Consider Natural Resource Aspects of Site Plan and Plat for AARA Dome (Project No. 22-123); Case of Anoka Ramsey Athletic Association

The City has received an application for a Site Plan, Variance, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat from Anoka Ramsey Athletic Association (the "Applicant") for a proposed new athletic dome and associated improvements.  The proposed project is located at 14622 and 14650 Ferret Street NW (jointly, the "Subject Property").

Project Summary
The Subject Property is approximately 12.9 acres in size and is zoned E-3 Employment District.  The Applicant is proposing to construct a new athletic dome that is approximately 179,200 square feet in size and seventy-eight (78) feet in height.  The dome would include eight (8) rubberized, multipurpose courts and 1.5 turf fields.  The dome is being designed, and will be managed specifically as a practice facility.  Indoor commercial recreation is a permitted use in the E-3 Employment District.  However, building height in this zoning district is limited to sixty-five (65) feet, necessitating the need for the Applicant to seek a variance to height.  The Applicant has also provided an exhibit to show a future phase, which includes two (2) smaller buildings (about 12,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet) and additional parking (approximately eighty [80] additional parking stalls).  However, should that phase materialize, it will be subject to future review.

Natural Resources Inventory
The City's Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) does not identify any native plant communities on the Subject Property.  The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) indicates three (3) land cover types: planted or cultivated vegetation, dry grassland, and urban with vegetative cover.  There do not appear to be any significant natural plant communities on site.

Wetlands and Floodplains
It does not appear that there are any wetlands or floodplains on the Subject Property. 

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan
The submittal does include a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan.  The Subject Property is dominated by invasive tree species, including Siberian Elm and Amur Maple.  Per City Code, in business and industrial developments, projects shall preserve at least thirty percent (30%) of the inches of significant trees on site or be subject to reforestation standards of 1.25 inches of newly planted trees for each one (1) inch removed above the threshold.  There are 865 diameter inches of significant trees on site, with 500 of those inches consisting of invasive species.  Per Staff's recommendation, the Applicant has modified the plan to remove all invasive species (removal of invasive species is excluded from the tree preservation threshold calculation).  The combination of preserved trees and the proposed plantings does comply with the tree preservation standards.

Landscape Plan
The submittal does include a Landscape Plan. The plantings are comprised of a mix of conifers, shade trees, and ornamental trees and meet or exceed the minimum size requirements.  The majority of the Subject Property's pervious area will be finished with sod.  The exceptions being the multiple stormwater basins, which will be finished with native seed mixes.  There are proposed plantings adjacent to the parking areas, and the parking lot islands are proposed to be finished with double shredded hardwood mulch (a much better option than landscape rock in terms of retaining soil moisture and moderating soil temperatures).

Alternatives
Alternative #1:  Motion to recommend approval of the natural resources aspects of this project.  The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan and the Landscape Plan both comply with City Code.  There are no required plan corrections.  Staff supports this alternative, but would be open to any potential modifications should the Environmental Policy Board (EPB) identify any.

Alternative #2:  Motion to not approve these plans and specify exactly what deficiencies were identified by the EPB so the Applicant can make the necessary corrections.  As previously noted, these plans appear to meet and/or exceed the minimum standards in City Code and therefore, Staff does not support this alterative.

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

Motion to recomment approval of the natural resources aspects related to this project.