05-28-24 CC Reg Mtg Agenda PacketFrom: Swami Palanisami <swami.engineer@palanisami.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 S:00 PM
To: Marie Darling
Subject: RE: Ailerus bank waterford center
Good Afternoon, Marie.
Two concerns as adjoining mall owner.
1. Planning commission has already approved less parking stalls than existing. More space is added to the
building. The future customers and staff may end up parking in the malt lot.
2. The New owner "Boat exhibit and sale" had sent a request to the mall owner that they would like to not to
participate in the common driveway maintenance expense.
This may not be the responsibility of The city. It is in the PUD documentt.
Swakml Pa/aviisaml, FE.
dPALANISAMI az ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
SINCE 1986
5661 International Parkway ® Minneapolis, MN 55428
P: 763.533.9403 a D: 763.504.5262 P C: 612.865.8621
swami.engineer(a)palanisami.com w www.palanisami.com
From: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Swami Palanisami <swami.engineer@palanisami.com>
Subject: RE: Allerus bank waterford center
The site currently has 86 parking spaces and they are required to have 79 based on the size of the building.
With the changes to the site, they are proposing to provide 43 parking stalls, not counting the boat display spaces.
They have provided documentation that they only need about 27 spaces, so they are requesting PUD approval to
provide 43 spaces. I am generally supporting of this as long as:
1. Any boats being serviced on the property must be stored in the display spaces on the south side of the site.
No vehicles waiting for service may be stored on the site longer than 48 hours.
2. Any parking shortages must be accommodated by reducing the number of display spaces.
Hope that information is helpfut. The packet is available and you can read it at your convenience for more detail
on the development. Link: Agenda 05L07/2024�shQrawoodmn.90Y)
Let me know if you have any other questions or would like to submit written comments.
City of MARIE DARLING
n Planning Director
Vod City Hall: 952.960.7900
5755 Country Club Road Direct: 952.960.7912
Mari,e Dar in & E
From: Jennifer Labadie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Marc Nevinski; Marie Darling
Subject: Fwd: PUD Amendment for Marine Sales & Display 19765 State Hwy 7
Sent from my i Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe <pakrfan@gmaii.com>
Date: May 28, 2024 at 2:19:40 PM CDT
To: Jennifer Labadie <JLabadie@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Cc: ICE Joe <pakrfan@gmail.com>
Subject: PUD Amendment for Marine Sales & Display 19765 State Hwy 7
Joseph J. Huber
19762 Waterford Ct.
Shorewood, MN 55331
952-452-0105
Dear Mayor Labadie,
First of all, thankyou so much for dedicating your time to help make Shorewood a great
place to Live.
I am writing regardingthe proposed PUD Amendment for Marine Sales & Display at 19765
State Hwy 7.
We reside within the 750 foot radius of the boundaries of this property.
I am writing to express support for the original Findings/Recommendation of Marie Darting,
Shorewood Planning
Director presented to the Shorewood Planning Commission on May 7, 2024.
Thank you and Best Regards,
Joe Huber
SERVING THE
COMMUNIZES M:
MINN ONKA
C?IANHAsseA.
1 ph?T'79 to 1':
L�crlslnu
S1 toarxuon
R,tit.'.a IN
1 u ?cneir.
1�5 x�(rt.aV1�
Marie Darling
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood MN 55331
May 23, 2024
61�
Minnetonka Public Schools
5621 County Road 101
Minnetonka, h1N 55345
(952)401-5000
(452) 401 5032 fax
MAY 2.� 2024
CITY OF O•#
Re: Minnetonka ISD 276 Comments On MN Inboard Proposed
Changes To Alerus Bank Building and Site
Minnetonka Independent School District 276 has the following
conditions regarding the proposed changes to the Alerus Bank
Building and Site by MN Inboard:
1. We do not want a new driveway connection to be constructed
between the front driveways
2. We want all of our curbing to remain intact on the southwest
corner of the parcel
3. All current access to parking lots on the sites that the District is
entitled to according to the covenants of the parcels remain in
place
Paul Bourgeois, CPA
School Board Deputy _
Minnetonka Independent School District 276
7.4 RECEIVED
To: Shorewood Council Members
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
I became aware last Wednesday afternoon of the City staff is proposing, to have
an after the work was done. for the City of Shorewood accepting a parcel
allowance of Arbor Vidis and fence left into the Howards Pt Rd (HPR) Right of
Way.
