Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.19.08 Consider Recommended Sites for 2008 Natural & Scenic Area Grant Prog. . @ . 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US ~ TO: ~ -~ !Aay~r and Councilmembers :>:::....:--.., ~. --- CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator t.iL Will Neumeister, Community Development Director FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann~ SUBJECT: Consider Recommended Sites for 2008 Natural & Scenic Area Grant Program - Planning DATE: February 19,2008 INTRODUCTION Council directed staff to prepare a grant application for the Natul'al & Scenic Area Grant Program. Since that time, The Open Space Advisory Commission reviewed nine locations for preservation in the city. Information on each area is included in the packet. DISCUSSION Open Space Advisory Commission Recommendation The Commission recommended three locations for the grant application. In order, they are the Section 1, Leeman Lake and Section 11 study areas. The Commission would like to revisit the other areas as the evaluation criteria are applied cityWide in the future. Grant Process A checklist of the required materials is attached. A specific area needs to be identified to complete the application requirements (i.e. appraisal and other site specific information). ACTION REQUESTED The Council is asked to affirm the recommendation of the Open Space Advisory Commission or to otherwise advise staff on how to proceed. Staff intends to contact property owners within the selected study areas as soon as possible. Attachments (in packet) 11x17 CityWide Map - Natural Features (in packet) 11x17 Citywide Map - Upland Natural Areas Study Area Details For Each Location Draft Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes - S'\NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 1 . ((Eum~~-i > Overview Immediately west of 7th Avenue 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 stady-ar-ea-is-ll1l-acre.sJn. siz.e-L-.8..1mroximately 45 acres are encumbered by floodplain or . wetland. The land is classified as agricultural and owned b"Y: one fannly. 'llie City does nO'tpian 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 ations or existin easements There is potential for development of more than half of the 110 acres in this area. Street access could be provided from 1h A venue 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 Corridon 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 halfoftheforested area is in thejloodplain along the river. Another 60 acres of farmed area exists across the three parcels. About 20 acres of the farmed area is in the jloodplain 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 ownen 4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area 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 ownen 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 . ..... 'L-- ,^NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 1 (~~6WI~~* 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 ~-~ - ---- ~- -.--..--.-.--"-- 6 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animar ComIlIUiiitie~c\)r1ng--based-on--- ---- effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities The oak forest 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 associatedfloodplain. 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 71 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 of1h 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. 9 Other Notable Features (Historical, Educational, Archaeological, Aesthetic Other) Scorin assi 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. -3" - ----- ~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - South of Leeman Lake (!e4 i't1~Jft 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--AJi.1.tur~s1ate aid street and trail route are shown. This route could be changed based on a number 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 re ations such as wetland and flood lain reg1.!!ations or existin 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 s ies habitat The land provides habitat and adjoins ajloodplain corridor that connects Leeman and Ward Lakes with a much larger floodplain corridor in the northern part of the city. Staff recommends 15/15 4 Potential to be conti ons to additional conservation area 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 Profile of Anoka Sand Plain) 5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or endan ered secies of lants or ~mimals are resent NR NHIS Data . The area contains oak and aspen trees. It is also a documented NHIS site. Staff recommends 15/15 -If- ~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - South of Leeman Lake (~)7t M~ >f Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on effectiveness in rotectin or connectin native lant communities ----Hpland-planFand=animril=:communitie&aH-hJHlO1"tk-end-wffUld-~b1JjferedirsmL 