Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 9, 2003 <br />4 APPROVED MINUTES <br />Asleson mentioned he requested Mr. Huvseth to fax some comments over even if <br />the report would not be ready. Mr. Moberg added that by publication, it would be <br />included because it was a part of the process. <br />Chair Kukonen referred to page 13 under Water Quality #17, last paragraph the <br />phrase following the development of proposed site. He inquired how could it be <br />determined if Marshan Lake was exceeding daily loads. Mr. Moberg answered <br />that it could be analyzed predevelopment, but “wait and see” if Rice Creek or the <br />DNR would request them to do analysis. They would then have to respond. <br />Chair Kukonen inquired if it would have to be completed during the 30-day <br />period. Mr. Moberg responded that all comments needed to be adequately <br />addressed, then the City had unlimited time to respond. <br />Mr. Hiniker stated the response would be “we agree,” “we disagree,” or “we <br />agree but address these items before permits are issued.” Asleson added that <br />because the City was the LGU it could request further studies. He mentioned that <br />Marshan Lake was a filtration wetland and not a recreational lake. <br />Mr. Moberg indicated the goal was water quality protection, and the two aspects <br />of protecting all the water, or a major one downstream. His focus was to look at <br />the whole chain. <br />Mr. Hiniker clarified the 30-day comment and EIS requirement. There was five <br />days for the City to respond after the 30-day review period had expired, but could <br />be extended. This was to protect the developer legally. <br />Asleson stated the environmental threshold would never be exceeded, because it <br />was physically impossible to get a reading on them. The phosphorus had been <br />exceeded for 1,000 years and the deepest secchi disk readings ranged from 1.5-2 <br />feet. <br />O’Dea inquired if a subsequent assessment had been done in reference to page 18, <br />#25. Mr. Moberg indicated that they were waiting for feedback from a <br />preliminary assessment. <br />Chair Kukonen asked for comments on page 19, #26 referring to improve <br />landscaping. Mr. Hiniker answered that it was subjective, but visually <br />determined. He requested assistance with the wording. <br />Asleson suggested it could state “the site will go to light industrial vision.” Mr. <br />Moberg indicated that if the preferred vision was latent farmland, any cultivated <br />landscaping would be not an improvement.