also damage native plants i Chemical Apply selective herbicide clopyralid during bud growth in early .dune for best results (48 oz per 100 gal water). Use caution in quality natural areas herbicide affects native s plants of the sunflower and pea family as well. Biological i Thirteen insects identified Two seedhead flies are most promising a i I i I i 1 i 1 f i is Ecolovreical Threat: • Well established prairies are not likely to be invaded by wild parsnip, but it readily moves into disturbed habitats, along edges and or in disturbed patches. It invades slowly, but once population builds it spreads rapidly and can severely modify open dry, moist, and wet-moist habitats. I . It is primarily a problem in southeastern Minnesota in E '_ prairies and oak openings. ■ A native of Europe and Asia this plant has escaped from cultivation, it is grown as root vegetable, and is common throughout the U.S. t Control Methods- I t i i i li Mechanical I i Do nothing in healthy prairies, natives can sometimes outcompete the parsnip Hand pulling and removing of plants Cut the plant below the root crown before seeds set, and remove the cut plant i Mow or cut the base of the flowering stem and remove i Chemical j I I F Use sparingly in quality habitats Spot application with glyphosate or selective metsulfuron after a prescribed burn, , parsnip is one of the first plants to , green up Ii I i i I t I r s Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants by Scientific Name (complied by the Minnesota DNR's Exotic Species Program 12-30-99) Key: FN - Federal noxious weed (USDA-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) SN - State noxious weed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) RN - Restricted noxious weed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) CN -State noxious weed in some counties (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) PE - Prohibited exotic species (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) PS - State prohibited weed seed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) IRS - State restricted weed seed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) (See explanationsof these classifications below the lists of species) Scientific Name Common names Regulatory Classification Aquatic plants: t Azolla pinnata R. Brown mosquito fern,water velvet FN Butomus umbellatus Linnaeus flowering rush PE Crassula helmsii(Kirk) Cockayne Australian stonecrop PE Eichornia azurea(Swartz)Kunth anchored waterhyacinth, rooted waterhyacinth FN i Hydrilla verticillata(Linnaeus f.) Royle hydrilla FN, PE (Carl von Linnaeus) Royle Hygrophila polysperma (Roxburgh) T. Anders Indian swampweed, Miramar weed FN, PE j 1pomoea aquatica FOrsskal water-spinach, swamp morning-glory FN E Lagarosiphon major(Ridley) Moss ex Wagner African oxygen weed FN, PE Limnophila sessiliflora(Vahl) Blume ambulia FN Lythrum salicaria, Lythrum virgaturn, purple loosestrife PE, SN or any variety, hybrid, or cultivar thereof) Linnaeus Melaleuca quenquinervia (Cay.) Blake broadleaf paper bark tree FN E Monochoria hastata(Linnaeus) Solms-Laubach FN Monochoria vaginalis (Burman f.) C. Presl FN Myriophyllum spicatum Linnaeus Eurasian water milfoil PE t Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. FN Potamogeton crispus Linnaeus curly-leaf pondweed PE t Sagittaria sagittifolia Linnaeus arrowhead FN Salvinia auriculata Aublet giant salvinia FN Salvinia biloba Raddi giant salvinia FN Salvinia herzogii de la Sota giant salvinia FN i l i I s I 4 I i 1 Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 I Salvinia molesta D,S. Mitchell aquarium watermoss, giant salvinia FN Sparganium erectum Linnaeus exotic bur-reed FN Stratiotes aloides Linnaeus water aloe or water soldiers PE t i 7rapa natans Linnaeus water chestnut PE l Parasitic weeds: Aeginetia spp. FN I Alectra spp, FN I Cuscuta spp. (dodders), other than following species: FN Cuscuta amedcana Linnaeus Cuscuta applanate Engelmann E Cuscuta approximata Babington Cuscuta attenuata Waterfall Cuscuta boldinghii Urban Cuscuta brachycalyx(Yuncker) Yuncker Cuscuta californica Hooker&Amott Cuscuta campestris Yuncker Cuscuta cassytoides Nees ex Engelmann Cuscuta ceanothii Behr Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann Cuscuta compacts Jussieu Cuscuta corylii Engelmann Cuscuta cuspidate Engelmann Cuscuta decipiens Yuncker Cuscuta dentatasquamata Yuncker Cuscuta denticulate Engelmann Cuscuta epilinum Weihe Cuscuta epithymum (Linnaeus) Linnaeus Cuscuta erosa Yuncker Cuscuta europaea Linnaeus Cuscuta exalta Engelmann Cuscuta fasciculata Yuncker i Cuscuta glabrior(Engelmann) Yuncker Cuscuta globulosa Bentham Cuscuta glomerata Choisy Cuscuta gronovii Willdenow l Cuscuta harped Small Cuscuta howelliana Rubtzoff Cuscuta indecora Choisy j Cuscuta jepsonii Yuncker y Cuscuta leptantha Engelmann Cuscuta mitriformis Engelmann Cuscuta nevadensis 1. M. Johnston Cuscuta