My concern is the safety of our Shorewood residence that use the HPR for walking
with their children and dogs, let alone those who drive up onto the point. There
are two issues, 15t is there an Ordinances as to type of what can be planted in the
HPR Right of Way. What is being proposed is accepting the current Arbor Vidis 5'
tall, that the ordinance upon approval would not have allowed, because there ias
a three-foot maximum height restriction. As we all know trees including Arbor
Vidis not only grow upwards, they also grow outwards, that will reduce the site
line even greater as the years past.
What I find insulting is because a city staff member did not understand what he
needed to review as to the requirement for the personal property improvements,
must be with in his property.
What are the reasons for letting one property owner to violate existing
ordinances, of no planting un the ROW with trees height in excess 3', that was not
approved before the work was done.
• Is the city going to rewrite the ROW ordinance immediately? Or is the issue
5300 Howards Pt Rd going to be handled differently than other ordinances
violated by other residence in Shorewood?
• Why did the city staff try to cover up the error of reviewing the trees and
the fence installed.as to not being in compliance. It would have gone
unnoticed had it not been for myself. Making three separate attempts to
share with the city staff as to the mistake. The 3rd attempt I had the
assistance of Turbine Guy making a short private you video, showing how
much was in the right away, when the staff did finally recognize of the
flagrant violations. Flagrant because of the 70' of site line loss from the
West side edge of HPR blacktop surface.
• Why does the city staff feel that the Shorewood residence and its family
members be restricted level of vision and safety when traveling this section
of HPR. For what? To save the land owners cost to bring all the trees and
fence into compliance. With the current city staff assembling an
agreement, gives the property owner trees and fence on the HPR ROW in
question, leniency, with requesting the council to approve the illegal
change done with in the City if Shorewood Howards Pt Rd Right of Way.
Does this set a precedent for future residence that choose to not follow
ordinances?
• With the city staff producing an agreement, hoping to get city council
acceptance? Is this a hard ship as to the property owner, where the fence
and this type of Arbor Vidis most likely not have been improved? If it was to
be approved, would it have been approved with the Arbor Vidis Evergreen
trees current height of 5', that can grow in excess of 16' in height, with
width of the Arbor Vidis far greater than what the width is at the time these
trees were planted in 2023. If some reason the city does approve the
agreement, How are these trees that grow upwards yearly be pruned to the
3' max. height by whom on going, every year from here out?
• If the fence and trees does not apply with current statue, why isn't the after
the fact variance be required, so residence could share their points of view
with council as to how this loss of site view of HPR, affects them more than
the property owner, who had the trees and fence installed illegally? At this
time, I have reached out 7 residence, not including myself on the Howards
Pt, North of the subject property. That are most effected, from the illegal
placement of the trees and fence placement in the ROW, it's my opinion
based on what I shared as to the issue, all 7 do plan to send letters to
Mark, since there is no opportunity to share their concerns at the upcoming
Tuesday council meeting.
This issue is dear to me since I take my dog for a walk across this area daily, if not
twice a day when possible. It is difficult for myself to not be as observant as to this
loss of safety, because of this reduction of site line from vehicles primarily
traveling South om HPR. This issue would not be addressed had myself not
brought to the city the illegal work done in November. Its disappointing that the
city did not feel any concern as to what work was done being in compliance.
While inspections are done for new home construction, it is disappointing that
there is no review as to landscaping work done, that affects many individuals on a
day-to-day basis. What adds to the issue is a family residing North of the subject
area has traveled in excess of 40 MPH in their vehicle over this subject area,
which in return magnifies the safety issue, by reducing time to stay clear of the
blacktop road for myself and my dog's protection. Let alone others that walk their
dogs and children over this area.
