07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 trees," but the City had zoned it for commercial. The total volume of runoff leaving the site would increase. Staff indicated it would be difficult to separate out and measure the future potential impacts and its contribution to global impacts. Chair Lanyon stated his concern was the precedent the City was setting with those statements. Grochala responded that the City had only one commercial district zoned, but acknowledged the necessity for word usage to inhibit ambiguity on subsequent projects that would come before the City. Chair Lanyon noted the rate was not going to change, but the volumes could be accepted for the specific project, then inquired about comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Grochala explained the comments of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources were similar to the Watershed District. Grundhofer asked if they were planning to remove the soil and replace it. Grochala answered that with peat soils, they would excavate and fill with more suitable soil. O'Connell stated on p.10 section 20011.18 at the top right there was a map showing the boring locations. Grochala noted that it must be worth it to Target. A discussion followed on the parking lot ratios versus a parking ramp. .. Fy Kukonen noted 1,747 parking spaces in the plan, and inquired'ifthey lost any. Grochala stated he did not recall the exact number, but it was,. reduced. Grundhofer asked where the soil would go' after wit was removed, and had concerns about compression of the soil. Asleson indicated it was`'addressed in the discussion of infiltration areas. =' Kukonen reviewed the comment fron#5the Minnesota Depaitwent of Natural Resources concerning parking in the southeast where Wetland A was located. Grochala stated that they had brought the numb&of parking spaces down to the minimum the City would allow. Chair Lanyon questioned comments by the Minnesota Department of Transportation on page 4 concerning the Chain of Lakes Park, which was not adjacent, but across the highway.:;Grochala answered that they look for rate control of runoff onto the highway. .•�.. 1. Chair Lanyon noted;that it was another example of a statement made which could be precedent setting. Grochala responded the sentence on top of p. 5 should be eliminated. O'Connell indicated that there was a comment that there would be a loss of bird habitat, but there was no mention of deer. She noted there were many deer in the area, and it would increase accidents with cars. 3