HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.13.08 meeting packet
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
Meeting Agenda
February 13,2008
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - January 9, 2008
3. Update from Council Work Session
4. Application of Review Criteria to Study Areas
5. Other Business
a. Next meeting
6. Adjournment
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Open Space Advisory Commissioners
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner
SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - January 9, 2008
DATE: February 13,2008
Reauest
The Open Space Advisory Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the
January 9, 2008 meeting.
~
-
v
1
2
3
4
5
6 RIlGllLARANDOVER OPEN SPACEADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
7 JANUARY 9, 2008
8 MINUTES
9
10
11 The Regular Meeting of the Andover Open Space Advisory Commission was called to order by
12 Chairman Deric Deuschle, January 9,2008, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
13 Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present: Gretchen Sabel, Jody Keppers, Jim Olson, Winslow Holasek,
16 Bruce Perry and Kim Kovich
17 Commissioners absent: None
18 Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
19 Others
20
21
22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
23
24 December 12, 2007
25
26 Motion by Keppers, seconded by Perry, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on
27 a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent (Sabel, Holasek, Kovich) vote.
28
29
30 REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA/RANKING SYSTEM
31
32 Staff previously forwarded the edited evaluation criteria to the Commission with a request to score
33 the various criteria and to consider any other adjustments that may be necessary.
34
35 The Commission reviewed and discussed the evaluation criteria scoring matrix.
36
37 Commissioner Holasek arrived at 7:06 p.m.
38
39 Commissioner Olson thought criteria two should have the highest ranking. Commissioner Perry
40 thought the bottom five or six items should have equal ranking. Commissioner Keppers agreed.
41 He explained how he came about with his scores for the ranking.
42
43 Commissioner Keppers wondered if the description would be better to be more vague on the
44 value of the width of the area because the numbers are really kind of arbitrary for them on item 8.
45 He thought the value of the buffer would be in protecting the width and length of the lakes,
46 streams and wetlands.
47
48
--
..
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 2008
Page 2
1 Commissioner Kovich arrived at 7:23 p.m.
2
3 APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA TO SAMPLE PROPERTIES
4
5 The Commission was asked to use the evaluation criteria to evaluate the two sample properties in the
6 packet. The GIS application of the natural resource inventory will be used to aid this process.
7
8 Sample Prooertv #1:"" North ofCountrv Oaks West
9
10 Commissioner Olson wondered if the parcel is owned by only one person. The Commission
11 indicated it was.
12
13 Chairperson Deuschle reviewed the criteria with the Commission and determined that the parcel was
14 sufficient in size and location to preserve and enhance natural resources. It was noted this parcel
15 includes one of the only large forest areas left in Andover. Commissioner Keppers thought if this
16 parcel were available it would be a good opportunity to have for forest land.
17
18 Commissioner Keppers stated the other thing he noticed was it is just north of the 2020 MUSA
19 boundary. Mr. Bednarz stated in this case the property is outside of the MUSA and the City does
20 not have the capacity to serve it with sewer and water and it will be considered a rural property.
21
22 Commissioner Keppers asked what kind oflimits would be put on a development outside the MUSA
23 District. Mr. Bednarz stated if it is outside of the MUSA the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres.
24
25 Commissioner Sabel arrived at 7:37p.m.
26
27 Commissioner Keppers wondered if it made sense to make a list on what items would be preserved.
28 He thought one item would be preserving forests. Commissioner Kovich stated they would need to
29 fmd out what type of plants would be in the forest worth preserving.
30
31 The Commission reviewed the Evaluation Criteria for this property:
32
33 Item 2 - would generate 20 points because it would provide an opportunity to protect significant
34 Natural Resources that would otherwise be negatively affected.
35
36 Item 3 - rated at a maximum of 15 points. Commissioner Olson thought it would rate higher because
37 it is within the Anoka County Corridor.
38
39 Item 4 - Endangered species of plants or animals does not exist on this property so it does not fit the
40 criteria and would score O.
41
42 Item 5 - would probably meet the criteria because of the native plant communities but they would
43 need to review what types of plants would be there. This would score 8 points because some of the
44 land will be disturbed by the easement.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 2008
Page 3
1
2 Mi. Bedriafz stated the. City's. transportati6nplan" s long lerm plan. is t6 bring a street thiougli this
3 parcel to provide access to the larger area to the north and west.
4
5 Commissioner Keppers wondered what would be the effect on the parcel if the road were to go
6 through. Commissioner Kovich thought it would be a problem because it would split the parcel in
7 half. Chairperson Deuschle stated even if the road were to run through the property they could still
8 have the land on either side as community open space.
9
10 Commissioner Kovich felt they need to put in negative items in the criteria such as the property may
11 not be worth purchasing because of some certain circumstance. Commissioner Keppers thought this
12 would be the second stage.
13
14 Item 6 - The Commission reviewed the parcel for buffers. The Commission felt this should receive
15 a 0 because there are not any buffers adjacent to upland native plant and animal communities.
16 Commissioner Olson wondered if it should get points by being adjacent to other very attractive
17 parcels. Chairperson Deuschle stated the only thing about the other parcels is once developed they
18 will not be buffers to this parcel anymore. After further discussion the Commission felt this should
19 rate a 5.
20
21 Item 7 - Chairperson Deuschle wondered if there was a Natural Watershed System on the parcel.
22 The Commission reviewed the parcel for possible watersheds along with easements on the property.
23 It was determined all of the land north of the easement is high land outside of the wetland. The
24 Commission thought this should be rated as.
25
26 Item 8 - There are wetlands on the parcel to the south of this property. Commissioner Olson thought
27 it would make a bigger difference if the area adjacent to the parcel was open water. The Commission
28 felt this should be rated a 2.
29
30 Item 9 - It was discussed that if the property -stayed as is and the street goes through and it is
31 preserved on both sides it would make a nice area to drive through. This should be rated an 8.
32
33 Item 10 - At this point there are no other notable features unless reviewed. This should be rated a O.
34 Chairperson Deuschle thought this parcel is bound by the railroad tracks and easement and it was
35 unlikely anything substantial would come in there.
36
37 The Total ranking for the property would be: 63
38
39 The Commission felt this property should be reviewed further because they did not have enough
40 information to rank it properly.
41
42 Sample Property #2 - Southeast of Round Lake Boulevard and South Coon Creek Drive
43
44 The Commission reviewed the parcel to see if it would be worth evaluating.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 2008
Page 4
1
2 The Conrfuission reviewedtlie EvaluatioIi Criteria for this property: - -
3
4 The Commission felt the prerequisite concerning size of the area was met.
5
6 Item 2 - Commissioner Holasek did not think this site was developable because there is no way to
7 access it. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map possible development ideas for the area similar to a
8 sketch plan prepared by a developer. It is within the MUSA and could be divided into 1;4 acre lots.
9
10 Commissioner Keppers thought in this part of town green space is getting fairly scarce. The
11 Commission scored this a 15.
12
13 Item 3 - The Commission felt this was within the. Anoka Conservation District potential
14 conservation corridor and should receive a 15.
15
16 Item 4 - The Commission thought this should receive a 0 unless they get some sort of docwnentation
17 that it is by the Blandings Turtle areas.
18
19 Commissioner Olson thought they should get more up to date information for threatened and
20 endangered species in order to rate the properties because some of the data was over fifteen years
21 old.
22
23 Item 5 - The Commission determined by the map that there were not any natural plant communities
24 on the parcel so it should receive a O.