I have been involved with issues of site line as to safety purpose with other
roadway projects, that I am suggesting the city of Shorewood hire a traffic
engineer, to review his report of the site, if he states the trees have no impact to
site line for traffic and pedestrians safety, that there is no visual site loss for this
inverted section of HPR ROW, where placement of Arbor Vidis are with -in I will
pay for the report. If the engineer report does feel there is hindrance of site view
with in the ROW. That the city will require all trees planted illegally in this area be
replaced with in the subject property. With that said the engineer cost would be
the responsibility of the city and the property owner that has caused this issue.
Other options are to have this portion of NPR redone as to widening the black top
width, to be of 21' wide as what appears to be more in line with the Howards Pt.
Road width. Presently this area is 18' 6" of black top width.
Add a permanent minor speed bump with in the area of visual site line, as well as
the road portion being of 18' width expanded to.212' width.
I appreciate the time in reviewing my letter and what maybe as many as 7 other
Howards Pt property residence North of the subject area, being affected by the
proposed action. With there concerns stating to myself, they will send letters to
the city before noon on Tuesday. Because of what I have shared with each of
them last Thursday and Saturday.
I hope in the future that public safety becomes a priority from city staff over a
property owner abutting ROW. That chooses to not follow the city statue as to
putting trees on the ROW, as well as the type of the trees be of a ground version
of Arbor Vidis a ground clutter with 36" maximum height. That Gary and Ilene
Jarrett the neighbor directly address from the Grevelus property area in question.
It is ny opinion that the dwarf Arbor Vidis are with -in HPR ROW are no taller than
the 46: maximum as the city requires,
As for myself being a residence of Shorewood for 70 years, I truly love the
Shorewood community, I hope that our council not only turns down the city
staff's proposed acceptance letter as it is written,. Requesting further review of
this issue, before subjecting us residence for one family desire image for their
property.
I suggest Shorewood should notify the 2 companies Otten Brothers as to the trees
illegal placed with -in the city ROW and Dakota Fence Co for illegal placement of
the fence in the city ROW. Notify them as to a warning, if they choose to do illegal
placement of trees and fence with -in the City of Shorewood Right of Way in the
future. Will not be permitted to work with -in the city, for what the city feels as to
time frame the company can respect the cities ROW, There should be some form
of penalty, not allowed them to offer their services to the city if Shorewood
residence outside what is illegally allowed,
Respectfully
Jeff Fox
5270 Howards Pt Rd
Marie Darlina � i
From: Jennifer Labadie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:31 AM
To: Marc Nevinski; Marie Darling
Subject: Fwd: Jeff Fox information as to 5300 Howards Pt Rd Trees and Fence infringement
Attachments: image.png; Letter Regarding illegal placement of trees and fence in the ROW.docx
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "jeff emailtogo.net" <jeff@emailtogo.net>
Date: May 27, 2024 at 7:40:16 PM CDT
To: Jennifer Labadie <JLabadie@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Guy Sanschagrin
<gsanschagrin@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Dustin Maddy <DMaddy@ci.shorewood.mn.us>,
Paula Callies <pcallies@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Scott Zerby
<szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Jeff Fox information as to 5300 Howards Pt Rd Trees and Fence infringement
ttps:!/yout ._b_e_/7 TdJ4v8 _kc Produced last December 2023, it clearly shows the You
Tube video of the 5 + Arbor Vidis NORTH of 5300 black top driveway in the Right of Way
This picture was taken on May 27th, with the 2- Galy. tubes from last fall survey markings,
again it clearly shows the 5+ Arbor Vidis NORTH of 5300 black top driveway in the Right of
Way
Above is a you tube video of displaying the amount of Arbor Vidis and Fence in the Howards
Pt Road Right of Way regarding 5300 HPR.
The 3-page letter is what I am submitting from myself.
Questions derived from letter regarding the illegal placement of the Arbor Vidis and Fence.
