Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGSEPTEMBER 10, 2003 <br />4APPROVED MINUTES <br />Lake shoreline. Mr. Moberg added it would need to be under 70% for the whole <br />site. <br />O’Dea inquired if the street coming in would be the only outlet from the site. <br />Donlin mentioned it could change considerably. <br />Grochala stated the EAW was not meant to be very detailed. <br />Grochala referred to the WATER QUALITY IMPACTS section and stated it <br />should be added, in the first paragraph Rice Creek Watershed District, the City of <br />Lino Lakes, and MNDOT all required that the post-development rates do not <br />exceed the pre-development runoff rates. <br />Donlin inquired if there would be something to clean the water. Asleson <br />responded that the buffering and NETLAWN would serve that purpose. <br />Grochala noted the NURP ponds would also filter the water. Mr. Moberg added <br />that the spring events had more pollutants. He indicated the skimmers did not last <br />long, but now they were made of concrete, so the material rested higher than the <br />high water level. <br />Grundhofer referred to the HAZARDOUS WASTE and questioned the nature of <br />the material in the tanks. Mr. Moberg responded he was unsure, however steps <br />had been taken to clean the leak according to MPCA, and it was no longer on the <br />list to be cleaned. <br />Asleson mentioned it was probably petroleum, because it was a trucking firm. <br />Donlin inquired about the meaning of “outdoor housekeeping practices.” Mr. <br />Moberg answered that it was not regularly maintained, left uncovered, or open to <br />the elements. The debris was probably concrete and rock dumped on site. <br />O’Dea inquired about a further explanation for the potential for encountering <br />buried debris. The Board recommended paragraph be changed to “...These <br />findings are considered to constitute recognized environmental conditions. Based <br />on the potential for encountering buried debris during redevelopment activities, it <br />is recommended that soils will be screened as a part of geotechnical investigations <br />to be conducted on the proposed project area in preparation for future <br />development activities.” <br />Asleson questioned if the section was written by the same person who performed <br />the Phase I study. Mr. Moberg confirmed it was the same person. <br />The Board addressed the VISUAL IMPACTS section, and recommended that <br />“enhanced,” be changed to “minimalize adverse.”