Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-4-22 meeting packet1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-6100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Andover Nature Preserve Commission Meeting Agenda May 4, 2022 Andover City Hall Conference Room A & B 5.00 a.m. 1. Walking Tour of Martin's Meadows Preserve —17101 Navajo St. NW 2. Return to Andover City Hall for regular meeting 6.00 a.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Resident forum 3. Approval of minutes: March 9, 2022 regular meeting 4. Update on status and features of the nature preserves 5. Discuss status of promotion ideas and opportunities of the nature preserves ("Get Outside" campaign) 6. Discuss potential funding options for acquiring more preserves 7. Discuss tree ordinance ideas 8. Discuss Nature Preserve Commission involvement in passive parks 9. Discuss status of potential crossing at Dalske Woodlands 10.Other business a. Next meeting? 11. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes — March 9, 2022 Regular Meeting DATE: May 4, 2022 INTRODUCTION The Nature Preserve Commission is asked to review and approve the minutes from the March 9, 2022 regular meeting. DISCUSSION Please share any changes to the minutes at the meeting. ACTION REQUESTED A motion, second, and vote are necessary to approve the minutes. Respectfully submitted, Kameron Kytonen Attachment March 9, 2022 meeting minutes REGULAR ANDOVER OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSIONMEETING MARCH 9, 2022 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Andover Open Space Advisory Commission was called to order by Chairperson Kim Kovich at 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Erik Lindberg, Ryan Ingebritson, Jen Vedadi (by phone; non- voting), Jim Olson, Jonathan Gwinn, and Jamie McGowan Commissioners absent: None Also present: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician RESiDENTFORUM No one wished to address the Commission. APPROVAL OFMINUTES —December 8, 2021 The December 8, 2021 minutes were approved as presented WELCOME TO NEW Chair Kovich welcomed the two new members of the Commission. DISCUSS RENAMING OPENSPA CE AD VISOR Y COMMISSION TO ANDOVER NATURE PRESERVE COMMISSION Mr. Kytonen stated that there was a suggestion from the City Council to rename the Open Space Advisory Commission to the Nature Preserve Commission. He explained that the properties were originally called open spaces but were renamed to preserves a few years ago and therefore it would seem to make sense to rename the Commission in the same manner. Chair Kovich agreed that the change would make sense and be more self-explanatory. Commissioner Olson arrived. Commissioner Olson asked if there would be any issues with changing the name of the Commission. Mr. Kytonen stated that he did not notice anything in the bylaws that would create a problem and the Council believed it would be a simple change. Chair Kovich noted that the original funds were allocated to the Open Space Advisory Commission. He stated that the bonds have now become due and therefore there could be money Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2022 Page 2 available for use and wanted to ensure that the name change would not impact any potential available funding. Mr. Kytonen commented that should not be an issue. Commissioner McGowan asked if there are any other open spaces in Andover. She asked for background information. Chair Kovich provided a brief summary of background information on the original allocation of funds to purchase the open space parcels and the process that was followed to purchase the properties. He noted that the Commission has now been tasked with managing those areas. He confirmed that all of the properties managed by the Commission have been changed in title from open space to preserves. Motion by Commissioner Ingebritson, Second by Commissioner Lindberg, to rename the Open Space Advisory Commission to the Nature Preserve Commission. Motion passed 6-0 (1 present). DISCUSS STATUS OF PROMOTION IDEAS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE NATURE PRESERVES ("GET OUTSIDE" CAMPAIGN) Mr. Kytonen stated that this concept was brought forward by Commissioner Vedadi as a way to introduce more people to the preserves, focusing on children and families. He provided details on a potential partnership with the Davinci Academy and noted that there was a meeting with representatives from the school, Commissioner Vedadi, and himself. Commissioner Vedadi commented that the school was open and seems excited about the partnership. She stated that the school would provide a teacher, or possibly two, which would allow for up to 26 children. She stated that the school would also provide busing once or possibly two times for the class. She stated that the session would be four days with 5.5 hours of instruction each day. She stated that the school has asked the group to assist with themes for each day and activity or learning topics/resources. She stated that if that information is provided by the 21" the school would have time to develop promotional materials. She stated that since that meeting, they have shared resources and ideas. She asked if anyone else from the Commission would like to join in on the planning. Commissioner Gwinn provided details on a wildlife outreach program through Anoka County and Connexus Energy which would provide a facilitator for a few hours which could help to give the person(s) leading the group a little break. Commissioner Lindberg asked the role the Commission would play in this. Commissioner Vedadi stated that they talked a lot about that during the meeting. She stated that the first task would be to help shape ideas for the program. She stated that there was also discussion of having Mr. Kytonen and some members of the Commission present onsite to provide input and assist with the program. She stated that they also discussed cross promotion. Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2022 Page 3 Commissioner Gwinn stated that they also discussed a brief outline for different activities to be provided by the 2 1 '. Chair Kovich stated that there are four days of the session and asked if there would need to be a different theme for each day. Commissioner Vedadi confirmed that the desire would be to have different themes for each day centered on the environment. She provided an example of birds noting that children could watch a video identifying different birds, then take that knowledge into the field to identify birds and follow that up with a related art project. Chair Kovich stated that if there is busing for two days, perhaps there are visits to two different preserves. He stated that the theme and activities could be tailored to what exists in the specific preserve. Commissioner Vedadi stated that they discussed Northwoods and Maple View to get the most out of the busing if there is only one day for buses. She noted that they could tie into the different activities that occurred in the classroom when in the preserves. She stated that ideally, she would envision identification on potential themes for each day with related activities and the estimated length of time for each activity. She noted that they could also include other ideas that could be reviewed by the school. She stated that those that have been working on this could package the work that has been done thus far into an outline format for the Commission to review via email. She stated that the members of the Commission could then provide any additional ideas they may want to include. Mr. Kytonen asked if any other members of the Commission would like to be part of the planning that is occurring for this program. He noted that Commissioners Vedadi and Gwinn would continue to be a part of this and advised that he would continue to be involved as the staff liaison along with the CFC member that has been working with the City. Commissioner Ingebritson stated that his wife works at Rum River Art Center and as part of their summer camps they incorporate nature photography and sketching. He asked is Davinci is involved in arts and perhaps that could be an activity within the preserve. Commissioner Vedadi confirmed that the school is focused on arts and science and therefore that would be a great idea. She asked if the art center would be willing to provide a staff member to assist. Commissioner Ingebritson confirmed that he could check with his wife to see if someone would be available and to gain additional input on ideas and materials. Commissioner Vedadi stated that additional work would be done on the curriculum in early April once they know which programs the children choose to sign up for. Chair Kovich confirmed that Commissioner Vedadi and Mr. Kytonen would continue to work on this to provide the outline for the Commission to review and submission to the school by the 21 '. Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes —March 9, 2022 Page 4 Commissioner Gwinn suggested that the outline be done in a Word document or Google document to allow modifications. Mr. Kytonen reviewed the timeline for Commissioner Vedadi to provide the draft outline to the Commission by the following Thursday in order to submit to the school. Commissioner Vedadi stated that she circled back to the Anoka County Historical Society after the last meeting related to the self -guided walking tours to provide an update that the Commission was interested in possibly moving forward on that in the fall. She noted that the Historical Society was supportive of that timeline and would still be interested in collaborating. Mr. Kovich thanked Commissioner Vedadi for taking the lead on these ideas. DISCUSS STATUS OF POTENTIAL CROSSING AT DALSKE WOODLANDS Mr. Kytonen stated that this has been an ongoing item for years and provided a brief background for the benefit of the new members of the Commission. He stated that the Commission has not yet been successful in obtaining grant funds to create a crossing that would make the entire preserve accessible. He provided details on a grant opportunity through the DNR, noting that he has sent the preliminary application to be reviewed. He stated that the boardwalk was included in the 2026 CIP for the City but acknowledged that it would be nice to have the crossing before that time. He estimated a cost of $50,000 to $100,000 for the boardwalk crossing. Commissioner Lindberg asked when the grant awards would be made. Mr. Kytonen believed that grants are awarded in July, noting that if the City receives the grant, construction could possibly begin