#1. The only survey identifying markings for 5300 and 5290 are the survey stakes and
painted marking on the road itself, done late last fall survey. If their surveyor was an on -site
in January, as Marc Nevinski stated to me at our meeting last Friday, why wasn't the survey
markings not updated, especially the painted pink marking that happens to be on Howards
Pt Rd. blacktop?
#2. With the errors made by Dakota Fence Co. and Otten Brothers of illegal placement of
Trees and Fence, should it not be marked as to property line it needs to be with in?
#3. With our You Tube video attached, as well as the picture shown above, would it not be
beneficial to have the surveyor to come out, install corner markers and paint new HPR
markings for 5300 Howards Pt Rd, with all trees abutting Howards Pt Rd on the actual
survey? Thats if the city wants to verify of what number of Trees and footage of Fence that
is currently with in the cities right of way?
Thank You for your time
Jeff Fox
5270 Howards Pt Rd
Re: Variance Consideration of Arborvitae and Fence Placement, 5300 Howards Point Road,
Shorewood
It's my understanding that the council is considering granting a variance to the hedge and fence
installed in late 2023 at 5300 Howards Point Road. Due to the placement, height and width of
the hedge, for the following reasons, I feel it is unsafe and the variance should not be granted.
Howards Point Road narrows north of the intersection at Edgewood Road — in addition to
homeowners' vehicle traffic and their visitors, there is regular traffic of landscapers, multiple
construction vehicles, several different waste hauling companies, drivers unfamiliar with the
road who are just driving to see where it goes as well as bicyclists, skateboarders, groups of
people out for a stroll, people walking their dogs and most importantly, people with strollers or
walking with young children. There is no sidewalk for pedestrians, the road is the only choice.
Notably, the section of Howards Point Road in question is not flat, it rises and curves as you
approach the property in question therefore further restricting the sight line. In addition to
regular vehicle and pedestrian traffic, its not unusual for service vehicles (landscapers, home
repair companies, etc.) to be parked along either side of the road. Drive this section of the
road, imagine a parked service vehicle(s), a garbage truck and a car (not to mention a
skateboarder, bicycler or pedestrians) traveling in opposite directions and all meeting at the
rising, curved section of the road. Add the arborvitae which are already taller than allowed as
well as placed too close to the road and the situation becomes a recipe for disaster.
I would ask the council members to consider not only the possible personal and vehicle risks
involved but also the liability created for the city if the variance passes and knowingly ignores
the concerns that have been raised.
This is a situation that can be remedied by removing or relocating the hedge and I think that
safety outweighs any other concerns.
Sincerely,
Richard Meehan
5265 Howard's Point Road
Shorewood, MN
Rmeehan1951mail.com
612-741-8763
DarlingMarie !
From:
Jennifer Labadie
Sent:
Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:31 AM
To:
Marc Nevinski; Marie Darling
Subject:
Fwd: 5300 Howards Point Road
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy Zander <nancyzander@hotmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2024 at 10:32:54 PM CDT
To: Jennifer Labadie <JLabadie@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: 5300 Howards Point Road
Hi Jennifer,
I've been in touch with Jeff Fox about the Right of Way issue at 5300 Howards Point Road.
Live at 5215 Howards Point Road, north of the property of concern. I agree that it is a safety
issue having 5-6 foot tall arborvitaes in the right of way. The fence and arborvitae make it
quite difficult for a car to see a pedestrian in the road coming around the curve, and for
pedestrians to seethe car coming. In the video made by Jeff and the Turbine Guy, you can
see that the arborvitae Jeff is standing next to is taller than Jeff already. The bushes are
only going to get taller and wider. If the city ordinance states that the bushes should be no
taller than 3 feet high, and not in the right of way, then I feel it should be enforced. The rule
was put into place for a reason. This is a particularly nasty spot for a violation of this, given
the hilt and curve at that location. Please keep our neighbors safe and have the property
owner fix this issue.