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 by 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. -s- ~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 11 ~~M~ K' 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 natur-aLcondition..as it has been used as a sod farm for many years. The area contains 8 properties owned by four families. Approximately 15 acres ofthis study area-are-eneumber-ed--by wetland or floodplain. The area is outside of the urban service area and, conservation development notwithstanding, will have a minimum lot size of 2.5 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 ations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existin 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 Corridon 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 ownen 4 Potential to be conti ous 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 -"- 'f\NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 11 (~€~~~ -if 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 NHlS Data . 'Fhe-area-c-ont-alnS--Otu~_.(}fth:darge.sJ::contigY:f)U9-{}a!f[Ql'estsjrZ-the-cit)lLNo 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 rotecting or connectin native lant 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 Watenhed 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 PWI. 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. -7- ,^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--fi.oodplain._Ther.e_are five Rroperties with two owners. The land is classified as agricultural and largely owned by Anoka Independent Grain and Feed, Inc. An overJ.ieaCl transmission line - - crosses the area from east to west in two locations. \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 ations 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 5120 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 l;tnimal SDecies 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 165th 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 165 Avenue NW. The corridor could be rather narrow for a portion of the area and wide as % mile adjacent to the river. Staff recommends 5/10 -} 9\,NiSOVEh Open Space Study Area - Section 7 Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection ProiIle of Anoka Sand Plain) 5 Consideration based on size and quality of the area. Additional scoring if threatened or aan-:reG . ecie~ ~ant e resent NR NHIS Data . The area contains some upland oak tree stands and a variety of other native plant types in the wetland areas. No NHIS data exists for this area. Staff recommends 8/15 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on effectiveness in rotectin 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 Watenhed Systems Scoring 7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area is adlacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek The north end of the area adjoins the Rum River and associated floodplain and wetlands continue one mile to the south. The river and two wetlands 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 general public Access to the area is limited. Promoting public access to this area could stress the surrounding neighborhood and 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 9 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 anticipated. In the long term, however, the city should position itself for future discussions once other uses of the property begin to be contemplated. ....1- 5l\NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - River Central Overview The area along the Rum River between 157th and 165tb A venues contains several native upland plant species. There are patches of oak forest, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest and sparsely -- weodea-grassland.-'This.-study area.k.51.acre..sJn size. Approximately 20 acres of these parcels is encumbered by floodplain or 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 re ations 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 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 s ies 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 adjacent 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 . -/4- ~NDbVE~ Open Space Study Area - River Central Native Plant Communities (Identified in DNR Subsection Prof1le 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 patches of oakforest, mixed coniferous/deciduous forest and sparsely wooded grassl-an&-----=N-o~NHIS data--eXlS1s-for-thtr~ea:-- -.