My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/05/2022 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2022
>
10/05/2022 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2023 12:37:28 PM
Creation date
3/16/2023 12:36:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/2022
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Environmental Board <br />October 5, 2022 <br />Page 5 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if staff could provide info on salt used for water softeners in a <br />future newsletter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Harwood noted that the MPCA had resources on this topic available on their <br />website. <br /> <br /> Mr. Grochala added that the city will be providing more information on chloride <br />use reduction in the future as part of the city’s MS4 storm water requirements. <br />He also detailed additional measures that city staff were undertaking to reduce <br />salt use. <br /> <br /> Ms. Cavegn stated that soil contamination seemed likely being that the site has <br />been a sod farm for a long time. She asked for clarification about the results of <br />the soil testing and if it was sufficient given the site’s history. <br /> <br /> Ms. Harwood responded that a Phase 1 site assessment had been completed, then <br />detailed what was included in this type of assessment. <br /> <br /> Ian Peterson, the developer, provided details on the soil testing that had been <br />performed on the site for a Phase 2 site assessment. He stated that there were <br />areas of concern identified related to a helicopter crash in 2016, and around the <br />storage buildings. Soils in these areas would likely have to be disposed of offsite. <br /> <br /> Ms. Cavegn asked for the density of samples taken per area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peterson responded that he didn’t have a number of samples taken on hand, <br />but noted that sampling crews were on site on four occasions, sampling for two <br />or three days at a time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Parsons commented positively on the thoroughness of the EAW. He stated <br />that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was a good tool for gauging potential future <br />conditions, such as traffic levels, but asked if there was information that could be <br />provided to the public now to give a more short-range/immediate future <br />assessment of traffic impacts. <br /> <br /> Mr. Grochala responded that the current traffic study performed for the site was <br />robust and included analysis of a projection to 2025 and a projection to 2040. <br />These projections included impacts related to the proposed development, and to <br />expected background traffic from the surrounding area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan opened the discussion to members of the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Grochala stated that there will be additional opportunities for public <br />comment should the project move forward. <br /> <br /> Randy Rennaker, resident at 379 Carl Street in Lino Lakes, asked the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.