Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2003 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE November 6, 2003 TIME STARTED 6:05 P.M. _ TIME ENDED 9:17 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Amy Donlin (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Constance Grundhofer, Patrice Toler Ilalen, Rod Kukonen, Mary Jo O'Dea MEMBERS ABSENT Teresa O'Connell STAFF PRESENT Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ® Discuss Goals 2004 after the discussion item. J 3. OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 4. ACTION ITEMS There were no action items scheduled for this meeting. 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Legacy at Woods Edge (The Village) Draft EAW Review Community Development Director Michael Grochala reviewed the background, and introduced Bob Moberg as the Project Manager and Bob Rogers as the author of the EAW document. Mr. Rogers was present to edit as the Board reviewed the document. The Plan had been in progress since 1997, with the next step being the master plan and the stage development. Mr. Moberg noted they would look for authorization for distribution at the City Council Meeting on Monday night. The 30 -day comment period would begin November 24, 2003. The responses from the agencies should be received back. by middle to the end of January. A decision would be made by Council to accept the j EAW and not require an EIS. 1 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Chair Kukonen inquired if Council had received the document. Grochala responded that Council had seen the document. Chair Kukonen clarified that the Board would not be recommending action, but was reviewing for accuracy and completeness of the document. Mr. Moberg noted after the response period, then a decision would be made. Kukonen clarified the decision made would be on the EAW, not the project itself. Mr. Moberg indicated the information given was based on the worst-case scenario, or the grandest scale, and could conceivably be scaled down from there. The market analysis was not finished. Grochala clarified that the worst case was the most intense development. If the square footage would be reduced, the second or third stories of buildings would be removed. The potential impact changes would occur in traffic and the number of parking spaces. Mr. Moberg pointed out the townhomes, explaining the buildings around central park would be 3-4 stories and the buildings would decrease in height as one goes out from there. They had also been working with the architects with the YMCA. Grochala added it was an attempt to create an urban feel that would be pedestrian friendly. The YMCA kept expanding their parking lot, until the City requested shared parking as an option. This reduces the number of parking spaces by 400, and constituted a 20 % reduction across the board. Much of the parking for the project would be underground. Mr. Moberg stated that the height of the building would be adjusted for the underground parking, in order to stay above the high water level. The YMCA wanted the parking in front, so they were planning to move the building back with the parking away from the street. Grochala stated the YMCA wanted the parking in front, but that value was driven by the consumers. Mr. Moberg noted there was a trail along the parkway to go West between the ponding and the wetland, flowing into the park. Chair Kukonen inquired about a bridge over Interstate 35W. Grochala answered that there were no plans for an update, but possibly later. Mr. Moberg referred to a simulation model that was being designed to show a realignment of the freeway ramps . and signals. The traffic study was finished, but the simulation model would be finished soon so MNDOT would have it when the EAW was reviewed. The goal was to show the traffic was growing without the presence of the development. Grochala added he confirmed it with Doug Fisher they were glad it would be included. 2 APPROVED MII�UTE�-- ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING Asleson asked to turn to the MLCCS map. Grochala inquired about comments for 410. NOVEMBER 6,2003 Asleson indicated the site was a short grassland non-native with two woodlands. Mr. Moberg stated the East would remain untouched, although the Northwest would be gone. Asleson stated the woodland on the Eastern portion on the YMCA site would also be lost. Grundhofer inquired about the forests and trail area. Grochala explained the City wanted to purchase 40 acres. Met Council kept the wetland with the buffer. It had been surveyed. Grundhofer referred to 6C left out "ecologically," in the last sentence. Donlin. questioned the height on #7, ' and the maximum height. Grochala answered the maximum was set at 45 feet, but they were looking at 46 or 50 feet. He referred to the Shoreland District. Mr. Moberg assured the Board that the portion of the site that was within the Shoreland District was within the requirements. He referred-to Figure 3, showing the height of the buildings. Donlin inquired about the shoreland protection zone, and if the buildings would be seen from the water. Grochala indicated he did not believe they would be seen from the water when the leaves were on the trees. He referred to the ordinary high water level on the map. Asleson mentioned that Target could be seen from George Watch Lake. O'Dea inquired about the magnitude of the data in #7. She questioned if the Board should discuss the building heights. Grochala responded the building height requirement was 36 feet. Mr. Moberg asked if some of the trees were 36 to 40 feet. Asleson confirmed there were trees that height. Grochala stated that the City might require a minimum height for a skyline. The building elevations could come down from those noted in the plan. He assured the Board that 36 feet would be the maximum. Chair Kukonen mentioned the unpleasantries were missing such as the Met Council's donation to the development. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Mr. Moberg asked for clarification if it would be helpful to design a financial section. He admitted that often times those details were not solidified at the point of the EAW. Most companies would not commit without a favorable decision on the EAW. Grochala stated the Met Council gave money for certain housing specifications. Mr. Moberg explained that the format of the EAW'was designed to make a one size fit all. Mr. Rogers added that a financial section probably would not change the view on environmental impact of the project. Asleson indicated that a financial section would show who was driving the projects. Grochala stated the Met Council had given the City a grant for $250,000 for a Master Plan, with a $450,000 reward if the plan met their requirements. Donlin inquired about the use of bonds for the project. Grochala answered that the City would build the streets and sewer system, and through the assessment process the project would be bonded. He referred to the example of Elm. Street was being assessed. First there was state aid, then bonds. Donlin clarified questioning whether her taxes would be increased because of the project. Grochala responded that out of $150 million for the project, only half would be under assessment. There also would be a tax increment. Asleson stated it would typically be for 8-10 years. Grochala added for industrial projects the length was usually 5-6 years. This project could go 20 years. The tax increment would be on amenities. Improvements to Lake Drive must take place, but taxes from the project could pay for the City's costs. Dona expressed concern if there was a failure in the process. Grochala answered that most of the project was pay as you go. There would be no tax increment if nothing was built on the site. Mr. Moberg indicated there was always risk with any project. The City needed to determine the calculated risk. Grochala added the risk was how the deal was structured. The Board recommended that for question 48 in Tax Increment Financing, the use of the words "to be determined," replaced "to be obtained." A discussion ensued concerning the notion of being affected. I 11 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Halen inquired where the sandblasting company would be relocating. Asleson answered that it would be somewhere to the North. O'Dea questioned if the Phase I was not included because it was a large document. Mr. Rogers responded that it was large, but that Grochala had a copy, of all documents for review if anyone was interested. Grundhofer inquired if toxic soils were included in #9 on p. 9. Mr. Rogers answered that he did not believe soil borings were done on site. O'Dea questioned if that would be seen as a flag. Mr. Rogers stated that common practice would be if they came across anything, it would be reported and investigated according to protocol. Asleson stated that it took only one hour in this location for surface water to seep into the groundwater. O'Dea mentioned the last sentence of #9. Mr. Moberg suggested to break the sentence into two, with a period after environmental hazards. Grundhofer inquired the reason for sandblasting being hazardous. Mr. Moberg answered that most sandblasting removed paint, and if it was lead based it would be hazardous. He mentioned that none was found. Grochala stated the developer typically performed the soil borings. Grundhofer noted they had already been done. Grochala mentioned the MPCA was aware there were two tanks on site. Donlin recommended an addition to #9 under compatibility, "there would be 18,000 daily car trips." Rogers responded the number would be closer to 12,000 daily trips. He inquired if the schools would be affected. Grochala stated the site would be in two school districts. He believed the schools would not notice much of an increase because many would be seniors, empty nesters, single or just starting out. Mr. Moberg mentioned the Board could propose to add the affected school districts to the list of agencies receiving the EAW to review. Mr. Rogers clarified the affected school districts of Centennial and Forest Lake should also receive a copy of the EAW to review. Chair Kukonen inquired about a brush and grasslands category for undisturbed or inadequately maintained areas in #10, Table 1. Grochala explained that j Urban/Suburban Landscaping would cover it if it was