-- Staff recommends 12/15 Buffer Adjacent to Upland Native Plant and Animal Communities Scoring based on effectiveness in rotectin or connecting native lant communities 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 Scoring 7 based on width of area and its ability to these features. Additional scoring if the buffer area is adlacent to area within the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek The west end of the area adjoins the Rum River associated floodplain. The river and one wetland 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 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) Scorin assi ed as documented on a case b case basis The area along the river is especially scenic. Staff recommends 4/5 Conclusion This site is one of few undeveloped areas that remain along the Rum River. It may not be the best of the three that have been identified, but stills merits preservation efforts. -//- Sl\woVEh Open Space Study Area - Coon CreekIRound 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 devel()pment-occ1IrS 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 I Prerequisite: The Area to he Protected is Sufficieut in Size aud Locatiou 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 ations or existin easements The creek is a natural resource. Protecting a corridor along it will preserve a view of the creek, the adjacentfloodplain and public use of the adjacent upland area. Staff recommends 20120 Lands Important as Native Wildlife Habitat and Corridon 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 4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area 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 -/Z- ~NDOVE~ Open Space Study Area - Coon CreekIRound 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 _ ==-~ex-ist9-ffJF--r-estNauon-aiDFlg1he:xIedc-: -NHIS-SUe-s-e~-ist-aZ()ng--th.e-aeek~Iddor. 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 rotectin or connecting native lapt 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 Watenhed 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 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 IS/IS 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.. -/f- -- 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 n0rth-t0--s0ll~t-lies-within the RllraLReserve, a future urban area approximately 960 acres in size. When development of this area is proposed, concept plans will 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 ations such as wetland and flood lain re ations 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 Corridon 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 final master plan design. 4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area The corridor could connect with a preservation area along the north side of Coon Creek. Staff recommends 10/10 -11- Sl\NDOVE~ 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 NR NHlS 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 rotecting 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 fmal design of the area. Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watenhed 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 Pass-ive 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 IS/IS 9 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. -15'- ~NDOVE~ Open Space Study Area - Section 23 Overview The area is adjacent to Crosstown Boulevard and the Sophies South development. It contains oak woodland-brusbland on approximately 27 acres. There are two properties and two property UWlleIs:--A-futur-e-oollecter-street-and-trai.Lare.shQ'WIlJ:bmugh the J;!roperty from north to south. -.- - 1 Prerequisite: The Area to be Protected is Sufficient in Size and Location to Preserve and Enhance NaturalResources 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 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 Corridon 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 final master plan design. 4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area The area would not be contiguous to additional conservation area. Staff recommends 0/10 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 ecies of lants or animals are resent NR NlllS Data . The area is an oak woodland-brushland. Staff recommends 10/15 -It- ,^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 Tne area wo--utdnar&e--crbufferfor- these-je-at-ur-es. - Staff recommends 0/10. Buffer Adjacent to Lakes Streams Wetlands and Natural Watenhed 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. -/7- -- Sl\NDOVE~ 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 ha V~ Lree-cover-in -areas-of-the-site. - -.