in September or October. Commissioner Ingebritson asked for more details on the process and anticipated length. Mr. Kytonen stated that the engineering firm does understand that the grant application is due in three weeks. He stated that if the grant is not awarded, it could be a few more years before there would be funding for the boardwalk as schedule in the CIP. He noted that the City could also reapply for the grant in the next cycle if not awarded this year, or the Council could choose to move the project up on the CIP. Commissioner Olson asked if the Commission would meet with the engineering firm before a recommendation is made in order to provide input. Mr. Kytonen stated that there was a meeting about a month ago. He noted that there would be another meeting after the findings are developed. Chair Kovich stated that this has been an ongoing issue, noting that what the Commission wants and what the Council wants may not be the same. He stated that the Commission does not want a giant boardwalk or something similar to the Crosstown boardwalk as that would not be responsible Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2022 Page 5 use of tax dollars for a preserve that has a limited number of visitors. He stated that the Commission instead desires something simple that would be low impact and low cost. Commissioner McGowan asked who maintains the trails and land. Chair Kovich noted that this is a nature preserve and not a maintained park and therefore the crossing should fit that character. He stated that the parks staff does maintain the trails within the preserves. DISCUSS POTENTIAL MEETING DATES FOR THIS YEAR Chair Kovich stated that the Commission has attempted to meet four times per year with this being the first meeting of the year. He suggested that the Commission meet on May 41', August 3`d, and October P. He confirmed that the group would like to complete a tour of a preserve prior to each of those meetings. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Gwinn stated that he would like input from the Commission on a unique way for funds to be generated to purchase, or create, additional preserve space without raising taxes. He stated that many residents are concerned that the natural areas in Andover are being lost to development. He presented different ideas that could be used to obtain land set aside for open space or to generate funds through new development, similar to park dedication. Mr. Kytonen stated that he had a conversation with the City Administrator on these concepts. He stated that another option to generate funds for preserves would be through referendum or through the platting process. He stated that donations could also be used to raise funds. He stated that this has been discussed at previous joint meeting with the City Council, although it has most likely been three years since the last discussion. Commissioner Ingebritson stated that during the last workshop with the City Council there was discussion of planning and zoning keeping the Commission more in the loop on development opportunities. Chair Kovich suggested that this item be added to the next agenda for continued discussion. He suggested that Commissioner Gwinn reach out to the City of Blaine to gain more information on how that community has implemented similar funding sources for the preservation of open space. Commissioner Olson commented that there is a lot of traffic moving through FunFest which makes it a good opportunity to speak with residents and promote the preserves. Mr. Kytonen stated that currently this group only manages the four nature preserves. He noted that during the last joint worksession with the Council there was a suggestion that the Commission also manage the passive parks. He provided an example of a passive park which does not have trails, features, or signage. He estimated about 12 passive parks. Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2022 Page 6 Commissioner McGowan commented on the popularity of nature play and stated that the passive park setting would be perfect for those activities. Mr. Kytonen confirmed that they could also add trails or other activities in those areas. He noted that this suggestion is going to be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission at its meeting next week. Commissioner Gwinn commented that the preserves are strictly nature trails and no other features. He asked if the passive parks could be a hybrid concept that could have other elements. Chair Kovich suggested that this be discussed at the next meeting and suggested that more information be provided including locations. Mr. Kytonen stated that the concept is going to be discussed by the Park and Recreation Commission at its meeting and if there is support, it would be brought to this Commission for formal consideration. Commissioner Lindberg commented that he supports the idea and liked the idea of pursuing something like the nature play concept suggested. Commissioner Ingebritson stated that he also supports this idea and would find it helpful for staff to provide a map with the different locations. Mr. Kytonen stated that the passive parks would not have the restrictions that the nature preserves have, therefore more ideas could be explored. Commissioner Olson stated that the mentality