obtusiflora Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Cuscuta occidentalis Millspaugh ex Mill & Nuttali i G I i 3 i I i i Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 t Cuscuta odontolepis Engelmann Cuscuta pentagona Engelmann Cuscuta planiflora Tenore Cuscuta plattensis A. Nelson Cuscuta polygonorum Engelmann Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex Engelmann Cuscuta runyonil Yuncker Cuscuta saliva Engelmann i Cuscuta sandwichiana Choisy Cuscuta squamata Engelmann 4 Cuscuta suaveolens Seringe ! i Cuscuta suksdorfii Yuncker Cuscuta tuberculata Brandegee I Cuscuta umbellata Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Cuscuta umbrosa Beyrich ex Hooker Cuscuta vetchii Brandegee Cuscuta warned Yuncker i Orobanche spp. (broomrapes), other than the following species: FN Orobanche bulbosa(Gray) G. Beck Orobanche califomica Schlechtendal & Chamisso Orobanche cooperi(Gray) Heller Orobanche corymbosa(Rydberg) Ferris Orobanche dugesii(S. Watson) Munz Orobanche fasciculata Nuttall I Orobanche ludoviciana Nuttall I Orobanche multicaulis Brandegee Orobanche parishii(Jepson) Heckard Orobanche pinorum Geyer ex Hooker I Orobanche uniflora Linnaeus Orobanche valida Jepson Orobanche vallicola (Jepson) Heckard Striga spp. Witchweeds FN I t Terrestrial weeds: { I Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf CN E Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel) King & Robinson (crofton weed) FN Agropyron repens L. quackgrass CN, RS i I Alliaria petiolate(Formerly Alharia otficinalis) garlic mustard SN Alternanthera sessilis sessile joyweed FN i (Linnaeus) R. Brown ex de Candolle Amaranthus retroflexus redroot pigweed CN i i J 7 t I I t i I ; Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 92-30-99 i Amaranthus blitoides prostrate pigweed CN ; Ambrosia artemisiifolia* common ragweed CN j Ambrosia trifida* giant ragweed CN Arctium minus burdock CN S Artemisia absinthium * absinthe wormwood CN Asclepias syriaca* common milkweed CN t i Asphodelus fistulosus Linnaeus onionweed FN j Avena fatua wild oat CN Avena sterilis Linnaeus animated oat, wild oat FN t (including Avena iudoviciana Durieu) i Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket CN Berteroa incana D.C. hoary alyssum CN, RS s I Borreria alata(Aublet) de Candolle FN Brassica arvensis L. wild mustard RS Brassica kaber wild mustard CN Cannabis sativa hemp SN, PS Carduus acanthoides plumeless thistle SN, PS y i Carduus nutans musk thistle SN, PS Carthamus oxyacantha M. Bieberstein wild safflower FN Cenchrus longispinus* long-spined sandbar CN Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed CN i Centaurea repens L. Russian knapweed CN, PS Chenopodium album common lambscluarters CN I Cirsium arvense Canada thistle SN, PS Cirsium vulgare bull thistle SN, PS Chrysanthemum leucanthemum oxeye daisy CN Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retxius)Trinius pilipiiiula FN Commelina benghatensis Linnaeus Senghal dayflower FN Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed SN, PS I I Crepis capillaris smooth hawksbeard CN Crepis tectorum narrowleaf hawksbeard CN ' Crupina vulgaris Cassini common crupina FN I Cuscuta spp. dodder RS i I I i i i Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 I I Cyperus esculentus yellow (nutgrass)nutsedge CN Datura stramonium Jimsonweed CN Daucus carota wild carrot CN Descurainia sophia Flixweed CN Digitaria scalarum (Schweinfurth)Chiovenda African couchgrass, fingergrass FN Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de Beauvois velvet fingergrass, annual conchgrass FN Drymaria arenadoides lightning weed FN t Humboldt& Bonpland ex Roemer& Schultes Emex australis Steinheil three-cornered jack FN Emex spinosa(Linnaeus) Campdera devil's thorn FN Eriochloa villosa woolly cupgrass CN Euphorbia esula leafy spurge SN, PS Galega officinalis Linnaeus goatsrue FN Grindeiia squarrosa" curlycup gumweed CN I Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier& Levier giant hogweed FN Helianthus annuus* common sunflower(except cultivars) CN Helianthus tuberosus " Jerusalem artichoke CN Hibiscus trionum venice mallow CN Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed CN Imperata brasiliensis Trinius Brazilian satintail FN imperata cylindrica(Linnaeus) Raeuschel cogongrass FN I Ipomoea triloba Linnaeus little bell, aiea morning-glory FN Ischaemum rugosum Salisbury murainograss FN Iva xanthifolia" marsh elder CN Kochia scoparia kochia CN Lepidium draba L. perennial peppergrass PS Leptochloa chinensis (Linnaeus) Nees Asian sprangietop FN Lychnis alba white cockle CN Lycium ferocissimum Miers African boxthorn FN Lythrum salicaria, virgatum, or any combination purple loosestrife SN ; Melastoma malabathricum Linnaeus FN i 1 Mikania cordata(Burman f.) B. L. Robinson mile-a-minute FN Mikania micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth FN I t 5 7S I I I, 1 i i Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 