Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/30/2003 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 1 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE: July 30, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:40 P.M. TIME ENDED: 11:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, and Mary Jo O’Dea MEMBERS ABSENT: Amy Donlin, Patrice Toler Halen, and Nikki Schneider STAFF PRESENT: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 25, 2003 Page 2, third paragraph: “Asleson stated that the City wanted to begin the document review process and introduced Jim Jacques from TKDA. Jim Jacques was present to answer questions and listen to comments.” Page 2, fourth paragraph: “Mr. Jacques responded that it could be more specific with commercial users or more generic to educate the citizenry.” Page 3, third paragraph: “She had witnessed in other cities it entering the storm sewer system as a regular practice.” Page 6, first paragraph: “O’Dea asked if there were any Amur Maple trees on site.” Page 6, thirteenth paragraph: “Chair Kukonen referred to the number of stalls being 492, and suggested they could make some of the parking pervious.” Page 7, fourteenth paragraph: “Chair Kukonen suggested that they strictly follow the City requirements on lighting.” Page 13, fourth paragraph: “Asleson responded that letters were going to be sent out because grass clippings and deposited materials were found next to the sign.” O’Dea moved to approve the June 25, 2003 meeting minutes. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. July 9, 2003 Page 5, fifth paragraph: “Chair Kukonen noted he saw the site as an affected resident would.” Page 8, seventh paragraph: “Asleson stated that even if they were not used, that they had to be listed.” ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 2 APPROVED MINUTES O’Connell moved to approve the July 9, 2003 meeting minutes. O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Discuss grant proposals in 7C. • Discuss Apollo Center in 5A and EAW in 5B. 4.OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 5.ACTION ITEMS A.EAW Review, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 This item was discussed later in the meeting. B.Apollo Center, Woodstone Builders Inc. Asleson reviewed the background and analysis. Charlie Skarphol from Woodstone Builders was present to answer questions. He indicated they were seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the Precision Tune. Chair Kukonen questioned plans for the retention of surface water on site. Mr. Skarphol stated that from the stormwater calculation they needed four catch basins and a storm sewer. Asleson inquired about the direction and location of the flow from the storm sewer. Mr. Skarphol answered it would go to the Southwest. Asleson asked if there was any discussion of routing to the Northwest. They would go into ponds with considerable separation. He noted there were no trees on site. Mr. Skarphol indicated there were several pines along Lilac Street. Asleson stated they were not identified in the plan. He indicated that he received the tree preservation plan tonight. He informed the Board that the site had been clear-cut in the past. Chair Kukonen noted the parking requirements were exceeded by one, and asked for a reduction. He also inquired if a restaurant was a possibility on site. Mr. Skarphol responded that there was considerable discussion about a coffee shop, a jewelry store, and a hair and tanning salon. Asleson questioned if the parking could be reduced by one if it was a restaurant. Mr. Skarphol answered that he could reduce the number. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 3 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Kukonen inquired how it could be known if the lighting exceeded the City standards, if there was no information on lighting fixtures provided. Mr. Skarphol responded that it was a standard box-type fixture. Asleson referred to p. 5 in his packet with no glass, or protrusion below the box. Chair Kukonen added shoebox style, no spill, and downward focused was the standard for the City, and offered to give him a copy of the information on the ordinance. Grundhofer questioned if there was a landscape plan included. Asleson answered there was a plan included, and all the plants were appropriate. He apologized it was excluded from the packet. He reviewed the species and recommended oaks be included. The red chokecherries had suckers and could eventually look bad. He inquired if there were islands. Mr. Skarphol responded there were islands that were fully irrigated. O’Dea inquired about a catch basin for the Precision Tune. Mr. Skarphol assured the Board there would be one located in the facility itself, and that the building would be concrete block with a sprinkler system. O’Connell questioned if there would be any signs or monuments. Mr. Skarphol indicated there would be a monument near the entrance. O’Connell inquired if they would be lighted. Mr. Skarphol responded they would, if permitted under the ordinance, but assured that it would be on a time clock. O’Connell asked if there would be any outside storage. Mr. Skarphol stated there would be no items stored outside, that all cars would be stored inside according to their lease. He indicated Precision Tune worked on engines, drive train, and the like, but no tires would be stored. Asleson inquired if oil would be sold on site. He questioned if there would oil collection for recycling on site and if it could be open to the public. He stated that Target might be willing to help pay for recycling. Mr. Skarphol stated he would check on it. Chair Kukonen stated there should be few residents affected by the development, but to make sure added buffering was recommended in the Northeast. Asleson added that glare could be reduced with more trees. Chair Kukonen inquired if the site would actually be 50% impervious. Grundhofer stated the square footage was just the building, and the parking lot was not mentioned. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 4 APPROVED MINUTES Asleson stated the numbers needed to be verified. Mr. Skarphol recalled the total impervious allowed was 75%. Asleson stated he was probably over the maximum. Mr. Skarphol assured the Board he would verify the numbers were within the requirements. Grundhofer made a motion to recommended approval with the following recommendations: • Address the surface water movement. • Work with City staff on vegetation and buffering, including more oak. • Reduce the parking stalls to the City limit and include pervious parking. • Verify the pervious and impervious percentages. • Ensure adherence to lighting standard. • Inquire about oil recycling possibilities for the public. • Add Tree Preservation Plan to the Grading Plan. O’Dea seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B.EAW Review, Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 Asleson stated that buffering and surface treatment were recommendations regardless of the position of the Board on the plan. The charge was to ensure the worksheet was complete and accurate to be passed on to Council. The City needed to have it available to the public. After the Council’s approval, it would go to various agencies for the 30-day comment period. Jeff Melby, a resident at 6685 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated the City was the RGU, and then it would go to the Environmental Quality Board. When reviewed there, it might be seen as an endorsement by the City. Asleson stated the questions needed to be addressed, and added that significant suggestions had already been made. Sandy Seebold, a resident at 6668 Ruffed Grouse Road, requested the EAW. She expressed the need for the neighbors to have a chance to comment on the impact the development would have on their neighborhood. Asleson stated that typically a news release would occur. Ms. Seebold reiterated that because it would greatly impact their lives, they need to be able to review the plan. Asleson responded that the Board’s Review tonight ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 5 APPROVED MINUTES was for completeness and accuracy of the document. The Department of Natural Resources would review the environmental impact. O’Dea inquired if comments from the Board go to Council, and was the neighborhood notified before the time those comments were given to Council. O’Connell stated the Board members have had it for two weeks, but that the Board only made recommendations. She referred to the other Boards and indicated that this was not their only opportunity to comment. Ms. Seebold stated that the neighbors and specifically the person requesting the EAW should have a chance to review it before the discussion. Asleson inquired if she spoke to Smyser. Ms. Seebold responded she had, and was assured he would give her a copy when it was available. Council member Carlson stated she did not have a copy of the document. Barbara Bor, of 7707 20th Avenue, indicated the process could be improved upon. The 30-day comment period did not allow for a resident review. Council member Carlson responded that the citizen could obtain a copy. O’Dea inquired if the Board would lose its opportunity to comment if its review was postponed. Asleson stated the review was a chance to comment before the submittal. The worst case scenario would be another special meeting. Council member Carlson noted the August 6, 2003 work session would be the first chance the Council would see it. Citizens would be given an opportunity to comment. Ms. Bor indicated the citizen felt the need to be involved more fully and earlier in the process. Asleson stated the process had been stagnant for a year. Grundhofer referred to a letter from Smyser, indicating the EAW would go to Council at the next work session. After that point, the Board did not usually see the plan again. Chair Kukonen agreed and indicated the Board did not want to miss the opportunity to comment. The Board could request to see it again. The Board indicated it would come back to the item when it was resolved. C.Marshan Lake Industrial Park/Preliminary Plat and Site Review Asleson reviewed the Board commented on the EAW at the special meeting, and recapped the background and analysis. He noted they needed to hire a landscape company to manage it for 3-5 years. He indicated they might want more plantings around the berm and ponding areas, and place buffer trees along Lake Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 6 APPROVED MINUTES Grundhofer inquired about the possibility of transplanting the hackberry trees. Asleson answered that they were difficult to transplant. O’Dea referred to P-1 Site Plan, where it indicated there was 24% impervious, but Gretz’s figure was 30% impervious. She asked for a clarification of the discrepancy. Asleson stated that it still met the requirements. O’Dea noted the plan had 130 spaces, and inquired if it could be reduced to the minimum. She also inquired if they would operate 24 hours a day, if so the lights might never be turned off due to three shifts. O’Connell stated she was under the impression