of the parks department typically centers around swings, slide, etc. He believed that they would need to differentiate what they would be thinking to ensure everyone is on the same page. Commissioner Gwinn asked if there would be a way of putting some type of restriction to prevent development into a full park in the future. Chair Kovich confirmed consensus of the Commission to pursue management of the passive parks if that becomes an option. Mr. Kytonen advised of a Rare Plant Rescue program offered by the Anoka Conservation District. He explained that there are some rare plants on property that is going to be developed that could possibly be relocated to a nature preserve. Chair Kovich stated that there is apiece of park land adjacent to Martins Meadows nature preserve which would provide a great opportunity for a canoe landing. He noted that type of activity would not be allowed within the preserve, but the park land would not have the same restriction. Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2022 Page 7 Commissioner Lindberg stated that he would support the rare plant program, noting that placing the plants in a nature preserve would provide an opportunity for those plants to thrive. Chair Kovich confirmed the consensus of the Commission to support the rare plant program. He asked staff to provide an update on recent activity in each of the four preserves at the next meeting. Mr. Kytonen advised of the North Suburban Home Show which will take place this weekend, noting that the City will have a natural resources booth. a. Next Meeting. May 4, 2022 Noted. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ingebritson, Second by Commissioner Lindberg, to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Motion passed 6-0 (1 present). Respectfully submitted, Kameron Kytonen Natural Resources Technician Drafted by: Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Update on Status and Features of the Nature Preserves DATE: May 4, 2022 REQUEST City staff will talk about each of the preserves and what management activities have/are occurring in them. The Nature Preserve Commission is requested to provide feedback as needed. Respectfully submitted, Kameron Kytonen 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Promotion Ideas and Opportunities of the Nature Preserves ("Get Outside" Campaign) DATE: May 4, 2022 INTRODUCTION At previous meetings, there has been discussion on the "Get Outside!" proposal as initiated by Commissioner Vedadi. DISCUSSION The four nature preserves have a lot to offer. Despite this, it's relatively unknown how much use from the public they are getting. Thus, maybe there are some additional promotion and publicity mechanisms to generate more appreciation, usage and community involvement. ACTION REQUESTED The Commission is requested to continue to brainstorm how some of these ideas could potentially be acted upon and what progress has been made since the last meeting. Respectfully submitted, ameron Kytonen ANL6 Y O F6 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Discuss Potential Funding Options for Acquiring More Preserves DATE: May 4, 2022 RE UEST Commissioner Gwinn has some ideas of potential ways to acquire land for preservation. His proposal will be shared with the Commission. Respectfully submitted, Kameron Kytonen Attachment Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal 4.24.22 City of Andover Nature Preserve Proposal Written and Submitted By: Jonathan Gwinn For Review by: The Andover Nature Preserve Commission May 4, 2022 Andover's Vision Statement Andover, a safe, growing community in which to live and work which enhances the quality of its citizens' lives through recreational opportunity, quiet neighborhoods, civic involvement, fiscal and environmental stewardship. Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal 4.24.22 Setting the Stage Areas of natural beauty provide residents with many benefits and open space is a significant factor. The Andover 2021 Park Dedication Study suggests that "The Comprehensive Plan identifies open space as a part of the overall park system. Open space is defined as areas set aside for the preservation of natural open spaces to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony. New citizens cite Andover's natural amenities as a reason for moving to the city. As such, an objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect, preserve and enhance the open space character of the city (p. 5)." Furthermore, the Metropolitan Council mentions "They [parks and trails] create opportunities for community members to increase their physical activity, which can improve mental health, decrease obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. (Minnesota Healthy Planning: How -To Guide, page 17)." However, "The majority of residents in both conventional and conservation subdivisions said that a 'nature view from home' of wooded areas was their top priority in a home site, but the view of the woods was largely unavailable in the conventional developments, Rachel Kaplan said." University of Michigan, 2004) Source: https:Hnews.umich.edu/new-market-for-developers-homebuyers-want-view-of- woods-n ot-large-lawns/ The goal of this proposal is to increase access to nature via a variety of methods. Additional nature preserves