I Mimosa invisa Martius giant sensitive plant FN y Mimosa pigra Linneeus var. pigra catclaw mimosa FN I Muhlenbergia frondosa" wirestem muhiy CN i Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hackel ex Arechavaieta serrated tussock FN Opuntia aurantiaca Lindley jointed prickly pear FN j Oryza longistaminata A. Chevalier& Roehrich red rice FN Oryza punctata Kotschy ex Steudel red rice FN Oryza r0pogon Griffith red rice FN 1 Panicum dichotomiflorum fall panicum CN Panicum miliaceum panicum, wild proso millet CN i Paspalum scrobiculatum Linnaeus Kodo-millet FN Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyugrass FN Hochstetter ex Chiovenda Pennisetum macrourum Trinius African feathergrass FN Pennisetum pedicellatum Trinius kyasumagrass FN Pennisetum polystachion (Linnaeus) Schultes missiongrass, thin napiergrass FN Plantago lanceolata L. buckhorn plantain RS I Polygonum convolvulus wild buckwheat CN € i Polygonum pennsylvanicum * Pennsylvania smartweed CN i Polygonum persicaria smartweed, ladysthumb CN Prosopis alpataco R. A. Philippi FN Prosopis argentina Burkart FN i Prosopis articulata S. Watson FN j Prosopis burkartii Munoz FN I Prosopis caldenia Burkart FN Prosopis calingastana Burkart FN Prosopis campestris Griseback FN Prosopis castellanosii Burkart FN Prosopis denudans Bentham FN I Prosopis elata(Burkart) Burkart FN I Prosopis farcta(Solander ex Russell) Macbride FN 1 Prosopis ferox Grisebach FN Prosopis fiebrigii Harms FN 1 6 i i Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 Prosopis hassleri Harms FN 1 1 Prosopis humilis Gillies ex Hooker &Arnott FN Prosopis kuntzei Harms FN Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth FN l Prosopis palmeri S. Watson FN Prosopis reptans Bentham var. reptans FN Prosopis rojasiana Burkart FN Prosopis ruizlealii Burkart FN Prosopis ruscifolia Grisebach FN Prosopis sericantha Gillies ex Hooker &Arnott FN Prosopis strombulifera (Lamarck) Bentham FN 3 Prosopis torquata(Cavanilles ex Lagasca y Segura)de Candolle FN i Pteridium aquilinum bracken CN Pueraria lobata kudzu FN j Ranunculus acris tall buttercup CN } Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish CN, RS Rhamnus cathartica common or European buckthorn RN i Rhamnus frangula glossy buckthorn, including all cultivars RN (columnaris, tallcole, asplenifoiia and all other cultivars) [effective December 31, 20001 Rottboellia exaltata Linnaeus f. itchgrass, raoulgrass FN Rubus fruticosus Linnaeus (complex) wild blackberry FN I Rubus moluccanus Linnaeus wild raspberry FN i Rumex onspus curly dock CN Saccharum spontaneum Linnaeus wild sugarcane FN i Salsola kali Russian thistle CN Salsola vermiculata Linnaeus wormleaf salsola FN Setaria faberii giant foxtail CN, RS I Setaria pallide-fusca cattail grass FN (Schumacher) Stapf & Hubbard I Silene noctiflora nightflowering catchfly CN Solanum carolinense L. horse nettle RS Solanum nigrum black nightshade CN Solanum ptycanthum Dun Eastern black nightshade RS l a / t 7 I i Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 I Solanum rostratum" buffalobur CN Solanum torvum Swartz turkeyberry FN Solanum viarum Dunal tropical soda apple FN l s Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle SN, PS Sorghum almum Sorghum-almum CN Tanacetum vulgare tansy CN t i Thlaspi arvense L. Frenchweed RS Toxicodendron radicans * poison ivy (formerly Rhus radicans) SN 1 , Trrdax procumbens Linnaeus coat buttons FN Urochloa panicoides Beauvois liverseed grass FN } Xanthium pennsylvanicum* common cocklebur CN 1 i I `Native species to Minnesota l FEDERAL NOXIOUS WEED LIST (FN) Federal noxious weeds are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. title 7 section 360.200, According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act, Title 7, Chapter 61, section 2803, federal noxious weeds may not be imported into or through the united States, unless in accordance with conditions allowed by the USDA- i APHIS. The sale, purchase, exchange, or receipt of federal noxious weeds is illegal. For more information contact: Kevin Conners at 612-334-4194. PROHIBITED NOXIOUS WEEDS (SN) These species are designated in M.R.1505.0730 by the Commissioner of Agriculture. The terrestrial and parasitic weeds listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. title 7 section 360.200 are also prohibited noxious weeds.The prohibited noxious weeds are designated because they are injurious to public health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock, and other property. Prohibited noxious weeds must be i controlled or eradicated as required in Minnesota Statutes. section 18.78. For more information contact.