25
26 Item 6 - There are no buffer areas adjacent to this parcel and should be rated a O.
27
28 Item 7 - The Commission felt there was not a natural watershed system along the parcel and should
29 be rated a O.
30
31 Item 8 - The Commission reviewed this and determined there is wetland to the southeast to a degree
32 but they do not know what the quality of the wetland would be. The Commission felt this should be
33 rated a 5.
34
35 Item 9 - It was determined that part of this parcel was visible to Round Lake and could be more
36 valuable because the adjacent parcels are residential and other areas nearby are being developed.
37 This should be rated a 4.
38
39 Item 10 - The Commission determined that there are no notable features on this parcel so it received
40 aO.
41
42 The Total ranking for the property would be: 39
43
44 The Commission felt the first property reviewed should have a higher value because it seemed like a
.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 2008
Page 5
I more valuable parcel compared to the second. The Commission wondered and discussed if there
n 2 should oeextrapoints for areas with potential to be expanded into a larger-conservation-area.
3
4 The Commission reviewed the differences in point values between the two parcels and was surprised
5 that property # 1 was not ranked higher.
6
7 Commissioner Sabel thought if they made Item 5 in the rating system a 15 they could have higher
8 points for better, more valuable land.
9
10 Commissioner Kovich stated that property two would not be a good investment for the City but
11 property one was and he wondered how they could present it to the public showing why it would be a
12 good investment. Mr. Bednarz thought they needed to move away from 90% as an A, 80% as a B,
13 and 70% as a C view of the hundred points. As they look at more properties they are going to start to
14 have more of an understanding of where properties will fit on the scale.
15
16 Commissioner Sabel thought they should take criterion 4 and merge it into #5 and give it a total of
17 15, this would leave item 4 open to be contiguous to a larger conservation area with a maximum
18 value of 10. Parcel one would receive a 10 on item 4 which would bring the total of parcel one to
19 73.
20
21 Commissioner Keppers stated his idea for item 8 should read "Scoring based on the width of area
22 and it's utility in helping to preserve lakes, streams and wetlands" and eliminate the reference to
23 specific size.
24
25
26 DISCUSSION OF 2008 DNR GRANT CYCLE
27
28 The deadline for applications is March 31, 2008. Staff would like to discuss the necessary steps to
29 complete an application for the 2008 round of grants with the Commission.
30
31 Mr. Bednarz reviewed the staff report with the Commission.
32
33 Chairperson Deuschle wondered if they could move fast enough on this in order to have a site by
34 March 2008. He was not sure they could make the deadline unless they had someone they were
35 ready to talk to.
36
37 Mr. Bednarz stated the Commission's next meeting is in February and they would need to get
38 Council to approve a site around that time. He thought it might be difficult to have a property to
39 discuss and go after by that time. He stated there will be a grant available for this type of project
40 in the future.
41
42 Commissioner Kovich thought the time frame was way too soon. The other Commissioners
43 agreed.
44
.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 2008
Page 6
1 Commissioner Keppers wondered if there were any properties that would be available to look at.
2 Mr. Bednarz stated the property that received a 73 was one of them.
3
4 The Commission felt it was too soon to apply for a DNR Grant and felt they should wait until
5 2009.
6
7 Motion by Commissioner Keppers, seconded by Commissioner Sabel, to not pursue the
8 application for 2008 because they are not ready to have a proposal and the Commission wants to
9 complete a City wide inventory prior to making a grant application. Motion carried
10 unanimously.
11
12
13 OTHER BUSINESS
14
15 a. Next Meeting
16
17 Chairman Deuschle asked if they would be reviewing more sample properties next time. Mr.
18 Bednarz encouraged the commission to look at the 25' or so natural area clusters identified by the
19 Conservation District. The commission should rank these to move the process forward.
20
21 The next meeting is scheduled for February 13, 2008.
22
23 The Commission reviewed some upcoming workshops that they could go to.
24
25 Mr. Bednarz stated the Council has asked for an update on the Commissions 'work for the January
26 22, 2008 Workshop. He also wondered if they wanted to have a joint meeting with the Council. The
27 Commission felt it would be a good time to have a joint meeting.
28
29 Mr. Bednarz stated there are some funds available from the MPCA to do some field evaluation of
30 properties in the area. This money would be used for survey work, evaluation of the sites and other
31 expenses. This is something staff will be working on with the MPCA.
32
33 Motion by Kovich, Seconded by Olson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
34 adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
35
36 Respectfully submitted,
37
38 Susan Osbeck, Recording Secretary
C I T Y o F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 · (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City P1annet
SUBJECT: Update from Council Work Session
DATE: February 13, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Staff presented a progress report to the Council at their January 22odwork session.
The Council conveyed several things to share with the Commission.
DISCUSSION
The Council had a couple of comments on the scoring matrix. They did not feel that item #7 was
important given the protections already provided for watersheds by the law. They suggested
combining #7 and #8. The Council also felt that #9 should be scored significantly higher. Staff
suggested that some of the points from combined #7 and #8 could be assigned to #9. These
changes are attached for your review.
The Council also felt that waiting until next year to apply for grants would be too long a gap
from the 2006 Referendum. They directed staff to put together a proposal for submittal by
March 31 st. This means that the Commission will need to select several areas to pursue at
tonight's meeting.
The Council was in favor of a joint meeting with the Open Space Commission. The date has
been set for Tuesday February 26th at 6:00 pm.
The Council also authorized the Commission to pursue grant dollars for field work to refine the
natural resource inventory in priority areas of the city.
ACTION REQUESTED
Please address the items as indicated above.
Attachment
Council Work Session Minutes
Current Scoring Matrix
Revised Scoring Matrix
.
Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes - January 22, 2008
Page 9
OPEN SPACE REFERENDUM/COMMISSION UPDATE - PLANNING
Mr. Bednarz advised that the Commission helped to update the Comprehensive Plan, worked with
the conservation district, and also created a method for evaluating property.
Councilmember Jacobson questioned why item nine, regarding public access, was so far down on the
list as he thought that would be an item that the Commission would really consider.
Mr. Bednarz reported that a lot of discussion took place over several meetings. He advised that the
top priority was what was already on the land, and that public access may put that item over the top
when ranking it.
Councilmember Trude agreed that public access should have more points.
Councilmember Orttel stated that the Commission might have based some of the ranking system off
the ability to gain grant money.
Councilmember Jacobson stated that if that is what the Commission is doing, there might be a
problem.
Councilmember Orttel explained that if the City does not get grant money, they would not be able to
do anything.
Councilmember Knight stated that there are more problematic things to consider because the process
is so subjective for everyone.
Councilmember Trude questioned item seven, regarding the natural watershed scoring system, as she
thought that land was already protected by the federal floodplain.
Mr. Bednarz advised that he could talk with the Commission and see about possibly taking points
from item seven and adding them to item nine. He advised that he would take this information back
to the Commission as feedback.
Councilmember Trude questioned the position with grants at this point.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the grant that the Commission is looking into is through the DNR and has a
March 31 8t deadline for applications. He stated that a preliminary application would need to be in by
the end of January with a teaser of what the money will be used for.
Councilmember Trude pointed out that this grant would be for 2009 and if the Commission misses
this cycle they will be putting this off even further. She explained that it would then be at the four-
year mark from when the voters first approved the Open Space Referendum.
Mr. Bednarz advised that this grant is competitive and there are people out there that already know
Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes - January 22, 2008
Page 10
what they want to use the money for, whereas we would be submitting a generic application. He
explained that the Commission would like toa.ppIy the criteria cityWide and see what land floats to
the top. He explained that might put it out another year.