- 1 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 re ations such as wetland and flood lain re ations or existin 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 5120 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 4 Potential to be conti ous to additional conservation area 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 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 does not contain native plant communities. Staff recommends 0115 -/8- Sl\NDOVEh 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 boatJqrl,t!jng andfCrooke 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 adjacent 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 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. -/1- 1 DRAFT 2 3 4 5 6 REGULAR ANDOVER OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMlSSlUNMEETING - - - 7 FEBRUARY 13, 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, February 13, 2008, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 13 Crosstown 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 January 9, 2008 25 26 Motion by Kovich, seconded by Olson, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on 27 a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-present, O-absent vote. 28 29 30 Commissioner Perry thanked Chairman Deuschle and Commissioner Sabel for going to the 31 League of Women's Voters meeting and reporting the status of what they do at the Open Space 32 Advisory Commission. 33 34 35 UPDATE FROM COUNCIL WORK SESSION 36 37 Mr. Bednarz stated staff presented a progress report to the Council at their January 220d work 38 session. The Council conveyed several things to share with the Commission. 39 40 The Council has a couple of comments on the scoring matrix. They did not feel that number #7 41 was important given the protections already provided for watersheds by the law. They suggested 42 combining #7 and #8. The Council also felt that #9 should be scored significantly higher. Staff 43 suggested that some of the points from combined #7 and #8 could be assigned to #9. 44 45 The Council also felt that waiting until next year to apply for grants would be too long a gap 46 from the 2006 Referendum. They directed staff to put together a proposal for submittal by 47 March 31,2008. This means that the Commission will need to select several areas to pursue at 48 the meeting. The Council was in favor of a joint meeting with the Open Space Commission. 49 The date has been set for Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. The Council also authorized Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 2 c-__ 1 ==the::C.--mnmissiott:~~egnmt-deUafs--fgrneld-work to refine the n~tl1ral re!;ource inventory in -,---- 2 priority areas of the City. - -- - -- 3 4 Commissioner Olson stated he looked back at the July 11, 2007 meeting and it is the criteria for 5 the Open Space which is what they use for their criteria and the number one item from the 6. criteria is the one that was morphed into Number Seven. He stated he did not have a huge 7 problem with it being changed. Commissioner Kovich thought the Council was mislead and this 8 had nothing to do with W ACA laws. 9 10 Commissioner Perry wondered how Number Seven fit into Number Nine. Chairman Deuschle 11 noted Numbers Seven and Eight were merged together. 12 13 Mr. Bednarz explained the reasoning for the Council merging the numbers together. 14 15 Commissioner Olson wondered what the Council considered public access. Mr. Bednarz thought 16 it would be being able to walk into it and seeing it. Commissioner Olson wondered if they 17 would even be interested in land that did not have public access. He wondered if that was a code 18 word for trails and parks. Mr. Bednarz stated the funds cannot be used for trails or parks and if 19 they find a site which a trail could be put through the funds would have to come from other 20 funds. 21 22 Commissioner Kovich stated he did not have a problem with changing the points but he did not 23 like the idea of throwing out Number Seven because wetlands are already covered. Mr. Bednarz 24 stated they can play with the list and it may change as they look at different properties. He 25 thought they spent enough time looking at the list and thought they needed to look on at the 26 properties and evaluating them. 27 28 Chairman Deuschle agreed and did not have a problem with losing Number Seven. He did not 29 know if he wanted to lose the emphasis by having it in there. 30 31 Commissioner Seibel thought in Number Eight of the criteria they should delete "buffer" and add 32 "land including or adjacent to". The Commission felt "protect" should not be removed from 33 Number Eight. They also changed the following in Number Eight "Scoring based on ~ size 34 of area and its ability to protect lakes streB:lB5 aBQ ~.vet1aBd5. These features. Additional scoring if 35 the ~ area is adjacent to area with the DNR Public Waters Inventory or Coon Creek." 36 37 38 APPLICATIONOFREVIEWCRITERIA TO STUDY AREA 39 40 Mr. Bednarz stated staff has prepared information for nine study areas based on review of the 41 natural resource inventory. The Commission is asked to review each of these areas at the 42 meeting and suggest priority sites to pursue for the 2008 grant. Several sites will be necessary as 43 not all property owners will be interested. 