- Chuck Dale, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, at 651-296-6123 or Charles,Dale estate.mn.us RESTRICTED NOXIOUS WEEDS (RN) The plants listed in M.R.1505.0732 are restricted noxious weeds. The importation, sale, and transportation I of these plants or their.propagating parts is illegal in the state except as provided by Minnesota Statutes. section 18.82. For more information contact: Chuck Dale, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, at 651- 296-6123. i s COUNTY NOXIOUS WEEDS (CN) The Minnesota commissioner of agriculture may take a weed or weeds from the secondary noxious weed list in M.R.1505.0740 and add it to the prohibited or restricted noxious weed list in parts 1505.0730 l and1505.0732 on a county basis according to M.R. 1505.0750. For more information contact: Chuck Dale, 'l Minnesota Department of Agriculture, at 651-296-6123. l i s 1 I Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Weed List 12-30-99 1 PROHIBITED EXOTIC SPECIES (PE) 1 These species and any hybrids, cultivars, or varieties of the species are designated by the Department of Natural Resources in M.R. 6216.0250 as prohibited exotic species. It is illegal to possess, import, purchase, sell, propagate, transport, or introduce prohibited exotic species, except as allowed by statute. The statutes and rules that apply to these species are M.S. 84D051 84D.08, 84DA 0, 84D.11. 84D.13. M.R. 6216.0265, and M.R.6216,0280. For more information contact Jay Rendall, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, at 651-297-1464 or iav,rendal]andnr.sYate.mn.us. t PROHIBITED WEED SEEDS (PS) Prohibited weed seeds are prohibited from being present in agricultural, vegetable, flower, tree, and shrub seeds sold in Minnesota in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 21.86, subdivision 1. paragraph (d). The plants listed in M.R.1510.0271 are prohibited weed seeds. For more information contact: Chuck Dale, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, at 651-296-6123. RESTRICTED WEED SEEDS (RS) Minnesota's restricted weed seeds are those weed seeds which, if present in agricultural, vegetable, flower, tree, and shrub seed, must be named on the label together with the number per ounce or pound of seed specified and which may not exceed the legal limit. They are seeds of weeds which are objectionable in fields, lawns, and gardens of this state, and which can be controlled by good cultural practice and use of herbicides. Restricted weed seeds are listed in M.R. 1510.0320. For more information contact: Chuck Dale, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, at 651-296-6123. i I t 7 i i t i i 3 i 1 3 i 1 1 i i 1 I i i i t 's i i 9 � l i i i Kyle Klan i glMll i I From: K.D. Widin [kdwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:15 AM To: Kyle Klatt; Ryan W. Stempski; Kelli Matzek; Stephen Mastey Subject: Sanctuary Landscape Plan Lake Elmo Staff - I have reviewed the landscape plan for the Sanctuary development which was recently submitted to the city. The original landscape plan, which was approved by the Lake Elmo City Council, was never implemented by the developer. During the time which ensued since the development was approved, homes have been built and lots landscaped by property owners. Now that landscaping is in on private property and residents have had time to observe the land and vistas, they have expressed interest in changing the landscape plan to better fit the I development as it is now and would prefer to enhance the natural land cover that exists there. Development funds available for landscaping are limited and Mr. Mastey's plan reflects what can be done by using a habitat restoration approach with the funds available. The plan recently submitted is quite different than the one originally submitted, particularly in that it does not contain the several hundred boulevard trees originally proposed for the project. Planting boulevard trees now, when a number of residents have already completed their front yard landscaping, was not favored by the Sanctuary homeowner's association. The open vistas of native prairie and wetland landscapes with enhanced native tree stands appeal to the residents who are already in the development. For open space developments, where conservation of natural areas and native plant communities is paramount, enhancing the plant communities already present on the site makes sense. I have reviewed the site condition plan, which prioritizes areas for management of non- native invasive plants, the landscape plan and plant lists, which show some areas to be seeded with prairie grasses and wildflowers, and proposes planting nine large shade trees. All invasive plant management work and plantings will take place in common, open areas of the development such as designated outlots and open space. Control of non-native, invasive plants is important in the restoration of native woodland, wetland and grassland habitats. The plan and recommendations for how this will be accomplished are appropriate in terms of the plants involved and the degree of habitat degradation in each area of the development. Seeding of some areas of the development with native grasses and