Councilmember Jacobson stated that they should not just put something out there to get a grant.
Mr. Dickinson stated that if the dollars presented themselves the City could use them. He explained
that the issue would be meeting the Open Space Referendum and fmding a buyer that would work
with that.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the Commission would like a joint meeting with the Council as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Holasek, from the Open Space Advisory Commission, advised that the scoring the
Council was looking at was an average. He explained that item nine has a wide range of points.
Mr. Dickinson stated that the Commission has put together a nice matrix for scoring. He stated that
in looking at the grant, they will get prepared for it but advised that he would not get their hopes up
that they will find that parcel. He explained that he believes they will fmd a seller, the issue will be
pricing. He added that the Commission is a very technical group and may need some outside
facilitation to move the discussion and make it broader. He stated that trying to put something
together and fmalize it between now and March may be like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW/CROSSTOWN DRIVE NW DISCUSSION/06-48 -
ENGINEERING
Mr. Berkowitz stated that the accident reports for that area were: 2007 had one accident, 2006 had
one accident, 2005 had four or five accidents, 2004 had seven accidents, 2003 had seven or eight
accidents, 2002 had eleven accidents, and 2001 had twelve accidents. He stated that the fact that it
went from twelve accidents down to one really surprises him. He stated that part of that might be a
lot of near misses or accidents that just are not reported. He stated that the concern is the right turn
lane and that they cannot see cars going straight or they decide to go straight instead of turning. He
also stated that left turns from Crosstown are a concern.
Councilmember Orttel stated that traffic backs up to the store from people trying to turn left.
Mr. Berkowitz advised that the County has said they can put together a drawing showing right in and
right out, or put a median right down the middle of the road. He added that it would be B4 curb that
a fire truck would be able to jump, but the fire chief does not like the idea of jumping a curb with a
$300,000 truck. He advised that he believes they should do the median right down the middle.
Councilmember Orttel suggested that they should outlaw left turns and make it local traffic only. He
explained that way people would still be allowed to go north.
.
,
aJO:lS < 0
an 0 an 0 0
0
wnw!xew z N
- - - - r-- -
CO an 0
-
aJO:lS I I
I I I I I I I
"0 ....
m.s::. .s
0)
0
I:: "0
._ 0 U
~ I::
m
.... 10 II) .....
2a> ~ mJB
-0- 0 10 1!
c:
CD
I::S a>
.~ &f0- e .~ m
00 0
<C>- m m
I::
co o 0 o 0)
0)0 I:: E CD
"0
0)- ::2 :-..0 0) ....
0 m~ C JB
0 .s::. I:: 0 c..Cl
.!::! en CD
- I:: 00-
0 ~ 0) I::
- a> 00 CD 0
00 - e"
0 00 E CD _ m
I:::::C .... - a> a>
> .- m ~
0 00 .... E
0::: .- -
CD
N I:: = 't; 0 oZ
mU
.- l+:: .~ m
0) J: ::l
m- e; =JB
-00::: I:: a> I:: - 0
_ ::l I:: a>
"" 1::..... ... CD e
o)z U ~ 0 ... 0
N 0..... ::2 Zc.. m.s::.
000 .!!! 0 .2 "0
o 0 - 0)-
0) oU
N ea CD..... .~ '0
m_ - 00
2(i) .0_
e - 10
Z .a 0
a> .... C
~ .- > CD CD~ ro.s::.
I:: I:: c.. _0 CD "0
00 0) II) 0 1::-
o 0) e~ E 0)
a>- U "0
~m I::
C ._ 10 .... .-
l!? ~ .- c..o C
I::
.s::. 0) ~:o .g~
Cl
ca _.s::. ea 00
0- 2
- - J: -..-::.
0) c.. 00 _ I:: .iij
.::1 o I:: C CD I:: m ....
:2 0) 0) ~~ '> 00
I:: 0 W J: m :!: 0)
00 .... I:: m
C .... c.. O~ .o~
I:: m 0) 00 ;:1:: C Cl
o ::l "0 m m
o 00 > m .0 - W I::
ca ....-0 C "0 0) .r. -
Um 13 ~ m ~ l! 0 .C
0) 0) ea _c.. ..... ....
_E ~ m 00 0) 0
.., ::2 e o 0
- - 0
.s::. 00 CD
C .- "0 .- m ::2=
0) m ~ ~2' 0)0)-
._ c: a> 0) -g3: _.0 en
.s::..o o .... m ea m
I:: .s::. ea ::l
I::o:!:
zc.. -
~"O CD _ 0 0) moO
a:: 0 0 ~ m .2 ...
II)
CDm CD
a> 0) CD eam _0)10
"0 00 "0 JB mJ5 J:
- ~ ... J: .- .!!l I:: .s::.
0) a> ::l J: ....
....-c: C-
m - 0) -
m 0 D.. x 0 00 ea
I:: 00 ~ roD.. _ I:: 0
0- II)JB 0) I:: .~
m
'Om .s en.!!!
.0 "0 .....0:: o 0) U
.!: 0) CD 0 I::mO
ea c.. Oz C 0)
>< C U c.. o .s::. a>
0) ~ ..
.... "'_00 -o-c.. ~.....
I:: :50 o 0) CD
.- .90 0 ::21::- 0) 0) 00 o 0
.C JB ._ .s::. J:
.... 0 .. o 0) c: C 00
:2 0) - -
00....- 0
m ~.9 -
... I:: 00 ea II) E a> mom a>
0 ~.s::. II)
ca E E U CD c.. E .0 E .~ <C .0
en >- - CD
0 .... 0)
I:: c: CD~ <C
:!E .2 ::l ..J 0:::00) 0) -I:: o
c.. m o .- 11).0
o E e;(i)!Q I:: ~ m
CD 00 II) E .J:: .a 'iij
"0 CD
"0 :!: e;
o .- ... > 0) .- 0
="0 .. .c m ~ 0'>
"0 x C o m ~
.g
C) I:: m ea ::20)0) - a>
'c .E
't;"01:: o .- o ....
m m "0 00 ~
m E CD en~ro ... 0)
::2 .00) C .-
c: .r. 0) N ZO)~ I! 0': ea D..Cl
E .... .... ea m
.r.m !
0 C>lO '0
.- =:5 U5 .., .... .- C I::
C ~
.... C 0) x o ffi 0 ea o m E
"0 .!: 0 CD
a> 0 C ea"OO) ._ -0 0
~ .... - o m ea
0 0)- .- U ::l .... "O.s::.m C - I::
0_ .. 0) J:
._ ...... ca U a> 0
2 o I::
:5 e - ._ _ 0 ... 00 a> 0
ea.r. e
(.) C !:Om ~ CD ....
e; m CJ)O) CD-
Cla> CD C .!: I:: ~mro II) 0
0 ... .... <C
U) I:: II) .~
U a>
I:: N 'u .~ m.Q O~m ~ .a "0
E ::l CD.J::
.Q E e (1)1::- "0 -; 0 ::2 0)
'c "0"0 0:::0) e;
o m CD (I) I::
.9 C m
ca m 0
.
aJo:>>s <C 0
II) 0 II) 0
0 II) 0
toj.