44 45 Commissioner Olson thought Item #6 was a pretty weak area and they should not look at it at Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 3 1 lhiS--tim.e-CommissiOIle.r..Keppers thought from the City's point of view it would be a high area 2 to look at to preserve. Mr. Bednarz thought this area was important to the City to protect 3 because of the creek and corridor. He noted there are no features currently on the land but it can 4 be restored to its natural state. He stated the idea was to preserve the entire area along Round 5 Lake Corridor without putting houses there along the creek. 6 7 Chairman Deuschle thought it would behoove the City to purchase the area between the road and 8 right of way along Bunker Lake Boulevard' for their corridor and use the open space dollars in 9 other areas. 10 11 The Commission discussed all nine areas and eliminated six before reviewing the final three for 12 recommendation. 13 14 Commissioner Kovich thought before they could make a recommendation they would need to go IS out and look at each piece of land being considered and he would not feel comfortable making a 16 recommendation without doing that. 17 18 Commissioner Olson thought all of the properties along the Rum River should get high priority 19 in the future because they should be protected. 20 21 The Commission felt the top three sites that should be explored for grant money are: 22 23 1. Section 1 with a total of 70/1 00 possible points. 24 2. South of Leeman Lake with a total of 95/1 00 possible points. 25 3. Section 11 with a total of75/100 possible points. 26 27 28 Open Space Study Area - Sectionl 29 30 Immediately west of 7th A venue at the north edge of the city and along the south bank of the 31 Rum River there are three large parcels that contain some oak forest and some farmed area. This 32 study area is 110 acres in size. Approximately 45 acres are encumbered by floodplain or 33 wetland. The land is classified as agricultural and owned by one family. The city does not plan 34 to serve the area with sewer and water. The TOinimum lot size would be 2.5 acres. 35 36 Item # 1 - Staff felt the area satisfies this criterion. 37 38 Item #2 - Staff noted there is potential for development of more than half of the 110 acres in this 39 area. Street access could be provided from 1h Avenue or through a public easement that exists 40 along the south end of the property. Staff recommends 20/20. 41 42 Item #3 - Staff stated the area provides habitat for wildlife along the river corridor. The 43 forested area is approximately 50 acres in size. About half of the forested area is in the 44 floodplain along the river. Another 60 acres of farmed area exists across the three parcels. 45 About 20 acres of the farmed area is in the floodplain along the river. The size of a preservation Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 4 _____1--.(.l~tLn:eed1f1.=be.J1e.teImined in discussions with property nwners Stojf recommends 12/15 2 with potential for a higher score based on discussions with property owners. 3 4 Item #4 - Staff indicated the area itself could be considerable conservation area at 5 approximately 110 acres in size. The river, development to the south and 1h Avenue provide 6 barriers to connection with other conservation areas. The score should be based on the size of 7 the conservation area. Staff recommends 7/10 with potential for a higher score based on 8 discussions with property owners. 9 10 Item #5 - Staff noted the area contains a 50 acre oak forest, about half of which is outside the 11 floodplain. No NHIS data exists for this area. Staff recommends 13115. 12 13 Item #6 - Staff explained the oak forest would buffer the river and is large enough to be 14 considered a buffer unto itself. Additional farmed area would add additional buffer to the forest. 15 The size of the area that is preserved should affect the score. Staff recommends 7110 with 16 potential for a higher score based on discussions with property owners. 17 18 Item #7 - Staff stated the north and west ends of the area adjoin the Rum River associated 19 floodplain. The river and a wetland on the south end of the properties appear in the PWL Staff 20 recommends 10/10. 21 22 Item #8 - Staff explained the access to the area could be achieved via the Anoka County 7"' 23 Avenue Regional Trail when it is constructed by Anoka County in the future. Vehicle access 24 from 7th Avenue, if desired, may be possible in the future. In the interim, the area would be 25 visible along ~ mile of 7th Avenue at this entrance to the city. Staff recommends 10115 26 acknowledging the score could be higher in the future with some or all of the improvements 27 described above. 28 29 Item #9 - Staff noted the site is located at an entrance to the city along a major transportation 30 corridor. Staff recommends 415. 31 32 Conclusion: This is one of few undeveloped sites that remain along the Rum River. The site is 33 large and borders the river on two sides. The area should be preserved. 