wildflowers will follow invasive plant management. The techniques and plants listed for this site are appropriate for the work which is being done and the end result desired. Buckthorn management for this project proposes I cutting and treating for larger buckthorn in native woodland areas of the I development. Treating/pulling of seedlings will also need to be done for a number of years after the original treatment to keep the buckthorn from re-establishing in the woodlands. AS the buckthorn is removed in future years, planting of native trees, shrubs, and ground-layer plants will be necessary to fully restore the area. The nine shade trees to be planted are good species to be used, with few serious insect or disease problems. The tree size is larger than I would normally recommend, but a large (85 in.) tree spade will be used to transplant the trees. Mulching and watering for the trees is recommended for this fall and waterings are also scheduled for the 201e growing season. After-care for such large trees is important to avoid additional transplant stress and attack by insect borers and fungal canker disease fungi. Part of the rationale for planting larger trees was also to avoid damage from bucks rubbing their antlers on smaller (1.5-3 in. diam. ) trees and killing them. A deer control barrier will be put up around the tree trunks after planting to minimize deer damage. From a design perspective for this development, a few, large trees will make more of a visual impact while allowing the prairie 1 t i and wetland plant communities to be viewed. This type of plan, with fewer trees, will require less maintenance overall than a plan emphasizing many, smaller trees. I approve the management plan and planting plan for this development. With the constraints upon this development, in terms of landscaping already planted by residents and limited funds available for common area landscaping, I think this is the best plan for the site at this time. Hopefully, the HOA will be able to accomplish additional work on this site in the future to further manage the open space and continue to establish higher quality natural areas. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this landscape plan review. i Kathy Widin Forestry Consultant City of Lake Elmo i 1 f i i i 1 z 1 i f I i I 1 I S 3 I Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. SANCTUARY LAM P`LkNNING ♦ SURVEYING # ENGINEERING M 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH LART ELMO INNESOTA SMWATERMMOT-A 55082 PREPhone(651)439-M3 Fax(651)430-9331 L IMLNAR Y PLA T LAADSCAPE PLAN (NORTH) I. r w OUTLOT E J '56 s A WASTE WATER TRF4A0VTFACXJTY svu w MET 5 200 Rrr 12'ACCESS DRIVE (MMA(FE&L SrAU) WA TF WA > BLOCK 1 20 0 TLOT F 0.84 A— TREE SCHEDULE:TOTAL#590 0.91.Acme 3 '•, 0.51�crcc /A,, •.-.'aA, -!f ...\_� 1� T' '? .... .. i DECIDUOUS 7'REE5 c.---Name 0.63 A— x .. 8 " RaWpk raj. B : :6 2:.C.L .0 .1 F- 0.82-44m A" A,I MaOk ru. C-'llTEll: I pM 3 _MV, Acm !NGtlAl W .01, "�4 1 01 ELEVATION AM� O.B2 Acres 2-44"s wrwar 0,76 A- 4 36 rQL B&B 0.77 Acm 5 6 ........ .. 4 kws—wpl. rc.. .... 1 j 4 ACID 0.7619 R&B Oc ru- w CK 8 "77 Pam No! Pm Get L 50JaW 3 r NorlAem Rea Get rod. -rw- 9.79 A� 2 N—IO P— W-FR;—Ap;T. 2!-C.L BW 0.81 Acres lAo. uffj—&--u>z 0.76 A.- 4 Aw 2 A., A� F—ad Wks 1.00 A— 4 ftp. OSO A.— �pj a /X 5 0.76 A- 1 0.N1 A— 0.78 Acres EVFROREEN TREES 31 -may ?� ///'%�,/��,��,,r f I.59 Pr PlnuroYnnea Aed Pimr6' B� Naruaa,F�mn F 2. . . A - :f- 7P F I 0.83 A— ... 4, - . , Il� It twl i s0,75 Acres - ft.'\ ORA 0.61 A AWAa 5. BL K 10 5 OU-4,04 a 0 Ll L 3.:- RMCK I :. U, . -0.7B Acres 0- i SANCTUARY Holz, Freeman, Eric-ksc,n, Inc_ ]� LANDPz.ANivf.�rc • SURVEYING • Ez�crxMRn�rc I T AKE E. MOP I NESO 1 A � yy 15620 MEMORW AVENUE NORTH TILL AM UNMax OTA 5501PhDby � � yg AT LANDSCAPE PLAN(SOUTH) lZACCEss DRIVE ro �Pa 4f � WR TEWR R R l e'srr.FRAIL ' !BLOck I. i ' ,S ♦ 1.-� . � � �,. �°' 1./ 1 /�4 �i I i E !�} < O)�J1 LOT "} _ .., ... ,., �„�i�tre D 84 Acres 1 17.91 A- 1 S 'O.Bl Aria �34 0.81 Aorta ' 4 f `;/ ( '• B' E ' ( J . .90 A 8 3 { ','�•` 11 ��,-'.rv�,. ^y '0.94 Acne d [08 Acres �' � -- r•.�'Y-.r^ '` // ENTERED ON [. f�GORIVEWAYAT ♦,j SCAtEWreer i �0.82 Ataxy 0.92 A. f 1.•., 'f �„.�/ / ;? 3 .0.77 Acres 5. ` i. " aF• •, .T,B Bf"^7n�/ ( .sL aU suAir:7 { 'L 0.76AceeB V 0.82 Acrec. c r 4v' u .,• �y'�""' ,_!may _ - :{ ' ' - _ _ 4. 0:76AcLea A. %�/. ' ♦ �" ' %/. ///f/�///�/��' oscmvoasTREES gyp -• "6(V^, ��/� /�/ Fry smmrobcNmt Gmnwn w.m. a.. i OCK 7 rGt. no v 4� r > W / SORAN '. y 227wF 0.79 cry . I�(f ✓ ��.0.79Acns ��� 00, ?3 " l�/��/.// Z - �wseM.pM rest. 0.81 Aeaee /.- ,•�/////'/ iV ,,/ /,J � /,/ /,///.!r�.: nm aern,SNmAnnxrtn a ng' .Moog Wpfr X"GI. BkB N.Me.kPmm r 'a76 Acm k. 4 e' i1 + 1.D0 ACrea BD Act BL � Lr ,' /' // / / fie•[ M Slum`AWuan SpGo• Anw:nnSPua Napk YGL B48 t �.. 0.82 Acres _ 6.60AneB 7 � 3 ////`j r ."�...�...•.., //'/Z///,/// / rFR!