- II) 0
wnw!xew z N
- - - -
- ~ -
aJo:>>s I
I I I I I
I I I
"0
.... 0)
ro..c: Q)
~
._ U -
0 c:
ro
.... ro u
..... 15
~a> II) Q)
I/)~ -c- :00::
1! c:
Q) ==
c:~ a>
0
00 o-t:: ..... U .~ ro
roz
u 0 ... <>. U 0)
ro ro c:
Q) -c
0 ::l a> ....
a>C1 c: ~C1
c ~
a>- >..0
0
..c: c: 0 a.Cl
.!::! U)
Q)
- c: 1/)-
U ""0 0)
c:
0 _a> I/) Q) 0
1/)- c:..c:
C) a>
I/) E Q) _ ro
....
N > .- ro a>
c::::I: 0 ro-
E
a::: .- -
Q)
c:= - u .5 co
oZ
c:
.- q::: C'G a>
0) ro .-
.c ::l
... ro- ~ tft-
-cO::: c: a>;;
- u
_ ::l Q) e c: a>
15
.. 0
(It) c:......
a>z co .~
0...... ::I Za. ro..c:
1/)C1
0 -c
u 0 - a>-
~ ...... ro
- I/)
~ C'G Q)...... .~ '0
ro_
-
a>'Q) Z .Q 0
.0_ o a>
c ro
-
.... ..c: ....
~ :!:: > Q) Q)~ ro..c:
c: c: a. _ro
Q) -c
I/) a> c:-
o a> :'Q 0
E a>
a>- u II) U -c
:o:;m c:
c:
c ._ ro .... ,-
'- 3=-
c
ca ..c:Q) ~:o .g 3=
~ .... II)
0)
_..c: C'G
- e
'in
~ - - .c - --'
a>a. I/) c: c:
o c: c Q) c: ro ....
:'Qa> a> o a>
'S; I/)
... c: 0 .c ro :!:: a>
I/) .... c: -c
~ ro
.... a. W o~ .oe>
c: ro a>
c 0)
J:2
> 0) '..... w
o ::l "0 "0 a> ro ro
o I/) 15 1/)""0
c:
CI) ....-c c ..c: -
UCii ro ro
~ U 'i::
a> a> C'G _a. ...... ....
_E ~ .0 I/)
0
LL ..c: I/) Q) ::I e o 0
~ 'C;;
::1= U
-ro ~~ a>a>-
C .- a>
_.0 C/)
~ ._ c:
~.o U .... ro
C'G ro c: .- a>
C'G ::l
Q) C:U:!::
.... .... za.
-
3=-c _ 0 a>ro.o
- .... 0 o ro
..
II) D..o
U .... Q)'iij
Q)
a> a> Q) C'GCii -a>ro
"01/) -c C/) a>
.c
- 3= ... .c .- .!a c: ..c:
a> .c ....
-
ro 0 D.. I-C x 01/)
c- I/) II)lI:':
- a> 0
u- II)~ a> a>
C'G c: co E~
_ c:
:e;'iij 0 c: .-
C/).!!! .0 o
a> U
- Q) 0 C:roU
C'G a. S a>
c 0)
.5 a> c u a. o ..c: a>
Cl ~
>< .... "_I/) -c-a.
.lC:...... c: 1I)..c:
o a> Q)
o 0 0 o 0
-
._ ..c:
.- - u ~ ::Ic:- a> a> I/)
'i:: C/)~
- - .c
... o a> c: 1/)....-
c m 8 C'G 0
-
c: I/) C'G II) E a> ro 0 ro
II)
.. E E u Q)a.E .oEE
< '0 C/) "00)
~- Q)
ca .2 ::l 0 a::: 0 a> Cl -'c
- a> Q) ,5
Q)~ <
...J o a.
.c .... (1).0
:i o E -'Q)I/) c:~ro
Q) I/) II) l!!
8 .Q 'in c;
u ._ "0 l! > m Q)
-c x .- u
=-c ~ Q) I/)
O'S;
C ::I a> 0) l5ro~
, .
C I T Y o 17
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann~
SUBJECT: Application of Review Criteria to Focus Areas
DATE: February 13, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Staff has prepared information for nine study areas based on review of the natural
resource inventory. ;
DISCUSSION
Details of each area is attached. Two llx17 citywide maps and a map of each area are
included in the packet.
ACTION REOUESTED
The Commission is asked to review each of these areas at tonight's meeting and suggest
priority sites to pursue for the 2008 grant. Several sites will be necessary as not all
property owners will be interested.
Attachments
Study Areas
Maps (in packet)
d,
,^NDOVIi* Open Space Study Area - Section 11
Overview
This location contains one of the largest contiguous forested areas in the city. It is approximately
225 acres in size. It also adjoins a large floodplain corridor. However, The floodplain is not in a
natural condition as it has been used as a sod farm for many years. The area contains 8
properties owned by four families. Approximately 15 acres of this study area are encumbered by
wetland or floodplain. The area is outside of the urban service area and, conservation
development notwithstanding, will have a minimum lot size of2.5 acres. Future state aid
collector streets and trails are proposed to traverse the property both north to south and east to
west.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or
Negligence
Considerations include the. development potential of property and lack of protection by
re lations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existing easements
The area is adjacent to urban development and a temporary cul-de-sac. Future streets and trails
are planned through this area. Although outside the urban service area and not planned to be
served by city sewer and water rural development is likely and would have a detrimental effect
on the forested areas.
Staff recommends 20/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area provides habitat for wildlife and buffers a large floodplain corridor on the west side of
the railroad. The size of the area would need to be determined in discussions with property
owners.
Staff recommends 10/15 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with
property owners
4 Potential to be conti uous to additional conservation area
This potential exists. The area spans eight properties along a mile corridor from north to south.
The corridor could be as little as 400 feet wide at the south end to as wide as a ~ mile near its
center, acknowledging that a future road will bisect the area.
Staff recommends 9/10
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 11
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threateried or
endangered s ecies of lants or animals are resent (DNR NHIS Data .
The area contains one of the largest contiguous oakforests in the city. No NHIS data exists for
this area.
Staff recommends 14/15
~ 6 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in protecting or connecting native plant communities
The forested areas along this floodplain corridor provide excellent habitat for animals. The
area is large enough to be considered an upland buffer. The width of the area that is preserved
should affect the score.
Staff recommends 6/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners.
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to protect these features. Additional scoring if the
buffer area is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The west side of the forest is adjacent to some small wetlands. They are not in the PWl
Staff recommends 3/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
It is unlikely that agreement will be reached with the property owner at the south end of the
forest. This would delay public access until that property develops and the street and trail are
extended to the north. One this occurs, however, the street and trail will provide nearly ideal
public access.
Staff recommends 10/15
Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
The aesthetic value of a forest this size is worth some points.
Staff recommends 3/5
Conclusion
It is easy to see that this forest is one of the last best opportunities for preservation in the city.
Efforts should be made to preserve it.
~NDbVE'~ Open Space Study Area - South of Leeman Lake
Overview
The area lies between Crosstown Boulevard and Leeman Lake in the northeastern part of the
city. It is approximately 91 acres in size and contains patches of oak and aspen. Approximately
30 acres of the area is encumbered by wetland and floodplain. There are six properties with 5
owners. A future state aid street and trail route are shown. This route could be changed based
on a lll.linber of factors, including a desire to preserve the area.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
regulations such as wetland and floodplain regulations or existing easements
The area is outside of the urban service area and the city does not plan to serve it with sewer and
water. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres. There is upland adjacent to Crosstown
Boulevard that could be threatened by future rural development. This would cause considerable
damage the scenic value of the property to achieve a marginal development.
Staff recommends 15/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The land provides habitat and adjoins afloodplain corridor that connects Leeman and Ward
Lakes with a much larger floodplain corridor in the northern part of the city.