34 35 Total Points = 70/100 36 37 Commissioner Olson wondered why this would not go all the way to the lake. Commissioner 38 Kovich thought a nice point for this piece of land is that Crosstown Boulevard is a good way to 39 look at it and if they want support in the' future, they need to pick a piece that is a high score. 40 41 Chairman Deuschle thought they needed to have one piece of land on Rum River. He thought 42 that was a high priority. 43 44 Open Space Study Area - South of Leeman Lake 45 Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 5 1 ~.ea1ies...betweeIL.Cm.ssto.wn Boulevard and Leeman Lake in the northwestern part of the 2 city. It is approximately 91 acres in size and contains patches of oak and aspen. Approximately - - - 3 30 acres of the area is encumbered by wetland and floodplain. There are six properties with 5 4 owners. A future state aid street and trail route are shown. This route could be changed based 5 on a number of factors~ including a desire to preserve the area. 6 7 Item #1 - Stafffelt the area satisfies this criterion. 8 9 Item #2 - Staff stated the area is outside of the urban service area and the city does not plan to 10 serve it with sewer and water. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres. There is' upland 11 adjacent to Crosstown Boulevard that could be threatened by future rural development. This 12 would cause considerable damage to the scenic value of the property to achieve a marginal 13 development. Staff recommends 15/20. 14 15 Item #3 - Staff noted the land provides habitat and adjoins a floodplain corridor that connects 16 Leeman and Ward Lakes with a much larger floodplain corridor in the northern part of the city. 17 Staff recommends 15/15. 18 19 Item #4 - Staff explained the area could be a large conservation area of its own and connects 20 with a larger floodplain area as noted above. Staffrecommends 10/10. 21 22 Item #5 - Staff noted the area contains oak and aspen trees. It is also a documented NHIS site. 23 Staff recommends 15/15. 24 25 Item #6 - Staff stated upland plant and animal communities at the north end would be buffered 26 from Crosstown Boulevard with a preservation area along this transportation corridor. Staff 27 recommends 10/10. 28 29 Item #7 - Staff noted the area would buffer the south side of Leeman Lake and a large floodplain 30 corridor. It contains three PWI wetlands. Staff recommends 10/10. 31 32 Item #8 - Staff explained the area would provide for passive recreation and observation, with 33 access from Crosstown Boulevard and a future trail and potentially another street and trail route 34 from the west. Staff recommends 15/15. 35 36 Item #9 - Staff stated the site has exceptional aesthetic value. Staff recommends 5/5. 37 38 Conclusion: The area contains all of the evaluation criteria. Preservation of as much of the area 39 as possible should be pursued. 40 41 Total Points = 95/100 42 43 Open Space Study Area - Section 11 44 45 This location contains one of the largest contiguous forested areas in the City. It is Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 6 ~-l~d~ 225=:ac~~t-alse-adloins-a-lar-ge floonplain corridor however the 2 floodplain is not in a natural condition as it has been used as a sod farm for many years. The - - - 3 area contains 8 wetland or floodplains. The area is outside of the urban service area and, 4 conservation development notwithstanding, will have a minimum lot size. of 2.5 acres. Future 5 state aid collector streets and trails are proposed to traverse the property both north to south and 6 east to west. 7 8 Item #1 - Stafffelt the area satisfies this criterion. 9 10 Item #2 - Staff thought the area is adjacent to urban development and a temporary cul-de-sac. 11 Future streets and trails are planned through this area. Although outside the urban service area 12 and not planned to be served by city sewer and water rural development is likely and would have 13 a detrimental effect on the forested areas. Staff recommends 20/20. 14 15 Item #3 - Staff felt the area provides habitat for wildlife and buffers a large floodplain corridor 16 on the west side of the railroad. The size of the area would need to be determined in discussions 17 with property owners. Staff recommends 10/15 with potential for a higher score based on 18 discussions with property owners. 19 20 Item #4 - Staff stated this potential exists. The area spans eight properties along a mile corridor 21 from north to south. The corridor could be as little as 400 feet wide at the south end to as wide 22 as a ~ mile near its center, acknowledging that a future road will bisect the area. Staff 23 recommends 9/10. 24 25 Item #5 - Staff noted the area contains one of the largest contiguous oak forests in the city. No 26 NHIS data existsfor this area. Staffrecommends 14/15. 27 28 Item #6 - Staff stated the forested areas along this floodplain corridor provide excellent habitat 29 for animals. The area is large enough to be considered an upland buffer. The width of the area 30 that is preserved should affect the score. Staff recommends 6/10 with potential for a higher 31 score based on discussions with property owners. 