/�II f L (:�:,(./gyp',. s AI n�a.,mm,m tnw.burg r..asnar BMple rGL B&tl NmerBihwm t N ";'� -^',s�• -, li, 5 ,BL, 9 -'D.79 ;`/ ; ay e.-, ' f. / au nmr,uMuv.(Nrm�^f upnhGre Alryle s•46 Ea.B N-1 F-I _ f yd alb Acura Acres �'• `H � �� 0.78 Acrcc '/ / / ' / / ♦'2% i It �.81 M Anrx rvbrum'Nanhw ,y C ( � � md' INmihwood,y k 2'G1 tlkfl NaWrm Furm' 0.az } .J a,•,A . \ //• { r^ •- .0.83 Aan 501LW Air wra S�.wenMpl. rem. ese wm ar Pour,; I( - ., Ox Prauu G.mde 2 � / // // ' Sv PIWMC ,Wlk- yet. me w.Mmponn ;R0�..775 A(aea ��� ��_. i eejr�t,,� -� f"� ask �i 042 \ �^ar ♦///�'/ ' r' �4o Rmrcu+m.va.mn IBw Ovk rem BkB N.-WF- i ` ♦ .�*y, r. 1// '/,*, �� O.B2 Acres yyl' _. //�% a 4n..w.ym®.aw, lu�nnanra ou: Xed. BxB wn..mPo� r a 1 D.82 ACr'ta r .e.nw�^ ` OU i /, iFii BL K.I.Q. �� /',,�•/ , �r .�,�b>~ I YGL BkB N.Nrm Pure ,i f / ! r. ''"�"'.• L� `,..p;:'r,, s � .. 0.81 Ac f. /i j/� %!� m. Lm�.:watx;.'.r y�n+;,�xM-npae rsSL tl4e N.!u.d'� {! i r / �r Ylk' t/ ♦ //. '♦ 1Z, Ag Aad.nrLaxpanafgan M.mm.tlriWuaSaeia c]S&L BkB Nuurd Four Bboex 12� ;� .,.///, � 1:FB pr2. � _ // ,f� .,� , ,,�.� �....._.._.."�_ ) G D.78Acaa �f'r 1 i R••••• PopuluntremulafAa aW, N 'L + n 9.54 Aaea 7 0 76 Acres // /� t V //,//J/' eg ar rGL Bes N-WP.m, ny^J J 0.75 Acres f /.f , 0.76 Acres J i s (j {� 6 '1 � .. 0.97 Acres 0.75 Acres _ /� D.T6 Acres 0.78 Acres a .'` T(�//--s�j / / i 0 BLOCK 4 // O eS I EVERGREEN TREES j lfJ 6 L '� S Ik 7lnm urobw WwMihne 6'Hbt Bog liWun:4mn.�. t� F ff i (i' 0.92 Araea ae^, �.,o.�,-'. 9'.---••,.=.:�. _ 4D orµ fq rr Pcnnx m.�'nwe Ia.a wnn - - . iocx s BkB Nmu.Wiann 095Tio 6'HRL BkB Acm S U 1 5 zrF-F "'� =- •' •.;'!r' ufw� :�'� ,•_• ._�_ �_. i r. N. - i s 0 77:Acres O� r O:Ri 4G. 2 . . y�{ - O.FI6 Acrca 3"lxepwx� 0.76 At �..0.78 Av'ea 0.77 Acres 6.9k1 Acres. I --- 1 w. „`�� ';/� ^. �.,._&.88'DQ.3b"...Jl.,...�..._.".._ ....�.0.:....�..`lv�...•-� . s. � i i I Planning Commission Date: 9/14/09 i Item: i i ITEM: Addressing Buffer Setbacks in Open Space Preservation (OP) Developments j i SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner t I REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director i **Please bring the reaps provided in the August Planning Commission packet for use during the discussion. A revised chart is being provided as a few changes have been made to the suggested buffer setbacks. The Prairie Hamlet development will be reviewed with respect to the extent of the development, as previously discussed at the August meeting. y i SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: At the July Planning Commission meeting, the commission was informed that a number of non-conformities exist in Open Space Preservation (OP)developments with regards to the buffer setback. Staff is now bringing forth information on seven of the nineteen OP developments for review by the commission. Staff has researched what was approved by the City Council at the time of approval for the various developments, provided maps of what this means with respect to structures on the property or buildable area remaining on a lot, and is recommending reduced buffer setbacks in some cases, The Planning Commission is being asked to review the research and recommendations provided by staff on buffer setbacks in seven OP developments and to provide feedback on the proposed reduced buffer setbacks. At this time staff is proceeding with addressing the non-conformities in the existing OP developments and wit! bring back a draft ordinance at a future date to revise the language for the buffer setback. History of the Open Space Preservation Ordinance The Open Space Preservation development ordinance was first written for Lake Elmo in the 1990's. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide a developer the ability to j cluster more homes than otherwise permitted on smaller lots and to set aside land as preserved open space in perpetuity. Originally, an Open Space Preservation I development required an additional step to rezone the property as OP before a development was reviewed and approved. Since then, this approach has been revised so that an OP development could be permitted by a conditional use permit in specific zoning districts, thereby eliminating the additional step of rezoning the y property. Although the zoning district code language was repealed, the zoning of the existing developments was never retroactively returned to Agricultural or Rural Residential, and therefore the Open Space district remains on the zoning maps. As a part of this ordinance from the beginning, a buffer setback (originally called a buffer zone)was identified as an effort to physically buffer the existing adjoining neighbors from the more densely built clustered homes. The buffer setback section of the ordinance has been revised a few times throughout the years to its current I I form, which was last approved in 2001. A buffer setback has always been required, but has varied in depth from 100 to 200 feet and has been revised from once just requiring "main structures"to be outside the setback to all structures and road surfaces not at a 90 degree angle. The OP ordinance permits the City Council to modify any of the minimum standards outlined in the ordinance by a 415 vote. Staff has found this clause has been used in altering the buffer setback requirement in some of the OP developments. i i Current Issues: Staff has found difficulty in implementing the current buffer setback due to its revisions over time and its resulting impact on existing developments as well as the unknown intent at the time of development review. At this time, staff is seeking to clarify this information for existing OP developments by clearly establishing the buffer setback in each development. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: l.. ➢ At the July 7, 2009 City Council meeting, a resolution was approved reducing the 200 foot buffer setback in Tana Ridge and Parkview Estates developments from 200 feet to generally 50 feet, although one lot in Parkview Estates was provided an additional reduction to 20 feet. Staff received an appeal application on the denial of a building permit application. The applicant lives on Lily Avenue in the Tana Ridge neighborhood and applied to build an in-ground pool in the rear yard. Staff found this would not be permitted as it falls within the buffer setback of the OP development. The City Council approved a buffer setback reduction in the development and the applicant withdrew their appeal application. i ➢ The City Council recently approved a variance for an in-ground pool and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North. Due to unique circumstances, the pool and spa were ` permitted to be 12 feet within the 100 foot buffer setback in the Farms of Lake Elmo development. ' ➢ The Open Space Preservation ordinance was revised in 2008 to address concern over the impervious surface requirement in the developments. Staff j found numerous non-conformities in existing developments. The impervious surface requirement was raised to twenty percent with an additional five percent permitted if mitigation measures were approved, RECOMMENDATION: i At this time, staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the research and recommendations provided by staff and to provide feedback on the proposed reduced buffer setbacks. l ATTACHMENTS (1): 1. Staff recommendation table i 1 l I I I i ' I � I L o += C c6 m J r) C Q i W C_Y j p m i _ N U) C -2 0I 0 co C -p c Q 4- CD � ° � 1 0. V � Q p '� -0 -0 y >, � c°.� m` j °� a o o � > •°' m ° z' a o °� � ° I a�. ° aw f n �' CD "D a = � 0 a� of � � � � rn Qm > m mWoc �' ° mm = O o m > a) ° cu o o L - m ° a? I c ° G � ° v wUiuto :2 >, o � cnN wO u W °L m G u,j a� cl E > o o o a c -o cri Q a C °i N w a cc C2 N p Q 'S O m O O L Q `' C m i.. Lr w ID a C> O aJ -0 _� N 'a G m )III p CL 0 wa- U p+- C U C a) a) 4- L I Q L' t I�y LV (ll m .a G +'ll � o C lQ^,, �` I ... L C^. M^+ O LU N .n Q ttt V L N L L_ (� L V1 Q Q L p j ; �, F G! N E a� a� tU o Q a x; ° L e vi �_ c .01 � C_ 0--Q Q N UI N N N O N m N !1J Q O O .O O a3 Q C Q O ° C 1 Q � Q O LO "._. O m .0 (0? Z 2 U G Q i " vs o czrn � -0v� a SLLI 1f I U) ° m co Z tz u 3 o Rf cV m ' ° o Q c E Z uJ I m C U m 0 0 � � I L O .� to Ci3 C Cll w LL " f0 O CD E1 p Ltl � C p � 1 t•. cc � I C cz ! © E (n !� i c O cn K j 2 LUM U � i ' j I 1 i i 11 S z a, ,� o s o o O m o o c ° ° o E o o ° ° N o orn Z C c m -D ° m 0) I D � 0 a) o m N O N � o ID G E ° —Cu o •� 0 O i w o D • a) a� � n. o m E o c ° s r- o la x c ° o a ° Q, �- �� 0 c 3 m �,Lm 2 m a) c3 oE cc a cco o �aoi •° 5 ° c 0 •? 0 ° ciE 0 E. E ,� c E m E c> ca O c c E o) a! U U ° v_) uGi ° a ° ° > c O0 OUO F) C a) > U -° N � -C 'o m -0 10 > OQ) V > -0 � CD 0) � O 0) � IO Q) 0) > p U) -0 C �QC ' O O C r-L C c a a) 0 I m O U 0 1 N Cl) C N UCO O) a) D d C i L :E •c: Q > a) X 0 a) C) N Q) C C] D w F^ O O ? a) .Q O ° p of ° i U1 m m a� E s moo -ca a) m __i s.� m a m C C -0 a) ,M.O — a) . O1 LU C N � > � N O m O � O m _ C N O "— w O p .0 a) a U 0 C1 m 0 L C m O tS C<-O0 C >, >, 4) a) m N W N p G m�� `— N C ` Q O O C �I� N Q7 N •C O O O) N C m O O > w a) i C •C O m Z a) O N c1 O_ °. E U 4 a) m > m 0 CTi a) 0 0 a) c > O 0 m C N a) a) = c 0 I N O D a 0 0 ,O O C W Q w 0 m 010 U) o Z O C; Z E ° () .p � -0 Q o E i� P a z a s m W .c b:: z' E Etz `.' t y Cl. tJi i' I „Q o ._ U) >> 3: > ir` > O M. 0 Q 0 I tC C t6 'J V N p s N w I to +�+ 0 0 as N r I � N O a) 66 C U. �r � Z3 1 N p Q) C= C O w.r •N O E t N > O 1 W 0 S I, ^^ll W V cn Q-— to Q v Ol Q p .�U L C O w .n Q > Ll 0 Q O C E O m r-L ,fA !! U Y m CcC co C � � m i O D N CSf fA v y ` '=)m � m ° o 750 Xm C Q� roa C � t > E o ° j E C O O Y i M O O X O C 4 O m N C m N L Q p Q In 'o E m c o > x n (a v c a �iv v°i a 0 0 � � � .� 0 o l o = � rn � 0 0 Q 0 ° 0 to a) p >'� ° nip ° c m ° ° ° ° N o Q n a a) Q Q �- to o In E C tII ,C > Y -M Q (A Lr� m O Q O Cis m O 'U O O v U m C3 O-ja -0 C E c m QiO o 0) �t fA ° Q N C Z7 m y t7 N ?, o 0 Q o 0 0 al 0 0 s 0 fll c 0 E a 0 S us :2 0) > ° m trW .0miZu, c� � 00 0a� 0 > ! 