Nancy and Paul Zander
Sent from my iPhone
and Nevinski 740
From: Jennifer Labadie
Sent Tuesday, May 28, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Marc Nevinski
Subject Fwd: 5300 Howards Point Rd
From: Tara Wander <tarawander@gmail.com>
Date: May 28,2024 at 12:56:24 PM CDT
- a • - ELM
no Ini T.Sis - is •
what the City rules and regulations are for setbacks and easements in this situation, but I
request the rules be followed correctly on this matter to appease all parties Involved. I
believe any existing home improvements should be held equally responsible as a new
construction
Thank you for your time,
93ME90 M.
crowd out or restrict light to more desirable plants, or use limited nutrients from the soil.
They can harbor and spread plant pathogens that infect and degrade the quality of crop
or horticultural plants. Some weeds are a nuisance because they have thorns or prickles,
some have chemicals cause skin irritation# poison ivy) or - hazardous if eaten,
or have parts that come off and attach to fur or clothes.
Appendix B: No Pesticide Zones
Due to the nature of their use and/or their users, some parkland areas have been
designated "No Pesticide" zones. The following setbacks for pesticide applications will
apply to all MPRB parklands*:
o Playgrounds and Exercise Stations: No pesticides will be applied within 25 feet
of playgrounds.
o Dog Parks: No pesticides will be applied within 25 feet of the outside perimeter of
the Dog Park.
o Picnic Areas: No pesticides will be applied within 25 feet of picnic facilities.
o Community Gardens: No pesticides will be applied inside the gardens or within 25
feet of the outside perimeter of Community Garden sites.
o Outdoor Swimming Pools, Wading Pools, and Water Parks: No landscape
pesticides will be applied within 100 feet of these types of water features during
the season when it is open to the public.
Exceptions may be made for applications to control invasive species in
natural areas within the 100-foot buffer at Webber Pool. Necessary
applications shall be made with low -drift methods during off-peak pool use
hours.
o Stormwater Catch Basins and Inlets: No pesticides will be applied within 5 feet of
any catch basin or inlet that leads to the piped Stormwater system.
*Staff may authorize the application of a pesticide in a No Pesticide Zone when there is
a threat to public health or safety (e.g., a population of aggressive stinging insects,
mosquitoes, poison oak, etc.), a presence of a noxious weed that requires control, or in
cases where a pest poses a substantial risk to the intended function of the park or an
asset, after reasonable non -pesticide approaches have been considered.
Appendix l
MinneapolisPark and Recreation Board Online Resourcea
The MPRB Board of Commissioners have adopted various resolutions supporting the
advancement and utilization of best practices for an IPM. These include but are not
limited to: Sustainable Parks 4 Sustainability.
Additional online resources available on the MPRB website:
o Pest Management
MINNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD 73 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
MEW
Description: MPRB has playgrounds
throughout the park system located in
both neighborhood and regional parks.
Playgrounds are unique to each site with
their own design, play features, and
landscaping. Playgrounds include both
traditional built play structures and
designated nature play areas.
Goal: To protect the safety of playground
users and promote a positive play
experience. The primary reasons for
vegetation management within the soft
fall surface areas of playgrounds are to preserve the surface's overall safety
characteristics, to comply with ADA and National Playground Safety standards, to
eliminate trip hazards, and to preserve the integrity of the fall surface. Integrated
landscaping is becoming more popular in MPRB playground design. Playground adjacent
plantings provide multiple functions including but not limited to enhanced aesthetics,
screening, and environmental education opportunities.
Threshold: The MPRB has set a threshold of 100% for vegetative weeds in < and
immediately surrounding park playgrounds with an exception for plants that may impact
the safety and access. This includes plants that may inflict pain or discomfort if contacts
by park users such as thorny shrubs, stinging nettle, or burdock. No noxious weeds will
be allowed to persist on any playground fall surface or in adjacent landscape plantings.
Non -vegetative pests such as insects or diseases will be assessed on a case -by -case
basis considering impacts to the health of safety of playground users. Special
considerations will be made for aggressive stinging insects like wasps and hornets. (See
"Aggressive Stinging Insects" section for additional information.)