32 33 Item #7 - Staff explained the west side of the forest is adjacent to some small wetlands. They are 34 not in the PWI. Staffrecommends 3/10. 35 36 Item #8 - Staff stated it is unlikely that agreement will be reached with the property owner at the 37 south end of the forest. This would delay public access until that property develops and the 38 street and trail are extended to the north. Once this occurs, however, the street and trail will 39 provide nearly ideal public access. Staff recommends 10/15. 40 41 Item #9 - Staff noted the aesthetic value of a forest this size is worth some points. Staff 42 recommends 3/5. 43 44 Conclusion - It is easy to see that this forest is one of the last best opportunities for preservation 45 in the city. Efforts should be made to preserve it. - Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 7 1 2 Total points = 75/100 _.- -. 3 4 The Commission looked at aerials of the three parcels and reviewed them. 5 6 Motion by Olson, Seconded by Perry, to recommend the following areas for consideration of an 7 initial grant application: 8 9 1. Section 1 with a total of 70/1 00 possible points. 10 2. South of Leeman Lake with a total of 95/100 possible points. 11 3. Section 11 with a total of75/100 possible points. 12 13 Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-present, O-absent vote. 14 15 Mr. Bednarz reviewed the next steps of the process with the Commission. 16 17 18 OTHER BUSINESS 19 20 a. Next Meeting - Joint City Council Meeting 21 22 Mr. Bednarz noted there will be a joint meeting with the City. Council on February 26,2008 at 23 6:00 p.m. at the Council Workshop. 24 25 b. March 2008 Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting. 26 27 Chairman Deuschle thought the March 2008 meeting should focus on the grant application. 28 29 c. Three Parcels picked for Grant Application 30 31 Commissioner Kovich stated they only have the recommendation of the staff on the three 32 properties they selected and have not applied their own criteria to the selections. He indicated he 33 had an issue with this. He noted he did not disagree with any of the areas selected but thought 34 they should apply the criteria to the areas. 35 36 Mr. Bednarz asked Commissioner Kovich if he has ranked all the properties himself like other 37 Commission members indicated they had. Commissioner Kovich stated he did not and thought 38 they should discuss the criteria and possibly drive by the site. 39 40 Chairman Deuschle thought they had enough justification with the points. He thought the order 41 in which they are listed may change by further discussion but he thought the scores would 42 closely match staff's and he felt comfortable with using those scores as justification. He stated 43 he would not want to recommend anything for the grant without looking at the parcels. 44 45 Commissioner Keppers thought the properties did need to be looked at more closely before the Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2008 Page 8 _____1--=--=ei~es::aIl)[~.action=o.n::then-buL-whaLthcy are doing at this--point--i-s--cutting down-the-areas for 2 contacting people and grant application. He thought this was a good start and was not too 3 concerned about jumping into this. Commissioner Olson thought the criteria was a tool to be 4 used in the overall evaluation process. 5 6 Commissioner Seibel wondered how the parcels were chosen by staff for Commission review. 7 Mr. Bednarz reviewed how staff chose the parcels. 8 9 10 Motion by Perry, Seconded by Olson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting 11 adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 12 13 Respectfully submitted, 14 15 Susan Osbeck, Recording Secretary ~~- Legend Natural Area Patches (Ecotype) D Alder swamp ~f.:"~ Alder swamp - saturated soils CJ Aspen forest ~AspeR--Wrest4atw:ated-SoiIS - ~ f>""~~~ Aspen forest - temporaily flooded ~ Cattail marsh - intermittently exposed ~.' o..:.~ Cattail marsh - seasonally flooded ~:~j;:~~'~J Cattail marsh - semipermanenUy flooded II Dry oak savanna ~. Dry oak savanna barrens subtype It~;t~l 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-brushland .. Poor fen _ Poor fen sedge subtype _ Rich fen floating-mat subtype - sernipermanently flooded Ii%t~j,~;~ Saturated deciduous shrubland I>,,:" Seasonally flooded deciduous forest ti'M Seasonally flooded emergent vegetation _ Tamarack swa~p _ Upland mixed coniferous-deciduous woodland D Wet meadow ~ Wet meadow shrub subtype - saturated soils .. Willow swamp _ Willow swamp - saturated soils -"'--'- . Section 1 / ~ / ~ -. - I I . I ! ~ ,l 3 . ~ ~.- .----. Q ':i 1:1 :: h ;t ti .t .: ,oJ I ; i. .~ 0 0 . Existing House DDDDDDDDD[ Study Area Boundary C',_",','';:''''''_'l';:''''''..