1 Im CL LL t� 3 d 1e t � O O O O Uj O t4 L) 0 r i m .. to 0 w n � W r c w Lt- -0 O i ifJ p N � ' O X N 0 LL m Q i w T CL } O E O O_ O) C 0 C N > 3 L 0 � 1 f � i 3 a cu E 0 C: 2 it:= CD 0 4- o -0 E ID 0 0 m (D > a_ - 0 -0 0)< 0 a > .0 co Co 0 CD 0 0 0) -le " C/) fn 0 r Co 14)"D E — W ---, �e CD (D CU 0 0 r E I w m a) -0 0 i (D m CL E 0 a) 3�0 cn (D > 0 cu (D cc 41 0 0 o o Co CL I -0 -00 0 0 O C 0 = 1 — 17 , " 4- .0 M CZ C> 0 co M 0 a) m--c m 0 a) 0 a) 0 0 C: cb .0 m 5 " Q) , 0 1 M i-u a c';� -0 — E co co u = Q) of C T -'Z CLI cz 4) c m J- 0 r-I CE) 0 0 CL) 0 w 0 r_ r- tn 0 0 .5) U � -5 :F; C M = .L:) = Co Co (D a- 0 10 -0 C) U Cc 0 0 C, z x w U) cc -a L) cu Lu z cc cc o E 7.0 ) m 0 LU co o . ......... .. ........ 0 0 0 LL U) .......E z co U) ui -Y. m > w > 0 0 c 0 ti 0 CL 0- 0- 0 a- 0 0) _0 m y --C.D a) 0 Fn CD -0 (D LL 0 P 0 Lo 0 a 00 0 X >0 i LU 01 I 1 I O O nU) NNW L t Co { E U i C E d O Q G U M U _0 o ° m a r :3 co � N @ m U) m C "- is ilLl ° iU a O 0 > FO = F-- U ° i Q) a) •� µ- � ° .0 i O N U N co to p E -a i C I O N C a) N O ° Z a) O N as Ca E U a [B NCO Q p p Q) p 'O d IDO a > .�Fes- N 0 O a' G] U o ° M a a o m c ° il �ca 0 ` 0 O a fll O IW �' O a) CD a O c O ° E raD, L > ° f!) ° Cs 5 CU oe.:,_v, > ° -ovCU0 I U f• In a) m 0I mIui7aoi a) -0 mo 'Qn - pN I' E r.. Rix S' Z p O `L3 O C _. m ' t L i U O c ' a•c U) U U CU m co LL' LL' _ I a is 7 I I t V i � I C_ I W � n U j O N O N o o O C O f0 o c o a cn n co o a a o CL O O 0 -O f0 Cl — o O N ` I O Q) , 0) u o) O W 0 LL cn � € t4 U � cOn N of C C .O p i3 >+ O a) N CD o `� O U A .Lo y 0 !U p �1 C U O 0 pC E �' E .� ° Sj ci b w c a �°�"' o o° o�° ,as c_°' o w E c a� a I n cn E ro ° ai �,l o .. o a'U) v, rn m 0)— o a) o o c ai o o - o o a E cnn a>i o Ili u, °� 010 ac°i ° U ° c a) � � i co ° t°-o o `° E ca a) o 0 ° E o c �' °� 0 c o ro Q o 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 .0 o)CD 0 U a G O N O) [0 Q) U C R)E Q) O "� O 0 r C C Q) t5S Lf) LU -0 N -p O Q p) O o O O 0 I0) Q3 a C U C O SC ! C ` N i C _�.w i L1J L p 0 i u (D C Q) Q) (1 U •0 'C) ' N N Q) t4 .C]1 "O !n O E Q to p- > � to C a a) O N to; E -O v� o D N C O O O O rA 1 O OC N i C (4 L7 1 U7 O N ` L U p O p 0 C 0 cUi c o`o c`( . a� ? > o 0 0 a>i 0 CL pC U) i3 m - a) i — �'. w 'o = i w "o C y -.co z C N Q) 'I 1 Oi o O Ul C.)CL O ` y LL OL y � � � O Q O O N N R � i d t0 o O` O O C CL , C. 00 C tC U tn LLI i O � p W I C O O LL uj C.4 0 O 0 r N cO G � ui 0 E C; O O E -. ui p (a CL LL i t c O t4 I N C i N O cu O � Z "L3 O C) L O p ?, � Z- I U C) wC- _a) c =co -0 Ov co :3N -O C O O N O a O O p CL c N 'a C O co: C a) - X � L L C f0 O N m th W O -C a) O m cu 7 O a �?� O O C n- a) N =3 O c N O O U c p •G i C C) (a L! RS �: O aEi U a� a) in °�' m a; E cn ° c ° L c4 m I. c O E O "� O C: N C O 0 t _ (D a) -vS c C -oC am c om o CoE > a cu cu -o o 0a Z 0- co E0 cuc 0 a oL =. N o s C 0) w cn�sO�)= O a) oL . nc cc _voCc ) ° OE a o wp v c . 0) E v °ca > Q): V! a ai O O N -C o a) C) ° c Z NL U a as p `° ' o Ua) C Coo ' o a> � CD Oz C 0 0 !I m a) Q E i CO CD L v- N C) _ a) C: C d O O C C I — _ r fi3 N W ...._. € U 0 'A > Rf p C. , C, En C. O C. O O Q ! 0 i N � CO 0 fn N p3 C j C m m C p O (D # t5i C cu m LL 0 N O a1 L' O "" a.r w Lu ..... N M —�..- C O N d d E O O E m o L i _c o = > L o w En iJ 0 f I t t Planning Commission Date: 9/14109 Economic Development Recommendations Business Item Item: 5c ITEM: Request to Develop Recommendations on City Activities for Economic 1 Development Activities SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 3 REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator i l SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: 1 The Planning Commission has continued a discussion on recommended economic development activities at its past two meetings. This item is again on the agenda for September 14, 2009 and staff is requesting that Commissioners bring their materials from the last meeting with them rather than making additional copies of the same information. For those that would like a new copy of the previous meeting materials, please contact staff in advance of the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the revised list and authorize staff to present this document to the City Council as an initial response to the Council's request. i i t ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised List of Potential Economic Development Activities and Standards ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction and Presentation by Staff........................ ..... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission...................................Chair & Commission Members - Planning Commission Discussion........................................................ Chair Facilitates 3 - Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair & Commission Members i l 1 i I i t 1 I 1 i 1