Staff recommends IS/IS
[[] Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area I
The area could be a large conservation area of its own and connects with a larger floodplain
area as noted above.
Staff recommends 10/10
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Prof'de of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent NR NHIS Data).
The area contains oak and aspen trees. It is also a documented NHIS site.
Staff recommends IS/IS
,
Sl\NDbVE'~ Open Space Study Area - South of Leeman Lake
6 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities
Upland plant and animal communities at the north end would be buffered from Crosstown
Boulevard with a preservation area along this transportation corridor.
Staff recommends 10/10.
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to protect these features. Additional scoring if the
buffer area is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The area would buffer the south side of Leeman lake and a large floodplain corridor. It contains
three PWI wetlands.
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
The area would provide for passive recreation and observation, with access from Crosstown
Boulevard and a future trail and potentially another street and trail route from the west.
Staff recommends 15/15
Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
This site has exceptional aesthetic value.
Staff recommends 5/5
Conclusion
The area contains all of the evaluation criteria. Preservation of as much of the area as possible
should be pursued.
--
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 7
Overview
Immediately east of Grow Oak View Park along the south bank of the Rum River there is a
corridor of wetland and oak forest that extends south approximately one mile to 165th Avenue
NW. This study area is 172 acres in size. Approximately 75 acres are encumbered by wetland
or floodplain. There are five properties with two owners. The land is classified as agricultural
and largely owned by Anoka Independent Grain and Feed, Inc. An overhead transmission line
crosses the area from east to west in two locations.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or
Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
re lations such as wetland and flood lain re lations or existin easements
There is potential for development of the portion of this area that is not encumbered by
floodplain or wetlands. Street access exists to the south and to the east. Most of the area is
within the agricultural preserve program. A notice of expiration has not been filed. Once such a
notice is recorded with Anoka County, seven years must pass before the area can be developed
The city does not plan to serve the property with water and sewer. The minimum lot size would
be 2.5 acres. It is anticipated that agricultural use of the area will continue for some time.
Staff recommends 5/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area provides habitat for wildlife along the river and to a lesser extent as it continues to the
south. A buffer along the floodplain and wetland areas would preserve a corridor south to 1651h
Avenue NW The size of a preservation area would need to be determined in discussions with
property owners.
Staff recommends 8/15 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area
The conservation area could extendfrom the river south approximately one mile to 1651 Avenue
NW. The corridor could be rather narrow for a portion of the area and wide as Y2 mile adjacent
to the river.
Staff recommends 5/10
~NDbVE'~ Open Space Study Area - Section 7
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Prorde of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent DNR NHIS Data).
The area contains some upland oak tree stands and a variet)l of other nativeplilnt types in the'
wetland areas. No NHIS data exists for this area.
Staff recommends 8/15
6 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in rotecting or connectin native lant communities
The upland areas would buffer oak tree stands and provided restoration opportunities.
The width of the area that is preserved should affect the score.
Staff recommends 6/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area
is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The north end of the area adjoins the Rum River and associatedfloodplain and wetlands
continue one mile to the south. The river and two wetlands appear in the PWI
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation. and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
Access to the area is limited. Promoting public access to this area could stress the surrounding
neighborhood an,d be detrimental to sensitive areas near the river. Promoting public access in
this location may be problematic from a public safety standpoint.
Staff recommends 5/15
Other Notable Features (Historical, Educational, Archaeological, Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
The aesthetic value of the area is dramatic.
Staff recommends 4/5
Conclusion
Staff recommends contacting the property owner to coordinate long term goals. Interest in the
short term from the property owners is not anticipate.d. In the long term, however, the city
should position itself for future discussions once other uses of the property begin to be
contemplated.
------------
.
~NDbVEI4 Open Space Study Area - Section 1
Overview
Immediately west of 7th A venue at the north edge of the city and along the south bank of the
Rum River there are three large parcels that contain some oak forest and some farmed area. This
study area is 110 acres in size. Approximately 45 acres are encumbered by floodplain or
wetland. The land is classified as agricultural and owned by one family. The city does not plan
to serve the area with sewer and water. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or
Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
re ations such as wetland and flood lain re lations or existin easements
There is potential for development of more than half of the 110 acres in this area.
Street access could be providedfrom 1h Avenue or through a public easement that exists along
the south end of the property.
Staff recommends 20/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area provides habitat for wildlife along the river corridor. The forested area is
approximately 50 acres in size. About half of the forested area is in the floodplain along the
river. Another 60 acres of farmed area exists across the three parcels. About 20 acres of the
farmed area is in the floodplain along the river. The size of a preservation area would need to
be determined in discussions with property owners.
Staff recommends 12/15 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with
property owners
eLl Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area I
The area itself could be a considerable conservation area at approximately 110 acres in size.
The river, development to the south and 1h Avenue provide barriers to connection with other
conservation areas. The score should be based on the size of the conservation area.
Staff recommends 7/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent NR NHIS Data.
.
5'\NDbVE'~ Open Space Study Area - Section 1
The area contains a 50 acre oak forest, about half of which is outside the floodplain. No NHIS
data exists for this area.
Staff recommends 13/15
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plallfand Animal Communities Scoring based on - ,
effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities
The oakforest would buffer the river and is large enough to be considered a buffer unto itself.
Additional farmed area would add additional buffer to the forest. The size of the area that is
preserved should affect the score.
Staff recommends 7/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes, Streams, Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area
is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The north and west ends of the area adjoin the Rum River associated floodplain. The river and
a wetland on the south end of the properties appear in the PWl
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the eneral ublic
Access to the area could be achieved via the Anoka County 'I Avenue Regional Trail when it is
constructed by Anoka County in the future. Vehicle access from 1h Avenue, if desired, may be
possible in the future. In the interim, the area would be visible along ~ mile of 7th Avenue at this
entrance to the city.
Staff recommends 10/15 acknowledging the score could be higher in the future with some
or all of the improvements described above.
Other Notable Features (Historical, Educational, Archaeological, Aesthetic Other)
Scorinassi ed as documented on a case b case basis
The site is located at an entrance to the city along a major transportation corridor.
Staff recommends 4/5
Conclusion
This is one of few undeveloped site that remain along the Rum River. The site is large and
borders the river on two sides. The area should be preserved.
~NDbVER4'- Open Space Study Area - River Central
Overview
The area along the Rum River between 157th and 165th Avenues contains several native upland
plant species. There are patches of oak forest, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest and sparsely
wooded grassland. This study area is 57 acres in size. Approximately 20 acres of these parcels
is encumbered b-y fl66dplainor wetland. There is one owner of the two vacant parcels. A future
collector street is planned to be extended north to south through this area. There are two existing
homes at the south and northeast edges of this area. A 75 foot wide pipeline easement crosses
the property from northwest to southeast. The city does not plan to serve the area with sewer and
water. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to
Preserve and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
regulations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existin easements
There is potential for development of the portion of this area that is not encumbered by
floodplain or wetlands. The city does not plan to serve the property with water and sewer. The
minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres. A Rural development in this area would most likely limit
or prevent public access along the River.
Staff recommends 20/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area provides habitat for wildlife along the river corridor. Both upland forest and upland
area with restoration potential exist. The size of a preservation area would need to be
determined in discussions with property owners.
Staff recommends 10/15 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with the
property owner
4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area
The area is acijacent to the river, but not any other conservation area.
Staff recommends 5/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - River Central
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Cansideratian based an size and quality af the area. Additianal scaring if threatened ar
endan ered s ecies af lants ar animals are resent (DNR NHIS Data).
