Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vegetation Pollinator topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances first reading to allow permitted pollinator gardens in Albert Lea
Summary
The council held a first reading July 28 on an amendment to Chapter 46 that would permit intentional, maintained pollinator gardens as exceptions to the city’s 9-inch vegetation rule, with setback, annual cut and permitting conditions; council asked staff to clarify a definition for conservation/scenic easement ahead of second reading.
On July 28 the Albert Lea City Council approved the first reading of an amendment to Chapter 46 (vegetation) that creates an exception to the 9-inch lawn height limit for intentional, permitted pollinator or flower gardens.
Wayne Sorensen, the city’s building and zoning official, explained the changes to the council: the proposed text defines a flower or pollinator garden as an intentional, maintained planting that requires removal of existing turf and establishment of a proper seed bed, and includes exceptions for traditional decorative flower plantings and food-production gardens, which remain exempt. He said a pollinator garden would generally need to be set back at least five feet from property lines or an interior sideline (unless the neighbor also has a pollinator garden or there is a solid fence), and should be cut once annually to a height no greater than 10 inches.
Sorensen also said a permit would be required, to be issued by public works or parks staff, and that a small identifying sign would be required so neighbors know the planting is a permitted pollinator garden. He said most existing flower gardens will be grandfathered in; only the most egregious nonconformities would be removed.
Councilor (speaker) moved to amend the motion to add a definition for conservation or scenic easement areas in item 10; the amendment was seconded and approved. The council carried the first-reading motion and asked staff to return with clarified language on item 10 for the second reading.
The changes were described as responsive to state appellate and statutory guidance supporting pollinator plantings and intended to balance residents’ property concerns with conservation goals.
