07/18/2001 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 18, 2001 Kukonen suggested the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could be changed. He agreed with option #3 with the addition of until the Watershed District responded: Asleson noted that in a wetland mitigation, the second site needed to have an equal or better quality than the original. Trehus stated the City did not have a policy on Tax Abatement and so they were having a hearing on it. He suggested that runoff was similar and they should also have a hearing. Asleson answered that the headwaters were under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The effects of the runoff on the ecological systems on site could be predicted, but the project's effect globally was more difficult to quantify. Trehus noted the Watershed District had to table the decision because the developer did not provide the required information. Chair Lanyon responded that the Watershed District would treat the runoff issue similarly, but more carefully. Trehus pointed out the Watershed District was in the process of increasing their standards. The lakes are public property, but the public was receiving no compensation for that. Trehus advised that the Watershed District had a list of thirteen points they had not provided information for. They said that the Watershed District could not provide the analysis due to lack of funds, but urged the City to ask for it. ,With the statement from the Metropolitan Council, they urged the City to consider that an analysis Must be done before a decision. Asleson noted that there would be 13 -acre ft additional water volume/year added to the lake. The rate may stay the same, but the volume would hot Chair Lanyon stated that the impact of water volume of one project was measurably;insignificant because it was not a project by project issue. If a study would;be"doi °e, the elevation would not change significantly. Asleson indicated a build out of thewhole town would be necessary. Chair Lanyon reiterated that because the issue was not on a project by project basis, the numbers probably would not be significant. Trehus posed the questionwhy' would the Watershed District recommend requesting it, and the Metropolitan Council would require it before a determination could be made. He noted the City was willing to have a hearing on Tax Abatement, why not a Surface Water Management Plan also:`` The City could put the policies in place, and then address the development. He notedthat the comment made by Kukonen echoes that of Metropolitan Council. Trehus submitted option #3 with the addition of calling for an analysis of the runoff impacts, an evaluation of surface water, and that the results and comments come back the Environmental Board for comments. The motion passed 3-2, with Chair Lanyon and O'Connell voting against. 7