The area contains patches of oak forest, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest and sparsely wooded
grassland. No NHIS data exists for this area.
Staff recommends 12/15
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scaring based an
effectiveness in ratectin ar cannecting native lant cammunities
Upland area surrounding the forest exists, providing potential for restoration and additional
buffer. The size of the area that is preserved should affect the score.
Staff recommends 7/10 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property
owners
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scaring
7 based an width af area and its ability to. these features. Additianal scaring if the buffer area
is adiacent to. area within the DNR Public Waters Inventary ar Caan Creek
The west end of the area adjoins the Rum River associatedfloodplain. The river and one
wetland appear in the PWI
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scaring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to. the general public
A temporary cul-de-sac exists at the northeast corner of the area. Further access could be
achieved via the future collector street and trail.
Staff recommends 10/15 acknowledging the score could be higher in the future with some
or all of the improvements described above.
Other Notable Features (Historical, Educational, Archaeological, Aesthetic Other)
Scarin assi ed as dacumented on a case b case basis
The area along the river is especially scenic.
Staff recommends 4/5
Conclusion
This site is ane af few undevelaped areas that remain alang the Rum River. It may nat be the
best af the three that have been identified, but stills merits preservatian effarts.
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Coon Creek/Round Lake Corridor
Overview
Public access along this corridor has been a goal of the city for many years. A trail system is
constructed along one portion and planned for the rest of the corridor. The trail is extended as
development occurs along the creek. This study area is 86 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres
is encumbered by wetland or floodplain along the creek.
The westerly portion of the area is within the Rural Reserve. At this time, it would be
appropriate to identify areas within the Rural Reserve for future preservation, so that they will be
considered when a master plan for the area is prepared. The easterly portion of the area is not in
the Rural Reserve. While this area has been farmed and does not contain native vegetation, the
upland areas between the floodplain adjacent to the creek and a future collector street and trail
route will be threatened by development. Securing the area between the creek and the future
collector street and trail would provide an area for passive recreation and ensure a natural view
along this transportation corridor as well.
1 Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development
or Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
re ations such as wetland and flood lain re lations or existin easements
The creek is a natural resource. Protecting a corridor along it will preserve a view of the creek,
the adjacent floodplain and public use of the adjacent upland area.
Staff recommends 20/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area would preserve wildlife habitat along the Coon Creek corridor.
Staff recommends 15/15
[I] Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area I
The area would extend the conservation area along coon creek and may connect with a north
south conservation area in the Rural Reserve in the future.
Staff recommends 10/10
------
Sl\NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Coon Creek/Round Lake Corridor
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endangered s ecies of lants or animals are resent (DNR NHIS Data).
The area contains some native plant species in the floodplain in the floodplain areas. Potential
exists for restoration along the creek. NHIS sites exist along the creek corridor, if not
specifically within this study area
Staff recommends 8/15
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in protectin or connecting native plant communities
The area would not be a buffer for these features but would provide upland area adjacent to the
floodplain and creek.
Staff recommends 5/10.
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes, Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to protect these features. Additional scoring if the
buffer area is adiacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The area is adjacent to Coon Creek.
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
The area would provide for passive recreation and observation from the upland areas and future
collector street and trail.
Staff recommends 15/15
Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
A corridor along Coon Creek has been a goal of the city for many years.
Staff recommends 5/5
Conclusion
Provided the portions of the properties encumbered by floodplain are appropriately valued, the
city should preserve as much of the area as possible and restore it to a natural state..
Sl\NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Rural Reserve
Overview
This location contains four stands of oak trees at approximately 50, 8, 11 and 6 acres in size from
north to south. It lies within the Rural Reserve, a future urban area approximately 960 acres in
siZe. Whendeveloptnent of this.. area is proposed, concept pianswill be formalized into a master
plan that will guide the design of the entire area. The study area is drawn to represent a potential
north-south corridor through the Rural Reserve. At this time, it would be appropriate to identify
areas within the rural reserve for future preservation, so that they will be considered when the
plan is prepared. A future collector street and trail will cross the study area to connect Round
Lake Boulevard and Veterans Memorial Drive.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development
or Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
re lations such as wetland and flood lain re lations or existin easements
The area is designated for future urban development. There are development constraints in this
area that include poor soils and minimal separation from the water table. As a result it is likely
that all developable ground within the area will be faced with development pressure at some
point in the future.
Staff recommends 20120
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area provides habitat for wildlife as refuge from the farmed and developed areas around it.
The study area is drawn to show a corridor concept that could connect to Coon Creek
Staff recommends 10/15 with potential for a higher score based on the (mal master plan
design.
[[] Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area I
The corridor could connect with a preservation area along the north side of Coon Creek.
Staff recommends 10/10
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Rural Reserve
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent (DNR NHIS Data).
The area contains stands of oak trees.
Staff recommends 10/15
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in protecting or connectin native lant communities
The area would be large enough at the north end to be considered a buffer. The area could
become quite arrow or even be connected through an urban area with only with a trail.
Staff recommends 3/10 with potential for a higher score based on final design of the area.
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area
is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The west side of the forest is adjacent to some small wetlands. There is a shaded area at the
southwest edge of the largest oak stand but it is not numbered in the PWl
Staff recommends 2/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
The area would provide for passive recreation and observation as a corridor through this future
urban area.
Staff recommends 15/15
Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
The potential to design the future urban area to complement the natural features is worth some
points.
Staff recommends 3/5
Conclusion
As stated above, it would be appropriate to identify areas within the rural reserve for future
preservation, so that they will be considered when the plan is prepared.
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 23
Overview
The area is adjacent to Crosstown Boulevard and the Sophies South development. It contains
oak woodland-brusWand on approximately 27 acres. There are two properties and two property
owners. A future collector street and trail are shown through the property from north to south.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area satisfies this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or
Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
regulations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existin easements
The area is in the current urban growth stage and sewer and water are available to serve the
property.
Staff recommends 20/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area will provide some habitat but could not be considered a corridor.
Staff recommends 4/15 with potential for a higher score based on the fmal master plan
design.
~I Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area. I
The area would not be contiguous to additional conservation area.
Staff recommends OlIO
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of Anoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent NR NHIS Data .
The area is an oak woodland-brushland.
Staff recommends 10/15
---------- ------------ ----
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 23
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities
The area would not be a buffer for these features.
Staff recommends 0/10.
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area
is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The area is not adjacent to these .features.
Staff recommends 0/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
The area would provide for passive recreation and observation, and could connect to a future
trail and street.
Staff recommends 10/15
Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
There is little else of note.
Staff recommends 0/5
Conclusion
The area presents one of few remaining opportunities to preserve native plant communities in the
urban area of the city.
----
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Crooked lake
Overview
The area is 1.5 acres in size and located on the north end of Crooked Lake and adjacent to the
boat landing. It is presently occupied by the Sloth Nursery. It does not contain native plants but
does have tree cover in areas of the site.
Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve
and Enhance Natural Resources
The area may not satisfy this criterion.
The Area Presents an Opportunity to Protect Significant Natural Resources That
2 Would Otherwise be Negatively Affected by Development or
Negligence
Considerations include the development potential of property and lack of protection by
regulations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existing easements
It is anticipated that the Sloth Nursery will not be the final use of this property. This site is
probably the last opportunity to obtain public land this close to Crooked Lake. It adjoins the
boat landing. However, there are not significant natural resources on the site itself.