are just one step of the equation. Andover's Natural Resource Website says "As a growing community with more pressure being put on these resources, it is a challenge to effectively manage our natural resources. Thus, it is critical that appropriate measures are taken to ensure an environmentally sound community including clean lakes, rivers, streams or natural areas containing a diverse array of native grasses, wildflowers, trees, shrubs; and a healthy urban forest for the present and the future." In short, it is imperative that the City of Andover acquires additional land in strategic areas that have high quality natural resources or are a part of a wildlife corridor. Additionally, it is important to note that "The pressure of urbanization and development threatens the most valuable remaining large recreational open spaces in the metropolitan area at the same time as the need for such areas is increased. Immediate action is therefore necessary to provide funds to acquire, preserve, protect and develop regional recreational open space for public use." (Minn. Stat. 473.302) Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal 4.24.22 Proposal to Help Fund Andover Nature Preserves To help grow future Nature Preserves, the City of Andover shall create a fund that would be used ONLY for the use of land acquisition for natural resource preservation. For new residential, commercial and industrial developments, a sliding scale fee system shall be implemented based on the zoning of the area being developed. If new zoning ordinances are established, they shall be required to have a nature preserve fee associated with them at a price aligned with other zoning districts, based on density. Residential Zoning Density (Acres) Cost Per Unit Rural Reserve 1 unit per 10 acres with developable land reserved for future urban development. NOTE: In some cases, it could be 5- acre lot splits. $1,400 RR= Single Family Rural Residential 0.0 to 0.4 units per acre $1,200 URL= Single Family Urban Residential 2.4 to 4 units per acre $1,000 URML= Urban Residential Medium Low 4 to 8 units per acre $800 URM - Urban Residential Medium 8 to 12 units per acre $600 URHL - Urban Residential High Low 12 to 20 units per acre $500 URH - Urban Residential High 20 to 25 units per acre $400 Rural Reserve (when MUSA expands) See above densities Cost decided by density Commercial/Industrial Cost Per Acre All Types of Commercial/Industrial Varies $1,000 Real World Example: • A developer is proposing 500 homes at varying densities 0 400 Homes at URL density 0 100 Homes at URML density • The developer would pay into the Nature Preserve fund at a rate of: o 400 Homes X $1,000 = $400,000 o 100 Homes X $800 = $80,000 0 Total payment = $480,000 Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal 4.24.22 This would allow the City of Andover to acquire additional property to enlarge and create new preserves in areas where most needed, including those ecologically sensitive or underserved by the current preserve network, according to the Oak Grove Open Space Plan trail users. As noted in Figure 1.1 below, the further the trail or preserve is from its users, the less likely the trail or preserve will be used. FIGURE 1.1 — TRAvEiL E ksiANCEs Fop. Twain 3.0 miles 0.75 miles 50% of trail users five within Q 75 mifes of the trail 0.75 miles 7596 of trail users Nw within 3.0 miles ofttm trail 3.0 miles 4 Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal 4.24.22 As land continues to be sold for development, it is crucial that planning and expansion of the preserves in Andover grows. Additionally, as the MUSA boundary expands, the cost of acquiring these properties is becoming more expensive (see Metropolitan Council land acquisition cost figures below). CMM, Eghl F—m Pg "S�Wg- f Fgu 8-1. Assumed Land Costs W Regional Packs Sysrem Acgwsoon.by t WYOPp MO Urban SernM Area (MUSA) [o We rrr�rrrnww e� • w " px.wrw+r.r x.Mnm �. Wr wr �rnw Source: https://metrocouncii.org/Parks/Publications-And-Resources/POLICY- PLANS/2040-REG IONAL-PARKS-POLICY-PLAN-(2020-version)/2040- Region al- Parks-Policy-Plan.aspx Gwinn Nature Preserve Proposal eWZIW*) If nothing is done, we as a community will miss an opportunity to protect many areas from development for the benefit of our residents and wildlife. The preserve system of 160 acres is not adequate in comparison to the nearby city of Blaine which has over 650 acres dedicated to open space. Below is a comparison of Blaine's Open Space Network vs the City of Andover: CITY OF BLAINE OPEN SPACE a.... q v ( 2� � /lam.-� � SA C� '� /J 1..2A • P 5 sm w.• "lr to >a1A 2A n N 3 6 a 6 6 >J �lA f f J �`_\ r B6 lI ` o N NE 05C 98C ' - <2C . DBC @o 4. ��yyLL 9 vJ I Q f� S2C .«..... J—I'— JC 91G90G 48C C" < �g 1 Henn. n.[. z4.11zanwr•N!llw wnl ,r��m•--� •, )iC JaC 2 Lq[[Y Lw^n Opm [ryw ]SW 1l1RILw HFIJOIwnI l.__._� �� �^^�� �•uu �9JC ] Eun.Ne.on4[Opm Ep[[[1]WOl![NIId Xl Il1A[vwl -�— JSC :' [ NNIEen Lm4s V•W.1IKS IO LLINl IL3•[nN '�^ wm L O.M Hvm�•N. 11]M N[OIn Cb X[IE.]•eny 8 FNIne NVll•a.nL4.5ap31A•mq r[!•v1 Nnll 1n2[, LNry[anA- 1IN1n]LE. 1m1F•fn[3[.[ LLak•V•[k lyt A- LNM• NJ, 9J n. ..d— .-..W39 k.Fry W�TE awe .—I![!nl 10 N•n[NxENnlN l�LI aI]M[RI[. Cl.