it would be closed down part of the time, but that it might include two shifts. Chair Kukonen mentioned he could not find the location of the Lance-leaf violet. Grundhofer indicated the location. Chair Kukonen reviewed the recommendations: • Verify the ponding and infiltration areas due to concerns of groundwater contamination. • Submit the Tree Preservation Plan. • Reduce parking stalls to the minimum. • Verify the percentages pervious and impervious, were the numbers for the building or the entire site. • Work with City staff on native plantings and maintenance plan for 5 years with an appropriate landscape company. • Lights should be turned off when not in use. • Submit a Lighting Plan and fixtures according to the ordinance. • Perform a P8 Phosphorus Model to predict any nutrient loads do not exceed predevelopment levels on surface water leaving the site. Grundhofer asked for more information about the P8 Phosphorus Model. Asleson answered it was a one time computer model that would predict the amounts of rain and water treatment. Although it was theoretical, it was fairly accurate based on engineering principles. If the levels are shown to exceed certain levels, the system should be redesigned. No samples would be taken. Grundhofer moved to approve with Staff and Board recommendations. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B.EAW Review of Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 (Resumed discussion) Grochala stated the goal of the Board for the EAW Review was to publish a document for public review and comment. The Council would publish the EAW and distribute it to the petitioner, the public libraries, and agencies. Everyone ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 7 APPROVED MINUTES would have the same document to review. The comments must be addressed, and the information needed to be accurate. He clarified the two separate processes occurring, the EAW and the Plat Process. Grundhofer stated the citizen petitioned for the EAW so she should receive the right to comment. Grochala indicated that the Board was requesting public comment prior to the public comment period. O’Dea clarified the concern of the petitioner was that if Council published the document it would mean tacit approval. O’Connell inquired if the petitioner waited, what would be the result. Asleson stated the issues and opinions probably would not change. Grochala indicated the project could still be denied, even if there was a decision against requiring an EIS. Ms. Bor stated it would be helpful if the City as the RGU could outline the process for the petitioner. Asleson answered one issue was that the process could be delayed by the developer, so there could be a huge timeline. Ms. Bor mentioned some agencies would not comment if there were no specific plans. If Rice Creek Watershed District indicated there were no environmental concerns, it would have an impact on the perception. Grundhofer referred to p.2, #6, and mentioned it was not in accordance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The answer occurred later in the EAW, but she was not satisfied with the response. • The project falls within the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Chair Kukonen indicated the project purpose should be explained further on p. 3,c. Asleson responded the question referred to the standpoint of the developer. There was no need to explain further because it was not a governmental unit. Chair Kukonen noted only the Bridge permit had been approved. O’Dea inquired about the expired Land Development Plan Permit. Grochala explained that they have to reapply to Rice Creek Watershed District. Ms. Seebold mentioned the Comprehensive Plan had several amendments to accommodate a certain builder for exemption and would apply to Birch Street as well. Grochala stated the area addressed low density residential, but the reference was for the moratorium, and not the Comprehensive Plan. Essentially they would be able to go forth during the moratorium with the process. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Melby indicated that at the end of their cul-de-sac several trees would be removed and fill would be stored there. He asked if it could be in the description. Asleson noted the reference was #10. Grochala noted on p. 12 item 16 there was a reference to fill. Chair Kukonen responded that it should be indicated in #6 under the description to alter the environment. Chair Kukonen admitted he had problems deciphering the numbers. Grochala stated the total never changes, and it all should equal out in the end. Chair Kukonen inquired about the second part of the question, and asked for an explanation. Grochala indicated there would be instances where they might not be equal, possibly placing fill near a lake to increase acreage. O’Dea questioned whether each subsection be explained. On p.6, first paragraph, third line, she indicated that cutting down trees could not be the only impact. There was also bridge construction and all the environmental impacts on land and water, and impacts on adjacent residents. O’Connell stated the first impact would be the bridge construction. Grochala clarified the document should address the impact, with scaring away wildlife, then subsequent actions with increasing impact. Asleson added that later in the document, they discuss pervious areas and public easements. The human impact should also be addressed. Grochala stated the bridge construction would affect amphibians, but questioned if the impact would be all inclusive, or an immediate impact. Asleson