Action: Playgrounds are established "No Pesticides Zones For this reason, no
registered pesticide products will be used within or immediately adjacent to a playground
as a part of routine maintenance or vegetation management. Controls will be focused on
cultural and mechanical practices such as hand pulling, cutting, or mowing. See
Appendix B for additional information on No Pesticide Zones.
Exemptions will be made for aggressive stinging insects and noxious weeds as defined
by Minnesota's Noxious Weed Law. Aggressive stinging insecticides may be require
chemical controls to ensure the safety of playground users. Noxious weeds listed on the
State of Minnesota's Noxious Weed List must be controlled as per state statute including
pest plants, such as poison ivy. If a noxious weed cannot be controlled with mechanical
control efforts, a chemical control may be deemed necessary to comply with state law.
In the rare case that plant protectants are applied, the treated area will have access
restricted, and signage posted to notify park users.
INNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD 39 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
: MPRB hosts a wide variety of
athletic fields with field types suitable for multiple sports including but not limited to
soccer, baseball, softball, rugby, football, lacrosse, and ultimate frisbee. Community
athletic fields are typically multi -use fields that are not permitted. They are maintained
with significant lower inputs than MPRB premier and semi -premiere athletic facilities and
are typically designed without the infrastructure to support elevated maintenance
practices.
Goal: The MPRB aims to maintain its athletic fields in a manner that provides park users
with a safe and stable site for athletic activities. While maintaining the recreational value
of community athletic fields, the MPRB strives to be environmentally concise in their
practices. Vegetation management is performed for a variety of reasons, focused on
preserving the surface's overall integrity, maintaining ADA compliance, and eliminating
potential tripping hazards.
The intensity of use of these fields combined with a lack of turf recovery time affects the
quality of turf. Currently, due to compaction from overuse, many of our general park
athletic fields have well established populations of non -desired groundcovers including
dandelions, knotweed, plantain, and other weeds.
Description: MPRB staff actively
manages baseball and softball
outfields throughout the park system.
These are the grassy areas beyond the
infields.
Threshold: The MPRB has set <a
threshold of 100% for vegetative weeds
and 20% for bare soil on the outfields of
community athletic fields. No noxious
weeds will be allowed to persist on
fields in accordance to the Minnesota
t INNEAP LIS PARK& RECREATION BOARD 40 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
Action: The care of the outfields on MPRB community fields are focused on cultural
controls. This includes aeration, topdressing, overseeding, and fertilization when deemed
necessary. Irrigation is also an important cultural practice but a limited resource on many
community fields. When thresholds are found to be exceeded despite routine cultural
practices in place, additional mechanical, biological, or chemical controls may be
considered.
All pests will be controlled using the most effective and least toxic methods, available.
Pesticide control methods will utilize the least toxic and most effective formulas
available.
Description: MPRB staff actively
manages baseball and softball infields
throughout the park system. These are
the inner areas of play on ballfields where
the bases are located.
Threshold: For infield turf, the MPRB has
set a threshold of 100% for vegetative
weeds and 20% for bare soil. For in -field
ag-lime surfaces, there will have an
established threshold of 0%. Vegetation
actively growing during times of play
create unsafe conditions for the users,
while also decreasing the playability of the field.
No noxious weeds will be allowed to persist on fields in accordance to the Minnesota
Noxious Weed Law.
Action: Community baseball and softball infields are primary ag-lime surfaces.
Maintaining these surfaces includes routine dragging to level and smooth the playing
surface. This mechanical input along aims in controlling vegetative weeds by disrupting
their ability to root and grow in the ag-lime. Additional non -chemical controls may also
be utilized many include string trimmers, weed burners, or hand pulling.
If chemical controls are deemed necessary to address noxious weeds, pesticide products
will be selected that utilize the least toxic and most effective formulas available.
INNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD 41 INTEGRATED PESO MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
Dog Parks
Description: The MPRB has seven off -
leash dog parks: Franklin Terrace, Lake
of the Isles, Loring Park, Lyndale
Farmstead, Minnehaha, St. Anthony
Parkway, and Victory Prairie. These
areas are clearly posted as dog off -
leash areas, and they are separated
from the rest of the park by a perimeter
fence. Dog parks surfaces are primarily
covered with wood chips or granite
chips in addition to turf and plants
cover.
All dog parks are heavily used throughout the year and providing adequate turf coverage
throughout the year is a maintenance challenge. For dog parks adjacent to water bodies,
the sites must be managed to reduce onsite erosion and water runoff from the site.
Goal: To maintain MPRB dog parks for human and canine park users to enjoy with
considerations for safety, accessibility, and public health.
Threshold: The MPRB has set a threshold range of 100% for, vegetative pests. Weeds
listed on the State of Minnesota's Noxious Weed List must be controlled as per state
statute including pest plants, such as poison ivy. Non -vegetative pests such as insects or
diseases will be assessed on a case -by -case basis considering impacts to the health of
safety of dog park users.
Action: When control measures are deemed necessary, mechanical removal will be the
primary control method. This could include hand pulling, cutting, or mowing. Pesticide
control methods will utilize the least toxic and most effective formulas available when
deemed necessary to control identified noxious weeds or address identified health and
safety issues. If pesticide applications are deemed necessary within public access areas
of the dog park, the park will be required to be closed for a suitable amount of time during
and after the application and signed to notify users at all established public entrance
points.
INNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD 38 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION University of Minnesota Extension
extension.umn.edu
Can common fungi help keep buckthorn in check?
fig samusm
Common buckthorn (RhamnUs coLharticg) and glossy
buckthorn (Fran gpro oln s are both regularly found
yJ
in Minnesota's forests. Many woodland stewards
spend time and resources managing buckthorn by
cutting, pulling, forestry mowing, treating with
herbicide, or using goats.
Effective and lasting buckthorn management usually
takes many years and a combination of treatment
methods to remove these troublesome shrubs and
nurture a forest that is more resistant to future re -
infestation.
Crown rust on a buckthorn leaf.
Photo: Marilynn Miller via
Now imagine a future in which introducing one or Naturalist, licensed under CC BY.
more species of fungi to a site helps control buckthorn, thus helping keep these aggressive and
ecosystem -altering plants in check. Researchers and funders are hoping to make this dream a reality.
With funding from the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pests Center (MlTPPC), two research
teams have launched projects to better understand how native fungi commonly found on buckthorn
may help keep this invasive plant in check.
Pablo Olivera Firpo, a researcher in the University of Minnesota Department of Plant Pathology, and
his team are studying Kh_Lic_htyp_Lofcrownrust infects common _ouckthorn and the fungi's impact on
buckthorn seedlings.
Plant pathology professor Robert Blanchett hopes to identify which fungi are colonizing and killing
buckthorn, which fungi can prevent stump resprouting, what effects these fungi have on other
vegetation, and how best to ap plylocontrol f ungiin!hgjm221Ls.
-t:__
More on these research projects can be found at the IT CC wphc"-. These projects are just getting
started but it's exciting to think there could be another tool to enhance forest resilience.
Putting samples to the test
While cutting and treating buckthorn stumps in his
woodland in October of 2023, Extension forester
Gary Wyatt noticed many smaller buckthorn trees
had died when reaching between 5 to 7 feet tall.
Some of the trees that were still green were very easy
to pull up, which is not typical. "Previously 1 could
only pull up maybe a 1- to 2-foot buckthorn
seedling, not trees over 3 feet tall," he said. He also
noticed white fungus on some of the tree stems and
roots.
Gary had heard of the MITPPC research on fungus
possibly affecting buckthorn growth, so he
contacted UMN plant pathology researcher Ryan
Franke who agreed to take a look at them. He pulled
up a few of the dead trees and brought them to the
University of Minnesota St. Paul campus where Ryan
took four tree samples. After a few days, Ryan
emailed him to report that he found 12 different
Fungibuckthorn
fungi on the buckthorn samples. "I thought that was amazing!" Gary said. "This research is
important. We need to learn more about the fungi that may be affecting buckthorn and make sure
they are not causing a problem with native or desirable trees and plants."