[.eH.Lxy NEll]; •v]I BVV Comparison: • Andover: —160 Acres • If Kelsey Round Lake Park is included, the total acreage is around —310 acres o Size of City: 34.83 Square Miles • Blaine: 789.9 Acres o Size of City: 34 Square Miles o An open space passport for visitors to complete is available I ..p�•��..[•—L1�J USD ! 69C n - a4o Boo i 1 ptI C I T Y O F i g It ND OVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Discuss Tree Ordinance Ideas DATE: May 4, 2022 REQUEST Commissioner Gwinn has some ideas to potentially save more trees in the community. His proposal will be shared with the Commission. Respectfully submitted, g- �7- Kameron Kytonen Attachment Gwinn Tree Proposal Gwinn Tree Proposal 4.8.22 City of Andover Tree Ordinance Proposal Written and Submitted By: Jonathan Gwinn For Review by: The Andover Nature Preserve Commission May 4, 2022 Andover's Vision Statement Andover, a safe, growing community in which to live and work which enhances the quality of its citizens' lives through recreational opportunity, quiet neighborhoods, civic involvement, fiscal and environmental stewardship. Gwinn Tree Proposal 4.8.22 Setting the Stage Trees are an important aspect of communities across our city, state, nation, and world. They help us connect with nature. Interestingly, a study from Yale, as noted below, has shown that American adults spend less time outside and are becoming more disconnected with nature. Therefore, planting trees is more important than ever. American Adults Report Spending Little Time Outside Each Week Over heft W Amerrc &J,.ft reppt speeding S h v fewer mts4e in halve each week Ov threa qu ws spell 10 d beer ho 13% ■- % A0azIS-N=S 50 Mefear ae,wa aMutfloe nwry Mina Oo ypr sperN MatIMnMIfAy Adds r9� N=1.330 $� NahueolMrncwupg Source: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/u-s-study-shows-widening-disconnect-with-nature-and- potential-solutions A study in 2004 by the University of Michigan found that "The majority of residents in both conventional and conservation subdivisions said that a 'nature view from home' of wooded areas was their top priority in a home site, but the view of the woods was largely unavailable in the conventional developments," said Rachel Kaplan. Source: httys://news.umich.edu/new- m a rket-for-d eve lope rs-ho me buyers-wa nt-view-of-wood s-not-I a rge-lawns/ The goal of this proposal is to increase access to nature via a variety of methods. Added tree preservation and tree planting are part of the equation. This is a response to Andover's Natural Resource Website, which says "As a growing community with more pressure being put on these resources, it is a challenge to effectively manage our natural resources. Thus, it is critical that appropriate measures are taken to ensure an environmentally sound community including clean lakes, rivers, streams, or natural areas containing a diverse array of native grasses, wildflowers, trees, shrubs; and a healthy urban forest for the present and the future." I believe being a member of the Nature Preserve Commission is more than just about the four nature preserves in Andover. In actuality, it is about being good stewards of the land in part by protecting the remaining natural resources for generations to come. Gwinn Tree Proposal 4.8.22 Andover City Code Andover's current city code for new developments is as follows "Tree Planting Required: On all lots of record, for new construction it shall be the responsibility of the general contractor, builder or owner to plant in the front yard a minimum of two (2) trees or one tree per fifty feet (50') of lot width as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of four (4) trees. Said trees shall be alive and 1 See also section 9-1-5 of this title and subsections 11-3-30 and 11-4-8A3 and B3 of this code. disease free, planted per city tree planting specifications, at least one and three -fourths inches (13/4") in diameter and six feet (6') in height as measured from ground level after the trees are planted. Said trees shall be properly planted between the months of April and October, and tree species and/or type shall be on the list determined by the city." • In abbreviated terms: ■ 2 Trees minimum for lots (width) less than 50 ft up to 99 ft ■ 3 Trees from 100-149 ft ■ 4 Trees for 150 ft wide lots and above Andover's tree code has not been updated since 2002. Since that time, many cities have added measures to compensate for the loss of trees due to development and other factors. Conversations with City of Maplewood staff members, including Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Carole Gernes, Natural Resources Coordinator, as well as a review of the requirements of other cities such as Maplewood and Blaine, informed the following potential revisions to Andover's tree code. Proposed Andover City Code Andover shall modify the existing tree code to apply to all forms of development including, but not limited to, residential and commercial, as well as existing lots owned by an individual who is making an addition or clearcutting land (for trees that are not diseased). NOTE: This is to prevent owners from cutting trees down before selling to developers (thus avoiding these requirements). The City of Andover has several opportunities for improvement: • Encourage the developer to save more trees by strengthening tree replacement guidelines. This will help the developer save trees by