~"'-'''''';='-'::-'''' Future Trail N . NHIS Location w*, Floodplain Boundary Future Street - Park s Wetland Boundary .......... Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet --- ----~--- ----- , Section 11 and Leeman Lake . Existing House DDDD:JDDDD[ Study Area Boundary ~".""'..:l;;::1"~""'~'-".""''''''''';" Future Trail N . N HIS Location ~ . . Floodplain Boundary Future Street W E - Park s Wetland Boundary 1IIIIIIIIIIiliiiiili Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet -- Section 7 -~ r 'If ~ VC -- I =- - ___ _'__~ _, I ._ f ~ \.L _.--- i --! ~ --! ~ .~...'.'.' ::, -" \1' ~-" ..... ~~ -- ~~ ~ . ~'. ~~ ~ ;:,~ ....'-I'-l1....1l.. . , --....... ." ( ~ i..... II I I I 1 j ~ == ~- ~I I I ; I I I II I i I ~ == ,~ I l.\. r 111* 11: ,: I l~~ -;: ,! t I Iii I I · ~ I L ~ "==~ ~ - . ,- 'r y J/':;;) ~. V \ /j ~ = ~ ~~r ~", '=:. :~ ~J~ll I '.: \:> tv1 .~ .......~__ . ~ ~. .;.::::::::~...:' /// ..:..:'......... ~.:........ 00 C) \7 ~...:.~.. ~~ _c?1-' ". . ., c. ,,0 " \ ~._.~- ....'........... ~...,..... ~ !if - ~,,!I I, ~ 'K -=- - ;1'::\ i." un 0 \ i '~ 6~'~ \;.of L f >J 1 1" .'" ,'-' '~ ~ 0.,......... I Q) 1 (J ~.J ...v fll I 11 1 T.< ,;, "" ;1 0 6! \ - :::=~ . EDD Do \' /"~ -C', \1 \ _ ~ "~" d\ I ~ ,;." -+i~ I ~ .'......k.. J J ..... - . -" ~", -- -'-- r---<; ... I W ----Tl t Ir\FlC \ ~jfl1j ~~ '(f ~ J J ~ . Existing House DDDDDDClDClt 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 -.'........... c~ ...... , ... ------. ".--."-' "---- ...--- .--_..-._. . . Existing House ClClClClClClClClDt Study Area Boundary <,,""'-:=~~~""'_"""'.1..,.":OlI",T"__ Future Trail N . NH IS Location W~E Floodplain BoundarY Future Street . Wetland Boundary Park s .......... Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet . Coon Creek and Rural Reserve ctj. -:~ ~ ~~I~= -~\tt;~'~~t~I~~J--,111 -I~I Ir"\ l( 0 I- i ~~...f,."_ \ _ . . . .'. \. J . - =\ I----L_.~ _, ~c IJ. ~. ' \ \\ A! ~ =~ 1~~ ~)jr I ' ;!li VI I, c ~. l' l,~ <= o Q }-' ')~f-J I o 0 j - ., 0 0 -' , ,....... r 0 'fI , '.~!,>, ~_,....t.-_ ", ""'~_~' -'-.." .. .' _ 1 .-.=..""..., ". I _ ""-'l - -H fL~ \~ 'h 8 I iI 1..4 ~ irmml _ .1. * ~ S), ~ JJ, , r "0 .~ J.. t<i~ \- ~ '" ~ ., ~; ! r J ~ r-.: - ,,: . \ ( J..'#, ~'/" I % ,., ./' ---', F ~ " :J \). ',~ r--~' ..~~". ,"".'""j."'=' I" \). -~"''' . ; , ~ 1 ,-- I I / g !' , Lloo,J \} 8) 0 i. i~ ''';;; <, ; g i : . ) ... _~~ 0 ~ ~ ,I '. . 0, H II- ::iii .......~t. g ~ ~ ,... ~! ~ ~ i l' ClClO i iL > I T -I ~' . '.' r '1 B ,ml" ~. o T ~ I II.~ ~ /,/ ~ = -" f[J I' (( · ~ -. ~;c-, l 1= / (.~ 1- ~ ' ! . ""'" ""- ""._- ooooa .L.._._,..",_,,,.,~.::..:;.;.~' ootf""-' ._"",~"",,~,~~,, -. '~--.,'-_. '-' _,.-'._ i [J ~ - J-~7 '- v~ YA'-\ ~t:r I t; c;;-' "'.J..~ ....." ~ =:::::~ "'" / 1'0 j.f ~..A"1f"" T....IP"~;tll~ ~ ~ _l--J j ~ "'-)1 · ,I " ~ ~'!J' /hJtJ!! ~T~ 0 I~; R ~ J , ~ ~< ~, .A'" ---' ~ . . /~ ' ~~ ~~ U:'\\ ..~:" _ \ !~~~~dYv.. . Existing House ClClClClClClOClO[ Study Area Boundary Future Trail N . NHIS Location w*, Floodplain Boundary Future Street - Park s Wetland Boundary .........1 Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet --- . Section 23 . J,jJJ ;lii~,. I td1+\ I 'I~' tri~ -XiIrat).........."'... ~ ::: ...., I rYL, v/~JI ~;..; ......... , , / (::- 1-' I ~\ _ 76- r-< . ~y:c I- . ~ """{ V'" ~ . lii:''''-:'Ii.I ~ 'f"rf.~oJ .' LL ~ '" ~~~ ~ ---<~ ~ I I ~T -7,- Igl~ ,Tit ~ ~~ / ~~ = 1I7[ ~~::\l~\,~:Uial!=-"-." ~~-~ \ It1 I III IJ / / -= r:L ~ ,1 . ~.>3 ~ .,1 - i-i ~ 1ll- =J ,,"~' . - T.......,..,: , lIlI L-, k---:!...,'J I eIi ~C/ ! . ::--.. I- ~ ~~:-< ~ K7I '. . '%< >- ~ J ~I ~ lL ,~ltS~. ~~:/~ ~;<$; ~ ~ -'^ . "; ~ ~ il--'.i-1 '< ~ ^ ~A! ~ ~ ~ ,'\....l..- ~r::$J / ~~..) w ;, ~O ~ ~ " I . -'~ I~~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ] .'~~ I ;j< ~T ~ '-^'( ~/ 0 , '\ 7\. .\ I-- , " ~,~ ~ I I 1 "",."", ......- I I "r I I'-.. J ~, '~T '/~F=~lij, l~ ~ \ .,?~~~ ~ r- III I I j I H I ~ ~~ \\ c.....,..., crttrnTIJ..r::::t . I "" . \l" DllIIIJ]J I- ~f- i-- P "! 1 ,..... ..1- 7\ i _~ ~1: 'f- i- IJ-~ ~ ~ :j 11 ,i:: '-' , ~ -( =-- - ........, - \- \. ~ I - / - - I - 11_ . . T.. , _I- L--- / 11- L }ji(". l I // 6..-=t-, ~'- :;0 ~ \~ t ~ .~I_.V ~ I "'\ '~' ~ . t, ~ ~II ~ '\ I ~~ {/ I!'t- = J TT I ~r ~r- ~ '. ~ 7J:> ~~ ;;;;;;iiiiii -=~-= -'...L_--... , -1 I I .......\ -. '- - . C" " . ~ .~- · .........!Q ... ~ ~~.. ,-r-;"CJ'W""r '~B 7r---;-tr:'__~ --];:---r=,- '-r~~~lrl ~ . Existing House DDDDDDDDD[ Study Area Boundary =~~~ Future Trail N . NHIS Location ~ Floodplain Boundary Future Street WWE _Park S Wetland Boundary .......... Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet . . Crooked Lake *1 . Existing House OCJCJoOCJooC]t Study Area Boundary ="';:'''''':,,,...,'.:7''''~'''.'<Z''''_'_~''''''''"' Future Trail N . NHIS Location W~] Floodplain Boundary Future Street . Park s Wetland Boundary .......... Musa Boundary Existing Trail D Rural Reserve Note: See Natural Areas Legend on Separate Sheet