If you think you've found crown rust (Puccinia spp.) on buckthorn leaves or fungi on buckthorn stems
or roots, please submit your observations:
It is always helpful to submit observations using the !Naturalist app, where researchers can also find
and use the data.
More about buckthorn, fungi and woodland stewardship
If you're interested in learning more about the complicated ecosystem interactions of buckthorn and
several other invasive pests, check out the video TangLed EcosyAtem. To dive into the fascinating
world of fungi, I recommend the book n n e Lifer o Fun i e ur orF , n e ur in s
Shgpe urFuurs by Merlin Sheldrake.
Buckthorn management is often a first step for overall woodland stewardship. To learn more about
how to nurture the woods after initial buckthorn removal work check out the great resources
produced by the MITPPC-funded Cover it ! Project.
Funding on the November ballot
The Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) is generated from the Minnesota State
Lottery. Minnesota voters allocated these resources in 1988 "for the public purpose of protection,
conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state's air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources." The fund supports many vital natural resource conservation programs, including
MITPPC. This November Minnesota voters will decide whether to continue funding the ENRTF.
Author: Angela Gupta, Extension forestry educator, iigmpia@mmn.edu
@2024 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal
opportunity educator and employer.
Please scan the above QR code to visit the live webpage for links.
https://extension.0 mn.edu/natu ral-resources- news/can -common -f ungi-help-keep-buckthorn -check
U-
Home > Research > Research projects >
RMIOTUMMM
Effects of Puccinia species complex on common
buckthorn
Postdoctoral associate Jyoti Saini Sharma inspects common buckthorn for crown
rust, photo provided by Pablo Oliver a Firpo
Project information
Research project title.- Effects of Puccini ies complex on
Species: Common • (Rhamnus cathartica); crown rust •
(Puccinia Series coronata spp.)
3EME12M
Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) is a highly invasive plant that is
well -established across Minnesota. It disrupts ecosystems and degrades
wild I ife-supporti ng habitats by outcompeting and displacing native
vegetation. Buckthorn is difficult and costly to eradicate, requiring long-
term commitment from land managers.
Several crown rust fungi (Puccinia Series coronata) have been found to
infect and negatively affect common buckthorn. Building on their prior
research • rusts of glossy buckthorn, this project team will • the
specific crown rust fungi that infect common buckthorn in Minnesota,
determine the symptoms of disease, and document the host range of the
11111 111�111111 111111111 Ir III Ir
ZMEN=-, lim
9 What are the crown rust fungi that infect common buckthorn in
0 . I - 31710=97a
* What are the disease symptoms and severity of the pathogen species-,
* What is the effect of the pathogen on common buckthorn seedlings?
ff*.TC# "I
Researchers will be able to generate the first distribution map of the crown
rust species complex in Minnesota, which will reveal the relative prevalence
11111111; 1111in 11 111111
111 ;j I
fungi is effective in suppressing common buckthorn, it may become,2,
valuable tool for land managers.
Report crown rust on buckthorn
6
Minnesota, you can submit your observations to the .team.
e U researchers hopeful for naturally -occurring end to invasive
I INNEM
* Scientists think a fungus could conquer invasive buckthorn (Star Tribune,
This project began in January 2023 and is in progress for the next 3 years.
•
Pablo D. Olivera Firpo I principal investigator
Shahryar Kianian I researcher
Karl Miller I researcher
•
III
o
'g
'r5.
ON w
0 04
4�
to
VNG,naoi vHmvs io Asumno3
VNa 'N39389 AIIW3 30 AS3"nO3
u
Cd
co
bob Q
_0
Qj
a. 0L3
o
o
—0
-Q 03
o
"41
u
.
0
cs
43 0 Cl
w g
0