Staff recommends 5/20
Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Scoring based on existence
3 of habitat for native animal species. Additional consideration given for the size of area (less
than one acre, more than one acre or larger) width of the area (greater or less than 100 feet)
and whether the area connects areas of native animal species habitat
The area will provide would not contribute significantly to wildlife habitat or corridors. It would
provide additional public area adjoining the boat landing.
Staff recommends 3/15
[I] Potential to be contiguous to additional conservation area I
The area would not be contiguous to additional conservation area, only the boat landing and
Crooked Lake.
Staff recommends 3/10
Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Profile of ADoka Sand Plain)
5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or
endan ered s ecies of lants or animals are resent NR NHIS Data.
The area does not contain native plant communities.
Staff recommends 0/15
---------- --------
~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Crooked lake
Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on
effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities
The area would not be a buffer for these features but would provide additional upland ara
adjacent to the boat landing andf Crooke dLake.
Staff recommends 2/10~
Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watershed Systems Scoring
7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area
is adjacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek
The area is a4jacent to Crooked Lake.
Staff recommends 10/10
The Area Provides Opportunities for Passive Recreation and Observation of the
8 Natural Environment for the General Public Scoring based on public access and
whether the area is visible to the general public
The area would provide for passive recreation and observation, away from the active use of the
boat landing.
Staff recommends 12/15
9 Other Notable Features (Historical Educational Archaeological Aesthetic Other)
Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis
There is little else of note.
Staff recommends 0/5
Conclusion
This area may not be well suited to the evaluation criteria, but may be a valuable addition to the
existing public property at this location.
Legend
Natural Area Patches (Ecotype)
C=:J Alder swamp
~il~ Alder swamp - saturated soils
C=:J Aspen forest
~ Aspen forest - saturated soils
~. ~""~"I Aspen forest - temporaily flooded
~ Cattail marsh - intermittently exposed
I~.. 0:. 4 Cattail marsh - seasonally flooded
~::::?;:;{.:t Cattail marsh - semipermanently flooded
Dry oak savanna
I~IJI. Dry oak savanna barrens subtype
_ Dry oak savanna sand-gravel subtype
.. Dry prairie
.. Dry prairie barrens subtype
.. Eastern Red Cedar woodland
.. Floodplain forest
.. Lowland hardwood forest
.. Grassland with sparse conifer or mixed deciduous/coniferous trees
.. Mixed emergent marsh
.. Mixed emergent marsh - intermittently exposed
.. Mixed emergent marsh - seasonally flooded
.. Mixed hardwood swamp
.. Mixed hardwood swamp - seasonally flooded
.. Oak forest
_ Oak forest dry subtype
.. Oak forest mesic subtype
.. Oak woodland-brush land
.. Poor fen
.. Poor fen sedge subtype
.. Rich fen floating-mat subtype - semi permanently flooded
Saturated deciduous shrubland
['I~'i~~{:t Seasonally flooded deciduous forest
.~ Seasonally flooded emergent vegetation
.. Tamarack swamp
_ Upland mixed coniferous-deciduous woodland
11III Wet meadow
.. Wet meadow shrub subtype - saturated soils
.. Willow swamp
_ Willow swamp - saturated soils
--.---------
Section 1
~
i
\
i .
.' ./
I( .- . /"" .-~' ~
/'.
/
/
/'
J./"
'.
Q
o 0
. Existing House
[J[J[J[J[J[J[J[J[J[ Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
. NHIS Location ~
Floodplain Boundary Future Street wWE
_Park S
Wetland Boundary .........1 Musa Boundary
'.- Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
River Central
. Existing House
CI C1C1C1C1C1C1C1C1[ Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
NHIS Location ~
. . .
Floodplain Boundary Future Street W E
. .
- Park s
Wetland Boundary ........111 Musa Boundary
- Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
Coon Creek and Rural Reserve
D:=:JC::::C:j1 """ve~ ~~ - I I\..I'~ II~ I l III~~\~
~.. L 0 ~ W-J f- - H I c=t
~~ ~f ur. - \ -~~-i (
- H '--Lr-- ~ #AI - I ~ ~ ,
\ \'r- ~ ~ ~ - :::i I I I~ 'l.4.
AI~Y''Y ~ ~ ~ J;i
>!l 1.1 8 ~ ",I : ~ft:H
...... B ~ ~-D4~
.... i"" ",("N .L
\ - ,
- -~
L_ / n 1 \I
mEI'_' ~
A ~ i\ IfJ i %'\
\" \) " iJ' ~ ~ 'lIT I r
y . ~f-
\,. '. /.. /--., ........ ~ . '"r-- 1 ~
... .... .~..~. p \) ~
~lJ .#f----~,: "~l.........h ~~ I ~
x ri; :< } " ~ = 8 R I ::J
\I,., - 0
'1 . . ! ~ 0 H II
I' . . l' 0 coo IL l r II
r ~ I J EB~'
~ D1 g ") ,.ct] ~
011 I/~ gJ.~ J'III'ij/7tl
~,. '.~ii' ',;~? ~I rJ I _\ ~~ lit C
;0' X'~"'; ........'.. /' - 11 {~J) r-
" ft-::._~, .. ,,~:- ~ ~
. I DDDDD::J=~ - DO:"'" I _~ / ~\ (? -
~~.". '-Je' 2 - - v~ \ 5'\ f--
... F--)J ~ - COh. Jcr ~ ~ :\~" ~/ I
~ ~.~.~Tf
~ ~
~ ~{'J ,
..~~ u~
. Existing House
DDDDDDDOD( Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
. NHIS Location ~
Floodplain Boundary ,..,,,-,~_.._-,.~. Future Street WWE
_Park S
Wetland Boundary ................01 Musa Boundary
Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
Section 23
~'..L1'" :;iii:El I. ~ I ..,- --. "~
i~ f--- I {D' r- 'OJ
r- ",. .. 'V'
f- ~ \ i A I f--- I.
'j!= ,.,."....: '/ ;- r- --'v
H = If:" -<. ~ J- - I
..' II , I ~~ '" "- ~ I: '?T"") ~ - I/'I 1/-
..,'l w: ~'< ~ . ~ r- J I ~[
~. ~.~.~ - 1/ ~ "(\/^. ~.~:;:::;;.t f-- .--..- ;;;:;;~
~ ' ~ ~~tcJ - fJJZT Nl m _ '"I f-- 11
~ ~ /c! , '" ;: ~~ ~ --; "I .1 \ J~ -} I: =;:; f'll&
\ I ~ III IL I / / c- I. A ~~ :;::,~ i - ~i
=' I ~ . . _ ~II. \-' 'f---r- .L v - -
.. I I\iil.. Ii-I? ~ _ _ ~ - -
~ - r<J. ~ \ "j I-- - - 'I - '=
. ,~/'; - ~\;~ >~:;;\\ ~:- ~; - 'l~
~ r - "-,'<-<. J{ ~ ~A:0 ~
-\ ::::::i .-X ^ NS "" y 0 ~ ''''It
...1..... 1J~ ~ \ ~ ~\~I~ ~_
H ~ .~ -i-ll.~ ~ J- ~ ,~~ U' ~ "Ci, o~v
~"\ H j I ~ _ O~
.... " I III "IlL .. 0"
.::J <:h ....i.. .. \ - ,
J:~, ~<\'.. ... rr
&I I. 'Y 0 \ \\.....- ) ~
I 1111~ IrT ,..1 j ~~~ ~
.... 'I :............~m....I..I/...II...... r-o-.:7fJ T " ~r:-~,,,,;... -. 'J
I. . . . - ..............,..: \
, . . < H . ....._~flAo.. \\
"" ,:1 ... . \\1.1 I~'- ~~\ ~ c
EfIHfffiJ '.Hu JL ~ ~ I \\
--I I I .'.~. ~I...h...l' .0. I '\}2l ) I
--=1 ~" I ,~ Ib '\ A t\
~ : :J. :~ 'h. ..... IC'~ I -I.'