indicated there would be a loss of wildlife corridors and impacts on hydrology. • Descriptions of measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. O’Connell asked for an explanation of #16 and #17. Grochala explained it referred to things such as silt fences in the perimeter, areas to stay out of during construction, and easements. • Any immediate impact on wildlife populations would be due to activities such as tree cutting to be performed for the road alignment and home placement, and from activities associated with construction including the bridge and road construction. Grundhofer inquired if there were any Blandings turtles sighted. Asleson answered that they would be documented at the Biologic Survey. Mr. Seebold stated that there were eagle flyways in the Eastern part of the island. It has been a rest stop when the ice breaks. Asleson responded he should call Joan Galli or Steve Kittleson at the DNR. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 9 APPROVED MINUTES Grundhofer inquired about compensation in reference to p.7, “Describe measures to minimize and avoid adverse impacts.” Grochala answered it might apply if it was removing something. Asleson suggested a rare plant inventory. Grundhofer responded it was similar to mitigating a pond, because the plants need certain soils. Asleson indicated that the DNR would not miss requesting a rare plant inventory if its presence was possible. Mr. Melby stated there was inlet control, and the water was higher. The high water mark was under water at the present time. Asleson answered the water did not change that fast. Mr. Melby reiterated that it was backed up. Asleson responded that global development, and the problem was that you could not focus on one project. Mr. Melby inquired how often the study was updated. Asleson stated every ten years. Grochala stated that there were always seasonal fluctuations and unseasonably high, but that it did not affect the high water levels. Chair Kukonen noted that there was usually a change in vegetation. Asleson added that in a transitional area the trees were dying, and the waterline could be seen on the trees. Grochala indicated that there is a wetland around the island. Asleson stated that water volumes were not regulated. Grochala stated the rates were controlled, so they would have to maintain the same levels. The City has enforced the rates. Asleson answered that two years ago the Board pushed the issue and required swales on the South side and ponds, but also to push water toward pervious areas in backyards. Grochala added that it was done with the storm sewer layout and directing the water toward pervious areas. O’Dea indicated in reference to p.8, #12, second paragraph, they should not be beyond the preliminary stages. Grochala responded that they have not gone beyond, the fill was on the upland. There was still a review with the final plans. Ms. Bor mentioned that if no plan was submitted with the EAW, there might be no comment from certain agencies. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 10 APPROVED MINUTES Grundhofer referred to p.9, #12, third paragraph, the fertilizer stated phosphorus, but should nitrogen be included. Asleson answered that nitrogen would reduce biodiversity, but phosphorus was the limiting factor. O’Connell inquired about how well rain gardens work, and was the goal to slow the water movement. Grochala stated the development would not produce more water, but it was concentrated. Asleson indicated it would change the hydrologic cycle. The rates would not be exceeded, but the volumes might be. Grundhofer referred to p. 10, #13 and stated that dewatering 50 million gallons would have an impact. She inquired if it would be necessary to mention again in section 12. Asleson noted it was in the DNR’s area, not for bridge abutments for the sanitary sewer. Grochala indicated it was covered in #12 where it addressed physical changes. Grundhofer inquired where the water would be diverted. Grochala answered that it would go back in right next to it. Grundhofer referred to p.11, #14 The “minimum lot area" was stated as 20,000 square feet, but was it supposed to state 40,000 square feet under the Shoreland Ordinance. • Verify the minimum lot area. • Verify the Zoning requirements. Grochala stated they were seeking a PUD for flexibility from the ordinance. The recommendations had been out for a year. O’Connell indicated that they applied for a PUD but it had not yet been issued. Chair Kukonen inquired if it should be stated that it did not comply with all the zoning requirements. Grochala answered that the Council would decide. It might not be necessary for it to meet the strict Shoreland requirements. • Although the proposed project complies with the lot area and width requirements, it does not meet the setback requirements, because the island is less than 300 feet wide. (p.11, #14, third paragraph) Grundhofer referred to p.12 #16 inquired the extent of the compaction of the soil. Asleson responded the roads and housing pads would be compacted, but everything else would be protected, not disturbing the plants. Chair Kukonen inquired if discharge should also be discussed in p. 12, #17, item P. Grochala answered that the discharge path would go from the pond to the wetlands to Wards Lake. He indicated that The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes all Northeast from the site to Wards Lake and on to George Watch Lake. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 11 APPROVED MINUTES • Clarify the path in p.12, #17 concerning surface water runoff. Grundhofer asked for clarification that the homeowners association would maintain the lift station, and not the City. Grochala stated that they would be required to update, and would need a maintenance agreement. He assured the Board there was not a lot of flow. The largest problems would be if there was a pump failure or backup. Mr. Seebold inquired if a backup occurred, would it happen on the mainland, or on the other side. Would there be a possibility it might backup across the bridge. O’Connell referred to p.13a where it indicated that a backup would be on Ruffed Grouse Road on the island side. Ms. Seebold expressed concern that a backup might go across the wetland. Grochala admitted that if this was approved, the homeowner association usually eventually has the City maintaining it. O’Dea referred to p.14, #19 on the third line under C the word “adsorbent” should be replaced with “absorbent.” Mr. Melby questioned concerning the impacts when the projects were completed, such as construction traffic and the refueling of trucks. • Address construction traffic levels in addition to post development impacts to neighbors. Mr. Seebold inquired about the disposal of the trees, would they be burned. Asleson stated it was typical to chip them first. • p. 15 #24, address the emissions from trucks and the wear and tear on present roads. Grochala stated there was bond money for that purpose. Mr. Melby indicated that 10,000 yards would be 1,000 trucks. • The 10,000 cubic yards should be verified. Mr. Melby requested an evaluation of the noise level in driving the pilings. Chair Kukonen inquired if it described any mitigation measures. Mr. Seebold mentioned that sand transmitted vibrations well. Grochala indicated that they would have to monitor the vibrations. Mr. Melby inquired about the plans for the trees. Asleson stated the only thing they could not do was to bury them on site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 12 APPROVED MINUTES O’Dea referred to p. 17, paragraph 2 and indicated that it did not state the noise level. Asleson answered that it could fluctuate with various soils. He believed that clay shook more than sand. Mr. Seebold inquired if the soils would be able to support house foundations. O’Dea stated that dewatering with a pump generated considerable noise and should be addressed. It did not discuss construction. Mr. Melby stated that the pump generated 70-75 decibels for 24 hours a day. • Mitigation measures need to be described and their effects assessed. Grundhofer inquired if there were any Native American findings in the archeological study. Grochala indicated that if a Phase 1 had been performed with no findings, usually it would be left at that. Asleson indicated that it could go to a Phase 2. Grundhofer questioned if there would be lights at night during construction. Asleson stated he did not believe it would be long term. Mr. Seebold referred to a picture that indicated the bridge would cover their lake view. Asleson responded there were bridge alternatives discussed later. Several Board members acknowledged that a lake was a scenic view and vista. • Scenic views and vistas should be marked “yes” in #25. Grundhofer stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicated the site should be a park with a boardwalk trail, and requested that it should not be changed. Grochala indicated that it had been changed. Chair Kukonen noted the DNR did not support changing the setbacks of the Shoreland policies. Grochala indicated it should address construction traffic impacts on p. 20. Grundhofer expressed concerns on p. 21, sixth paragraph with the implications of its connection with the park. Mr. Seebold added his concern that it would inhibit bird hunting. Asleson stated it probably would be eliminated. Grundhofer inquired if the school still owned land there. Grochala answered it did, but that the land would probably go residential. It was a possible site for the new elementary, but after the soil testing, the district chose the Northern site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 13 APPROVED MINUTES • Address the possible impacts on eagles and the regional park. The Board discussed the donation of land for trail development. Asleson inquired if the trail still existed along Birch Street. Ms. Seebold responded there was no longer a trail. Grochala questioned the existence of the boardwalk. Ms. Seebold answered the boardwalk was also gone. Grundhofer requested that water gardens be mandatory (#31). Asleson held unresolved questions about the exact location of the roads. Grundhofer addressed p. 23, #31, that signage should be used. Grochala stated there were standard signs that could be obtained. Asleson stated that letters could be sent out that indicate do not deposit materials, and undo what you have done. Mr. Seebold expressed concerns with lighting on the island. O’Dea made a motion to pass on comments and recommendations. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6.DISCUSSION ITEMS 7.OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS A.Forestry This item was tabled to the August 27, 2003 meeting. B.Solid Waste Recycling/Recycling Day This item was tabled to the August 27, 2003 meeting. C.Environmental/Heron Issues This item was tabled to the August 27, 2003 meeting. 8.ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on August 27, 2003. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJULY 30, 2003 14 APPROVED MINUTES There being no further business, O’Dea moved to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.