rearranging lots etc. • Require developers to replant trees if they cannot be saved • Currently there is no "penalty" for trees that are cut down Specifications: • One replacement tree per 1 significant tree cut at a rate of up to twelve trees per acre. • In no case, shall there be less than three trees planted per lot (4 trees if lot width is 100 ft or larger and 5 trees if lot is 150 ft or larger). Gwinn Tree Proposal 4.8.22 • The three, four, five minimum will not give credit towards the tree replacement requirements of up to twelve trees per acre or towards the minimum tree requirements. • Buffer trees must be planted in areas that require them. However, any buffer trees planted will give credit towards the replacement tree requirement. • If the developer cannot plant all the required trees on site, the developer shall pay into the Cities nature preserve commission fund at a rate of 600 dollars per tree that cannot be replanted on site. • A woodlot alteration requirement should be enacted for the city of Andover The following scenarios provide insights into the potential impact. Example: In a new development that consisted of 10 lots on 10-acres, 50 trees were cut down. With lot sizes varying between 50 ft and less than 100 ft Plant three trees per lot to establish minimum tree guidelines. In addition, plant an additional 5 trees per acre (10 acres with 5 trees per acre) = 50 replacement trees 10*3= 30 trees to establish minimum tree requirements 30 minimum trees + 50 replacement trees = 80 trees for the development. • NOTE: Any trees that cannot be replanted will be paid into the cities nature preserve fund at a flat rate of 600 dollars per tree. (Any trees less than the 80 trees required) Example: In a new development that consisted of 10 lots on 10-acres, 500 trees were cut down. With lot sizes varying between 50 ft and less than 100 ft • Plant three trees per lot to establish minimum tree guidelines. Since there were 500 trees cut down on 10 acres the replacement amount would go beyond the maximum number of replacement trees required. Hence, 30 acres of overall site area multiplied by the maximum of 12 trees per acre would equal 120 replacement trees. • 10 acres*12 maximum number of replacement trees per acre =120 trees • 3 trees per lot*10 = 30 minimum trees. Total Planting requirements: 150 trees • NOTE: Any trees that cannot be replanted will be paid into the cities tree fund at a flat rate of 600 dollars per tree. (Any trees less than the 150 trees required) 4 Gwinn Tree Proposal 4.8.22 If any "preserved" trees as listed on the tree preservation plan did not survive construction than they shall be replanted at 2 trees per impacted tree. If these trees cannot be replaced on site, the developer must pay 1200 (600 x 2) dollars per impacted tree to the city's nature preserve commission fund. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RM N.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Discuss Nature Preserve Commission Involvement in Passive Parks DATE: May 4, 2022 INTRODUCTION This item is to consider the involvement of the Andover Nature Preserve Commission (NPC) in the passive parks. DISCUSSION At a previous City Council workshop, use and maintenance of the nature preserves and passive parks were discussed. There was a suggestion to get the NPC involved with evaluating passive parks and providing recommendations on management and upkeep of these areas. This could potentially include thoughts on vegetation management, trails, signage and grants to improve these areas and allow for greater use and enjoyment for residents. The NPC currently provides recommendations and direction on the four nature preserves, but not parks. ACTION REQUIRED The Nature Preserve Commission is requested to give their input on considering involvement in passive parks. Respectfully submitted, Yameron Kytonen Y 0 F OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755.5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Andover Nature Preserve Commission FROM: Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Potential Crossing at Dalske Woodlands DATE: May 4, 2022 Dalske Woodlands Preserve is currently separated by a wetland area that encompasses a county ditch. This prevents users from being able to safely cross into the other upland area, which is situated on the southern half. DISCUSSION To foster full access, it would be ideal to have a crossing to the southern half. Due to current high standards the boardwalk is expected to be built, finding the funding to make this happen is a challenge. Staff applied for a grant through the DNR Outdoor Recreation grant program. The application was due in late March of 2022. The boardwalk has been inserted into the 2026 CIP. Thus, there are plans to hopefully build a boardwalk or similar crossing in the future, regardless of being awarded a grant. Finally, the City hired a consultant to do a study and help with design standards based on the site conditions. That report is completed and staff and the Nature Preserve Commission Chair met with the City Council at the workshop on April 26 to discuss the potential crossing. ACTION REQUESTED The Commission is requested to discuss the status of the potential future crossing at Dalske Woodlands Preserve. Respectfully submitted, Kameron Kytonen