maintained. APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Grundhofer clarified that it would ensure that plantings would not be removed. Grochala assured the Board that most of the native gasses Asleson had planted would remain untouched. Moberg stated the portion to be removed would be for the infiltration basins about 15-20 feet wide. Asleson responded there was very little infiltration on this site at present. Grundhofer inquired about the category "Other." Grochala answered that it was ponding. Grundhofer asked for clarification that the impervious would not be more than 30 acres. Mr. Rogers explained that after the project there would be less impervious than the present in the packed gravel areas. Chair Kukonen inquired about the separation of native and non-native plantings. Asleson responded that it was not necessary. Grundhofer referred to the wildlife study area in #11 on p. 9 questioning whether the development would cause possible harm to the study area. Asleson answered there were no Blandings turtles sighted there. Grochala stated that more clarification was needed on the eagle's nest immediately East 1/2 mile away at Wargo. Dona added that eagles were sighted on the nest, but there were no nesting activities taking place. Grochala stated that the DNR noted the nest was "immediately East." The discussion continued concerning the possible impact on the nesting site and the clarification of the sentence. Donlin recommended the phrase "will not be affected," be removed. Grundhofer inquired about the possibility of the remaining trees in the Southeast comer being affected by runoff from the parking lots. Asleson responded that they were proposing infiltration to address the issue. Moberg explained the collection areas would discharge into ponds. Asleson added the infiltration container would accomplish a lot. Grundhofer inquired. about the presence of rare species on site. Asleson explained to the Board there were none found. f, APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 O'Dea referred to the last sentence in 11 a, inquiring if there would be any impact as a result of the removal of the infiltration basins. Mr. Moberg answered there would not be any negative impact. Donlin admitted at the present time there was surface runoff, but she was looking for no net change in quality or quantity. O'Dea asked for clarification for question #12 answered as "no." Asleson responded that the basins were not being used, he had never sighted water present in them, they were merely two holes. O'Dea mentioned it appeared it would be an alteration if they were functioning. She inquired if there was a need to state they were not functioning. Grundhofer suggested stating that they were never utilized. Mr. Rogers suggested stating, "they were never utilized but constructed in anticipation for future development." Grundhofer inquired if there would be any alterations any wetlands off site as a result of the development. Mr. Rogers answered that there might be a need for dewatering, referring to #13 on p. 13. Mr. Moberg explained that the water needed to be far enough away, so that it would not be a risk for the workers. He indicated that figures in #16 were estimates. Grundhofer questioned if there would be any excavation xcavation or importation of soils. Mr. Moberg answered that the area was probably topsoil poor. Asleson stated that everything else would be formal plantings. Chair Kukonen inquired about the possibility of the existing vegetation becoming disturbed in #16 on p. 16., Mr. Rogers answered that the vegetation would be maintained and kept as natural. Grundhofer asked for the location of the slopes that approached 12%. MT. Moberg answered that 12% was the trigger figure for erosion concerns. Grochala explained that the only place where 12% was approached was by the road curve. Grundhofer inquired about the meaning of "live storage" referring to the memorandum #17 on p. 16. Mr. Moberg explained live storage was the amount of bounce above the normal water level. He admitted it was more problematic in 7 APPROVED MINUTES — ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING . - NOVEMBER 6, 2003 gravel. He reminded the Board that some water going to the wetlands was desirable so they would not dry up. The goal was water quality. Asleson clarified the levels should be maintained. Grundhofer questioned if the permits could be listed at the reference in the first paragraph p. 17. Grochala answered that the permits were Rice Creek Watershed District Land Development Permit, with plat approval and Grading and Drainage Plan. Chair Kukonen referred to 17a on p. 16, with 0% post-development runoff rates. was desirable in that instance. Grochala affirmed that it was, but should state "runoff rates from sites." Grundhofer inquired if there was any reason to expect degradation in post- development. Chair Kukonen added if any receiving water be impacted. Grochala answered that they must meet the required rates, but they were working on the water volumes. Mr. Moberg explained that the water volumes would be negligible. Asleson stated that water levels were important in areas of the city with unique resources - and where unique resources exist, it is very important to maintain natural water levels. Grundhofer inquired if yellow eyed grass or loose-leaf violets possible on site. Asleson answered that they were not found on site. They might have existed in the past, but the area had been ditched. Chair Kukonen inquired if the EAW needed to show there would not be any degradation of those waters. Grochala responded they were treating the water, and the ponds and wetlands would make it fairly clean. Mr. Rogers mentioned it could be stated "therefore." Grundhofer questioned if there might be any indirect discharge. Mr. Moberg responded there was none anticipated. Grundhofer questioned a need for pretreatment of the water. Mr. Moberg explained that there was no need because of the type of use. Grundhofer inquired about the sewers. Mr. Moberg responded the area would be connected to the sewers the bank and medical center used. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Grundhofer referred to #19 on p. 20 and inquired about the groundwater at the YMCA. Mr. Moberg answered that the groundwater at the YMCA was 15 -20 feet. Asleson inquired about the amount of separation between the storage tanks and the groundwater. Grundhofer questioned if hazardous waste in 20b on p. 22 would be reviewed again when the sites were sold. Chair Kukonen explained the level of service would not be known at the EAW review. Chair Kukonen inquired if effects on Lake. Drive would come into play. Mr. Moberg responded that MNDOT would have to agree to a plan. Grochala stated the City was going to realign the ramps and signals on Lake Drive. Mr. Moberg reminded the Board that the 17,000 trips were without the project. Halen mentioned at the peak hour there was 1,155 trips. Donlin stated that the project would not add another 11,000. Grochala agreed not on that - site. Donlin inquired about the reference to 405 underground parking spaces in #21 on p. 24. Mr. Moberg responded that proposing underground garages would free up impervious and the buildings would be higher to accommodate the separation. Grochala mentioned that there would not be underground parking, if the soil borings showed they could not. Grundhofer questioned the number of parking spots indicated that a study was warranted, but the City was not going to do one. Mr. Moberg stated that if MNDOT indicated it was not necessary, the City would not do it. Chair Kukonen inquired about the reason for the answer "no" to views and vistas in #25 on p. 26. Mr. Moberg answered that they were speaking of specific views and vistas. Grundhofer mentioned the beautiful oaks would no longer be there. Donlin questioned the reason for answering "no" archeological, historical or architectural resources also in #25 on p. 26. Asleson responded that a good part of the site was scraped for the freeway. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING . - NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Donlin explained the entire park region was rich archeologically. Mr. Rogers answered that if something was found, there was a protocol to deal with it. Mr. Moberg inquired if there was a need to add some language there. He highlighted that it could be explained in impacts. Donlin requested that one sentence be added to acknowledge there had been known to have archeologically and environmentally unique resources. Mr. Moberg adjusted the first and second sentences. Chair Kukonen expressed concern with the visual impacts in #26 on p. 27. Donlin added there would be glare and Wargo Nature Center was protective of the night sky. She suggested it state that the plan be improved to protect the night sky. Mr. Moberg indicated that it should state it was similar instead of better, because better was subjective. Grochala mentioned that it was to be an urban village. Donlin suggested a change to the first suburban to urban, then delete "suburban in nature." Grochala, noted that for #28 on p. 29, there was a need to describe new services such as extending the utilities. Chair Kukonen inquired about how the residents on the southern end be affected by the light pollution, similar to how it addressed the water. Mr. Moberg answered that there were potential ponds, because there would be more vegetation in the backs of their properties. Their impacts would be perceived. Grundhofer noted that those residents would not be able to travel South because of the proposed islands. Mr. Moberg responded that it would be an issue for the County. Grochala mentioned Lake Drive would be a four-lane road, and that medians happen on principle arterial roads. O'Dea made a motion to pass on comments to Council. Halen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Kukonen declared the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on December 3, 2003. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi 10 APPROVED MINUTES 11 APPROVED MINUTES City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Special Meeting November 6, 2003 6:00 p.m. This meeting is not televised. makil JW A" 3. OPEN MIKE 4. ACTION ITEMS A. None 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Legacy at Woods Edge (The Village) Draft EAW Review