~ .. II II \
- - I I --, Ii
f- L1.. ::::::= = -1 ~ --1f---'V /; ....
::::---...........1 I:IJI I-~.~ ~.--J;!~....Q \. I I ~'/ :~ )
~. . f- ~"< '.. 0\ ~ // J~I'
,. =:; / I - ~ f-+-ijf@ ~ "" f-f-- V i.! '_
. ...... .1/. e I. I~.:".... >:~ lirITI'[I, I 7)> l?
~{ a ""^ I ~ I ltD"rli'(N-A'~ - - 1!I1!11!11!11111....IIIII!IIIII.1!I1I! . .......
'" ~ ~~~ c~ ,l=J~d jJ 1_ -L........ 1_ I I ..,. I. I I
. Existing House
DDDDDDDDD[ Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
. NHIS Location ~
Floodplain Boundary Future Street WWE
_Park S
Wetland Boundary liliilliliiiiiiiiilillillili Musa Boundary
Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
Crooked Lake
/
]J
'.J
~
. Existing House
OOOOOOOOO[ Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
NHIS Location ~
. . .
Floodplain Boundary Future Street W E
. .
- Park s
Wetland Boundary .......... Musa Boundary
Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
~JtC- ^
[J.J/
c;,
~
A
~
-
--=-- ..
.~
;;t" .
y
-=---.
, =-~
. Iw
~
;;
::J
I
f'
l tE
..
./
f::j ~Il
-
I Ira- ~
~ !
. \
' .. -.;J . P, l..r-
---...~ .
''? ,/'
'\):
u
r1 ..
~~
l
c.::: ~~, ~/I
'JIll'" T U
1
-n!
..d
.j--- JH
~ I:;
~ .~
.JI JI
l' t- ?=-
~
lH-iK I-
,H
1-.- ~
i.-
,.. -,.r'1f U
mlj
..
-:::::J """f-
.
L-
III
'=
[A
'-- '-- l---'-.
(J( '-II--r
-
". m ffEHE h- =~~
.
..' IT
I - t ~
WI \_m[ij~
=~
",.,~. .EHffifH3 5;J . ~
~"~II . .fIJii ~ ~
'~IYJ I'I
I' '. " .iI--
16'1, ~ ~.' ~ .., I, ~
-~:Jmm~ ,. .E .. ~lB ~.
Em3 J. ~jr ",~
qijHl!l ! l3l1I=~- --- . ' :0 ~ ~r III ~. = ~;~~~ ' 1 , ~ ~
.j
-~
~ - oi~
~ - Effi~
' ~ ooooe CO A ...::
. I ~~
I, . .. ~1 ~ ( · I
TT I m CV "...,
~
It! .4!'--~ - . II \
II ~.
.~;'1. >- i,-
~.~l': II ~~~~
~ I' Bffiffi I ~~ ~ _ IliR Ii ~~~_
\. \ UL
~., II 1 ~ ~" IIMI~ M gjID'~
,JIll r1J ~~ )) L ~
,
"!_~. ~ ~~'. ~i l s=L JI
T I \.tIt
I'~' fi 1I~~1 '"
','
.
~~g'l If .___1 -ul~~, ,,,-
.
~
m~y ._ I: . ~rlo_
hll r ~@BW!J II~~ ~
1_ r'W 1
Jf'!l I ffilBg!; ~ \\\ 1m
.w ,
i~11 .. 1&
,-"" ~
T "TT ~
0. .;' G Lii II=~~~.)J~ c Jl~1 ~ .
~
.... -
...
J, ~-.7c.:;?
~
t: .," .'
.....]
= ~J r"
, 1 l-..~. __
~ ~ rFl~~1
'= \~,.
~
",~ 6"" ktE~1 I.D...-
L
~ r'--:L ....
7" I
L-.: "
:;~ I ~ ~ l~r1 I- ~~ lei
~ bbo~ ~[.f ~.
.:::/~ .'i7 tII:". ~ ,.
~ LIllI.
~
'lit' ....." .. t: ) ""I-
.~ ~,I ~I~ · mvl ~
0 0
II 0
D I II 0
II 0 -.
~z II 0 ....
II 0 '<
II 0
ceo II 0 ~
- II 0
(I).... . II 0
II 0 -.
(I) II 0 Co
:::::s .. II
Q, CI)
oen TI TI m ~ TI en
Z
:::::s (I) ::u -0 z m ~ -
c c >< 0 c D)
CD c Q) I >< c - - CD 0 a.
enz ~ ~ c c en - ....
Q) 7' en en - Q) a. '< c
en - Q) ~ ~ -.
CD S>> - CD CD ~ ::J "C )> ..,
"0.... ::u r ~ OJ c.o a. Q) D)
~ S>> C to en --I ~
CD 0 0 --I CD -
.., .., - ~ OJ ~
S>> S>> en (") I c ~ Q) ~ Q) "'T1
.... - CD Q) 0 ::J CD - Q) 0 OJ OJ
CI)
(I))> ~ ~ c a. CD -. c 0
< 0 - ~ 0 D)
en Q) c
r:./:J. Z en.., CD ::J CD ~ a. :::J c:
....
:::::1'"(1) Q) ::J C
(I) m ~ a. a.
i
(I) tn Q) Q)
.... ~ ~ tn
tT1
- - - - -------------------------------------- - - - -
Section 11 and Leeman Lake
. Existing House
ODOCOOCJ:JOl Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
NHIS Location *
. . .
Floodplain Boundary Future Street W E
, .
-
,'r .... Park s
Wetland Boundary Musa Boundary ':"0-\,- --,;, ,- ,
.At..4I OOODDDDDD[
Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet
- -- --~- -~~ ~~-~ -- ----~------ --- - - - -
Section 7
~,~ ;:
~~- ~ !!
- I ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~~~ I '~,ln ~
== ~ ~ln,T IIIII I I IJ
- ~~1 .111111 1 ~
r-----';~ J ~rl ~II; III
f-- I ) I 1 l~ I I I
= J l~~ t ~ ~ n,' Effi1' :
t ./ ....~ ~ I 1 c-
. ./b) >;.. 1J ] e-
~ '-~ t-LJ/- I>,)
[IT 1\ \" ~ I::' EEl
m n ","j':' * /cr'J~ lIT
i.~O~c::J ,rJ 'l~~) ~ -.o'J-' t:J:::
.~~ V V"~ ~ \ ~~ ~
~ ~ &I - . Llhr~~".K - -~
(ii\ B ./ ~JI, ~~ .
r,:;- ~ L IJ\ If 1'-J ~ "-
~ F1\ 0 II ~~ ~~:IYIII III v 1 ~'-
VJ _0"" v ~
d ~ -.L '" I ~~,-~ ~.<::::~ //~
=TlI I 1\ "IJ-il"\ F7L:: I ~;;,.,j ;\~jrrc~~r,,~ ()
III I I~\ l Ir ~ ...... i\j__ ~ .~~ I~
. Existing House
DDDDODOOO, Study Area Boundary Future Trail N
. NHIS Location &.
Floodplain Boundary Future Street W-WE
_Park S
Wetland Boundary iliiiiilililliiiiiiiil Musa Boundary
Existing Trail D Rural Reserve
Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet